Public Document Pack
Regulatory Board
Members of the Regulatory Board of Gravesham Borough Council are summoned to attend a meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend, Kent on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be transacted.
S Kilkie Assistant Director (Communities)
Agenda
Part A Items likely to be considered in Public 1. Apologies for absence
2. To sign the Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 1 - 14)
3. To declare any interests members may have in the items contained on this agenda. When declaring an interest, members should state what their interest is.
4. To consider whether any items in Part A of the Agenda should be considered in private or the items in Part B (if any) in Public
5. Planning applications for determination by the Board The plans and originals of all representations are available for inspection in during normal office hours and in the committee room for a period of one hour before commencement of the meeting.
a) GR/2010/0077 - Land north of Longfield Road and west of Evenden (Pages 15 - 32) Road, Meopham, Kent - report herewith. b) GR/2010/0490 & GR/2010/0700 - Wellington House, Wrotham (Pages 33 - 40) Road, Meopham, Kent - report herewith.
Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU c) GR/2010/0828 - Land at Ebbsfleet bounded by A2, Southfleet (Pages 41 - Road, Springhead Road, North Kent Rail, Northfleet, Kent - report 114) herewith. d) GR/2010/0166 - Land formerly known as Dykes Pit, between 245 (Pages 115 - and 247 Dover Road, Northfleet, Gravesend, Kent - report 120) herewith. e) GR/2010/0837 - Westcourt Inn, St Hilda's Way, Gravesend, Kent - (Pages 121 - report herewith. 122) f) GR/2010/0898 - Sainsbury’s Store, Wingfield Bank, Springhead (Pages 123 - Road, Northfleet, Kent - report herewith. 268) g) GR/2010/0333 - Lancaster House, Gravesend Road, Higham, (Pages 269 - Rochester, Kent - report herewith. 280) h) GR/2010/0245 - Shorne Grazing Paddocks, Pear Tree Lane, (Pages 281 - Shorne, Gravesend, Kent - report herewith. 288) 6. Minutes of meeting Monday, 8 November 2010 of Hackney Carriage Sub- (Pages 289 - Committee 290)
7. Planning applications determined under delegated powers by the Director (Business) A copy of the schedule has been placed in the democracy web library and also in the Members’ room.
http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/democracy/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&c at=13346&path=480,12911
8. Any other business which by reason of special circumstances the Chairman is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.
9. Exclusion To move, if required, that pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded from any items included in Part B of the agenda because it is likely in view of the nature of business to be transacted that if members of the public are present during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
Part B Items likely to be considered in Private 10. Enforcement - report herewith. (Pages 291 - 310)
Members
Cllr Harold Craske (Chairman) Cllr Robin Theobald (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors: John Burden Jane Cribbon Leslie Hills Susan Howes Kenneth Jones Alex Moore Richard Smith Michael Wenban
Substitutes: Ronald Bowman Conrad Broadley Lee Croxton Bronwen McGarrity Patricia Oakeshott Derek Sales
This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 2
Regulatory Board
Wednesday, 10 November 2010 7.00pm
Present:
Cllr Harold Craske (Chairman) Cllr Robin Theobald (Vice-Chairman)
Cllrs: John Burden Jane Cribbon Leslie Hills Susan Howes Kenneth Jones Alex Moore Richard Smith Michael Wenban
Note: Cllrs Colin Caller, William Dyke, Glen Handley, Patricia Oakeshott, Makhan Singh and Michael Snelling were also in attendance
Martin Goodman Corporate Lawyer Clive Gilbert Service Manager (Development Control) Peter Price Principal Planner Michael Jessop Senior Planning Officer Richard Hart Senior Planning Officer Allan Glasson Senior Environmental Health Officer Martin Rayner Highways Engineer (Kent County Council) Rob Bright Senior Engineer (Development) Sharon Donald Housing Strategy Development Manager Carlie Plowman Committee & Scrutiny Assistant
63. Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2010 were signed by the Chairman.
64. Declarations of Interest
Cllrs Harold Craske, Robin Theobald, John Burden, Jane Cribbon, Leslie Hills, Susan Howes, Kenneth Jones, Alex Moore, Richard Smith and Michael Wenban declared a non-prejudicial interest in application GR/2010/0077 - Land north of Longfield Road and west of Evenden Road, Meopham, Kent as they know two of the directors of the SJP Group.
Cllr Robin Theobald declared a non-prejudicial interest in application GR/2010/0077 – Land north of Longfield Road and west of Evenden Road, Meopham, Kent as he is a Member of the Dickens Country Protection Society who have made a representation on this application.
1 Page 2 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
65. GR/2010/0077 - Land north of Longfield Road and west of Evenden Road, Meopham, Kent
Further to Minute 58 (6.10.2010), the Board considered outline application GR/2010/0077 for the erection of a complex of 53 sheltered/extra care housing units with ancillary facilities.
Members expressed concern regarding site area, scale, highway safety mitigation measures, evidence of need, affordability, and the impact on the green belt.
Resolved that application GR/2010/0077 be DEFERRED.
Note: (1) Cllr Patricia Oakeshott spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
66. GR/2010/0490 & GR/2010/0700 - Wellington House, Wrotham Road, Meopham, Kent
Further to Minute 60 (6.10.2010) and the site inspection held on 6 November 2010 the Board considered (1) application GR/2010/0490 for minor material amendment to planning permission reference number GR/2004/272 for erection of attached single storey replacement building, to allow alterations to the footprint, height of ridge and eaves, front door window on front elevation and two windows in rear elevation, two dormer windows and one rooflight in rear roof slope and the material used on the front, side and rear elevations and (2) application GR/2010/0700 for erection of an attached single storey replacement building with two dormer windows in both front and rear roof slopes and vehicular access through to three car parking spaces at the rear, to provide a self contained two bedroom dwelling. Members expressed concern regarding the clarity of the plans.
Resolved that applications (1) GR/2010/0490 and (2) GR/2010/0700 be DEFERRED.
Note: (1) Objector Doug Powell, Meopham Parish Councillor, addressed the Board.
67. GR/2010/0757 - 84 Darnley Road, Gravesend, Kent
The Board considered application GR/2010/0757 for the formation of vehicular access and laying out of new hardstanding in front garden and reconstruction of front boundary wall with railings.
Resolved that application GR/2010/0757 be REFUSED on the ground that the proposed development would introduce a front parking area and boundary wall arrangement that would not respect a historically significant boundary and would detract from the character and appearance of the Darnley Road Conservation Area. The proposal would not make a positive contribution to the conservation area and as such, it is contrary to Policies TC0, TC1 and TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and Policies BE1, BE2, BE4 and BE12 of the Gravesham Local Plan 2nd Review (Deposit Version) and to the advice contained in the Darnley Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal.
Note: (1) Alan Penfold, agent for the applicant, addressed the Board.
(2) Cllr Makhan Singh spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
2 Page 3 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
68. GR/2010/0906 - Side garden of 26 Meadow Road, Gravesend, Kent
The Board considered application GR/2010/0906 for the erection of an attached two storey, three bedroom dwelling with front and rear dormer windows.
Resolved that application GR/2010/0906 be REFUSED on the following grounds:-
(1) the proposal would result in the loss of garden land resulting in the loss of greenery on the site with limited physical separation from dwellings opposite in Meadow Road. As such the development is contrary to policies TC0, TC1, H2 and TC10 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and policies BE1, BE12 and H3 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000;
(2) the development is substandard in terms of parking provision and will result in the loss of existing parking provision for the existing dwelling without an adequate or practical replacement and will therefore result in an increase in parking on-street in a narrow cul-de-sac where there is already heavy on-street parking occurring and close to the entrance to a secondary school with the potential to result in obstruction to other road users to the detriment of highway safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policies T5 and P3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and policies T12, T16 and T19 of the Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000.
Note: (1) Greg Bunce, agent for the applicant, addressed the Board.
(2) Objectors Nicholas Redman and Terry Jones addressed the Board.
(3) Cllr William Dyke spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
69. GR/2010/0696 - Land at Ebbsfleet bounded by A2, Southfleet Road, Springhead Road, North Kent Rail, Northfleet, Kent
The Board considered outline application GR/2010/0696 for reserved matters application pursuant to condition A1 of outline planning permission reference number GR/1996/0035 for the siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping for a multi- functional community centre and place of worship at Springhead Park to meet the requirements of condition G14(a) and condition G17(a).
Resolved that application GR/2010/0696 be APPROVED, subject to:-
(1) the details as hereby approved shall be carried out in their entirety and in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications and pursuant to any condition contained hereinafter;
(2) the building shall be used as a combined community centre and place of worship only and for no other purpose; the community centre uses shall extend to the list of activities as set out in the draft management strategy accompanying the application; unless with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained the building shall not be
3 Page 4 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
used at any time for any other purpose within Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended;
(3) full details of the external facing materials including the colours and finishes to the building, together with all surface treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;
(4) full details of the soft landscaping including proposed new tree planting and managed planting areas and including details of types, species, numbers and sizes of plants shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the landscaping scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following the first occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of five years;
(5) full details of all boundary treatments to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted commences; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;
(6) full details of the finished ground levels of the site and building hereby approved including the method of construction and any required cut or fill shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the building hereby permitted is brought into use;
(7) the applicant shall undertake a watching brief during construction in case any contamination is encountered during the groundwork phase. Workers on site during construction should be advised by the applicant that there is a possibility of finding contaminated material. If during development any contamination is found, the Local Planning Authority should be informed as soon as practical and the work shall not continue until written agreement is provided by the Local Planning Authority as to the appropriate measures to be taken to resolve the matter and they are satisfied that those measures have been carried out;
Any material brought onto the site must be suitable for use and the results of chemical analysis of this material to demonstrate that it is free from contamination and suitable for the proposed end use shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval;
In addition, material for off site disposal should be dealt with appropriately as determined by a waste classification assessment. Appropriate documentation relating to the removal of material from site should also be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority.
(8) the building hereby approved shall be incorporate in its construction the noise mitigation measures as set out in paragraph 6 of the submitted Cole Jarman
4 Page 5 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
Noise Assessment (09/3400/R1-Planning Issue, revision 1 dated 05/03/2010) and the specifications 09/3400/SPC1/1/B, 09/3400/SPC1/3/B, 09/3400/SPC3 of the report and shall at all times comply with the plant noise emission limits as laid out in Table 4 of the report;
(9) the combined community centre and place of worship hereby approved shall not be open to the community and the public outside of the hours of 09:00 to 23:00 on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays; any use for the community and the public outside these times for exceptional uses such as prayer meetings, special services and events connected with its use as a place of worship shall be with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained;
(10) the car parking area shown on the approved drawing, including any access and turning areas shall be formed, surfaced, drained and marked out before the building hereby approved is first brought into use; once formed the area shall be used for and kept available for such use at all times when the building is in use;
(11) the cycle parking and motorbike parking areas shown on the approved drawing shall be provided before the building hereby approved is first brought into use; the cycle parking area shall be secure and weather proof; the cycle parking and motorbike parking areas shall thereafter be used for and kept available for such use at all times when the building is in use;
(12) the building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the shared vehicle parking area and the means of access thereto from the extended Springhead Spine Road Phase II as permitted under reference 20090058 has been formed, surfaced, drained and marked out and shall thereafter be used for and kept available for such use at all times when the building is in use;
(13) no additional vehicular or pedestrian access points on the site beyond those shown on the approved drawings shall be formed onto the Springhead Spine Road without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained;
(14) the building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the measures and initiatives set out in the approved Springhead Multi-Functional Community Centre and Place of Worship Travel Plan have been put into effect; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the travel plan incentives and initiatives including the monitoring and review measures, as set out in the approved Travel Plan document, shall continue to have effect at all times during the occupation of the building;
(15) full details of any lighting to the site or externally to the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the building hereby approved is brought into use;
(16) full details of the measures to provide safety and security to the site and building particularly outside of operating hours shall be submitted to and
5 Page 6 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development; the measures shall follow the advice in Secured by Design; such measures as may be approved shall be implemented before the first occupation of the building and thereafter maintained in place at all times;
(17) no development shall take place until the applicant, or their 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;
(18) no development shall take place until details of foundations designs and any other proposals involving below ground excavation have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;
(19) the developer must advise the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers, prior to the commencement of the development; the developer must agree with Southern Water, prior to commencement of the development, the measures to be undertaken to protect the public water supply main;
(20) all construction activities in connection with the approved development shall accord with the Construction Code of Conduct approved on 31 December 2004 pursuant to condition E11 of the outline planning permission;
INFORMATIVES
1. REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF DETAILED PLANNING APPROVAL
Having regard to all the relevant material planning considerations, approval has been granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, the development would not materially harm any interest of acknowledged importance.
The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals of the development plan and in particular,
Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994:
Policy AP14 (b): Springhead Policy TC0: General Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy Policy TC1: Design of New Developments Policy T1: Impact of development on the highway network Policy T5: New accesses onto highway network Policy P3: Vehicle parking standards
Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) Deposit Version 2000:
Policy MDS1: Ebbsfleet Valley Policy BE12: Design of New Development, Extensions and Alterations Policy T1: Location of new development
6 Page 7 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
Policy T12: New accesses on highway and public transport network Policy T16: Car Parking Standards Policy SC1: Social and Community Infrastructure and Provision
Local Development Framework:
Core Strategy Policy 1: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Core Strategy Policy 2: Urban Areas Core Strategy Policy 5: Design and Development Principles Core Strategy Policy 6: Physical and Social Infrastructure
Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design Development Management Policy 32: Transport Network and Accesses Development Management Policy 33: Vehicle Parking Standards.
Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework
Land West of Springhead Road Development Brief
In addition the Local Planning Authority had regard to:
The Borough Council’s adopted vehicle parking standards Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 Central Government Planning Policy Guidance
2. APPROVED PLANS/DOCUMENTS
For the avoidance of doubt the approved plans and documents
Drawing No. 649.101A Location Plan (shown within approved QMP Plan) Drawing No. 649.102A Proposed Context Plan (shown within approved QMP) Drawing No. 649.103 Context Plan Existing Drawing No. 649.104A Context Plan 2012 Drawing No. 649.105B Context Plan 2015 Drawing No. 649.106A Context Sections 2015 Drawing No. 649.107C Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. 649.108B Proposed Plans and Elevations Drawing No. 649.109A Proposed Sections Drawing No. 649.110A Accommodation Schedule Drawing No. 649.111 Springhead Context Images Drawing No. 649.112 Catalyst Images and Context Sketches Drawing No. 649.113 Design Development Sketches Drawing No. 649.114C Proposed Design and Materials – Daytime Drawing No. 649.115C Proposed Design and Materials – Evening
Planning Statement July 2010 Design and Access Statement July 2010 North Kent Community Church in the Local Community, July 2010 Archaeological Desk Based Assessment February 2010
7 Page 8 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
Cole Jarman Noise Assessment Revision 1, March 2010 Transport Statement March 2010 Draft Management Strategy
Note: (1) Supporters Robin Meakins (Barton Willmore LLP) and Peter Carter (North Kent Community Church) addressed the Board.
(2) Cllr Patricia Oakeshott spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
70. GR/2009/0726 - Sainsburys Store, Wingfield Bank, Springhead Road, Northfleet, Kent
Further to Minute 59 (6.10.2010), the Board considered application GR/2009/0726 for the erection of single storey extension to the store to provide additional sales area and circulation, relocated restaurant, kitchen and customer facilities and additional back up/warehousing; extension within the service yard for 'Sainsbury's To You' online grocery service; relocation and enlargement of petrol filling station; reconfiguration and extension of customer car park (619 spaces); realignment of Wingfield Bank access road and relocation of service yard access in Springhead Road.
Resolved that:-
(1) for the purpose of the forthcoming planning appeal the singular issue to be considered shall be the size and impact of the proposed extension;
(2) negotiations continue with the applicants in respect of the duplicate application in order to seek the withdrawal of the appeal against non- determination.
Note: (1) David Lazenby, representative for Sainsbury's, addressed the Board.
71. GR/2010/0247 - Land south of Rochester Road, Gravesend, Kent
Further to Minute 33 (28.7.2010) and the site inspection held on 12 August 2010, the Board considered application GR/2010/0247 for the erection of a grain store incorporating re-alignment of existing vehicular access, additional hardsurfacing and earth works to form a bund.
Resolved that application GR/2010/0247 be PERMITTED subject to:-
(1) the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted;
(2) the building hereby permitted shall be used only for agricultural purposes, and specifically as a grain store in connection with the agricultural land holding at Rochester Road, Chalk and as identified in drawing no. 1765/8 (Extent of Farm Holding) accompanying this application;
(3) notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of and Class A, Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order or in any equivalent provision to that Class in any order revoking or
8 Page 9 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
re-enacting that order no extension or alteration of the building hereby permitted or excavation or engineering operations which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture shall be carried out on the agricultural unit without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having been first obtained;
(4) if the barn hereby permitted becomes redundant for the purposes of agriculture it shall be removed from the site in its entirety;
(5) before the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details and colour samples of all external facing materials (including door openings) to be used in the building hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;
(6) before the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details of the surfacing of the access, hardstanding and vehicle turning areas shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details; the hardstanding areas shall not extend beyond those shown in the approved drawing (drawing no. 1765/3 – Proposed site plan);
(7) the hardsurfacing areas as shown in the approved drawing (drawing no. 1765/3 – Proposed site plan) shall be used only for vehicle access, manoeuvring and parking and shall not at any time be used for external storage other than with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained;
(8) the rating level of the noise emitted from the use of the building (other than noise from the exit or entry of road vehicles), shall not exceed the existing background noise level. The noise levels shall be determined at the points nearest to adjacent residential premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997;
(9) before the commencement of the development full details of the noise suppression for the air circulation system in the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details; the fan shall only operate between the hours of 0900 and 1900 hours on any day;
(10) the developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water prior to commencement of the development of the measures to be undertaken to protect the public water supply main;
(11) no development shall take place until the applicant, or their 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;
(12) full details of the soft landscaping of the site including proposed new tree and hedge planting and including details of types, species, numbers and sizes of plants shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
9 Page 10 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
Authority before the development commences; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the landscaping scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following the first occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of five years;
(13) full details of the proposed earthworks, re-grading and bunding shown in approved drawings including the final ground levels shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;
(14) the widened and realigned vehicular access hereby permitted shall be formed and constructed before the grain store building hereby permitted is first brought into use;
(15) no boundary wall, fence or other means of enclosure or obstruction exceeding one metre in height shall be erected or placed at any time within the access visibility splays as shown in the approved drawing (drawing no. 1765/3 – Site Layout); any vegetation within the visibility splays shall also be maintained at a height not exceeding one metre;
(16) before the commencement of the development full details of all boundary treatments to the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details; any gate to be erected across the re-aligned vehicular access shall be set back at least 10 metres from the carriageway in Rochester Road;
(17) before the use of the building hereby permitted is commenced a management plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority specifying how vehicle movements are managed to and from the site over the adjoining highway; the approved management plan shall thereafter be adhered to in the operation of the agricultural activity at the site.
INFORMATIVES
1. REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION
Having regard to all the relevant material planning considerations permission has been granted because, subject to compliance with planning conditions, the development would not materially harm any interest of acknowledged importance.
The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals of the development plan and in particular,
Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994:
Policy GB2: Development within the Green Belt Policy C1: Areas of Special Significance for Agriculture Policy TC0: General Townscape, Conservation and Design
10 Page 11 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
Policy TC1: Design of New Developments Policy T1: Impact of Development on the Highway Network Policy T5: New Accesses onto Highway Network
Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) Deposit Version 2000:
Policy RA1: Green Belt Boundary Policy RA2: Control of Development within the Green Belt Policy BE1: Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy BE12: Design of New Development, Extensions and Alterations Policy T12: New Accesses on Highway and Public Transport Network
Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Regulation 25 document – Issues and Options)
Core Strategy Policy 3: Rural Area
Development Management Policy 9: Landscape Development Management Policy 16: Agriculture, Equestrian Development and Rural Diversification
In addition the Local Planning Authority had regard to:
Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Central Government Planning Policy Guidance PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development; PPG2: Green Belts; PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and PPG13: Transport
Kent Design Guide
2. APPROVED DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS.
For the avoidance of doubt the approved drawings and documents are:-
Drawing No. 1765/1 Site Location Plan Drawing No. 1765/2 Site Layout Drawing No. 1765/3 Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. 1765/6 Section Drawing Drawing No. 1765/7 Vehicle movements Drawing No. 1765/8 Extent of Farm Holding Drawing No. MC090309 Elevations of grain store building.
3. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ADVISORY COMMENTS
Drainage
This site is underlain by a principal aquifer; therefore the groundwater environment should be protected from any polluting activities at this location. All precautions should be taken to avoid spills or discharges to ground. Appropriate pollution prevention methods (such as trapped gullies or
11 Page 12 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
interceptors) should be used to prevent hydrocarbons draining to ground from access roads, hardstandings and parking/loading areas.
Soakaways
If soakaways are to be used, they must not discharge into land impacted by contamination, land previously identified as being contaminated, or to made ground. There must be no direct discharge to groundwater. Only clean, uncontaminated water should drain to the surface water system. Roof water must discharge direct to soakaway via a sealed down pipes (capable of preventing accidental/ unauthorised discharge of contaminated liquid into the soakaway) without passing through either trapped gullies or interceptors. Open gullies should not be used.
Fuel, Oil and Chemical Storage
Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas for storage should not drain to any surface water system.
Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25 per cent of the total capacity of all oil stored.
4. WITHIN THE BOROUGH OF GRAVESHAM.
Code of Practice for construction/demolition sites within the Borough of Gravesham (appended to decision notice)
72. GR/2010/0112 - Guru Nanak Darbar Gurdwara, Khalsa Avenue, Gravesend, Kent
Further to Minute 6 (26.5.2010) the Board considered revised/amended application for the erection of 5 metre high netting on metal poles along eastern boundary to the playing field and rear gardens of Alanbrooke, erection of two dug outs on the perimeter of the southern most football pitch adjacent to Trinity Road and planting of a landscaping scheme.
Resolved that application GR/2010/0112 be DELEGATED to the Service Manager (Development Control) for PERMISSION subject to:-
• planning conditions; • any additional comments received by local residents; and • the comments made by the Board be taken into consideration.
Note: (1) Objector Peter Birthright addressed the Board.
12 Page 13 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
73. GR/2010/0166 - Land formerly known as Dykes Pit, between 245 and 247 Dover Road, Northfleet, Kent
The Board considered application GR/2010/0166 for the e rection of a total of 82 residential units (46 flats, 34 houses and 2 bungalows) comprising two, 2-3 storey high buildings to provide 16 one bedrooms flats and 18 two bedroom flats; two 3 storey buildings to provide 12 two bedroom flats; three terraces (2 five house and one four house terrace) of two storey two bedroom dwellings; two terraces (one six house and one ten house terrace) of 2/3 storey three bedrooms dwellings; four attached 2/3 storey, three bedroom dwellings; one pair of semi-detached bungalows; laying out of associated roads, 103 car parking spaces; private/communal gardens with children's play area and vehicular access on to Dover Road.
Members requested a further report once the following issues are resolved:-
• satisfactory resolution of off site highway works; • suitable confirmation of noise levels in gardens; • refuse storage provision for the flats; • heads of terms for a s.106 Agreement (including affordable housing, community infrastructure contributions and maintenance of the public open space); and • planning conditions (particularly landscaping).
Resolved that application GR/2010/0166 be DEFERRED.
Note: (1) Martin Ingram, architect for the application, addressed the Board.
(2) Cllr William Dyke spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
74. GR/2010/0837 - Westcourt Inn, St Hilda's Way, Gravesend, Kent
The Board considered application GR/2010/0837 for the change of use of ground floor from public house (A4 use) to a place of worship and education (D1 use) involving alterations to front elevation and erection of an enclosing fence at front of car park.
Resolved that application GR/2010/0837 be DEFERRED for a Members' site inspection to assess the impact that the proposals would have on the surrounding properties.
Note: (1) Objector Wayne Howes addressed the Board.
(2) Cllr Colin Caller spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
75. Planning applications determined under delegated powers by the Director (Business)
A schedule showing applications determined by the Director (Business) under his delegated powers has been published on the website.
76. Exclusion
Resolved pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded during the following item of business because it was likely in view
13 Page 14 Regulatory Board 10.11.2010
of the nature of business to be transacted that, if members of the public were present during this item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.
77. Minutes of the Appeals Sub-Committee
The Board considered the Minutes of the Appeals Sub-Committee held on 28 October 2010.
Resolved that the Minutes of the Appeals Sub-Committee held on 28 October 2010 be noted.
Close of meeting
The meeting ended at 10.45 pm.
14 Page 15 Agenda Item 5a
8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
02 Feb 2011 20100077 08 Dec 2010
Land north of Longfield Road and west of Evenden Road, Meopham.
AMENDED DESCRIPTION:
Outline application for erection of a complex of 50 sheltered/extra care housing units with ancillary facilities.
SJP Group
Recommendation:
Delegate determination to Service Manager (Development Control) for PERMISSION subject to planning conditions, s.106 Agreement and referral to the Secretary of State.
This application has previously been considered at Board meetings on 06 October 2010 and 10 November 2010. At the most recent meeting it was resolved by Members to DEFER determination, as per the officer recommendation, to allow the following:
• negotiations to reduce site area and scale of the scheme; • consideration of highway safety mitigation measures; • consideration of further comments received as a result of additional neighbour publicity letters (additional comments due by 12 November 2010).
It was also requested that succinct details focusing on need be provided at the next meeting as well as information regarding how the proposed product would work in practice, with particular regard to the lease arrangement.
Members are requested to bring their copy of Agenda Item 5d and Supplementary Report from the October meeting and Agenda Item 5a and Supplementary Report from the November meeting.
Service Manager (Development Control) Comments
Further to the Board meeting on 10 November 2010 some additional discussions have taken place between the applicant’s agent and the planning case officer, most notably comprising a site meeting on 18 November 2010 with a representative of Kent Highway Services and GBC’s Senior Highways Engineer. In view of members’ comments additional information has also been provided by the Borough Council’s Housing Strategy and Development Manager to aid assessment and understanding of the proposal.
This report will be structured around the key points raised by Members in their resolution to defer determination at the last Board meeting.
Page 16
Reduction of Site Area and Scale of the Scheme
The number of units proposed has been reduced from 53 to 50 which, as corroborated by the accompanying letter received from Sanctuary Housing Group (see Appendix 1), is generally recognised as being the industry minimum standard for schemes of sheltered/extra care housing.
Also, in order to lessen the impact upon the Green Belt and, the loss of agricultural land and the impact upon the nearby badger sett, the application site has been reduced by some 10 per cent to include 1.35Ha of land compared to originally proposed 1.49Ha. This reduction is a reflection of the modest reduction in the total units as well as a slight increase in density of the scheme.
The submitted indicative Site Layout plan gives an impression of the vision for the overall site layout which suggests a landscape buffer adjacent to the rear gardens of the Evenden Road properties with the built form located to the north, east and south sections with an area of open space to the western perimeter. It is relevant to note that this information is provided for illustrative purposes at this stage.
As the red line boundary for the application site has been amended yet again, it follows that the application requires re-validation. However, this does not facilitate the need to re- publicise the application as, although being a material alteration, it does not raise any fresh issues that require consultation.
Highways Issues
During the above referred site meeting, it was resolved that the most appropriate option to reduce traffic speed would be to extend the 30mph speed limit to the west of the application site by approximately 120 metres. However, as this is not entirely within the control of the applicant due to requiring a Traffic Regulation Order, it was also agreed that it would be possible to achieve the necessary visibility in accordance with the national speed limit (60mph) should it not prove possible to extend the 30mph speed limit.
Further to the above, the applicant has confirmed an acceptance to provide the following:
• At the new entry to the speed limit lit signage will be provided and then street lighting improvements will be carried out between the new extent of the speed restricted area up to the existing street light at the junction of Huntingdon Road. It is envisaged that this will involve 4 to 5 street lamp columns being provided and one of these will be provided at the entrance to the new site. This will further identify to drivers that they are entering a built-up area where street lights denote a 30mph speed limit.
• The junction design for the access to the site has been refined so that it emerges at right angles to Longfield Road as suggested by the highway engineers.
• With regard to pedestrian access to the site, it is intended to extend the existing footway on the northern side of Longfield Road to sweep into the application site and in view of the level difference between the existing footway and the site, it would be preferable for the footway to be segregated from the new vehicular access at the entry point.
• The pedestrian routes to and from the site and particularly to local facilities including bus stops on both sides of Wrotham Road and the local shops, are indicated on the
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 2 Page 17
attached plan marked in blue and this plan has been annotated with the various off- site improvements to be carried out as part of this scheme. These include; the provision of realignment to the footway on the western side of the junction of Huntingdon Road with the provision of dropped kerbs to form a direct pedestrian crossing route across the Highway.
The off site highway works that has been resolved as being necessary and subsequently accepted by the applicant are summarised in visual form in Drawing Number 460/1/5 that will be available for Members to view on screen at the Board meeting.
During this site meeting, it was resolved that there is more than adequate access for pedestrians to the shops and the bus stop on the western side of Wrotham Road. To gain access to the bus stop on the eastern side of Wrotham Road there is a zebra crossing over Longfield Road and then a staggered ‘sheep pen’ pedestrian crossing over Wrotham Road utilising a central island which comprises pedestrian safety barriers that provide a safe crossing point to the road.
In addition, the additional lighting proposed between the site entrance and Huntingdon Road would assist future residents of the sheltered housing accommodation when using the footway.
These off site highway works would be controlled through a s.106 legal agreement that would need to be entered into between all relevant parties to ensure provision within a specified timeframe, most appropriately to be prior to first occupation of any of the residential units.
Additional Neighbour Comments
At the time of writing this report, since the last meeting on 10 November 2010, some further representations have been received from local residents and interested parties. These comments are summarised as follows:
Meopham resident
• concerned that this land has been left in an unattended state to be seen as favourable for development; • concerned that the halting of further development on the wider parcel of land could not be guaranteed; • the site is within the Green Belt and the development should be refused to stop urban sprawl; • refers to local opposition to the scheme from residents and the Parish Council; • proposal will increase pressure on existing amenities; • far more suitable sites closer to Gravesend; • concerns with highway safety caused by vehicular access onto Longfield Road; • confused regarding type of development – is it sheltered housing or affordable? • Concerns with various surveys that have been undertaken regarding housing need; • The site is isolated and no attempt has been made to adopt an integrated approach into the community for these new residents; • Questions the supposed ‘industry standard’ for the development; • Suggest there is a desire rather than a need for this accommodation; • The attempt to invoke the exceptions rule is invalid; • Reference is also made to similar unsuccessful planning applications in the vicinity of the current application site for sheltered housing units back in 2002 and 2003 and
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 3 Page 18
questions are raised as to how there is suddenly now an identified need for these units when it did not exist previously.
Evenden Road resident
• The planned development is for two storey flats and, unless there will be no windows facing the Evenden Road properties, this will reduce privacy and overlook adjoining gardens; • Concerned that will also lose the beautiful and peaceful outlook at the back of her property and this will devalue her property; • Fears that Longfield Road cannot cope with more traffic, particularly at school times, and the pedestrian pavement and road are both terrible; • Also worry whether Meopham has the facilities to cope with potentially another 100 pensioners; • Currently have a small Spar, an overstretched doctors surgery and minimum bus and train services.
38 Lances Close, Meopham
• Opposed to the proposed development and the resultant danger of urban sprawl leading the village of Hook Green conjoining with Longfield Hill; • There is a precedent for refusal of this application if reference is made to application 20030188 which was refused on grounds relating to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, loss of agricultural land and impact upon the Special Landscape Area; • Corrected a reported misquote from the minutes of the Site Visit on 06 November 2010 to read that he raised concern that approval would set a precedent for the remaining 12 acres of land; • Questions the reasons for re-siting the site 15 metres to the east to delete the original buffer zone; • The only reason the development is being offered on a shared equity basis is so that it may be considered as an exception to Green Belt policy; • Queries the validity of the housing need surveys, and confirms that he has not responded to any of these due to ambiguity in the questions; • Traffic concerns relating to the speed of existing vehicles, despite the 30mph speed limit, and a proliferation of mobility scooters in the area, that will be heightened by this development; • The school “rat run” is also referred to due to proximity of two schools within 100 metres of the application site; • Concerned with how occupancy would be restricted to local people, as any commercial enterprise would seek 100% occupation as soon as possible; • Reference made to the hourly bus service not being sufficient to encourage being not to use private vehicles and that Meopham Medical Centre is close to saturation point.
26 New Road, Meopham (1)
• The question of need has been based on extremely statistically suspect information gleaned from surveys conducted over some 5-10 years and although many though such provision was a good idea lots did not feel it should be built on Green Belt land; • States that the product proposed does not meet the definition of being affordable;
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 4 Page 19
• Does not agree the site is well related to facilities as Camer Parade has no post office, no doctors surgery and no chemist; • Considers the proposal comes down to whether we should be building on Green Belt land, to which the answer is no as special circumstances have not been proven.
26 New Road, Meopham (2)
• Feel that the views of Meopham residents are deliberately being ignored; • Appears as though there is a cynical plot to exploit the exception policy; • the land in question is agricultural land that will be needed in the future to feed a growing population and, although left to grow wild, remains fertile; • the fact that one of the developers is on the Council should surely have ruled this out right from the start as there is a conflict of interests; • disagree that the site is well located to services; • do not agree that there is a need for this type of development and feel it would not be best suited for elderly people, who would rather remain in familiar surroundings.
1 Fairview Gardens, Meopham
• would like to say that I support and approved of any scheme to help elderly residents of Meopham to remain in the area they have lived in and know, and where their friends are near.
Willow Croft, Wrotham Road
• provided this development is solely for the over 55’s in the area we would like to add our support and approval.
Anonymous Petition
In addition to the above referred written representations by individuals, a petition objecting to the application has been received by the Local Planning Authority. This petition has a total of 310 signatories, but no addresses.
CPRE Protect Kent
A copy of the latest comments from CPRE Protect Kent is included as an appendix to this report (Appendix 2).
Meopham Parish Council
Two further representations have been received from Meopham Parish Council, which essentially reiterate previous comments, and these are included as Appendices 3 and 4).
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 5 Page 20
Older Persons’ Housing Need
As requested by Board Members at the November meeting, previously reported information in respect of need has been distilled in order to give an overview of older persons’ housing need ranging from national level to parish level.
National Level
• By 2033, 23 per cent of the UK’s population will be over 65 • By 2033, 5 per cent of the UK’s population will be aged 85 or over
(Office for National Statistics, 2010)
North Kent Wide
• North Kent Strategic Housing Market Assessment undertaken by Opinion Research during 2009/10 recommended that local housing needs surveys are undertaken to determine housing need in rural parishes.
(NK SHMA, Opinion Research, 2009)
Borough Wide Level
• A Borough-wide Housing Needs Survey undertaken in 2006 by David Couttie Associates found a combined requirement for sheltered housing of 948 units; 558 in the affordable sector and 390 in the private sector.
• The survey also identified a need for 199 units of Extra Care between 2006 and 2009, although the survey commented that the need was more likely to be greater than this level.
• Locally the greatest rate of increase in Gravesham will be amongst the ‘oldest old’ i.e. people aged 80+. This increase will grow by 36 per cent between 2008-2018 i.e. from 1,400 to 1,900. (Review of Social Housing Provision for Older People in Gravesham, The Consultancy Company, September 2008).
• Review of Social Housing Provision for Older People in Gravesham recommended that Gravesham work with developers and Registered Providers to deliver Extra Care schemes.
• Review of Social Housing Provision for Older People in Gravesham also expressed the view that opportunities to develop schemes in rural areas should be identified.
• The increase in population over 65 in Gravesham between 2010 and 2030 is predicted to be 7,200. The increase in the ‘oldest old’ population in Gravesham between 2010 and 2030 is predicted to be 2,300 (Projecting Older People Population Information, Department of Health 2010).
Parish Level
Meopham:
• An independent survey undertaken In Meopham by Action with Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) in September 2009 identified 62 households with a general housing
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 6 Page 21
need (either now or in the next three years) with 21 of these stating that they felt they could require older persons accommodation in the future.
• The survey identified 68 households who had no general housing need but felt they could require sheltered or older persons housing in the next three to 10 years.
Higham:
• A survey undertaken in Higham by ACRK in January 2010 identified 46 households with a general housing need (either now or in the next five years) with 11 of these stating that they felt they could require older persons accommodation in the future.
• 19 households were identified who had no general housing need but felt they could require sheltered or older persons housing in the next three -10 years.
Information on Lease Arrangement
At the Board meeting on 10 November 2010 Members raised queries in respect of the leasehold arrangement for the proposed units and subsequently requested additional information to understand how it will work in practice. The following information has been provided by the applicant’s agent:
The proposed scheme has generally been based on the 75 per cent shared equity arrangement operated by Sanctuary Housing Association but it also follows the format of that operated by FC Stark Limited at their site at Longfield (see details in Appendix 5). The units are initially sold at 75 per cent of the open market value with the remaining 25 per cent retained by the developer . However, unlike Housing Associations there is no interest or rent charged on the 25 per cent of the equity retained by the developer.
The occupiers essentially purchase the properties on a licence arrangement and are able to occupy them until they wish to leave.
At any time in the future when the occupier leaves, the owner will receive back their 75 per cent payment originally made on the unit. The company will offer the unit again at 75 per cent of the open market value at that time and if there has been any uplift in the value this will be retained by the company as compensation for putting up the original 25 per cent of the cost of the unit in the first place.
All properties will be restricted and the restriction will be registered at the Land Registry so that there is at no time any possibility that the units can be sold otherwise than fully within the terms of the agreement.
The restriction will apply to all properties within the scheme such that there is no cross subsidy within this development.
The developer will manage the property and therefore has a vested interest in providing a good service such that people wish to occupy the units and keeping the service charges at a reasonable level that can be afforded by the people within the limited criteria for occupying these units.
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 7 Page 22
Recommendation:
Delegate determination to Service manager (Development Control) for PERMISSION subject to planning conditions, s.106 Agreement and referral to the Secretary of State.
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 8 Page 23
Tony Pritchard SJP Group The Lodge, St. James Oaks, Trafalgar Road, Gravesend Kent, DA11 OQT
25 th November 2010
Dear Mr Pritchard,
Re: Proposed development of St John’s Park, Meopham
Further to our recent conversations about Sanctuary providing Care and support services to your proposed new Extra Care style development, I write to confirm our views on the size of the proposed development. As you know it is our view that a stand alone scheme of this nature would need to have above 40 apartments for it to be financially viable and sustainable to provide 24/7 care services. Our normal preferred minimum number of apartments is 60 but we believe that 50 would constitute a viable number in this case.
In our experience as a major national provider of Extra Care housing, developments of less than 50 apartments do not generally create a sufficient economy of scale. A lower number of units make the provision of a permanent on site care and support team 24/7 uneconomic. This would result in service charges and care charges becoming relatively high making them unaffordable to many older residents. As this scheme is being developed as affordable leasehold homeownership, keeping revenue costs affordable is of paramount importance. Failure to keep charges affordable would have an obvious impact on marketing the scheme against competitors. It would also prevent older people with limited income but who would have to self funding buying property in the first place. High charges would also likely prevent those who might fall into hardship in the future accessing available state benefits putting them in further financial difficulties.
Therefore, we believe it is vital that the number of apartments be kept at 50 or above to ensure the long-term viability of cost effective service provision to residents. I hope this clarifies our rationale on the preferred size of the development.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Newstead Director of Business Development Sanctuary Housing Group
Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank Page 25 Page 26
This page is intentionally left blank Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank Page 31
Examples of Shared-Equity Products for Older Persons
Bramblefield Estate, Longfield, Kent (Private Developer, FC Stark)
Developed by the Billings Group mostly in the 1980’s with a more recent development of a further 30 one and two bedroom apartments, the Bramblefield Estate consists of approximately 160 maisonettes, flats and bungalows. The homes are sold at below market value on licence to the elderly for the lifetime of the occupant, following which the property is returned to the owners for the licence price paid originally. The Billings Group consider that their properties will assist older people who are living in houses that are too large for them and where their council tax, heating bills and maintenance cost reduce their standard of living unnecessarily, into more suitable accommodation.
Roman Ridge, South Yorkshire (Housing 21, Registered Provider)
Shared equity ownership allows the purchaser to purchase a 70% share of the lease with Housing 21 retaining the remaining 30% with no rent charged on the portion not owned by the purchaser. When a property becomes void (empty) Housing 21 write to the owner or family member enclosing a Notice of Intention to Assign or Surrender the lease. A Chartered Surveyors report/valuation is required and the property is not able to be advertised above this valuation. If a nomination agreement is in place with the local authority they will be asked to provide a nomination. If a nominee is not provided, Housing 21 advise the vendor (or family representative) to place the home on the open market with a reputable agent. However, any prospective purchaser has to be confirmed as suitable for the relevant scheme via an Allocation Panel or via interview with the Scheme Manager. Housing 21 offer assignable leases which mean they have to give permission for assignment to a new purchaser. The vendor retains any increase in equity through the sale.
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank Page 33 Agenda Item 5b
8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
(A)12/07/2010 (A)GR/2010/0490 08/12/2010 (B)28/09/2010 (B)GR/2010/0700
Wellington House, Wrotham Road, Meopham
(A) Application for minor material amendment to planning permission reference number GR/2004/272 for erection of attached single storey replacement building, to allow alterations to the footprint, height of ridge and eaves, front door window on front elevation and two windows in rear elevation, two dormer windows and one rooflight in rear roof slope and the material used on the front, side and rear elevations.
(B) Erection of an attached single storey replacement building with two dormer windows in both front and rear roof slopes and vehicular access through to three car parking spaces at the rear, to provide a self contained two bedroom dwelling.
O’Brien & Carr Ltd
Recommendation:
(A)GR/2010/0490: Permission as per original report (B)GR/2010/0700: Permission as per original report
1. Introduction
Both applications were originally reported to the Board meeting on 6 October 2010. The officer’s recommendation for both applications was for PERMISSION.
The Board resolved to defer the applications for a Member’s site inspection to assess the impact that the proposals would have on the Conservation Area which was carried out on Saturday 6 November 2010.
The Board then considered the applications at the Board meeting on 10/11/2010.
Members are requested to bring to this meeting a copy of Agenda Items 5 (f) and (g) of the Board meeting of 6 October 2010 and Item 5 (b) and supplementary report (b) of the Board meeting of 10 November.
2. Revised plans
The agent has submitted revised plans for both applications. These include an annotated elevation drawing, and a roof plan which explains the juxtaposition with the adjoining property.
Page 34
Recommendation
(A)GR/2010/0490: Permission as per original report (B)GR/2010/0700: Permission as per original report
REPORT NO PAGE 2 Page 35
22
29 3 7
31
34
PI
4 TFIELD
IELD DRIVE 3 ITF 2 D El P R IVE Sub Sta
35 PCs
1 0 Meopham
Lodge Basque Cottage
Mill Lodge PH
The Long Hop Windmill Mill
Green Orchard House A 227 House Pitfield Green
Killick 143.7m Mill Tangle Tr PH Wellington ees Kings Kest Arms
even 8 Cottages Wellington
Millside Hotel 1 Crale Clematis Cott Bakery Fern V West View illa Har A tsdown shle Da igh necote Fa ield ir Vi itf ge 1 d Lily Cott ew P o L 2 Crof Heathe t r De C ll otta MROAD ges Elderban North Cedar k OTHA Ridge ield Rise itf use WR P o Leadin H Ed g ge
7m
43. use 1 Greenfields
Police Grasmere Office Kotosalla Works
227
A
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Scale: 1:1,250 © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 29/11/2010 This copy has been produced specifically for Planning and Building Control purposes only. No further copies can be made. Wellington House, Wrotham Road, Meopham Gravesham Borough Council Licence No.1000191666 ± Drawn by: AJC Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank Page 37 Page 38
This page is intentionally left blank Page 39 Page 40
This page is intentionally left blank Page 41 Agenda Item 5c
8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
22.10.10 20100828 08/12/2010
Land at Ebbsfleet bounded by A2, Southfleet Road, Springhead Road, North Kent Rail, Northfleet
Application for written agreement for variation of the following Planning Conditions on Planning Permission GR/1996/35 (as amended) to vary the timing triggers for the provision of the facilities specified below:
Condition G1 - Pre-school Nursery Condition G2 - Primary School Condition G3 - Temporary Health Centre Condition G4 - Temporary Family Centre Condition G8 - Allotments Condition G9 - Playing Fields Condition G10 - Multipurpose Sports Centre Condition G14 - Community Centre Condition G16 - Recycling and Waste Transfer Facilities Condition G17 - Place of Worship.
Land Securities (Trading) Ltd
Recommendation:
A recommendation will be set out in a supplementary report
1. Site Description
The Ebbsfleet Site
The original Ebbsfleet outline planning application which straddles the boundary of both Gravesham and Dartford Boroughs extends to some 152 hectares (375 acres) and is centred around the new International and Domestic Passenger Station at Ebbsfleet, from which Eurostar currently operates a high speed passenger train service linking the UK with Paris, Lille and Brussels. It is a key site in the strategic development and regeneration of the Kent Thames Gateway.
The Ebbsfleet site in broad terms is bounded by the A2 in the south, the North Kent railway line to the north, Southfleet Road and Swanscombe to the west and Springhead Road to the east. The site has been planned on the basis of four quarters – Springhead ( Springhead Park ) and Northfleet Rise ( Portland ) which are within Gravesham and Station Quarter South (Cressfield ) and Station Quarter North ( Ebbsfleet ) in Dartford Borough.
Page 42
The development is closely linked with the planned development of the area of land to the west of the Ebbsfleet station and to the east of the Bluewater shopping centre formerly known as Eastern Quarry. This is a clay and chalk quarry operated by Lafarge Cement Company which has now been exhausted and for which outline planning permission was granted in November 2007 by Dartford Borough Council (reference DA/03/01134) for 6,250 dwellings and an additional 231,000m² of mixed use floorspace including business premises, community, leisure and retail uses and where there has been subsequent approval for a site wide master plan and an area master plan for one of the five “villages”.
Central to the development will be a dedicated bus route ( Fastrack ), reducing reliance on the private car, which will provide a fast and convenient public transport link between Dartford and Gravesend town centres. In December 2009 domestic train services began operating between Ebbsfleet station and St Pancras London with a journey time of 17 minutes.
The Ebbsfleet site and Eastern Quarry together are known as the Ebbsfleet Valley. Overall the Ebbsfleet Valley will deliver 1,659,550m² (17.8m sq ft ) of development with 10,000 new homes, 6m sq ft of commercial development, 3m sq ft of retail, leisure and community uses on 420 hectares (1035 acres) of land, 40 per cent of which will be open spaces and parkland (158 hectares).
Land Securities who own the Ebbsfleet Valley site in conjunction with Lafarge propose to build out the whole development over a 25 year time span on a phased basis with joint venture partners.
The two Quarters of the development within Gravesham are Springhead Quarter and Northfleet Rise.
Springhead Quarter
The Springhead Quarter comprises an area of 27.5 hectares.
It lies immediately west of Springhead Road, Northfleet and is bounded by the Ebbsfleet stream and CTRL line stage 2 to the west, the Northfleet sewage works and Springhead Enterprise Park to the north and the former line of the now disused Gravesend West railway line (but actually within the site of the Springhead Quarter) and the Sainsbury’s Pepper Hill store to the south.
The majority of the land was fairly level agricultural land farmland although the north- west part of the site falls down from the Springhead Enterprise Park and the former allotments site towards the Ebbsfleet stream and the west boundary also has a steep slope towards the Ebbsfleet stream now further accentuated by the cutting as a result of the CTRL. The former Gravesend West railway line is also for the most part in a deep cutting.
The Springhead Quarter also included the site of the former Meadow Road prefabricated dwellings long since demolished off Springhead Road.
Page 43
The Springhead Quarter is crossed by public footpaths and there are existing National Grid high voltage power lines crossing the site in the south west corner of the site and lower voltage lines in the north-west. A further set of reserve power lines running north-south have been removed. Existing two storey dwellings in Springhead Road adjoins the site to the east.
Construction has commenced on the first phase of residential development on an area of 7.2 hectares and which forms a gateway into the Quarter. The development under construction is for 388 residential units and associated car parking spaces together with a number of small open spaces as well as a local park (referred to as Central Park) of one hectare in area. About 65 per cent of the proposed units are one and two bedroom apartments and with 35 per cent two, three and four bedroom houses.
The proposals include the provision of 94 affordable homes (with a similar split between homes and apartments as the overall mix thus about two thirds are apartments) which equates to 24 per cent of the total number of units.
The development is being built by Countryside Properties as the joint venture partner and there are currently over 170 houses completed and occupied and a further 30 plus units under construction.
Northfleet Rise
The Northfleet Rise quarter extends to some 17.2 hectares.
It is bounded along its western edge by the River Ebbsfleet, to the north by railway tracks of the Kent Railway Line and to the south east by Blue Lake. It is largely unused land, partly overgrown and partly enclosed by fencing. It comprises areas of grassland, some woodland and some marsh. The land rises to the north where it includes former railway sidings. There is an overhead electricity line that crosses through the site. It used to be the Ebbsfleet pleasure ground adjoining the former Blue Circle Sports Ground. To the south is the Northfleet sewage treatment works.
The Ebbsfleet River is little more than a stream but it does have valuable reed beds and associated wetland habitats and is currently maintained artificially by pumping.
The Northfleet Rise quarter is truncated by the embankment carrying the North Kent railway link running between the North Kent railway line and the CTRL domestic platforms.
The quarter is also dissected by the route of Thames Way (STDR4) which is a strategic highway route connecting Springhead Road with Stonebridge Road but with links across the Ebbsfleet Valley to the station and the A2. It is a two way single carriageway with a footway/cycleway on one side of the road (north) but with the potential to be dualled. There is a roundabout connection into the Lafarge Cement Works and the route of STDR4 west of Springhead Road used to be the Blue Circle private access road to the cement works.
Page 44
No development has commenced to date within the Northfleet Rise Quarter and no reserved matter approval applications have been applied for within that Quarter.
2. Planning History
The Outline Planning Application
The Ebbsfleet planning application was originally submitted by Blue Circle Properties Ltd in January 1996 to both this Council and Dartford Borough Council (GBC reference GR/96/35 and Dartford reference DA/96/47).
That application was for outline planning permission on the 152 hectare site with all matters reserved for detailed planning approval and proposed a development for a maximum of 789,550m 2 (approx. 8.5 million square feet) of mixed use development with quantities for the land uses expressed in the following ranges:
• up to approx. 493,700m 2 of employment uses (use Class B1 – offices, research and development and light industrial)
• up to approx. 310,420m 2 of residential development (3,200 dwellings - subsequently increased to 3,384 by reason of higher quantities agreed within the Dartford Quarters)
• up to approx. 310,420m 2 of supporting uses (including schools, community facilities, local shops) and
• up to 163,740m 2 of core space development (including hotels, leisure, entertainment and supporting retail)
The key elements of the development are:
• creation of a new centre of development of a ‘critical mass’ around a new transport focus i.e. Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Ebbsfleet Station
• mixed use
• higher density than surrounding development
• linkage of existing communities
• encouragement of public transport and reducing reliance on the private motor car
• sustainable form of development
The development is planned for a 20-25 year time span. The application indicated that for the Springhead Quarter (27.5 hectares) the development would be for predominantly residential with a neighbourhood centre and shops and some employment use, with development more akin to suburban areas of Gravesend. Page 45
The application was supported initially by a number of documents and statements including Environmental, Urban Design Transport and Community Development statements. Further documents were subsequently submitted including environmental strategies, illustrative master plan, retail and travel impact assessments, and illustrative floorspace scenarios.
Gravesham Councillors received a number of initial reports and participated in seminars and a study tour of the Ebbsfleet site before receiving a full first report at a special meeting of the Environmental Services Committee on 16 December 1997 which drew together all the issues and analysed and evaluated the proposals.
Following resolution of many of the issues and concerns identified a further report was submitted to a special meeting of the Environmental Services Committee on 4 March 1998. The Borough Council resolved to grant planning permission subject to 91 planning conditions and also subject to withdrawal of a holding direction by the Highways Agency, to the Secretary of State not calling the application in for the determination as a departure from the development plan, and to the applicant entering into a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide amongst other things education contributions and affordable housing.
Following the withdrawal of the Highway’s Agency’s holding direction and notification from the Secretary of State that the authorities could determine the application themselves work proceeded from the beginning of 1999 on the refinement of the heads of terms of the legal agreement and the drafting of the agreement itself. Negotiations on the agreement were long, protracted and very difficult.
The legal agreement was however finally concluded on 21 November 2002 and the outline planning permission issued concurrently.
The Gravesham permission included 91 planning conditions relating to the submission of reserved matters and time limits for submission, master plan principles, quarter master planning, quantity and mix of development, environmental issues, transport, social and community issues and a number of general conditions including such matters as monitoring, materials and finishes, public art and building heights and densities; there were also a number of informatives relating to the site area, affordable housing, Ebbsfleet station car parking, the environmental assessment and the plans and other documents that were submitted with the application that were regarded as being for information purposes only.
The legal agreement contained provisions for the management and maintenance of open land, a financial contribution to environmental liaison, a financial contribution to heritage/interpretation facilities, the setting up of an architectural consultative group, obligations for transfer of primary school provision, a financial contribution to secondary education, and obligations for the delivery of affordable housing.
The outline planning consent, through the planning conditions, imposed not just an overall limit on the total amount of development proposed and Page 46
on the maximum quantities of each land use types but also placed a ceiling on the total floorspace for each of the four quarters but with some flexibility to move within the ranges. In respect of the two Dartford Quarters the total amount of development permissible was 339,000m 2 for Station Quarter North and 250,500m 2 for Station Quarter South.
For the Gravesham Quarters the following quantities were permitted:
Springhead Quarter (Springhead Park)
The outline consent (condition C7) allows a total amount of development within the Springhead Quarter of up to but not exceeding 100,000m 2 comprising within a range of 50,000m 2 of employment (B1), 60,000m 2 (600 dwellings) of residential use, 10,000m 2 of residential supporting uses and 1,500m 2 of core space including hotels, leisure and entertainment. There would be six hectares of open space.
Northfleet Rise Quarter (Portland)
The outline consent (condition C9) allows a total amount of development within the Northfleet Rise Quarter of up to but not exceeding 167,000m 2 comprising within a range of 75,000m 2 of employment (B1), 45,000m 2 (464 dwellings) of residential use, 7,000m 2 of residential supporting uses and 30,500m 2 of core space. There would be 3.75 hectares of open space.
The total permissible employment floorspace for Ebbsfleet is 455,000m 2 which would provide 20,000 jobs. The traditional (B1 office) employment plus that generated at shops, schools and leisure uses would equate to 59 per cent of the total floorspace with 41 per cent of the total floorspace allowed being residential.
There would be 73.25 hectares of open space within the whole of Ebbsfleet.
Social and Community Provision
The outline planning conditions provide for the delivery of a range of social and community facilities to be provided at certain thresholds of development across the four quarters including pre-school nurseries, primary schools, health care, family centre, a range of open space including a multi purpose sports centre, library, community centre, adult education, waste recycling and a place of worship.
The location of the various elements of social and community provision would be determined through the quarter master planning.
Affordable Housing
25 per cent of all the dwelling units within the two Gravesham Quarters must be affordable housing (20 per cent in Dartford) and a proportion of both the affordable housing and the market housing are required to meet Page 47
lifetime homes standard. Quantities of affordable housing must be delivered at certain thresholds of market (private) residential dwellings. The terms for the delivery of affordable housing are set out in the section 106 agreement which includes obligations relating to the location, tenure, size and standard of affordable housing and the organisations to provide or manage affordable housing.
Quarter Master Planning
The outline planning conditions (conditions C4, C5 and C6) required the submission and approval of quarter master plans (QMP’s) and various planning and environmental strategies before any detailed (reserved matter) planning approval could be given to built development commencing on the site.
Springhead Quarter Master Plan (GR/2003/0016)
The original QMP for the Springhead Quarter was submitted in January 2003. The Springhead Quarter comprises an area of 27.5 hectares. The majority of the land was farmland apart from the site of former Meadow Road prefabricated dwellings long since demolished off Springhead Road.
The master plan indicated the disposition and quantum of uses and the footprint or zones of built development but the location of individual buildings was for illustrative purposes and their shape and layout would be determined at the reserved matter planning stage. The composite Master Plan indicated a number of community uses centrally located including the location of a primary school, a health facility, place of worship, leisure centre, nursery, family and community centre and recycling centre.
In terms of roads the plans showed a main spine road running through the site connecting to the A2/STDR 4 Ebbsfleet station road in the north west and Springhead Road, close to the junction with Haldane Gardens to the east. There was no road connection to Wingfield Bank and the Springhead Road/Hall Road roundabout but the potential to link was indicated.
The employment areas were shown located in the north west part of the site.
There were six hectares of open space identified including allotments and a playing field in the south west corner of the site.
The average density of the residential development was stated to be 51 dwellings per hectare. The QMP indicated that in some locations close to the proposed Fastrack route through the site some buildings would be four storeys in height.
The original (2003) QMP proposed the following quantity of land uses:
Employment 50,000m 2 Residential 46,860m 2 (approx. 480 dwellings) Retail 500m 2 Community (residential supporting uses) 2,040m 2 Page 48
Core 600m 2
Total 100,000m 2
The Springhead QMP was approved on 8 October 2003 subject to a number of informatives concerning, amongst other things, footpath provision, appropriate archaeological evaluation, details of the procurement of community infrastructure, location of affordable housing, and review of the QMP consequent to approval of the transport and other strategies. A visual impact assessment (VIA) for the Springhead Quarter was also approved.
Approval was granted under the same application to vary condition C3 of the outline planning permission to allow the footprint of the development to extend outside that set in the Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework and the Springhead Development Brief. Additionally approval was given to vary condition H10 of the outline planning permission to allow the building height at Springhead to exceed three storeys but subject to a condition that no building shall exceed four storeys and that any such four storey buildings are confined to the commercial area and selective locations along the main road frontages.
Revisions were made to the Springhead QMP in 2006 to reflect the submission of detailed planning applications which were submitted for the first phase of residential development, particularly in relation to the position of the spine road, although those revisions were not formally submitted for approval as they were of a minor nature.
2008 Revision to the Springhead Quarter Master Plan (GR/2008/0843)
In September 2008 an application was submitted for approval of a revised Quarter Master Plan (QMP) for the Springhead Quarter of the Ebbsfleet development and including a review of Visual Impact Assessment.
The QMP had been updated to reflect the detailed design work that had been undertaken by the applicants in relation to the provision of community facilities and the northern part of the Springhead Spine Road which links to the proposed bridge over the river Ebbsfleet.
The revised QMP included changes to the quantity of land uses to be provided within the Springhead Quarter.
The revised (2008) QMP proposed the following floorspace:
Employment 32,000m 2 Residential 60,000m 2 (approx. 600 dwellings) Retail 500m 2 Community (residential supporting uses)* 5,000m 2 Core~ 2,500m 2
Total 100,000m 2
* Residential supporting uses means retail, class D1 uses (non-residential institutions) such as medical and health centres, day nurseries, places of Page 49
worship and class D2 uses (assembly and leisure) including sports halls, dance halls and gymnasiums.
~ Core uses as defined in the original outline planning permission would include similar use classes as the residential supporting uses (retail, non- residential institutions and assembly and leisure but would also include hotels and A2-financial and professional-offices) although the applicants suggested that in the context of Springhead this would be principally sports centre floorspace.
The applicants pointed out that the community and core uses were greater than the approved QMP but they did not see this as a fundamental change. Although the outline planning permission allowed for up to 10,000m 2 of residential supporting uses in the 2003 QMP this was indicated as just over 2,000m 2. In the revised QMP some 5,000m 2 of residential supporting uses were now proposed.
The changes apparently reflected the emerging sizes of the community centre/place of worship, health centre and leisure centre. Subject to detailed design the various residential supporting uses were, according to the applicants, likely to be in the region of 2,000m2 for the health centre, 1,540m 2 for the place of worship/community centre and 1,401m 2 for the primary school (if required).
Individual sizes for the various community facilities were not specifically indicated in the outline planning permission – they were expressed only as minimum sizes required at certain thresholds of development. The place of worship was indicated as being at least 250m 2 at the 350 dwelling unit threshold with a second place of worship of 150m 2 at 1000 units and across the Ebbsfleet development site as a whole rather than just in the Springhead Quarter. The requirements for a community centre were 190m 2 at the 200 unit threshold and a second community centre of 190m 2 at the 1,700 unit threshold. Thus a combined facility (church/community centre) should at least be 780m 2 for the development as a whole.
The revised QMP indicated a four fold increase in the quantum of core uses (to 2,500 m2) from that indicated in the approved QMP, this core floorspace being a sports centre. The applicants advised that they were seeking greater flexibility than was set out in the outline planning conditions (the maximum size leisure floorspace in condition C7 for Springhead was 500m 2 and the requirement for a multipurpose sports centre across the whole site in condition G10 was at least 600 m2 on a one hectare site).
The employment provision in the revised QMP, on the other hand, was significantly less than as approved, a reduction of 18,000m 2, while the residential numbers conversely were to be increased (from 480 to 600 units).
Other significant changes to the QMP were:
• the alignment of the northern section of the Springhead Spine Road is revised providing, according to the applicants, a more direct linkage through the heart of the development site, an alignment that more closely reflects the alignments in the approved 2005 Springhead Page 50
Transport Strategy, and an alignment that responds more closely to the disposition of the community facilities, public square and topography of Springhead.
• Provision of a bus gate. The realignment of the Springhead Spine Road provided a segregated route for Fastrack vehicles and a walking and cycle route.
• Public Square. The revised QMP provided a slightly enlarged public square within which the community facilities are to be located.
• Community Centre/ Place of Worship. The revised QMP provides for the co-location of the community centre and the place of worship (and its combined car parking in non-designated car parking spaces) in the general location established by the approved QMP.
• Health Facility. The revised QMP indicates this facility as a stand alone facility with a clear frontage to the Springhead Spine Road rather than as part of an overall block.
• Linear Park. There are some changes to the shape of the linear park but the overall area was to remain the same.
To the east of the public square on the eastern side of the Spine Road a one hectare site was still reserved as a 1FE Primary School although this does not accord with Kent County Councils preference which is for a 2FE school located within Station Quarter South.
All the revisions to the QMP were set out in a revised written statement and a revised compendium of plans.
In addition to revisions to the QMP a separate planning application had also been submitted (GR/2008/0842) for variation of condition D11 of outline planning permission GR/96/35, relating to the maximum number of dwellings that can be occupied until employment floorspace has been completed within the Springhead Quarter.
Condition D11 in the outline planning permission states:-
Within the Springhead Quarter, no more than the following amounts of dwellings shall be occupied until the following amounts of employment floorspace and open space have been completed and are available and ready for occupation or use in accordance with the provisions of this outline planning permission and any reserved matters approvals.
Residential Employment Open Space
300 dwellings 10,000 sq.m 4 hectares
450 dwellings 20,000 sq.m 6 hectares
The applicants requested that the condition be varied to delay the provision of employment floorspace in order to provide an initial focus of employment around Ebbsfleet International Station. They considered it Page 51
would be unviable to provide commercial floorspace at Springhead at this time.
The revised QMP and condition D11 variation were considered by the Council’s Regulatory Board in November 2008 but a decision at that meeting was deferred and also at a further meeting in December pending the submission of additional information. The Borough Council did have some concerns at the delay in the provision of employment and the reduction of employment floorspace at Springhead since it was being reduced form 50,000m 2 in the approved QMP to 32,000m 2. However the employment floorspace would still provide 1,500-2,000 jobs at Springhead. In addition there were employment opportunities arising from the various community facilities.
The revised QMP was approved on 14 January 2009 subject to informatives.
The variation to condition D11 was also approved on 14 January 2009 subject to the following new condition:-
Within the Springhead Quarter, no more than the following amounts of dwellings shall be occupied until the following amounts of employment floorspace and open space have been completed and are available and ready for occupation or use in accordance with the provisions of this outline planning permission and any reserved matters approvals”
Residential Employment Open Space
300 dwellings -- 4 hectares
450 dwellings -- 6 hectares
500 dwellings 20,000 sq.m --
and subject to the following informative:-
The applicants are advised that whilst the reduction in the quantum of employment floorspace within the Springhead Quarter is regretted they are reminded of the importance in bringing forward the delivery of employment floorspace within Ebbsfleet as a whole at any early stage in order for Ebbsfleet to achieve a balanced and sustainable approach towards the delivery of employment, housing and other services.
Planning and Environmental Strategies
The outline planning conditions also required the submission and approval of various planning and environmental strategies before any detailed (reserved matter) planning approval could be given to built development commencing on the site.
An application for approval of the Transport Strategies (GR/03/441) for both the Springhead Quarter and for Ebbsfleet as a whole (Ebbsfleet wide) pursuant to conditions F1 (a-d) and F1 (c) respectively of the outline planning permission was submitted in May 2003. Page 52
Revised transport strategies were submitted in March 2005 and were finally approved on 13 May 2005 subject to an informative requiring approval of the planning and highway authorities of the sequential list of measure to be used in the transport management toolkit in the event that traffic generation targets are exceeded.
A range of other environmental and planning strategies (application reference GR/03/660), addressing such matters as air quality, noise, water management, archaeology, leisure, public art, landscape, utilities, contaminated land and construction code relating to the Springhead Quarter specifically or on an Ebbsfleet wide basis were also submitted pursuant to the outline planning conditions in July 2003.
These strategies establish the principles to be applied to the various environmental factors and provide guidance and a checklist to designers to take into account in the detailed development proposals.
Modelled Air Quality baseline data for Springhead Quarter submitted pursuant to condition E12 (a) was approved on 8 October 2003.
The Construction Code of Conduct submitted pursuant to condition E11 of the outline planning permission was approved on 31 December 2004.
The Utilities Strategy submitted pursuant to condition H3 of the outline planning permission was approved on 31 December 2004 subject to informatives.
The Springhead Quarter Landscape Strategy submitted pursuant to condition E7 of the outline planning permission was approved on 31 December 2004.
The Public Arts Strategy for Ebbsfleet was approved on 21 December 2004.
The Ebbsfleet-wide Leisure Strategy submitted pursuant to condition H2 of the outline planning permission was approved on 20 January 2005.
The Springhead Archaeological Framework and Ebbsfleet Updated Archaeological Strategy were both approved on 10 May 2005. An Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation for Springhead Quarter Phase 1 was approved on 1 June 2005.
The Ebbsfleet-wide Structural Landscape Strategy was approved pursuant to condition E6 of the outline planning permission on 10 May 2005.
The Ebbsfleet-wide Environmental Management System submitted pursuant to condition E1 of the outline planning permission was approved on 10 May 2005.
The Springhead Quarter Water Management Strategy and the Ebbsfleet- wide Water Management Strategy were approved on 2 June 2005.
An Indicative Phasing Plan submitted pursuant to condition A5 of the outline planning permission was approved on 6 June 2005. Page 53
A separate application (GR/2008/414) for approval of a combined transport strategy for the Northfleet Rise and Station Quarter North quarters submitted in May 2008 and was finally approved on 5 November 2009 following amendments made in March 2009 as required by the Highway Authorities. This was approved subject informatives.
A number of strategies for the Northfleet Rise Quarter were also submitted and approved in 2008 – Water Management Strategy (GR/2008/0464), Contaminated Land Strategy and Air Quality Baseline Data (GR/2008/0440) and Archaeological Mitigation (GR/2008/0394).
A community development strategy (condition G18) and some environmental strategies for the remaining quarters are still to be submitted.
An application (GR/2009/0399) for approval of condition F1d (xi) of outline planning permission reference number GR/96/0035 relating to the framework travel plan was approved on 30 October 2009. The Framework Travel Plan was submitted to provide a framework and toolkit to assist future developers prepare their own individual travel plans. The approval was subject to informatives.
An application for a Joint Monitoring Strategy (JMS) submitted pursuant to condition H1 (Planning Application GR/2009/0166) was approved, following revisions to the document, on 10 November 2009 subject to informatives.
Detailed Planning Approvals
Detailed planning approval was given for the new road junction on to Springhead Road to serve the Springhead Quarter (GR/2005/0126) on 1 August 2005 providing a traffic signal junction with bus priority and pedestrian and cycle provision, and for the initial part of the spine road serving the Springhead Quarter (GR/2006/604) on 11 September 2006.
Springhead – First Phase of Development
Reserved matter planning approval was given, subject to conditions, for the first phase of residential development for 388 residential units at Springhead Park with associated car parking and open space (GR/2006/454) on an area of 7.2 hectares, on 11 September 2006 following a report to the Regulatory Board on 6 September 2006.
About 65 per cent of the phase 1 development will be one and two bedroom apartments and 35 per cent two, three and four bed houses. There will be 94 affordable units provided by Amicus/Horizon, London and Quadrant (formerly Tower) and Hyde Housing including social rented, intermediate rented and shared ownership units, with a similar split as the overall mix between houses and apartments.
The net density is 62.5 dwellings per hectare and there will be 558 car parking spaces for the 388 units. The parking provision comprises 465 Page 54
allocated spaces, 59 occasional visitor spaces and 34 management company leased spaces.
Countryside Properties are developing the first phase of development on behalf of Land Securities.
About 170 units (including affordable units) have been completed and are available for occupation on a leasehold basis and a further 20/30 units are still under construction. The current build programme is around 50 - 60 units per annum.
The first phase of development at Springhead Park also includes a one hectare local park (Central Park) which is now open (Penn Green Park).
Early discussions recently took place with Countryside Properties on proposals for submitting a further detailed reserved matter planning application for Phase 2 of the development and the provision of six hectares of the linear park.
Consent has been given for a temporary marketing suite (GR/2006/0483) and for the use of Wingfield Bank Bridge as a means of construction access to the site, including bridge strengthening works (applications GR/2006/1100 and GR/2006/0980 respectively).
Planning permission was also granted for an application (GR/2006/0907) for the re-routing of a public footpath (NU19) around the perimeter of the development.
Discharge of Conditions and Variation of Conditions
Approval has been given at various stages for the discharge of planning conditions relating to the first phase planning approval.
Approval of details of the landscaping and visibility splays in relation to Phase 1B (GR/2009/0094) pursuant to conditions 2 and 13 of planning permission reference number GR/2006/0454 was given in April 2009.
Approval was already given for the pedestrian visibility splays to the garage drives and parking spaces within the dwelling plots for phase 1A in November 2008 (reference GR/2008/0772) under a separate discharge of planning condition submission.
Planning permission was granted on 6 November 2009 to an application (reference GR/2009/0759) to add at the construction stage rear conservatories to 25 townhouses (plots 245-251, 345-358 and 297-300). These were to private houses for sale/lease rather than the affordable units.
Planning permission was granted on 6 July 2010 for an application (20100344) for a non material amendment relating to changes to the materials used.
An application has recently been submitted for an additional electricity sub station within phase 1B (20100918) Page 55
Other Applications
In November 2007 retrospective planning permission (GR/2007/0865) was granted for the retention of engineering works associated with a series of ponds and culverts required as part of a surface water drainage system for the Springhead Quarter. The system involves discharge into the River Ebbsfleet via a stepped cascade with reed bed planting to provide cleansing prior to discharge. The culvert and associated ponds are located in the northern part of the Springhead Quarter.
In December 2008 planning permission was granted (GR/2008/0885) for the installation of a temporary underground 11kV cable between Springhead and Eastern Quarry for a temporary period of five years.
Ebbsfleet Landmark Project
A further development by Land Securities in conjunction with LCR and Eurostar is the Ebbsfleet Landmark Project, a project to create a major public artwork for Ebbsfleet Valley and which could occupy a prominent site in the south east corner of the Springhead Quarter.
Five internationally acclaimed artists were invited to take part in the project and their artworks were the subject of an exhibition at Bluewater shopping centre in 2008.
Three of the submissions – Daniel Buren’s ‘Signal’, Richard Deacon’s ‘Nest Sculpture’ and Mark Wallinger’s ‘White Horse’ were selected towards the end of 2008 to go forward for further refinement; the two schemes not selected were Christopher Le Brun’s ‘Wing and Disc’ and Rachel Whiteread’s ‘Recycled Mountain’.
The selection panel announced on 10 February 2009 that Mark Wallinger’s ‘White Horse’ had been chosen as the winning entry.
The commissioned artwork was subsequently submitted formally as a planning application (GR/2010/0020) in January 2010 and was reported to the Council’s Regulatory Board at its meeting on 14 April 2010. Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.
At a potential height of some 50 metres the landmark, if constructed, would be one of the most significant artworks in the UK since Antony Gormley’s ‘Angel of the North’.
Spine Road Phase II and Ebbsfleet Bridge
Applications were submitted at the end of January 2009 for Phase II of the Springhead Spine Road (GR/2009/0058) and the Springhead Bridge Link (GR/2009/0057).
The Phase II Springhead Spine Road will extend the current built spine road within the Springhead Quarter north westwards through the part of Page 56
the site shown in the QMP for employment, providing a two way carriageway width of 6.75m and with a separate public transport only bus gate. The area of the application which includes as well as the roads, points of access for future developments, creation of a car park, a permissive way pending the diversion/stopping up of public footpath NU20, a public square, landscaping and an attenuation pond, extends to 4.6 hectares.
The Springhead Bridge Link will take the Spine Road over the River Ebbsfleet to join with the Station Link Road which takes traffic between STDR4 (Thames Way) and the A2 across the Ebbsfleet Valley and to the Ebbsfleet Station. The bridge is a composite structure formed of steel beams, concrete deck and concrete abutments. The supporting embankments are formed with reinforced earthworks. The development will require the removal of reed bed habitat with associated ecological impacts. The area of the application is 2.2 hectares and the application has also been submitted to Dartford Borough Council as part of the bridge is within Dartford.
These applications were considered by the Regulatory Board on 15 April 2009 and were approved subject to conditions.
3. Proposal
This application seeks written agreement for variation of the following Planning Conditions on Planning Permission GR/1996/35 (as amended) to vary the timing triggers for the provision of the facilities specified below:
Condition G1 - Pre-school Nursery Condition G2 - Primary School Condition G3 - Temporary Health Centre Condition G4 - Temporary Family Centre Condition G8 - Allotments Condition G9 - Playing Fields Condition G10 - Multipurpose Sports Centre Condition G14 - Community Centre Condition G16 - Recycling and Waste Transfer Facilities Condition G17 - Place of Worship.
A copy of the applicant’s agents supporting letter setting out the current wording of the planning conditions and the suggested revised wording and the reasons for the changes is appended to this report. Since the application was submitted a request has also been added to the application to alter the timing trigger related to condition G16 – Recycling and Waste Transfer Facilities. A copy of the additional supporting letter setting out the current wording, the revised wording and the rationale behind the change is also appended to this report.
4. Development Plan
The Development Plan comprises:-
Page 57
• The Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994)
• Saved Policies of the Local Plan First Review (1994)
There are a number of other un-adopted planning documents (e.g. The Gravesham Local Plan Second Review) which are of some relevance and are a material consideration, together with national planning advice and guidance (PPG’s/PPS’s) and the emerging policies in the Local Development Framework.
On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced the revocation of Regional Strategies with immediate effect. However following the judgement in the case brought by Cala Homes in the High Court, which considered that the powers set out in section 79 [6] of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety.
The effect of this decision is to re-establish Regional Strategies as part of the development plan. However the Secretary of State wrote to Local Planning Authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate on 27 May 2010 informing them of the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Strategies in the Localism Bill and that he expected them to have regard to this as a material consideration in planning decisions.
Therefore consideration still needs to be given to the policies in the adopted South East Plan.
Local Planning Guidance
Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994)
The Gravesham Local Plan First Review was adopted in November 1994.
The Gravesham Local Plan still remains as the adopted local planning document and the written statement and proposals map will continue to have effect as the development plan pending the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF). A substantial number of policies of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review have been saved by a Direction dated 25 September 2007 of the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Relevant policies in the development plan are as follows:-
Area Policy AP14 (b): Springhead Policy TC0: General Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy Policy TC1: Design of New Developments Policy T1: Impact of development on the highway network Policy T5: New accesses onto highway network Policy P3: Vehicle parking standards
Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (2000)
The draft Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000 (Draft Local Plan Second Review) has been adopted by the Borough Page 58
Council for development control purposes but in view of the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the decision by the Borough Council to replace the Local Plan with the Local Development Framework it is not being progressed any further.
The policies in the plan are therefore of only limited weight but the weight which can be attached to its policies is greater where the policies are consistent with Government guidance and with policies of the adopted Local Plan First Review.
Relevant policies in the Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) Deposit Version 2000 are as follows:-
Policy MDS1: Ebbsfleet Valley Policy BE12: Design of New Development, Extensions and Alterations Policy T1: Location of new development Policy T12: New accesses on highway and public transport network Policy T16: Car Parking Standards Policy SC1: Social and Community Infrastructure and Provision
Policy MDS1 states:-
Policy MDS1 Ebbsfleet Valley
Land is safeguarded in the Ebbsfleet Valley for a new mixed use development, comprising employment, residential, hotel and leisure uses, with supporting retail and community facilities. Development proposals will only be permitted where the following criteria are met:- i. a mix, distribution and density of development which discourages the need to travel by private car and encourages travel by more sustainable means; ii. with regard to the Springhead Quarter, an appropriate mix between the principal land uses of residential and employment, where neither use predominates (see paragraph 3.3.10); iii. with regard to the Northfleet Rise Quarter, an appropriate mix between the principal land uses of employment and residential, with employment use predominating (see paragraph 3.3.10); iv. the phasing in of necessary social and community infrastructure, to ensure that adequate facilities are available at all stages of the development to meet the needs of new residents; v. a high quality of urban design; vi. a high degree of public access throughout the site; vii. a hierarchy of extensive green spaces and water spaces; viii. a close integration with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and the Ebbsfleet International and Domestic Station (see Policy T5); ix. close integration with existing communities through the provision of road, pedestrian, cycle and public transport links, including a dedicated corridor for Fastrack ; and Page 59
x. the concentration of development at nodal points and along public transport corridors.
All proposals will be subject to Policies T1 (Location of Development), H9 (Affordable Housing), LT3 (Green Grid) and SC1 (Social and Community Infrastructure).
The Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework and the Development Brief for the Land West of Springhead Road, Northfleet will remain important material considerations in determining any future planning applications within the Ebbsfleet Valley which are related to the CTRL and the Ebbsfleet International and Domestic Station. In the event of Phase 2 of CTRL not proceeding, fresh proposals for development in the Ebbsfleet Valley would need to be subject to a new development brief.
Local Development Framework
The Council has been in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework (LDF) for the Borough since 2005. Progress to date on this document has focussed on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which was adopted in March 2007 and the Core Strategy.
The Local Development Scheme (LDS), which sets out the programme for taking forward the LDF, was reviewed in order to address deficiencies in the evidence base and the changes introduced by PPS12 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. The revised LDS was approved by GOSE on 16 January 2009. A number of public consultation exercises have been carried out to identify the key issues and priorities for consideration in the Core Strategy.
A draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Regulation 25 document – Issues and Options) was considered by the Council’s Cabinet in December 2009 who approved the document for the purposes of public consultation. A six week consultation period was undertaken between 28 January and 11 March 2010 to enable residents, local businesses and stakeholders to have their say in the future planning for the Borough.
It is anticipated that this will be examined by an independent Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate in 2011 for adoption in 2012.
The most relevant core strategy policies are,
Core Strategy Policy 1: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hirearchy which identifies Ebbsfleet within the main urban tier and where the priority is supporting urban regeneration.
Core Strategy Policy 2: Urban Areas, a broad ranging policy which includes, amongst other things, new mixed communities to be introduced, inclusive and sustainable communities and high standards of urban design.
Page 60
Core Strategy Policy 5: Design and Development Principles which indicates the requirement for high quality design for all development.
Core Strategy Policy 6: Physical and Social Infrastructure which indicates support to proposals that lead to the provision of additional infrastructure that improves community well-being.
The most relevant development management policies include,
Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design Development Management Policy 32: Transport Network and Accesses Development Management Policy 33: Vehicle Parking Standards.
Regional Strategy
South East Plan
In the adopted South East Plan planning policies relating to community and health care provision are wide ranging. These policies, S2 and S6, are as follows:-
POLICY S2: PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE HEALTH SERVICES
Local planning authorities should work closely with the NHS across its delivery bodies to ensure the provision of additional and reconfigured health and social care facilities to meet the anticipated primary care and capacity needs of local communities. Where need is identified, land should be made available for additional community, social and primary care facilities.
Local authorities and the various NHS Trusts should work closely together to facilitate joint planning and to influence NHS estate strategies. Health Impact Assessments should become an integral part of the decision-making process.
POLICY S6: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The regional planning authority and regional partners, including SEEDA, will work with Government and other agencies to increase investment in physical and social infrastructure and secure co-ordination between development and essential infrastructure provision.
Where appropriate, the mixed use of community facilities should be encouraged by local authorities, public agencies and other providers, through local development documents and other measures in order to make effective use of resources and reduce travel and other impacts.
Local planning authorities, in consultation with those delivering services using community infrastructure (including the Third Sector and Faith organisations), will ensure facilities are located and designed appropriately, taking account of local needs and a whole life costing approach. Page 61
Policies should also ensure that: i. community infrastructure supports economic growth and regeneration, with particular priority for health and education provision ii. creative thinking and action on new mixes of cultural and community facilities is encouraged iii. appropriate facilities are made accessible to all sections of the community, in both urban and rural settlements.
In respect of education provision the relevant South East Plan policy is Policy S3 which states:-
POLICY S3: EDUCATION AND SKILLS
Local planning authorities, taking into account demographic projections, should work with partners to ensure the adequate provision of pre–school, school and community learning facilities. Policies should advocate the widening and deepening of participation through better accessibility, reflecting the role the planning system can play in developing and shaping healthy sustainable communities. Policies should: i. take account of the future development needs of the economy and the community sector ii. encourage mixed use approaches, that include community facilities alongside ‘formal’ education facilities iii. seek to ensure access for all sections of society to education facilities at locations with good public transport access.
The South East Plan indicates that the provision of adequate infrastructure to support new development was a source of much debate in the preparation of this Plan. The supporting text indicates that the Government agrees that the timely provision of infrastructure is a fundamental tenet of the Plan, and key aspect to improving the quality of life of all those in the region. The relevant policy, Policy CC7 (Infrastructure and Implementation), states,
POLICY CC7: INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION
The scale and pace of development will depend on sufficient capacity being available in existing infrastructure to meet the needs of new development. Where this cannot be demonstrated the scale and pace of development will be dependent on additional capacity being released through demand management measures or better management of existing infrastructure, or through the provision of new infrastructure. Where new development creates a need for additional infrastructure a programme of delivery should be agreed before development begins. Page 62
Funding will be provided by a combination of local government and private sector partners, and substantial contributions from central government.
To help achieve this: i. infrastructure agencies and providers will aim to align their investment programmes to help deliver the proposals in this Plan ii. local development documents (LDDs) will identify the necessary additional infrastructure and services required to serve the area and the development they propose together with the means, broad cost and timing of their provision related to the timing of development iii. contributions from development will also be required to help deliver necessary infrastructure. To provide clarity for landowners and prospective developers, local authorities should include policies and prepare clear guidance in their LDDs, in conjunction with other key agencies, on the role and scope of development contributions towards infrastructure.
The phasing of development will be closely related to the provision of infrastructure. In order to create confidence and assurance in the timely delivery of infrastructure in relation to new housing a more proactive approach to funding will be adopted. This will involve a joint approach by regional bodies, local authorities, infrastructure providers and developers. Consideration will be given to the pooling of contributions towards the cost of facilities, development tariffs and local delivery vehicles. Mechanisms to enable forward funding of strategic infrastructure will be agreed between regional bodies and Government. One of these, a Regional Infrastructure Fund is currently being developed for the South East Region.
In order to further secure effective delivery of the Plan, and particularly the timely delivery of the necessary supporting infrastructure, an Implementation Plan will be prepared, monitored and reviewed by the regional planning body, which will set out the requirements and obligations for public and private sector bodies at the national, regional and local levels. The Implementation Plan will include a regional and sub-regional investment framework identifying the strategic infrastructure schemes needed to deliver the Plan.
Other relevant policies are sub-regional Kent Thames Gateway policies KTG1 (Core Strategy) and KTG4 (Amount and Distribution of Housing Development) and general recreation polices including Policy S1 (Supporting Healthy Communities).
National Planning Policy Guidance
The following statements of national planning policy guidance are relevant. Page 63
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG13: Transport PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.
5. Reason for Report
Major development and the site has been the subject of various previous reports to the Board.
6. Consultations and Publicity
Consultations
Countryside Properties
We fully understand and support the variations applied for.
Regulatory Services, GBC
No comments
Sport and Recreation Manager, GBC
Condition G8 – Allotments: I understand that the Cemeteries and Amenities Manager will make some comments from a leisure perspective.
Condition G9 – Playing Fields: I am unclear as to the correct designation of the land as the supporting letter from Barton Willmore mentions playing field land (not formal pitches) but the current condition mentions in the last paragraph that ‘the location, layout, uses and changing facilities for each playing field site to be provided under the terms of this condition’. Therefore clarification on the actual designation of land would be needed in order to make a more informed comment.
Condition G10 - This department agrees that it would be difficult to supply an eight court hall and three squash courts multi-purpose sports centre within a floor space of 600m 2 and has no concerns in the word ‘size’ being added to a revised condition. However, we do not feel that there is yet the evidence to suggest that the reference to badminton and squash courts should be removed, especially as the current condition does not necessarily restrict the provision in the centre to solely badminton and squash.
The Council is currently developing a PPG 17 Assessment, which we understand an early draft was given to the applicant for information. Although the applicant has mentioned certain points within the draft assessment which would suggest that there is a current oversupply of sports hall provision, what is not mentioned is that according to Sport England’s FPM model both Page 64
Cascades and Cygnet are both operating in excess of 90 per cent used capacity.
It is also worth noting that the work to date only provides a global view of provision across the borough and what has not been considered is that the locations with capacity to meet additional demand are not within walking distance of Ebbsfleet, and the sites that are, are at capacity in many cases e.g. Cygnet for Badminton. What is also mentioned within the draft is that in the future based on participation increases and population increases will mean that additional halls will be required. This is probably even more important now that the BSF programme of works has been removed meaning that community access cannot be guaranteed or grown at sites that would have eventually had a formal community use agreement in place. The applicant does state that they have undertaken some market testing, albeit some time ago, but we have not been shown this evidence to weigh up whether it is indeed a usable piece of work in support of the findings from the Draft PPG17 Assessment.
Condition G14/G17 – This department has no specific objection to the change in the trigger amount from 200/350 to 500 units for a combined community centre/place of worship facility. However, as a general point we are concerned that there are so many triggers being moved which could in reality leave a new development (if stopped) with no real additional leisure/community facilities on site which then in turn puts pressure onto existing resources within the area.
Cemeteries & Amenities Manager , Gravesham Borough Council
This department has no specific objection to the change in the trigger amounts in relation to the provision of allotments on condition G8. There is a great demand for allotments in the borough and currently 146 people are on the waiting list for a plot albeit none from the development itself at this stage. Although people may prefer to have an allotment close to their home, there is no doubt that any new site could be fully tenanted from the current waiting list as soon as it becomes available.
Sport England
Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above application to vary conditions attached to planning permission GR/1996/35. I write further to my previous response, dated 29 April 2010, to the earlier application (Ref: 2010/0078) to vary condition G10.
It is our understanding that the application site does not constitute playing field land as defined in Article 10(2) the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (GDPO) 1995 (as amended by SI 1996/1817 and SI 2009/453). Therefore, Sport England has considered the application to vary the conditions in the light of its policy statement ‘Planning for Sport & Active Recreation: Objectives & Opportunities’. The overall thrust of the statement is that a planned approach to the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport is necessary in order to ensure the sport and recreational needs of local communities are met.
Page 65
With regards to sporting provision this current application proposes to vary condition G9 (Playing Fields) and condition G10 (Multi-Purpose Sports Centre). The variation sought to Condition G9 relates to setting back the trigger for the delivery of the initial area of playing field land (2.5ha) from prior to the occupation of the 200 th dwelling to the 450 th dwelling. In proposing this amendment, which it is noted is in line with the requested amendment to condition G8 – Allotments, the applicant cites difficulties with opening up the western part of the site until the southern end of the Phase II residential development has come forward.
Sport England is unaware of the full extent of these phasing difficulties and would therefore expect the Council to ensure that any such amendment would not adversely affect the delivery of sporting provision to meet the needs of the growing development.
However, Sport England does wish to raise a concern regarding the supporting text to condition G9 provided by the applicant in their covering letter. The first sentence implies that the initial area of playing field land will not comprise any formal playing pitches. The existing and proposed conditions do not appear to include any wording specifically excluding the provision of playing pitches. In addition, it is noted that the final sentence of the condition states that changing provision will be provided for each playing field site which it is assumed will serve formal playing pitch provision on each site. Given the definition of playing field land, set out in Article 10(2) of the GDPO (‘the whole of a site which encompasses at least one playing pitch’) Sport England would welcome clarification on this matter.
It is understood that the proposed variation to condition G10, similar to the variation proposed within the earlier application (Ref: 2010/0078), seeks to remove the requirement that the sports centre should include provision for at least eight badminton and three squash courts. In addition, the applicant proposes to insert the word ‘size’ in the last sentence of the condition.
Sport England notes the comments made by the applicant relating to the proposed minimum size of 600sqm for the sports centre. Consequently, we do not have any concern with inserting the word ‘size’ as requested in order to overcome this issue. However, we remain concerned with the proposed removal of reference to the provision of badminton and squash courts.
The applicant states that their market testing has indicated that restricting the sports centre to badminton and squash courts will potentially stifle interest from operators in the Ebbsfleet opportunity, which could delay delivery. However, the applicant does not appear to have provided any updated evidence relating to the sporting needs of the development which may suggest that such an amendment is appropriate. In addition, it is noted that the condition does not appear to necessarily restrict the provision in the centre to solely the badminton and squash court provision as indicated by the applicant.
To adhere to the reasoning for the condition any proposed amendment should clearly demonstrate that it will ensure adequate indoor sports facilities will be made available to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development. In line with our policy statement we would expect any proposed amendment to be clearly justified by a robust assessment of need. We are aware that your authority is currently undertaking a PPG17 ‘Open Space, Sport and Page 66
Recreation’ assessment. However, as this assessment is still in a draft form, and in the absence of any further evidence submitted by the applicant, it is Sport England’s opinion that the proposed variation of condition G10 has not been adequately justified.
Consequently, Sport England objects to the application to vary the conditions. Sport England would be willing to review this objection should further information be forthcoming which addresses the above concerns.
Kent Sports Development Unit
No comments received.
Planning Policy Manager, GBC
This application is for written agreement for variation of the following Planning Conditions on Planning Permission GR/1996/35 (as amended) to vary the timing triggers for the provision of the facilities specified below:
• Condition G1 - Pre-school Nursery
• Condition G2 - Primary School
• Condition G3 - Temporary Health Centre
• Condition G4 - Temporary Family Centre
• Condition G8 - Allotments
• Condition G9 - Playing Fields
• Condition G10 - Multipurpose Sports Centre
• Condition G14 - Community Centre
• Condition G17 - Place of Worship
Planning History
This is taken from the Ebbsfleet Baseline Report which was published to accompany the Reg. 25 Core Strategy and Development Management DPD consultation in January 2010.
• The original Ebbsfleet outline planning application, which straddles the boundary of both Gravesham and Dartford Boroughs, was originally submitted by Blue Circle Properties Ltd in January 1996 to both Councils (GBC reference GR/96/35 and DBC reference DA/96/47).
• On 18 December 1997, Dartford’s Development Control Sub- Committee approved the application subject to a S106 agreement, Page 67
planning conditions, Gravesham Borough Council reaching a similar decision on the part of the application within their Borough and reference to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan.
• On 21 November 2002, the legal agreement between the interested parties, including Gravesham Borough Council, Dartford Borough Council and Kent County Council, was concluded and the outline planning permission issued. http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/media/pdf/0/c/Ebbsfleet_Baseline_Report_D ec_2009web.pdf
No. of Facility to be Provided Units (Certain figures are minimums, please refer to decision notice GR/19960035 and subsequent amendments/decisions for precise information) 25 Local play area (0.2ha) 50 Neighbourhood play area (0.6ha), Local park (1ha), Allotment site (0.25ha) 150 Recycling/waste transfer facility 200 Pre school nursery, One form entry primary school, Temporary facility for 2 GPs, Temporary family centre, Playing field (2.5ha), Community centre (190sq m) 225 Local play area (0.2ha) 250 83 affordable units, 65 lifetime homes 350 Place of worship (250sq m, 0.5ha) 425 Local play area (0.2ha) 450 Allotment site (0.25ha) 500 Multipurpose sports centre (8 badminton courts, 3 squash courts, 600sq m, 1ha), 166 affordable units, 130 lifetime homes 600 Recycling/waste transfer facility 625 Local play area (0.2ha) 750 Local park (1ha), 249 affordable units, 195 lifetime homes, Adult education centre 800 Pre school nursery, One form entry primary school 825 Local play area (0.2ha) 850 Allotment site (0.25ha) 950 Recycling/waste transfer facility 1000 Permanent facility for up to 5 GPs, Permanent family centre, 332 affordable units, 260 lifetime homes, Place of worship (150sq m, 0.25ha), Library 1025 Local play area (0.2ha) 1050 Neighbourhood play area (0.6ha) 1100 Recycling/waste transfer facility 1200 Playing field (2.5ha) 1225 Local play area (0.2ha) 1250 Allotment site (0.25ha), 455 affordable units 1400 Pre school nursery, One form entry primary school 1425 Local play area (0.2ha) 1450 Local park (1ha) 1500 538 affordable units, 325 lifetime homes 1550 Recycling/waste transfer facility Page 68
1625 Local play area (0.2ha) 1700 Community centre (190sq m) 1825 Local play area (0.2ha) 2000 Local park (1ha), Playing field (2.5ha), 390 lifetime homes, Recycling/waste transfer facility 2025 Local play area (0.2ha) 2050 Neighbourhood play area (0.6ha)
A revised Quarter Master Plan for the Springhead Quarter was considered by Gravesham Borough Council’s Regulatory Board on 12 November 2008 xiv and approved by the Board on 14 January 2009 xv . The composite masterplan is shown in Figure 4 below. It shows the following floorspace:
Employment 32,000m 2 Residential 60,000m 2 (approx. 600 dwellings) Retail 500m 2 Community (residential 5,000m 2 supporting uses)* Core** 2,500m 2 Total 100,000m 2
*Residential supporting uses means retail, class D1 uses (non-residential institutions) such as medical and health centres, day nurseries, places of worship and class D2 uses (assembly and leisure) including sports halls, dance halls and gymnasiums. According to the applicants and subject to detailed design, the various uses are likely to be in the region of 2,000m 2 for the health centre, 1,540m2 for the place of worship/community centre and 1,401m2 for the primary school (if required)
**Core uses as defined in the original outline planning permission would include similar use classes as the residential supporting uses (retail, non- residential institutions and assembly and leisure but would also include hotels and A2- financial and professional-offices) although the applicants suggested that in the context of Springhead this would be principally sports centre floorspace.
A variation to Condition D11 was also approved on 14 January 2009, the revised condition reads as:
Within the Springhead Quarter, no more than the following amounts of dwellings shall be occupied until the following amounts of employment floorspace and open space have been completed and are available and ready for occupation or use in accordance with the provisions of this outline planning permission and any reserved matters approvals”
Residential Employment Open Space 300 dwellings -- 4 hectares 450 dwellings -- 6 hectares 500 dwellings 20,000 sq.m --
and subject to the following informative:-
Page 69
The applicants are advised that whilst the reduction in the quantum of employment floorspace within the Springhead Quarter is regretted they are reminded of the importance in bringing forward the delivery of employment floorspace within Ebbsfleet as a whole at any early stage in order for Ebbsfleet to achieve a balanced and sustainable approach towards the delivery of employment, housing and other services.
CONSIDERATIONS/KEY ISSUES
Fundamentally account needs to be given to the reasons why the conditions were imposed on planning permission GR1996/0035 and whether there is justification to vary these conditions. The conditions that the applicant is seeking to vary, are ‘daughter’ conditions to the ‘Master Plan Principles from the Ebssfleet Outline Planning Permission (as amended 2002)’, these conditions setout the sustainable principles that underpin the development and examples of these conditions include:
B1 (e) Moderation of car use and precedence for pedestrians and cyclists.
Moderation of car use and precedence for pedestrians and cyclists will be encouraged by the integration of land use planning and transportation to maintain accessibility whilst reducing the need for personal travel. Proposals should discourage the use of the private car by the use of urban design, car parking provision, traffic management and charging regimes. High capacity and high quality public transport systems will provide an attractive alternative to the private car and the provision of high quality interchanges will ensure that changing between different modes of transport will be attractive, convenient and secure. Footpaths and cycleways will be retained and enhanced within the valley and to surrounding areas. Cycling facilities, such as secure parking, will be provided at main centres of activity and at public transport nodes and interchanges.
Proposals should make provision for easy accessibility for the mobility impaired .
B1 (g) Community Development and Integration
The provision of good quality road, pedestrian, cycle and public transport links with surrounding areas will be required to achieve social integration with existing communities. The provision of social and community facilities will reflect the needs of existing communities and such facilities should be accessible to both existing and future communities.
The physical environment should be designed so as to be conducive to social inter action and the creation of a balanced community. The diverse nature of the project will provide opportunities for community involvement at many levels including schools, voluntary groups, local businesses etc.
Together with the conditions related to the quarter master plans and the delivery and mix (see below, quantum’s subsequently amended by permission granted on 14 January 2009) it can be clearly seen that Ebbsfleet as a development should not be seeking to be reliant upon Page 70
services that would primarily be accessed via private vehicles and that a mix of uses are needed as permitted to ensure that a high quality development is created where residential, economic, social and environmental needs are addressed in terms of residents and the daytime population so that they may have a high quality of life.
C. QUARTER MASTER PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED WITHIN EACH QUARTER
Development within Springhead Quarter
C7. The total amount of development in Springhead Quarter shall be up to but not exceeding an overall maximum of 100,000 sq. m. gross floor- space.
The total amount of development shall only be permitted where the full extent of the development footprint can be developed as referred to in condition C3 and shall be in compliance with condition 10.
Within this overall limit the range of uses shall not exceed:
a) 50,000 sq. m. gross of employment uses falling within Classes BI(a) (b) and (c) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).
b) 60,000 sq. m. gross (600 dwellings) of residential uses falling within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).
c) 10,000 sq. m. gross of residential supporting uses, including schools, community facilities and not more than a total of 500 sq. m. gross of local shops uses falling within Class Al of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) of not more than 500 gross sq. m. each
d) 1,500 sq. m. gross of core space including hotels, not more than a total of 500 sq. m. gross of leisure and/or entertainment uses falling within Classes D2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and not more than a total of 500 sq. m. gross of supporting retail uses falling within Class Al of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).
Reason: To prevent an over development of the site and to ensure that the uses within the site comply with the terms of the Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework.
D. QUANTITY AND MIX
General
D1 The spatial distribution of employment, residential, retail and leisure floor-space hereby permitted, as indicated in the Quarter Master Plans pursuant to Condition C6, shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
Page 71
Reason: To ensure that an appropriate balance and mix of uses is provided throughout the site.
Location of Retail/Leisure Floor-space
D7 Any retail and/or leisure and/or entertainment floor-space comprised within the development shall be so located as to:
a) serve primarily the residential and working populations living and working within the development
b) facilitate linked trips
c) help achieve the overall aim of reducing reliance on the car for shopping and/or leisure trips
d) demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 6 "Town Centres and Retail Developments", dated June 1996, or other guidance that may subsequently amend or replace it.
Reason: To ensure that retail and leisure floor-space is conveniently located to serve the development and to comply with the terms of the Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework.
Mixed Development - Springhead Quarter
D 11. Within the Springhead Quarter, no more than the following amounts of dwellings shall be occupied until the following amounts of employment floorspace and open space have been completed and are available and ready for occupation or use in accordance with the provisions of this outline planning permission and any reserved matters approvals.
Residential Employment Open Space 300 dwellings 10,000 sq.m. 4 hectares 450 dwellings 20,000sq.m. 6 hectares
Reason: To ensure a balanced provision of commercial and residential development and open space over time and to achieve a mixed and sustainable development.
The reasoning for the conditions and overriding principles for Ebbsfleet are clear, the development as a whole and each respective quarter in part should deliver a balanced and sustainable development. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect the applicant to produce an appraisal accompanying changes to daughter conditions, that show the impact of changes upon the overarching principles of Ebbsfleet akin to Sustainability Appraisal, together with an assessment to show the impact of changes being sought upon various agreed frameworks and strategies for Ebbsfleet, such as the ‘Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework’.
With respect of the variations being sought and the explanation given by the applicant, two overriding comments are: Page 72
• Evidence or rather lack of it
o Covering letter page 2 – explains that the imminent triggers need to be altered immediately and then it advises that this may be because “a) There is no demand/need/justification for the facility at the trigger point presently set”
o No evidence has been provided to justify the above statement.
o We would have expected that the applicants, with the assistance of relevant agencies such as KCC, PCT, etc as required, would have provided Gravesham Borough Council with supporting evidence for the proposed changes so that a clear and transparent consideration of this application could be made
• Delivery concerns – as there is no time limit on the conditions Land Securities could develop just under a key trigger e.g. 499 dwellings and this would result in there being no mechanism for the required infrastructure to be provided. It would be more appropriate for the conditions to be re-written along the lines of “No more then XX dwellings shall be occupied within the application site as a whole before XX has been constructed, completed and available for use. Should the trigger not be reached by XX then a proportionate contribution will be required.”
o An alternative approach would be for a CIL equivalent local tariff just for the site to be created where the developer pays into the pot for every piece of development that is started and then this is periodically drawn down to deliver infrastructure as required
o However when considering conditions that include time constraints, consideration will need to be given to the CLG consultation document “Improving the use and discharge of planning conditions: Consultation” advises “CO9.7 Conditions requiring the developer to obtain approval of reserved matters within a stated period should not be used, since the timing of an approval is not within the developer’s control.” Therefore care would be needed to ensure that the revised condition wording is enforceable and legal.
In respect of each specific variation being sought by the applicant:
G1 Education – pre school nurseries
Change Sought
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a pre- school nursery shall be constructed and completed and available for use at the same time as the Primary School required by Condition G2 (b).
Reason why change is being sought Page 73
KCC have identified that fewer child care places are needed and that the delivery model should be one where the pre-school is built with the primary school.
Planning Policy Comment
The 2002 decision notice advises that the reason for the imposition of condition G1 is:
• To ensure that adequate pre school nursery facilities (within the said application site as a whole) are available to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development
The original condition envisages that the Ebbsfleet development would generate the need for three pre-school nurseries at 200, 800 and 1,400 occupations. The BWP letter dated 26 August 2010 accompanying the application now advises that “the pre-school nursery requirement has reduced reflecting a change in both the way that child generation figures are calculated but also in the way that KCC delivers it services“ and that KCC has confirmed that the “Ebbsfleet development will only generate a requirement for one full-time (52 part-time) place pre school nursery” but no evidence is provided for this.
Firstly we are unclear about the type of pre-school provision that KCC is referring to. We assume that it is a “maintained nursery” which are linked to a primary schools (such as is the case at Wrotham Road, Dover Road, St John’s Whitehill and Raynehurst primary schools in Gravesend/Northfleet) which only provides care for three and four year olds for 5x 2.5 hr sessions per week in term-time between 9:00 - 15:15. KCC also maintains Northfleet Nursery as a stand alone Kent County Council fully funded nursery but this is unique in Kent.
It is not clear from the condition whether this rather limited KCC pre school nursery facility is that which was envisaged rather than the birth to five 8am-6pm type of nursery that is the norm for private providers.
It is therefore highly questionable whether a KCC “maintained nursery” will “meet the needs of the occupiers of the development”.
“Occupiers” is also an interesting term in this context when a significant component of Ebbsfleet is intended for employment and it is reasonable to assume that some of the expected workers will also have childcare requirements. In the interest of maximising multi-functional trips and reducing the need to travel, advisable to have nursery provision on site that can also met these needs. A number of the key M4/M3 corridor major employment sites include nursery provision e.g. Thames Valley Park (http://www.thamesvalleypark.com/flash.html ), Greenpark which is located adjacent to Junction 11 of the M4 (http://www.greenpark.co.uk/#/amenities/on-site-amenities/child-base ) and Oxford Business Park (http://www.oxfordbusinesspark.com/library/documents/2109.pdf ).
No evidence has been provided to show how and why the population profile at Ebbsfleet has changed and will continue to change from the Page 74
granting of the revised masterplan in January 2009. In addition no evidence is provided to identify whether sufficient capacity exists within accessible existing pre-school nurseries to meet demand from Ebbsfleet in the absence of timely at Ebbsfleet itself. The change being sought results in a pre-school nursery being constructed and completed and available for use when no more than 500 residential units are occupied within the application site as a whole. However this fails to ensure that adequate pre-school nursery provision exist within the application site of Ebbsfleet to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development, which is the reasoning behind the condition. Finally, the condition in its present wording does not limit the operator of the pre-school nurseries to KCC, therefore it would not be unreasonable to have expected the applicant to have marketed pre-school nurseries to alternative providers such as the private sector to see if sufficient demand existed to deliver pre-school nurseries in keeping with the agreed condition.
G2 Education - primary schools
Change Sought
To vary part 'a' of Condition G2 by changing the figure from 200 to 500 residential units Parts 'b' and 'c', of Condition G2 will remain as set out above, the revised G2(a) condition to be: a) no more than 500 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Borough of Dartford and Gravesham) until a one form entry primary school (or Its equivalent) has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use and;…
Reason why change is being sought
KCC have confirmed to the applicant that they do not anticipate a requirement for a single form entry Primary School at 200 occupations, future requirements at 800 and 1400 occupations still stand. Another reason is that the process for creating a school entity as set out in the Education Act statutory process has not been started, and the relatively low build rate at Springhead will not generate sufficient children to warrant the statutory process being initiated. However to address an anticipated shortfall in places at 500 occupations identified by KCC, the applicant proposes to push the trigger for the first one form entry primary school provision to be pushed forward from 200 to 500 occupations.
Planning Policy Comment
The 2002 decision notice advises that the reason for the imposition of condition G2 is:
• To ensure that adequate educational facilities (within the said application site as a whole) are available to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development
The original condition envisages that the Ebbsfleet development would generate the need for three one form entry (1FE) primary schools at 200, 800 and 1,400 occupations. Page 75
Issue 1: Provision of 1FE primary school by occupation of 200 th unit
The BWP letter dated 26th August 2010 accompanying the application now advises that “KCC have confirmed that it would not now anticipate delivering a single form of entry Primary School at 200 occupations as there would be insufficient children arsing from the development to justify the opening of a school. The requirement for a form of entry at 800 occupations and a further form of entry at 1,400 occupations still stands.”
Whilst it is noted that the applicant is not disputing the need to make provision for three one form primary schools or their equivalents, the applicant is seeking to setback the delivery of the first one form primary school from 200 occupations to 500 occupations to address the practicalities of delivering a primary school and so that provision is in line with occupations of dwellings and population demand. Whilst it is appreciated that the delay in initiating the process for the creation of a single form entry primary school will impact on the delivery of the initial single form entry primary school at 200 occupations, the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to show how the slower build rate at Springhead changes the population profile which reduces the demand for primary school places. In addition the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to show that sufficient capacity exists at accessible primary schools outside of the site, to address shortfalls as a result in the delay of provision within Ebbsfleet itself until the proposed new delivery timeframe of the first single form entry primary school at 500 occupations. For example in accessibility terms the closest primary school to Springhead Quarter (the only part of Ebbsfleet where development is currently taking place) is St Joseph’s Roman Catholic School, yet no information is provided as to whether or not capacity exists at this school to meet the needs of Ebbsfleet residents up to 500 occupations.
Primary school provision also needs to be considered in the context of the recent media interest in primary school provision in Gravesham and Dartford (“Crisis is looming in Gravesham unless we boost classroom places” http://www.gravesendreporter.co.uk/news/crisis_is_looming_in_gravesham _unless_we_boost_classroom_places_1_659768#sharinganchor )
Following a request to KCC, Simon Webb, Area Education Officer (KCC West Kent) provided a copy of the paper written by David Adams in July 2009, which is referred to as an internal KCC report; and his response Gravesham and Dartford Headteachers a few days after the article was written.
This internal report identifies explains that in the primary sector, 527 children were allocated places at schools not included in their preferences. The hot spots were:
• Sevenoaks - (Riverhead Infants and Sevenoaks Primary were oversubscribed). 34 children were allocated alternative schools. In 12 cases the alternative school was more than two miles from the family home.
Page 76
• Northfleet - four schools were heavily oversubscribed, resulting in 30 children being allocated alternative schools. For nine pupils the school allocated was more than two miles from their home.
• Swanscombe – The main school, Manor Road Primary, was oversubscribed, resulting in 11 children being allocated more distant schools (five over two miles away).
The letter to Dartford and Gravesham Headteachers includes the following:
We have other strategies in place for 2011 to increase the size of other primary schools, if required, including continuing negotiations with Land Securities in preparation for the expected development across the Ebbsfleet Valley, beginning within the Springhead Quarter
Therefore as there is already capacity problems in Northfleet and in the absence of any information to the contrary, it would appear that a new school is required at Springhead.
Notwithstanding KCC’s preference for a primary school to be located within Station Quarter South, a 1 FE (or 2FE) primary could and should be provided in Springhead Quarter.
Whilst we are aware that KCC prefers the provision of a 2FE, Kent County Council’s Planning Application Committee on 11 May 2010 permitted the construction of a proposed one form entry primary school to be developed in one phase with all the external facilities including, playgrounds, sports field and parking at open ground situated to the north of the B2231 Leysdown Road, close to the junction with Warden Bay Road, Leysdown-on-Sea, Sheerness (SW/09/1215) http://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=11162
Issue 2: Provision of a hybrid 1FE / 2FE
It is worth drawing attention to what KCC is promoting at the Repton Park development in Ashford as this is also a growth area. The below extract taken from the invitation to bid is very much what Gravesham members and officers envisage as the type of development that is wanted at Springhead.
The new school will be built in the early stages of the Repton Park development and will secure a sustainable community through developing and maintaining a range of extended services in this locality (ranging from childcare through the on-site nursery to study support, out of hours clubs, adult learning and signposting to other support services). It will be a school at the heart of its community. The school site adjoined by land set aside for other community facilities (community hall, playing field, and health facility). Proposals that seek to integrate these facilities to provide a cohesive community provision would be welcomed.
In order to achieve the opening date of September 2010 the Local Authority will commission the building of the school. It will be built as a 1FE (hybrid) school. This means it will have the necessary central Page 77
infrastructure to enable it to expand through the addition of classrooms to 2FE as and when the pupil demand requires. The site and the capital costs of this development have been provided by the Developer. The estimated capital costs of providing the 1FE school and nursery will be £3m. The remaining developer contributions may be used at a later date to enable expansion to 2FE subject to demand. http://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=3897
A 1FE primary school is also proposed at the Goat Lees Estate, Ashford. In February 2010 Kent County Council issued a Public Notice inviting proposals for a new primary school. The public notice expired on 14 June 2010. Two proposals were received from (i) Ashford Baptist Church and (ii) Ashford Primary Headteachers Collaboration. This is still an active proposal as it was taken to KCC’s School Organisation Advisory Board – 10 September 2010 http://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13302
Issue 3: Importance of early school provision
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation entitled “Mixed communities: Success and sustainability” (http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/0176.pdf ) highlights the very important role that school provision can have for building successful mixed income communities. This research highlights that most mixing across social groups takes place between children. It is these contacts – in nurseries, playgroups, schools and in public spaces – that provide opportunities for adults to meet and form relationships. Children provide a common ground and shared interest between people in different tenures. People with children have a high stake in the success of a neighbourhood and the quality of its services. The study concludes that to succeed, properly mixed income communities need adequate investment. For new developments physical and social infrastructure must be on site before the first residents move in, and this is especially important for schools.
A report on emerging good practice Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New Settlements TCPA Published March 2007 raises similar issues and on page 25 it says “activity-generating uses are also vital in promoting successful mixed-use areas: in Hampton Vale, the primary school and neighbourhood centre create this focus”.
It is also important to recognise the marketing benefits of primary school provision. St Marys Island is marketed as an exclusive residential development within access of the Chatham Historic Dockyard. Once part of the old Royal Dockyard it has since been developed into residential community that benefits from its own primary school , doctors, pharmacy, 24 hour mobile security and CCTV. The Island bunds riverside walks and cycle paths to provide open space for families while the play areas and playgrounds provides children with a pleasant environment to play (http://www.stmarysisland.uk.com/island-living/facilities/school-and-church 2 FE + http://www.your-move.co.uk/property-for-sale/woodrush-place-st.- marys-island-chatham-me4-sale-id-527525498 )
Issue 4: Alternative option “Free school provision”
Page 78
A key component of the Coalition Government’s educational provision is facilitating the creation of free schools. Free Schools are all-ability, state- funded schools, set up in response to parental demand. Free schools are much more common on the continent and in the US where charitable trusts and private business have been involved in setting up and running schools.
The Secretary of State for Education has written to all local authorities setting out the Department's new policy on Free Schools http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/l/letter%20from%20the%20s ecretary%20of%20state%20to%20las%20introducing%20free%20schools. pdf
The CLG press notice and the Secretary of State’s announcement on removing planning barriers (schools) raises a number of issues that are worthy of note when considering this application:
(http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/planningandbuilding/1622534 1 + http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100726/ wmstext/100726m0001.htm#1007264000446 )
• It is important, however, for local planning authorities to have a clear policy framework for the decisions they take locally. Through this statement, therefore, I wish to underline that, in determining planning applications, local authorities should:
• attach very significant weight to the desirability of establishing new schools and to enabling local people to do so;
• adopt a positive and constructive approach towards applications to create new schools, and seek to mitigate any negative impacts of development through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations, as appropriate; and
• only refuse planning permission for a new school if the adverse planning impacts on the local area outweigh the desirability of establishing a school in that area.
• Local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate should take this statement into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications, where it is relevant to do so.
• If a local authority nevertheless refuses permission on this basis, the Government will ask the Planning Inspectorate to deal swiftly with any appeal that is lodged.
• These changes to the planning system will allow school promoters to be confident about moving their proposals forward quickly. We expect them to work collaboratively with local authorities to take advantage of the opportunities to benefit local communities, while ensuring sustainable solutions.
Page 79
Therefore KCC are no longer the only potential provider of adequate educational facilities to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development and GBC needs to consider whether this condition should remain even if KCC does not change its position on the provision of a school at Springhead.
G3 Healthcare
Change Sought
To vary condition G3 to remove the requirement for a temporary healthcare facility at Springhead, and for the need to deliver a permanent facility be modified so that it is linked to market requirements and a health impact assessment.
Reason why change is being sought
The local Primary Care Trust have indicated that a temporary facility is not needed at Ebbsfleet due to capacity existing at the Vale Road surgery and due to funding constraints that they have to work within. However a surgery will be needed prior to 1,000 occupations at Ebbsfleet due to the Vale Road surgery’s capacity being taken up by natural population growth and other developments.
Planning Policy Comment
The facility at Vale Road comprises the White Horse Surgery and Walk-In Centre. It provides:
• A walk-in service 8am – 8pm, seven days a week run by local GPs and nurses; and
• A new GP practice (White Horse Surgery) which will grow to meet the needs of the expanding population as required by the Equitable Access Agenda.
The new practice is currently based in temporary accommodation, with the permanent building due to be completed in 2011. The walk-in centre initially has six new GPs and two nurse practitioners with a capacity for 6,000 registered patients over five years. The practice will be able to register patients living within the boundaries of Gravesend, Northfleet and Swanscombe and is currently accepting new patients. The walk-in centre is open to the wider locality. ( http://www.whitehorsesurgery.co.uk/ )
The Design and Access statements for both the temporary and permanent facility ( http://docs.gravesham.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00019030.pdf and http://docs.gravesham.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00022252.pdf ) referred to the Lord Darzi Report and stated that:
“despite sustained investment and improvement in the NHS over the past ten years, access to primary medical care services and the quality of those services, continues to vary significantly across the country. Many of the poorest communities experience the worst health outcomes and major inequalities exist within England. The Equitable Access to Primary Page 80
Medical Care programme plays a significant role in achieving more personalised care set out by Lord Darzi through the provision of new facilities in key areas.”
It was proposed that a new facility be constructed with scope for delivery of the requirements set out in the Equitable Access to Primary Medical Care program. They do not state that any additional GP provision is intended to serve new development in the area.
The West Kent Primary Care Trust Strategic Services Development Plan March 2008 ( http://www.westkentpct.nhs.uk/download.php?id=849 ) states that, for Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley:
“Investment is required to increase the overall provision of primary care services to meet the projected increase in population, as the current practices will be unable to accommodate this in their current premises. The creation of a new Primary HealthCare Centre (as part of the National Equitable Access Policy) will provide additional capacity and assist in tackling a range of other issues, but additional capacity will be required above and beyond this.”
Whilst this indicates that the Centre is intended to provide some additional capacity to meet the projected increase in population (N.B. population increases are not simply a result of new development), this does not absolve developers of the requirement to meet the infrastructure needs of the occupiers of their developments.
At a meeting in 2008, West Kent NHS Primary Care Trust (PCT) indicated that there are on average 2,000 patients per GP in the area, compared to a national average of 1,800 patients per GP. They indicated that they were working towards achieving the national average figure. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the White Horse Surgery and Walk-In Centre at Vale Road are primarily intended to improve medical facilities for existing residents .
There is also a proposal to relocate the existing Forge and Gateway existing practices onto the site as part of an extended health campus. The two practices currently provide services from Hunt Road, Granby Place and the Age Concern building in Coldharbour Road. The Granby Place surgery is not currently accepting new patients.
No evidence has been provided by the applicant and/or the PCT as to the capacity available at Vale Road surgery as a temporary facility or permanent facility to meet the needs of the resident or daytime population of Ebbsfleet until permanent provision is made within Ebbsfleet itself.
It should be noted that the PCT utilise the HUDU model to set out its requirement from new development. It would therefore follow that this model should be utilised to set out the PCT’s requirements for Ebbsfleet. In addition to this, the applicant mentions the possibility to undertake a HIA (Health Impact Assessment) at various intervals. However, it should be noted that a HIA is a tool utilised to consider the health impacts of a proposal upon a given population. The systematic analysis includes considering people and their lifestyles, community, local economy, activities, built environment and natural environment. HIAs in essence are Page 81
not intended to address the need for particular health care provision within a development, but are intended to consider the development as a whole and how development proposals will impact upon the physical and mental health of occupants, daytime workers and visitors. It would therefore follow that it would be more appropriate for a complete HIA to be undertaken at an earlier stage and for it to be monitored at regular intervals. In any case it should not be utilised as the sole determining factor for provision of GP care at Ebbsfleet.
G4 Social Services
Change Sought
To remove the requirement for delivering a temporary family centre and to tie the delivery of a permanent family centre with provision for a primary school.
Reason why change is being sought
Changes to the manner in which KCC deliver the service means that KCC no longer provision of a temporary facility and that KCC deliver permanent family centre provision within primary schools.
Planning Policy Comment
Changes to the manner in which KCC deliver preventative care and the applicants desire to meet the changing service model of KCC fails to take into account the needs and requirements of residents of Ebbsfleet. No evidence has been provided as to what the needs of the occupiers of Ebbsfleet will be, or how this need will be met in the interim period prior to any potential delivery of a family centre with a primary school. In addition to this no evidence has been provided by the applicant to show the changing requirements of KCC.
G8 Open Space and Sports Facilities - allotments
Change Sought
To amend conditions G8a and G8b so that an allotment site of at least 0.5ha in size is provided.
Reason why change is being sought
The area where the allotment site is to be provided is not practically deliverable until phase 2 of Springhead Quarter is started.
Planning Policy Comment
Whilst the applicant has left G8a and G8b as separate conditions, the change being sort effectively results in both G8a and G8b (at least 0.25 ha of allotment space for each condition, therefore at least 0.5ha of allotment space in combination) being delivered at 450 occupations, the remaining conditions G8c and G8d are left unchanged.
Page 82
The applicant has argued that it is not practical to deliver an allotment of 0.25ha at 200 occupations, due to phasing of development at Springhead. However the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to show why an allotment of 0.25ha cannot be provided until 450 occupations. Penn Green will provide 2.5 acres (approximately one hectare) to residents of Ebbsfleet, however to meet existing conditions (D11) a further three hectares of open space will need to be provided by 300 occupations, therefore it is reasonable to assume that a large portion if not all of this formal open space would be provided at the site identified for the Linear Park (as set out by the Springhead Master Plan http://www.springheadpark.co.uk/index.php?public/springhead- park/master-plan ), therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the applicant would need to deliver access to the Linear Park at or prior to 300 occupations, which would also allow for earlier delivery of the initial 0.25 ha of allotment space.
Furthermore, research published by NLGN (http://www.nlgn.org.uk/public/2009/can-you-dig-it-meeting-community- demand-for-allotments/ ) in September 2009 shows that there is growing demand for allotments even though supply has decreased and that the provision of allotments and there use has health benefits in the form of aerobic exercise and greater consumption of fruit and vegetables.
At minimum the applicant should have consulted the Council’s Housing and Environment Directorate to identify the total number of people on waiting lists for allotments, data published by the Council in February 2010 show’s that the Council managed 14 allotment sites, which provided 293 plots and that 150 people were on waiting lists and seeking an allotment. As a result the applicant cannot deduce that the loss of an allotment translates into lack of demand for allotments.
G9 Open Space and Sports Facilities - Playing Fields
Change Sought
To delay delivery of a playing field of at least 2.5 hectares from 200 occupations to 450 occupations.
Reason why change is being sought
It is not practical to deliver the playing fields until western part of Springhead comes forward as part of Phase II.
Planning Policy Comment
The applicant again argues that it is not practical to deliver at least 2.5 hectares of playing fields until 450 occupations, as the masterplan is not being changed and in keeping with comments above for G8, the applicant has failed to provide any evidence as to why playing fields cannot be delivered at 200 occupations as currently agreed. For example, if it is not viable to put the relevant infrastructure in place until 450 occupations rather than 200 occupations, where is the evidence to support this?
Page 83
The applicant has also failed to identify, how the needs of the residents will be met until the playing fields are delivered if the condition is changed.
G10 Open Space and Sports Facilities - Multipurpose Sports Centre
Change Sought
Remove restricting the leisure centre to badminton and squash courts.
Reason why change is being sought
Limiting the provision at the leisure centre will stifle interest from potential operators and sufficient supply exists to meet demand for badminton and squash in the Borough. Furthermore the current space standard set eight badminton courts and three squash courts in a 600 sq m area is not deliverable due to badminton and squash court standards requiring floor areas that result in 158-189 sq m area for a badminton court and 74 sq m for a squash court.
Planning Policy Comment
Whilst the applicant is not seeking to remove the requirement for or delivery of a sport facility, the applicant is seeking to remove the requirement for eight badminton courts and three squash courts. First of all it should be noted that it is appreciated that eight badminton courts and three squash courts cannot be provided within a centre of 600 sq m, however the 600 sq m is a minimum area requirement, therefore the applicant should not be limiting provision to 600 sq m. Badminton England (the sports governing body http://www.badmintonengland.co.uk/text.asp?section=153§ionTitle=Fa cilities ) advise that a court layout that can accommodate both singles and double matches should be 6.1m x 14.723m and the World Squash Federation (the sports governing body http://www.worldsquash.org/ws/wp- content/uploads/2010/06/courtspecs.pdf ) advise that a squash court layout for singles should be 6.4m x 9.75m and for doubles should be 7.62m x 9.75m. The court sizes provided by Sport England for Badminton include outside safety run offs (as shown in table 1 provided by the applicant).
In addition to this it is possible to provide a multifunctional sports centre where the badminton courts can also be used for indoor football, basketball, cricket, etc. Therefore the inclusion of badminton and squash within the condition does not limit the applicant’s ability to market the sports centre for additional sports.
In terms of existing provision, it should be noted that the existing sports centre at Cygnet is more than 1km away from Ebbsfleet and that it already operates above comfortable capacity, which means it would not be appropriate to expect Cygnet to meet the needs of Ebbsfleet residents for badminton. In addition utilisation rates for squash at Cygnet Leisure Centre suggest that usage is close to ‘comfortable capacity’, again this would mean that it would not be appropriate to expect Cygnet to meet the needs of Ebbsfleet residents for squash. In addition it should be noted that this new centre is intended to offer facilities for both residents and the Page 84
daytime population of Springhead and the wider Ebbsfleet, therefore it would be prudent for the applicant to consider the needs of both the residential and daytime population, as to deliver a high quality office development as part of Ebbsfleet will require high quality supporting facilities that meet the needs of the individuals that work in the employment aspect of the development.
Furthermore encouraging the use of facilities in other parts of the Borough fails to recognise the requirement to create a sustainable and inclusive development at Ebbsfleet, that caters for the need of both the residents of the development as well as future workers and visitors.
It would be more appropriate for the applicant to identify what the market would want to deliver in terms of a sports centre at Ebbsfleet for the resident and daytime population of Ebbsfleet and to provide this evidence to the Council.
G14 Community Centre
Change Sought
To delay delivery of the community centre to 500 occupations from 200 occupations.
Reason why change is being sought
The construction programme to deliver the community centre is tied to the place of worship, and the combined programme extends beyond the existing 200 occupations.
Planning Policy Comment
Whilst the need to modify the condition (G14a) is noted, the applicant has failed to identify how the needs of existing residents will be met due to delays to the construction and completion of the community centre. In terms of the varying the condition, it would seem more appropriate for the condition to be reworded so that it takes on board the applicant initiating construction of the facility and the delivery timetable for construction, rather than linking final delivery to the occupation of residential dwellings. Therefore it would be appropriate for the condition to be reworded from: a) No more than 200 residential units, shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a community centre of at least 190 sq.m. in floor-space has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use and to a) No more than 200 residential units, shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until construction on a community centre of at least 190 sq.m. in floor-space has (within the said application site as a whole) been commenced, no more than 500 residential units, shall be occupied until the community centre being completed and available for use and Page 85
G17 Places of Worship
Change Sought As G14a
Reason why change is being sought As G14a
Planning Policy Comment As G14a
General comments on accessibility to services The conditions for the planning permission at Ebbsfleet cover the entire site (both the respective parts of Ebbsfleet that fall in Dartford and Gravesham). The development as permitted provides for a mixed use development which provides for high quality employment uses and residential dwellings with services to meet the needs of both the resident population and daytime working population including visitors. Therefore it is pertinent to address the needs of both current and future occupants of Ebbsfleet as a whole and not only focus on the residential component at Springhead (phase 1 and 2).
However taking the development that has taken place and is currently scheduled (namely that at Springhead), one can clearly see that unless services are provided on site and within Ebbsfleet itself, both the resident and daytime populations of Springhead and the wider Ebbsfleet development will find it difficult to access services off site without the use of private vehicles. It should also be noted that not providing services on site at Ebbsfleet results in a detrimental impact to the sustainability of the development in part and as a whole, and detracts from its value. This also results in a change in terms of the overriding principles that underpin the development, which the applicant has not asked to be changed, but which through the modifications being sought will not be delivered or not delivered in a manner and to the extent agreed by members of both Gravesham and Dartford.
An accessibility map produced utilising the existing highways network (please see below) shows services within 1km from two points. One is within the central point of Springhead and the other from the entrance to Springhead from Springhead Road. As the map clearly show’s accessibility to services within the immediate vicinity is poor, with the only accessible service being available being the Sainsbury’s store at Pepperhill. Therefore relying upon provision elsewhere much of which maybe at or reaching capacity as additional demand is placed upon it from Ebbsfleet would be inappropriate.
Kent County Council (Development Investment, Regeneration & Economy Division)
As you know, KCC has been in discussions for some time with Land Securities (LS) to negotiate a reconfigured package of S106 Contributions for Ebbsfleet, in order to meet the needs of the new community and one that is Page 86
adapted to the way in which KCC now delivers its services. In KCC's opinion, this letter on the whole does not reflect fully those discussions and this should be noted as it is of concern and calls into question the intention of LS to deliver in a timely manner the appropriate infrastructure.
With regard to Condition G1 Pre-Schools , KCC has not confirmed that the requirement for Pre-School Nurseries has reduced and that Ebbsfleet now only produces a need for one Pre-School Nursery. Neither has KCC changed the way in which its pupil generation figures are calculated. KCC has requested the reconfiguration of the total package to provide for 1 No. Pre- School Nursery, as KCC generally only provides for new Pre-School Nurseries where a new Primary School is required. In addition, where an extension has been requested at Dover Road Primary School, there is already in place a Pre-School Nursery which KCC would look to utilise for this development.
Condition G2 Primary Schools
With regards to the Agreement Sought to vary part 'a', it should be noted that what is being requested is not in accordance with the negotiations that we are having at present with Land Securities. KCC had requested that part 'a' is varied to reflect the provision of a 0.5FE extension (105 Pupil Places) off-site at the Dover Road Primary School at 500 Occupations or such other date as agreed with the Education Authority/Education Review Group, if created. However, time has now moved on and KCC would wish to see the following trigger for this first delivery of school places: Part ‘a’ should be varied to reflect the provision of a 0.5 FE Extension (105 places) off- site at Dover Road Primary School, Gravesham at 350 Occupations or by September 2013 (which ever is the earliest), or such other date as agreed by KCC as the education authority.
Because of market uncertainty and a potential rush of demand when the market recovers KCC would wish to be on the front foot and have school places available when required. This is in addition to the fact that Springhead with its 152 occupations has already resulted in 58 primary aged children which is in excess of the 0.28 Pupil Product Rate used by the County Council. As such, surrounding primary schools are being placed under increasing pressure for places and the Dover Road extension will be required before the 500 trigger.
Parts 'b' and 'c' should be merged to reflect the requirement for the provision of a new 2FE Primary School on-site by 800 occupations or such other date as agreed with the Education Authority/Education Review Group, if created, with a phased opening (in accordance with demand), again as per our negotiations with Land Securities.
Condition G4 Social Services
Barton Willmore has noted in its 'background' to this variation that they understood the 'Family Centre' in the original S106 related to preventative care for children and was known as a Multi Agency Social Care Facility (MASCF). This is not the case. When the original S106 was signed, KCC's Social Services Directorate was a combined function, looking after both adults and children. Therefore, Barton Wilmore/Land Securities's understanding of the facility is incorrect. Page 87
In addition, it is not the case that KCC 'no longer requires' the temporary family centre, rather that we are trying to assist the Development Industry, respond to changing provision needs and avoiding temporary facilities where possible. What KCC is looking to deliver is a MASCF within the new 2FE Primary School on-site (at 800 occupations) or such other date as agreed with the Education Authority/Education Review Group, if created, which will service the needs of children, plus a separate on-site day care facility for older care and adults with learning & physical disabilities, (also at 800 occupations, or such other date as agreed with the KCC).
Condition G10
Within Barton Willmore's supporting documentation (25 August 2010) 'Justification and rationale for changing condition G10' it mentions education training (in the form of the Reynolds Group). However, there is no specific mention of Condition G18 Adult Education in this section, as has been the form of discussions between KCC and Land Securities, to which you have been a party. In negotiations Land Securities has asked if KCC’s Adult Education would be prepared to utilise space within the proposed Reynolds building. KCC has confirmed that it would be prepared to under certain conditions. Failing that, KCC would look to deliver Adult Education out of the proposed on-site community campus, subject to LS meeting costs.
Kent County Council, Director of Social Services
No comments received.
NHS West Kent Primary Care Trust (Response sent to Dartford Borough Council)
NHS West Kent has no objection to this Proposed Variation to Condition G3 in respect of Health Care Provision, save for one fundamental comment.
NHS West Kent originally sought Section 106 contributions to cover the likely revenue costs, generated by this development, until the NHS Funding Allocation process takes account of the new population and mainstream funding takes over. This is assessed to be a period of three years from the housing units coming on stream.
This approach is supported by paragraph B19 of Circular 5/05 which states:
‘Where contributions to the initial support (‘pump priming’) of new facilities are necessary, these should reflect the time lag between the provision of the new facility and its inclusion in public sector funding streams.’
NHS West Kent accepts that in the time since the original s106 was drafted that a number of factors have changed and that, whilst we still hold to the requirement for Developers to contribute to ‘mitigate’ the effects of their development, we share a joint desire to ensure that health resources are effectively and efficiently used. Page 88
In this case, following the development by NHSWK of the White Horse Centre, which was not planned at the time of the original s106, that we do not necessary insist on the provision of a 5 x GP facility on the Springhead site unless an HIA indicates that this is necessary, as some of the health need, which ‘falls-out’ from this housing development may have been taken up by the additional capacity provided by the White Horse Centre.
Notwithstanding, whilst we may not need a GP facility of the same size on the Springhead site, we will still need to meet the funding shortfall to cover the revenue cost implications of meeting the healthcare need of the new population within the White Horse facility.
Therefore, and in accordance with our notes of the London meeting with the Developers, we would expect a further Condition, G3: item j , to the effect of:
“that where the conditions of item (i,) prevail, that the developer shall pay instead the sum of £720,000 over the following three years by annual instalments”.
I would be grateful if you would consider adding this item to the proposed Variation.
Dartford Borough Council
No comments received.
Lafarge Cement UK
No comments received.
Union Railways Property
No comments received.
Publicity
The owners/occupiers of 483 dwellings were notified of the proposal including all newly occupied dwellings on Springhead Park.
No representations have been received.
7. Service Manager (Development Control) Comments
This application to vary the timing triggers relating to the submission of and delivery of community facilities and social provision required under the terms and conditions of the original outline planning application for the mixed use development at Ebbsfleet has been submitted to both this Council and Dartford Borough Council for approval. Page 89
The application has not to date been determined by Dartford Borough Council although it is understood that their application will be determined at officer level.
The applicants have indicated that under the specific wording of the various planning conditions the “variation” of the various triggers requires only the written agreement of the two planning authorities rather than requiring variations to the planning conditions and therefore would not result in the issuing of completely new revised outline planning permission for the Ebbsfleet development under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Many of the planning conditions that were imposed on the outline planning permission for the Ebbsfleet development required the provision of various infrastructure or the provision of various facilities including community facilities such as education provision, sports facilities, playing fields, health care provision etc at certain thresholds of development such that these facilities had to be provided before the residential development could go beyond a specified amount.
In respect of the thresholds these vary for different types of facilities and there might be a requirement for more than one facility at different thresholds of the development.
The justification for pushing back the thresholds of residential development by which certain community facilities are provided in simplistic terms is because there is considered by the applicants and developers, Land Securities, to be no demand or need for the particular facilities at the various trigger points presently set although underlying the changes has been the current economic recession and in turn the much slower rate of development at Ebbsfleet than was ever anticipated.
Apart from the provision of related infrastructure the only development on the ground at Ebbsfleet since the outline planning permission was granted in 2002 has been the residential development within the Springhead Quarter of the Ebbsfleet development with residential development of the first phase of Springhead at Springhead Park having commenced following detailed planning appraisal in 2006. To date Countryside Properties as the joint venture partner have constructed over 170 dwellings which are completed and occupied and a further 30 plus units are still under construction.
Save for the station itself there has been no other commercial development approved or started in any of the Quarters although detailed planning appraisal was given at the last Board meeting in November to the combined place of worship and community centre.
The requirement for the various community and other facilities and the setting of the related triggers were the subject of extensive discussions between 1996 and 1998 prior to the consideration and determination by the Borough Council and Dartford Borough Council of the Ebbsfleet outline planning application. Those discussions and negotiations involved not just officers of the respective Councils but also the applicants (Land Securities) and the various providers and agencies including Kent County Council Page 90
(Education, Social Services and Sports Development), Health care providers etc.
The originally drafted conditions were the best estimate at that time in terms of what could be delivered and the applicants were a party to those conditions.
However it is acknowledged that there has been a considerable passage of time (some 12 years on) since the planning conditions were drafted and that what may be required today to support the growing community at Ebbsfleet and how that is provided and delivered is substantially different.
The applicants had submitted earlier this year an application (20100078) for a variation of condition G10 relating to the provision the multi sports centre seeking a variation to the wording of the condition to delete the reference to the centre being required to provide a specific number of badminton courts and squash courts and to meet a minimum size in terms of floor area and site area.
That application was withdrawn but has been included within this composite request to vary the triggers and wording in the conditions in this current application.
Whilst the principle of that earlier variation of condition relating to the multi purpose sports centre was understood, a major criticism of that earlier submission was a lack of information provided by the applicants to justify the variation being sought.
The Board will note the concerns set out in the planning policy comments on the current application. In essence again whilst the proposed variations to the trigger points are understood there is considered to be a lack of information to justify what the applicants suggest is a lack of demand.
The Board will need to decide whether the applicant’s submission and the information already provided is sufficient to relax the various trigger points or whether further information is required to justify the delay in bringing forward some elements of social and community provision.
It is anticipated that prior to the Board meeting further information will be forthcoming and once this has been considered and further analysed a supplementary report will be submitted setting out recommendations on the variations to the various conditions sought.
The Board will also need to give consideration not just to the setting back of the development threshold triggers but also the re-packaging of the provision of community facilities being sought particularly with regard to education provision. Page 91
Planning Application 20100828
RECOMMENDATION
A recommendation will be set out in a supplementary report.
Page 92
This page is intentionally left blank Page 93
Mr Peter Price Gravesham Borough Council Civic Centre Windmill Street Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU
BY POST AND EMAIL 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh
26th August 2010
Dear Peter,
LAND AT EBBSFLEET – PLANNING PERMISSION REF: GR/1996/35 (AS AMENDED)
REQUEST TO VARY THE TIMING TRIGGERS RELATED TO A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES ON THE EBBSFLEET OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION (AS AMENDED)
Following on-going discussions with GBC, DBC and KCC Officers over the last ten months, we write on behalf of our Client, Land Securities, to request written agreement to change the detail in or requirements of a number of Conditions on the Ebbsfleet Outline Planning Permission (as amended), primarily in so far as they relate to the timing triggers regarding the provision of nine of the community facilities.
All of the Conditions to which this letter refers benefit from the prefix ‘unless otherwise agreed in writing’. It is under this prefix that we are seeking to agree the changes referred to above and as set out in detail below. All the changes sought remain within the scope of the original Conditions and are as effective at controlling the development and any impacts it might have.
By way of background, following the grant of reserved matters planning permission by Gravesham Borough Council in 2006 for the first phase of residential development at Springhead, construction is well underway with approximately 152 occupations having now taken place, including approximately 33% affordable housing. A further 23 units are currently under construction, and whilst development has slowed down recently, there is commitment to maintain development activity.
Set out below is a summary list of those Conditions to which this request relates to:
Condition G1 – Pre-School Nursery Condition G2 – Primary School Condition G3 – Temporary Health Centre Condition G4 – Temporary Family Centre Condition G8 – Allotments Page 94 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 2 26 th August 2010
Condition G9 – Playing Fields Condition G10 – Multipurpose Sports Centres Condition G14 – Community Centre Condition G17 – Place of Worship
These proposed variations are part of a two pronged process. The first prong of the strategy is a review of the wider KCC service line requirements under the Outline Planning Permission, as we understand that KCC would now like to deliver its services in a different way compared to how it was envisaged when the planning permission was granted in 2002. This review is likely to require amendments to the planning permission in due course, but are not included here as discussions are still on-going.
The second prong of the strategy addresses a number of imminent triggers, which need to be altered immediately to ensure residential development is not stopped. The reasons are all related to one or both of the following:
a) There is no demand/need/justification for the facility at the trigger point presently set; or b) The facility has a delivery period which requires dove tailing with the appropriate condition trigger, albeit there is an expectation that the facility will be delivered and made available for use in a timely manner.
Land Securities is committed to creating a sustainable community and have employed specialist consultants, Primera, to put in place a programme to ensure the timely delivery of the appropriate social infrastructure in the right place, working with the local authorities, to create a place that people will want to live and work. The proposed changes to the triggers as set out below will still ensure that the emerging community is served with the appropriate level of community facilities in order to engender a community spirit and create a sense of place.
Proposed Changes
CONDITION G1 EDUCATION - PRE-SCHOOL NURSERIES
Condition G1 currently states:
“Condition G1 Education – Pre School Nurseries
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 200 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a pre school nursery has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use and
b) no more than 800 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Borough of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second pre school nursery has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use and
c) no more than 1,400 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use.”
Page 95 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 3 26 th August 2010
Background
KCC has confirmed, as you are aware, that the pre-school nursery requirement has reduced reflecting a change in both the way that child generation figures are calculated but also in the way that KCC delivers its services. KCC has confirmed that the Ebbsfleet development will only generate a requirement for one 26 full-time (52 part-time) place pre school nursery.
As we understand it, KCC would look to deliver the pre-school nursery provision in parallel with primary school provision, with the two being located together on the same site and for them to be delivered at the same time. Therefore to accord with KCCs model it is considered that the provision of a pre school nursery should be tied to the delivery of primary school provision on-site.
Agreement sought
To address the above changes Land Securities seeks the rewording of of Condition G1 to reflect the requirement to provide one pre school nursery to be delivered in parallel with the primary school, so the condition reads as follows:
“Condition G1 Education – Pre School Nurseries
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a pre-school nursery shall be constructed and completed and available for use at the same time as the Primary School required by Condition G2 (b).”
CONDITION G2 EDUCATION - PRIMARY SCHOOLS
Condition G2 currently states:
“Condition G2 Education – Primary Schools
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 200 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Borough of Dartford and Gravesham) until a one form entry primary school has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use;
b) no more than 800 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second one form entry primary school (or its equivalent) has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use and;
c) no more than 1,400 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a third one form entry primary school (or its equivalent) has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use.”
Background
KCC have confirmed that it would not now anticipate delivering a single form of entry Primary School at 200 occupations as there would be insufficient children arising from the development to justify Page 96 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 4 26 th August 2010 the opening of a school. The requirement for a form of entry at 800 occupations and a further form of entry at 1400 occupations still stands.
In addition to the physical building of a school, there is also an Education Act statutory process to create a school entity. This process is ordinarily determined by an independent adjudicator. To date the process for creating the school entity has not been started, primarily in response to the relatively low build out rates at Springhead to date, which has not generated sufficient children to warrant the process being initiated. Therefore, even if the school buildings were built by 200 occupations (which could not now be physically done on the basis of the likely build programme), it could not be occupied and operated as a school until such time as the school entity is created, which requires for it to be justifiable in terms of pupil generation. Both Land Securities and KCC are however ‘alive’ to the fact that the process will need to be started in due course in order to enable the timely delivery of the first form of entry.
In terms of delivery, it is anticipated that a 2 forms of entry school will be built but the occupation of the 2 forms of entry will be phased to match the rate of development, rather than providing all places on opening. This will enable the education authority to manage the uptake of spaces. It is therefore proposed that the requirement should still be for 1FE to be provided at 800 occupations with the second 1FE provided at 1400 occupations, as currently set out in Condition G2.
Before the first 1FE is delivered at 800 occupations, KCC has calculated that there will be a shortfall at 500 occupations. There are currently discussions taking place with KCC, GBC and DBC as to where and how this should be delivered and whether this should be on-site or off-site. Therefore in order to provide KCC with the certainty that there will be sufficient primary school places to serve the development but with the flexibility as to where this is provided, we propose to push the 200 trigger back to 500 in relation to the first form of entry.
Agreement sought
This letter seeks to vary part ‘a’ of Condition G2 by changing the figure from 200 to 500 residential units. Parts ‘b’ and ‘c’, of Condition G2 will remain as existing as set out below:
“Condition G2 Education – Primary Schools
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 500 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Borough of Dartford and Gravesham) until a one form entry primary school (or its equivalent) has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use and;
b) no more than 800 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second one form entry primary school (or its equivalent) has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use and;
c) no more than 1,400 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a third one form entry primary school (or its equivalent) has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use.” Page 97 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 5 26 th August 2010
CONDITION G3 - HEALTH CARE
Condition G3 currently states:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 200 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a temporary facility for up to two general practitioners has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and is available for use and
b) No more than 1,000 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a permanent facility for up to five general practitioners has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use.”
Background
Condition G3 a) currently requires a temporary facility for at least 2 GPs to be built and available for use, before the occupation of the 200 th dwelling however, the PCT has confirmed that it does not now seek the provision of a temporary facility. The PCT’s preferred delivery of GP facilities is for a larger permanent GP surgery that would serve a larger population than would arise from just 200 occupations, in order that there is sufficient critical mass to support a practice. The PCT has also expressed concern as to how lag funding would be met by the PCT for a temporary surgery in the interim period before government funding could be re-directed.
The PCT has however indicated that the current requirement to deliver a permanent facility by 1000 occupations may be too late and that a Health Impact Assessment should be undertaken in order to determine when the health centre should be provided and the number of GP’s that it should make provision for, allowing for the number of GP’s to be increased over time, as at Eastern Quarry, to a maximum of 5 GP’s.
In terms of the interim period until the permanent facility becomes available, the PCT has confirmed that the White Horse Medical Centre, off Vale Road in Northfleet, has been sized to accommodate the anticipated early demand arising from the development until such time as a permanent facility is provided, with the expectation that the White Horse Medical Centre will in due course fill up not only from natural growth within the area but from other new developments in the local area. The White Horse Medical Centre has been granted planning permission for 3 phases of development, as follows:
• Phase 1, a temporary drop in centre known as the White Horse Surgery, approved May 2009; • Phase 2, the permanent replacement for the temporary facility providing an Equitable Access to Primary Care Medical Centre (EAPMC), ie a new GP facility and walk in centre, approved November 2009; • Phase 3, located to the west of the EAPMC, providing a replacement for existing surgeries elsewhere, approved March 2010.
Phase 1 is already on site. Phases 2 and 3 have planning permission but have not yet been implemented. Phase 2 can provide a walk-in surgery for up to 6,000 patients who wish to register, and will be provided in addition to Phase 3, which is anticipated to replace the Hunt Road and Granby Place surgeries.
Page 98 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 6 26 th August 2010
There is, therefore, the scope for the White Horse Surgery to accommodate capacity that is generated by the Springhead development, on an interim basis. The surgery is located within 500m of the Springhead dwellings, albeit that patients would need to take Fastrack from Springhead Road, until such time as the Springhead Bridge Link is delivered.
As has been agreed with the PCT and both DBC and GBC Officers, the current Condition should be amended to more fully reflect the process that has been adopted at Eastern Quarry. This requires the health centre to be provided in a timely manner, based on a Health Impact Assessment which will determine both when the facility will be required and how big it should be at different stages in the development. The wording of the Condition will ensure that a Health Centre is promoted to potential operators from an early stage in the development to maximise the opportunity for the facility to be taken up by the market.
In summary, the planning condition will require the following:
1. The health centre site to be marketed from 350 occupations 2. The health centre site to be serviced from 450 occupations 3. A Health Impact Assessment to be undertaken at 500 occupations to determine the timing and size of the health centre if required 4. If the Health Impact Assessment determines that a Health Centre is not required, the site will continue to be reserved and marketed 5. If a Health Impact Assessment determines that a health centre is required, then the developer will construct the health centre to accommodate the requisite number of GP’s up to a maximum of 5 GP’s, within 36 months. 6. In any event a health centre to accommodate up to a maximum of 2 GP’s to be built by 1,500 occupations 7. If only a 2 GP health centre has been provided, and a further Health Impact Assessment at 2,000 occupations determines that additional GP space is required (up to a maximum of 5 GP’s in total), then the developer will make available the additional space within 36 months. 8. If the Health Impact Assessment undertaken at 2,000 occupations demonstrates that no further expansion of the health care facility is required, then at the 3,100 th occupation the safeguarded health centre space shall no longer be retained for this purpose
Agreement sought
Taking the above information into account, we request agreement that Condition G3 be reworded as follows:
“Condition G3 – Health Care
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. A site for a health centre capable of supporting 5 GPs will be master planned. No more than 300 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until the site has been placed on the open market and the local planning authority has been notified of the same.
b. No more than 450 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until the site for the health centre (see (a) above) is serviced and ready for development.
c. If by the occupation of the 500th residential unit within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford Page 99 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 7 26 th August 2010
and Gravesham) a GP practice of any size has not been secured in accordance with (a) above, then the developer will secure the provision of an independent Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to advise if the needs of the emerging Ebbsfleet population are being adequately met within 1km of the Ebbsfleet site boundary. The terms of instruction and form of output required of the HIA will be agreed in writing between the developer and local planning authority, having regard to the purpose of the HIA, as set out above.
d. In the event that the HIA demonstrates to the local planning authority’s satisfaction, acting reasonably, that health needs are being met then the health centre site will continue to be safeguarded and marketed in accordance with (a) and (b) above.
e. In the event that the HIA (carried out in accordance with (c) above) demonstrates the health needs of the Ebbsfleet population are not being met within 1km of the Ebbsfleet site boundary, then the developer will construct a health centre capable of occupying the number of GP’s to be identified by the Health Impact Assessment but no more than 5GP’s, on a site in accordance with the approved Quarter Master Plan and details approved pursuant to Condition A1, within 36 months of the HIA report being accepted by the Local Planning Authority and will not permit the occupation of any further dwellings after the end of such 36 month period unless the health centre is practically completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority
f. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c) to (e) above, no more than 1,500 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a health centre capable of supporting 2 GP's has been provided within the development.
g. If a health centre capable of supporting 5 GP's has not already been provided then the process set out in (c) - (d) above will be repeated at the occupation of 2000 th residential units within the application site as a whole (i.e. with the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham).
h. In the event that the HIA (carried out in accordance with (g) above) demonstrates the further health needs of the Ebbsfleet population are not being met within 1km of the Ebbsfleet site boundary, then the developer will construct the remaining health centre facilities up to 5 GPs (in total) on site in accordance with details approved pursuant to Condition A1, within 36 months of the HIA report being accepted by the Local Planning Authority and will not permit the occupation of any further dwellings after the end of such 36 month period unless the health centre is practically completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority
i. Following the HIA carried out at the occupation of 2000 th residential units pursuant to paragraph (f), if that HIA demonstrates that no further expansion of the health care Page 100 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 8 26 th August 2010
facility is required to meet the needs of the Ebbsfleet population then at the completion of the 3,100th dwelling the health centre shall no longer be required to be safeguarded for health centre uses.”
CONDITION G4 SOCIAL SERVICES – FAMILY CENTRE
Condition G4 currently states:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 200 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a temporary family centre has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and is available for use and
b) No more than 1,000 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a permanent family centre has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use.”
Background
The condition requires the provision of a temporary Family Centre by 200 occupations. There is no definition of either the temporary or permanent family centre contained within the planning application, however we understand from KCC that it relates to social services preventative care for children, whereby the various agencies can sit together in a single space (known as Multi-Agency Space or MASCAF) and is provided within primary schools.
KCC has confirmed that there is no longer any requirement for a temporary family centre as a reflection of the way in which KCC now deliver this service. The requirement for a permanent facility will be maintained. As we understand it, KCC would look to deliver the family centre (MASCAF) provision in parallel with primary school provision, with the two being located together on the same site and for them to be delivered at the same time. Therefore to accord with KCCs model it is considered that the provision of the family centre should be tied to the delivery of primary school provision on-site.
Agreement sought
Taking the above information into account, we seek you agreement that Condition G4 be changed to read:
“Condition G4 – Social Services
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a permanent family centre shall be constructed and completed and available for use at the same time as the Primary School required by Condition G2 (b).”
Page 101 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 9 26 th August 2010
CONDITION G8 - ALLOTMENTS
Condition G8 currently states (incorporating the agreement reached by Countryside Properties and Gravesham Borough Council in relation to the first trigger):
“Condition G8 Open Space and Sports Facilities - Allotments
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) No more than 200 residential units shall be occupied until an allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
b) No more than 450 residential units shall be occupied until a second allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
c) No more than 850 residential units shall be occupied until a third allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
d) No more than 1,250 residential units shall be occupied until a forth allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use.
The location of each allotment site to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority”.
Background
Condition G8 requires the provision of an allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area before the occupation of the 50 th dwelling. However, agreement was reached between Countryside Properties (Land Securities JV Partner at Springhead) and Gravesham Borough Council in writing, to change this requirement from the occupation of the 50 th dwelling to occupation of the 200 th dwelling. This was primarily a reflection of the phasing of development and the practicalities of bringing forward the identified allotment site (as shown on the approved QMP) which is intersected by both development plots yet to be constructed and the construction compound. Based on current phasing, as illustrated on the attached plan (entitled Allotment and Phasing Accessibility Plan), it will not actually be practicable to deliver the allotments by 200 occupations, as the Phase 2 residential development (i.e. beyond the first phase of residential development which has planning approval) sits between the first phase and the allotment site.
Countryside Properties have committed to providing the allotments in parallel with the adjacent residential development which it will border. This will also match the phasing envisaged for the road access to the allotments and more importantly the delivery of utilities to service the plots (water/electric). By bringing forward the most southern part of Phase II in advance of the northern part of Phase II will enable the allotments to be brought forward at the earliest practicable opportunity. As the Springhead allotment requirements are due to be provided in one location (as shown on the approved QMP), it is proposed that the first trigger requirement of 0.25ha at 200 occupations be rolled back to the second 0.25ha of allotment space to be provided at 450 occupations. By delivering 0.5ha of allotment space at 450 occupations there will be no overall reduction in the total quantum. Page 102 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 10 26 th August 2010
We also note, that there is still a relatively small population at Springhead and compared to other similar sized sites (in terms of build out to date), such allotment provision would not normally be required, however Countryside Properties and Land Securities do acknowledge and anticipate that there will be a demand for the facility in due course from the residents arising from the development and the plots will be delivered in a timely manner. There is however, some concern, particularly in light of the above physical constraints, that there will not be sufficient demand at the current time or in the immediate near future for a 0.25ha site, indeed, the recent closing of the Council’s allotment site, which was in close proximity to Ebbsfleet, would seem to reflect demand.
In addition to the above change, we suggest that the Condition wording is changed , for completeness as suggested by Officers, to make it clear that the Condition requirements relate to site wide provision (i.e. with the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham). It is clear from the original submissions, approved QMP’s and associated Committee Reports, that the Conditions were intended to operate in this way and has been included in some but not all of the community facility Conditions.
Agreement sought
In order to regularise the agreed position between Countryside Properties and Gravesham Borough Council and in recognition of the proposed phasing, we consider we seek agreement80 that part ‘a’ of Condition G8 be amended so that the Condition reads as follows:
“Condition G8 Open Space and Sports Facilities - Allotments
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) No more than 450 residential units shall be occupied within the application sites as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a first allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
b) No more than 450 residential units shall be occupied within the application sites as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use
c) No more than 850 residential units shall be occupied within the application sites as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a third allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
d) No more than 1,250 residential units shall be occupied within the application sites as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a forth allotment site of at least 0.25 hectares in area (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use.
The location of each allotment site to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority”.
Page 103 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 11 26 th August 2010
CONDITION G9 – OPEN SPACE AND SPORTS FACILITIES – PLAYING FIELDS
Condition G9 currently states:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) No more than 200 residential units shall be occupied until a site for playing fields of at least 2.5 hectares in area has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
b) No more than 1,200 residential units shall be occupied until a second site for playing fields of at least 2.5 hectares (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
c) No more than 2,000 residential units shall be occupied until a third site for playing fields of at least 2.5 hectares (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use.
The location, layout, uses and changing facilities for each playing field site to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.”
Background
Condition G9 requires the provision of playing fields (which are not formal pitches) of at least 2.5 hectares in area, before the occupation of the 200 th dwelling. The playing fields are due to be provided within the Linear Park in close proximity to the allotment site as identified on the approved Springhead QMP. Therefore in recognition of the difficulties in opening up the western part of Springhead until the southern part of the Phase II residential development has come forward (as shown on the attached plan entitled: Allotments & Phasing Accessibility Plan), we would like to set the trigger back to match that proposed for the allotments at 450 occupations.
In addition to the above change, we suggest that the Condition wording is changed, for completeness as suggested by Officers, to make it clear that the Condition requirements relate to site wide provision (i.e. with the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham). It is clear from the original submissions, approved QMP’s and associated Committee Reports, that the Conditions were intended to operate in this way and has been included in some but not all of the community facility Conditions.
Taking the above information into account, we consider that part ‘a’ of Condition G9 should be varied to read:
“CONDITION G9 – OPEN SPACE AND SPORTS FACILITIES – PLAYING FIELDS
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) No more than 450 residential units shall be occupied within the application sites as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham)until a site for playing fields of at least 2.5 hectares in area has been constructed and completed and is available for use; Page 104 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 12 26 th August 2010
b) No more than 1,200 residential units shall be occupied within the application sites as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second site for playing fields of at least 2.5 hectares (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use;
c) No more than 2,000 residential units shall be occupied within the application sites as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a third site for playing fields of at least 2.5 hectares (or its equivalent) has been constructed and completed and is available for use.
The location, layout, uses and changing facilities for each playing field site to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.”
CONDITION G10 – OPEN SPACE AND SPORTS FACILITIES - MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS CENTRE
Condition G10 states:
“Condition G10 – Open Space and Sports Facilities – Multipurpose Sports Centre
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no more than 500 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a multipurpose sports centre has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use. Such a centre shall include provision for at least 8 badminton courts and 3 squash courts and shall have a minimum floorspace of 600 sq.m. on a site area of at least 1.0 hectare. The location and layout for the multipurpose sports centre to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that adequate indoor sports facilities are available (within the said application site as a whole) to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development and to accord with the provisions of the Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework”.
The Multipurpose Sports Centre is identified on the Springhead Quarter Master Plan (2008) and is shown to be situated within Springhead. This will enable the sports centre to be provided in a timely manner to meet the needs of the emerging community as required by Condition G10, which sets a trigger of 500 units by when the sports centre should be built and available for use. Land Securities does not wish to vary either the location or the timeframe within which the sports centre should be delivered indeed Land Securities is keen to ensure community infrastructure, such as the sports centre, is provided alongside the new dwellings to promote place making and community integration.
However, through testing the market the responses indicate that restricting the leisure centre to badminton and squash courts will potentially stifle interest from operators in the Ebbsfleet Page 105 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 13 26 th August 2010 opportunity, which could delay delivery. Further supporting information relating to this particular issue is set out in the attached paper.
In addition, we note that Gravesham Borough Council’s draft Sports Facilities Strategy (April 2010) confirms that there are currently 7 (public) squash courts providing for all of Gravesham’s residents and that this level of provision meets the needs of the existing population (and would explain why the surplus courts at the Cascades Leisure Centre could be redeveloped without impacting on need). Prior to the rescinding of the South East Plan, it was anticipated that the Borough’s population would grow significantly by 14,900 people (or 15.2% of the total population). In order to meet this increase, it is anticipated that by 2026 only 2 additional squash courts will be required to meet the demand of the whole Borough. This suggests that providing 3 squash courts at Ebbsfleet may result in both an overprovision of squash courts but also a spatial distortion as Ebbsfleet is in close proximity to both the Cygnet and Cascades centres where the current public squash court provision is made. It would also represent a missed opportunity to allow delivery of an alternative sports facility, for which demand exists.
In relation to Badminton, we note that the draft Sports Facilities Strategy (April 2010) indicates that there is a current supply of 10 sports hall sites (comprising a total of 50 badminton courts, scaled to 38 courts to take account of dual usage), providing a total capacity of 7,685 visits per week in the peak period (vpwpp). This equates to 5.1 badminton courts per 1,000 people, above the average for the South-East (4.1), England (3.8) and all neighbouring local authorities. In terms of demand for sports halls from the local population is 4,493vpwpp. This is equivalent to demand for 28 badminton courts in the peak period. Therefore on the basis of the above, there is a notional surplus equivalent to 10 badminton courts in the borough. When taking into account a 20 minute walk or drive time catchment of the existing facilities and the ability of residents to reach them the report finds that 94.6% of demand for sports halls in the borough is currently met. 80% of this demand is met by car, 17% on foot and 3% by public transport. The remaining 5.4% of overall demand is currently unmet (equivalent to one badminton court). However, the reports goes on to state that no parts of the Borough currently have levels of unmet demand sufficient to justify new sports hall provision. It should also be noted that the Ebbsfleet site is in close proximity to the Cygnet Centre which provides Badminton Courts.
In terms of space standards, we also note that the Condition only requires a minimum floor area of 600 sq m. We would however highlight the inconsistency in the requirements of the Condition as it would not be physically possible to provide a minimum of 8 badminton courts and 3 squash courts in a 600 sq m area. The Sport England Comparative Sizes of Sports Pitches & Courts (February 2009 update) publication sets out the size of both badminton and squash courts as follows:
Table 1 – Sports Court Sizes
Sport Recreation Recreation Total County County Total & Club Standard Cumulative Standard Standard Cumulative Standard (floor Area of (LxWxH) (floor Area of (LxWxH) area) Planning area) Planning Requirement Requirement Badminton 17.4 x 9.1 x 158 sq m 1,264 sq m 18 x 10.5 x 189 sq m 1,512 sq m 7.6 for 8 9.1 for 8 Badminton Badminton Courts Courts Squash 9.75 x 7.62 74 sq m 222 sq m for 9.75 x 7.62 74 sq m 222 sq m for x 5.64 3 squash x 5.64 3 squash courts courts Total Floor Area 1,486 sq m 1,734 sq m
Page 106 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 14 26 th August 2010
The above floor area’s do not include circulation space, changing rooms, lobby area, reception or any other area that may be expected in a sports centre. Further to which such the specification is clearly not going to deliver a ‘Multipurpose’ sports centre as required by the Condition. We therefore suggest that this ambiguity can be overcome through the revised wording of the Condition as suggested.
Agreement sought
Land Securities seeks the deletion of the second sentence of the Condition and the insertion of the word “size” in the last sentence so that the Condition reads:
“Condition G10 – Open Space and Sports Facilities – Multipurpose Sports Centre
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no more than 500 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a multipurpose sports centre has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use. Such a centre shall have a minimum floorspace of 600 sq.m.. The location, size and layout for the multipurpose sports centre to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that adequate indoor sports facilities are available (within the said application site as a whole) to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development and to accord with the provisions of the Ebbsfleet Development and Environment Framework”.
The re-phrasing of the Condition will enhance the prospects of securing interest and the operation of supporting residential facilities being introduced into the Springhead development at the earliest opportunity, an objective that we trust is common to Gravesham Borough Council and Dartford Borough Council, well as Land Securities.
CONDITION G14 – COMMUNITY CENTRE
Condition G14 currently states:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 200 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a community centre of at least 190 sq m floor space has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use; and
b) No more than 1,700 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second community centre of at least 190 sq m (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and is available for use. Page 107 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 15 26 th August 2010
The location, uses and layout for the community centres to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.”
Background
Land Securities is working in partnership with North Kent Community Church (NKCC) to develop a multi-functional community centre and place of worship for the Springhead community hub, as designated on the Springhead QMP, in order to discharge both the first Community Centre and the first Place of Worship (Condition G17) requirement. It will comprise of a ground floor occupied by six rooms, 2 quiet office/consultation rooms, a welcome area and café (and kitchens) and an area for management, as well as WC’s and changing rooms. The first floor will be occupied by a large auditorium. The two storey building will have a GEA of approximately 1,588 sq m (1501 sq m GIA), which is larger than the requirement of the two Conditions. The multi-functional community centre and place of worship will serve the new community and promote integration within the wider community to engender social cohesion. The reserved matters planning application has been submitted (planning application reference: 20100696) and was registered on the 23 rd July 2010 and NKCC are keen to commence development as soon as is practicably possible.
The current trigger for the Community Centre is set at 200 occupations. However, as a larger, combined building is now envisaged with the clear benefits this can deliver, the associated build programme will extend beyond 200 occupations, hence a formal variation is now being sought in order to ensure that the residential development is not stopped on site whilst waiting for the completion of the facility.
NKCC have prepared a construction programme, which has been shared with GBC and DBC, which shows that the building is likely to be built and ready for use by 2012/2013, at which point Land Securities anticipate 450-500 dwellings being built. A copy of the current construction programme is attached, however the programme is ‘tight’ and is based on the reserved matters application being determined within 13 weeks.
Agreement sought
Taking the above information into account, we consider that Condition G14 should be varied to read:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 500 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a community centre of at least 190 sq m floor space has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use; and
b) No more than 1,700 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second community centre of at least 190 sq m (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and is available for use.
The location, uses and layout for the community centres to be provided under the terms of this condition shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.”
Page 108 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 16 26 th August 2010
CONDITION G17 – PLACE OF WORSHIP
Condition G17 currently states:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 350 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a place of worship of at least 250 sq m floor space and site area of 0.5 hectares had (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use; and
b) No more than 1,000 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second place of worship of at least 150 sq m floor space and a site area of 0.25 hectares has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and is available for use.
The location, uses and layout for the places of worship shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.”
Background
Similarly as with Condition G14 related to the Community Centre as referred to above, the Place of Worship trigger will also need to be set back from its current 350 occupations (the community centre being on 200 occupations).
As indicated above, it is anticipated that the Place of Worship, which will be provided within a multi- functional community centre and place of worship should be built and ready for use by the end of 2012 beginning of 2013, at which point Land Securities anticipate 450-500 dwellings being built.
Agreement sought
Taking the above information into account, we consider that Condition G17 should be varied to read:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a) no more than 500 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a place of worship of at least 250 sq m floor space and site area of 0.5 hectares had (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and completed and is available for use; and
b) No more than 1,000 residential units shall be occupied within the application site as a whole (i.e. within the Boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham) until a second place of worship of at least 150 sq m floor space and a site area of 0.25 hectares has (within the said application site as a whole) been constructed and is available for use.
Page 109 18829/A3/MJ/ACJ/cjh 17 26 th August 2010
The location, uses and layout for the places of worship shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.”
A copy of this letter has been sent to Dartford Borough Council for their information. We have also written to Gravesham Borough Council to request changes to Conditions G1, G2, G3, G4, G8, G9, G10, G13 & G15 of the Ebbsfleet Outline Planning Permission DA/96/00047/OUT, with respect to that part of the site that falls outside Gravesham’s administrative area.
We trust that you will consult with statutory and non-statutory consultees as you consider appropriate and be in a position to confirm in writing that the proposed changes are acceptable to your authority.
Should you have any queries or wish to discuss any of the matters set out above, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0207 44 66 888.
Yours sincerely,
ALYSON JONES Director
Encs – Allotment & Phasing Accessibility Plan NKCC Construction Programme Condition G10 Justification Paper
Cc S Bunn - Dartford Borough Council (by email & post w/encs)
Bcc Peter Mail - Land Securities (by email w/encs) Stephen Chatfield - Land Securities (by email w/encs) Chris Bladon - Countryside Properties (by email w/encs) Kevin Coleman - JB Planning (by email w/encs)
Page 110
This page is intentionally left blank Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Agenda Item 5d
8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
28 May 2010 20100166 08 Dec 2010
Land formerly known as Dykes Pit, between 245 and 247 Dover Road, Northfleet, Gravesend.
Erection of a total of 82 residential units (46 flats, 34 houses and 2 bungalows) comprising two, 2-3 storey high buildings to provide 17 one bedrooms flats and 17 two bedroom flats; two 3 storey buildings to provide 12 two bedroom flats; three terraces (2 five house and one four house terrace) of two storey two bedroom dwellings; two terraces (one six house and one ten house terrace) of 2/3 storey three bedrooms dwellings; four attached 2/3 storey, three bedroom dwellings; one pair of semi-detached bungalows; laying out of associated roads, 103 car parking spaces; private/communal gardens with children's play area and vehicular access on to Dover Road.
Town & Country Housing Group.
Recommendation:
Delegate to Service Manager (Development Control) for permission subject to conditions, s.106 Agreement and referral to Secretary of State.
This application was initially considered by the Board on 10 November 2010 when it was resolved to defer determination to allow negotiations to take place regarding:
• satisfactory resolution of off site highway works; • suitable confirmation of noise levels in gardens; • refuse storage provision for the flats; • s.106 Agreement (including affordable housing, community infrastructure contributions and maintenance of the public open space); • planning conditions; • referral to SoS.
Members are requested to bring their copy of Agenda item 5i (Pages 131 – 163 of the pack) from that meeting.
Service Manager (Development Control) Comments
Further to the Board meeting on 10 November 2010 additional and amended information has been provided by applicant in order to address the outstanding matters referred to in the formal resolution above. These issues will each be addressed in turn below.
Page 116
Off-Site Highway Works
Comment to follow in a supplementary report.
Noise Levels in Private Gardens
An outline assessment to demonstrate the predicted noise levels in the private garden areas, informed by the approximate level of the railway line, positioning of new buildings and acoustic qualities of the proposed acoustic barrier, has been provided by the applicant. This technical information has been reviewed by the Borough Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer who considers that it gives the Council comfort that noise barriers can be incorporated into the development so that all amenity areas will achieve or better the standards for noise levels in gardens and amenity areas.
This is therefore considered sufficient information in order to initially assess this matter but, should Members be minded to grant planning permission as per the officer recommendation, a condition should be imposed requiring a more detailed submission to be provided once the detailed height survey information becomes available.
Refuse Storage
It was reported at the last meeting that the refuse storage provision for the flats was considered to be slightly substandard and the applicant was therefore encouraged to amend the provision. This has now been carried out and amended plans have been submitted showing an enlarged basement storage area for the two frontage blocks and relocation of the stores for the smaller bocks to include more discreet yet larger areas. This has included the loss of a bedroom in a ground floor flat in Block 3 to accommodate an internal storage area.
In short, the frontage apartment blocks now have communal stores for 4no. 1100 litre bins and recyclables and the smaller apartment blocks have communal stores for 1no. 1100 litre bin and recyclables. This is in accordance with advice received from the Borough Council’s Waste Management Section and is therefore considered to have fully addressed the original concern.
Design of Frontage Apartment Blocks
A concern raised at the meeting on 10 November 2010 relating to the design of the two frontage apartment blocks that front onto Dover Road. It was reported previously that the scale and massing of these buildings had been reduced further to earlier concerns but specific comment was made in respect of the design of the projecting front bays. In response the applicant provided an option for introducing splayed front bays as requested by Members. The intention behind this request was to ascertain whether a more ‘traditional’ design could be included to better relate the new buildings to the adjoining Victorian terraced properties.
In summary although the splayed bays can be accommodated, to compensate for reduced internal space and more awkward room shape, the bays would be required to project further towards Dover Road (abutting the pavement rather than being set in some 600mm) and the overall height would be increased to accommodate either a parapet roof or a pitched roof. It is suggested by the architect that this would provide a poor pastiche that would go against the intrinsic contemporary design of the buildings and overall development.
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 2 Page 117
In the view of officers, on balance, the alterations included for comment would compromise the scheme as it is believed that the existing modern design approach, in terms of the building line, consistent eaves level and overall scale, ensures it is sympathetic to the adjoining Victorian terraces albeit that it does not entirely replicate them in respect of design features such as the bays.
Therefore, whilst it was a useful exercise to consider the modified bay design, it is recommended that the original design approach be retained as being the most appropriate.
Foul and Surface Water Disposal
Further to comments made by Members at the Regulatory Board meeting on 10 November 2010, additional information has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate how it is intended to dispose of foul and surface water from the site. Southern Water Services have confirmed that there is presently inadequate capacity in both the foul sewerage system and the surface water system to accommodate the level of development proposed for the site. As such it would be necessary for the existing infrastructure to be upgraded to ensure that it is of sufficient capacity to be able to serve the development. Also, due to the heavily contaminated nature of the site, it would not be appropriate to deal with surface water via soakaways, and so therefore a closed system for all water drainage from the site would be necessary.
Through initial negotiations with Southern Water Services and the Environment Agency, the intention would be to deal with foul and surface water as follows:
Foul Sewerage
The site is adjacent to a foul sewer that runs along Dover Road and it is proposed that the 34 flats in the two frontage blocks will drain directly to this sewer as the levels allow gravity drainage. The fall of the site, however, locates the houses and flats to the south of the site below the level of this drainage and a proposed new drain connection from the south east corner of the site will be constructed through to the main sewer at Dudley Road, to make connections to the lower level of the site. As the foul water sewer capacity below the site is not sufficient for this additional capacity, it would be necessary to put in an additional relief sewer alongside the existing one for a length of 530m to make up capacity.
Surface Water
The development would provide for surface water to be collected beneath the open car parks to the south of the site that would then be pumped off site via a private underground pumping station. A new surface water drainage connection would be made to the south west corner of the application site and water will drain down Vale Road in a new surface water drain to the existing surface water drain that runs parallel to Thames Way. These works would also require the upgrading of the Thames Way surface water sewer from a diameter of 375mm to 450mm.
The level of negotiations to date have confirmed the feasibility of the works and have enabled the viability to be established (proposed works would cost just under £1m) sufficient for the planning application to have been submitted in the first instance. It is recognised that
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 3 Page 118
before works can commence, assuming planning permission was to be granted, that further detailed assessments would need to be carried out, but these cannot be progressed until such time that conditional planning approval has been granted, due to the considerable expenditure that would be required.
The level of information submitted is considered to be sufficient to demonstrate that the works required to upgrade existing and provide new infrastructure to serve the development is feasible and therefore that, in the event that Members were minded to grant planning permission, that this matter could be suitably addressed through planning conditions.
Summary
Whilst formal comment has not been received from Kent Highway Services in respect of the off site highway works proposed, informal comment has suggested that the works proposed have satisfied highway officers, subject to appropriate conditions requiring the necessary highway approvals. In respect of the other outstanding matters raised at the last Board meeting, sufficient information has been submitted to address concerns relating to the noise levels in the private gardens and amenity areas and the provision of adequate refuse stores. An alternative front bay design has been explored for the front apartment blocks only to be resolved that it would compromise the overall design and additional information has been provided in respect of foul and surface water disposal.
It is therefore concluded that all outstanding issues have been addressed to an acceptable level to enable officers to recommend that the scheme approved, subject to planning conditions (which will follow in the supplementary report). However, due to the requirement to complete a s.106 Agreement and refer the application to the Secretary of State, the following recommendation is made to Members:
Recommendation:
Delegate to Service Manager (Development Control) for permission subject to planning conditions, s.106 Agreement and referral to Secretary of State.
REPORT NO 7 PAGE 4 Page 119
20100166 - LAND FORMERLY KNOWN AS DYKES PIT, BETWEEN 245 AND 245 DOVER ROAD, NORTHFLEET, GRAVESEND.
SCHEDULES OF ACCOMMODATION
Table 1: Overview of accommodation proposed Unit Floor Area Total Total Ref. Unit Type No. (sqm) Bedrooms Occupants
A 1B/2P Flat 11 49-50 11 22 B 1B/2P Wheelchair Flat 6 66-68 6 12 C 2B/3P Flat 12 59-64 24 36 D 2B/4P Flat 17 67-80 34 68 E 2B/4P House 14 76 28 56 F & G 3B/5P House 20 96-98 60 100 H 3B/5P Wheelchair House 2 108 6 10 82 169 304
Table 2: Number of bedrooms No. of Bedrooms Flats Houses Bungalows TOTAL
1 Bedroom 17 0 0 17 2 Bedroom 29 14 0 43 3 Bedroom 0 20 2 22 TOTAL 46 34 2 82
Table 3: Range of room sizes for the proposed flat types Unit Ref. L/K/D L/D Kitchen Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bathroom Storage
A 25 12-13 4.9 - 5.3 1.3 - 1.7 B 26.2 15-18 7.1 3.3 C 24.8-26.3 12.1 - 12.4 7.5 - 7.6 4.5 - 5.1 2.2 - 2.4 D (i) 25 – 29.4 11.9 - 13.9 12-15.6 4.7 - 5.3 1.5 – 3.6 D (ii) 19.7 9.4 11.8 12.6 4.1 0.9
Table 4: Room sizes for the proposed house types Unit K/D L/D Lounge Kitchen Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bathroom WC Storage
E 17.6 6.7 11.6 13 5.4 2.6 1.9 F 18 7.2 11.9 7.4 14.7* 5.6 2.6 1.2** G 12 13.0 12.9 13.9* 6.8 4.3 2.6 1.9** H 29.3 8.5 13.2 10.9 7.5 6.7 5.4 1.7 * Limited headroom due to roof slope ** Additional storage included within eaves space in roof
Page 120
Table 5: Communal amenity space for proposed flats Block No. of Communal Amenity Average per Apartment No. Apartments Space (sqm) (sqm)
1 17 110 6.5 2 17 110 6.5 3 6 100 16.7 4 6 120 20.0
Table 6: Private gardens for proposed houses Unit Ref. No. of Bedrooms Garden Size (sqm)
E 2 41 - 46 F & G 3 39 - 47 H 3 80
Page 121 Agenda Item 5e
8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
26/10/2010 2010 0837 8/12/2010
Westcourt Inn, St Hilda’s Way, Gravesend, Kent, DA12 4AZ.
Change of use of ground floor from public house (A4 use) to a place of worship and education (D1 use) involving alterations to front elevation and erection of an enclosing fence at front of car park.
Gravesham Muslim Cultural & Education Centre
Recommendation: Delegate to Service Manager, Development Control for permission, subject to the resolution of issues regarding hours of use, odours and noise.
1. Site Visit
A site visit was undertaken on Saturday 4 th December 2010, and will be reported in a supplementary report.
Page 122
This page is intentionally left blank Page 123 Agenda Item 5f
13 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
24.12.10 20100898 08/12/10
Sainsburys Store, Wingfield Bank, Springhead Road, Northfleet.
Erection of extension to store to provide additional sales area; customer restaurant, customer toilets and back up storage area; extension within the service yard for 'Sainsbury's-To-You' online grocery service; relocation of petrol filling station; reconfiguration and extension of customer car park; realignment of Wingfield Bank access road and relocation of service yard access on Springhead Road.
Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd.
Recommendation:
Permission subject to conditions
1. Description of the Site and Surroundings
The total area of this application site extends to 4.62 hectares (11.4 acres).
The site is situated at an edge of urban area location on the west side of Springhead Road, Northfleet, close to its junction with Hall Road and near to the junction of the A2 trunk road at Pepper Hill.
The application site effectively comprises three distinct parts.
Firstly the existing Sainsbury’s supermarket (the Sainsbury’s Store) with its associated service yard, customer car parking area and petrol filling station.
Secondly a rectangular parcel of land ( the Chinacorp site ) to the south west of the supermarket which is currently undeveloped and for the large part comprises a field used in the past for rough grazing, sometimes used by horses, and it has a very untidy appearance being frequently the subject of fly tipping.
Thirdly the existing access road ( Wingfield Bank ) which provides access for customers to the Sainsbury’s store and their petrol filling station and which is a public adopted highway that forms the western arm off the Pepper Hill roundabout, which has junctions with Springhead Road to the north, Hall Road to the east and the Hall Road southern extension to the south.
Page 124
The Sainsbury’s Store
The existing Sainsbury’s Store is a large modern food retail store built in 1992. The store site is roughly triangular and has an area of 2.95 hectares.
The food store is located within a well designed modern brick building with brick piers and buff coloured copings and with a glass canopy to the frontage and side and a glass pyramid shaped atrium to the customer entrance to the store. The store has been extended to provide a customer restaurant at the front on the western side and an enlarged retail sales area on the eastern side. The store is predominantly single storey with staff facilities, office and plant room located to the rear of the building at first floor level. The first floor of the building is clad in light coloured composite panels which is particularly visible from Springhead Road.
At the rear of the store is a covered bulk stock storage area and an open service yard. This is at the northern end of the site. The service yard has a vehicular entrance direct onto Springhead Road. The service yard is enclosed by high brick walls with extensive landscaping to the road frontage and the entrance gate is in the form of a mechanically operated timber gate.
The store has a level surface car park providing a current total of 402 parking spaces for customers. Within the site is a petrol filling station and car wash. The petrol filling station has six pump islands. There is also a picking up point for buses and taxis, and a recycling bay. There is a separate pedestrian entrance into the store from Springhead Road. Within the rear service yard is a car parking area for 45 cars for staff which is now little used for parking.
The store which has been extended since it was first built currently has a gross floor area of 6861m 2 (73853 sq. ft.) and an existing retail sales area of 3966m 2 (42,691 sq. ft.).
The store provides a broad range of food and convenience items (food, drink and newspapers) and includes a number of speciality counters and has an in store bakery. It also offers a small range of non convenience (comparison) goods including small electricals, home and cook ware, adult and children’s clothing, home entertainment (CD’s/DVD’s) and seasonal items. There are no concessionary stores within the store although there is a Sainsbury’s own photo shop and foreign travel money desk (which replaced a Sainsburys Bank in the store). The sale of comparison goods is restricted to 15 per cent of the retail sales area by a planning condition imposed on the original outline planning permission for the store.
There is an established belt of trees along the eastern boundary of the site to Springhead Road and this incorporates a number of mature trees that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There are a number of established trees within the car park.
The ‘Chinacorp’ Site
The rectangular piece of land to the south west of the store is currently undeveloped. It has an unimplemented planning permission for a ( Homebase ) DIY bulky goods retail store (see planning history below).
This part of the site has an area of 1.38 hectares and is a maximum 230 metres long by 70 metres wide. It is fenced off around the perimeter. Page 125
On the western half of this part of the site was a yard and two agricultural buildings which had been used for storage in connection with the farmland west of Springhead Road (now being built on as part of the Ebbsfleet development) and were owned by Colyer Fergusson Trust and tenanted to Beslee Farms (Southfleet). However the buildings have more recently been demolished. The buildings were themselves originally replacements for those demolished to make way for the Sainsbury superstore in 1989.
The site also includes a road access, previously an adopted highway, being a small spur off Wingfield Bank, which until recently provided access to the former Seeboard Depot adjacent to the substation. A small electricity substation previously within the site has also been removed.
Wingfield Bank
Wingfield Bank is some 7.5 m wide with footways and grass verges either side. It provides vehicular access to the supermarket and petrol filling station.
Wingfield Bank is now being used as a construction route into the Springhead Quarter of the Ebbsfleet development utilising the existing Wingfield Bridge farm access to the west of the application site and a road has been constructed between Wingfield Bank just beyond the entrance into Sainsburys and the Wingfield Bank Bridge. Bridge strengthening works have been carried out to allow both vehicular and pedestrian access controlled with traffic signals.
There is a section of public footpath (NU16) within the site that runs from the western end of the road in Wingfield Bank before crossing over Wingfield Bank bridge. This part of the site (the road, verges and footpath) comprises an area of approximately 0.41 hectares
The grass verges to Wingfield Bank are of poor quality due to vehicle parking and vehicle encroachment.
The Surroundings
To the east of the site and facing the car park and service yard of the Sainsbury’s store are semi-detached two storey dwellings on the east side of Springhead Road. Some of these properties are elevated above the store site.
To the north west of the store site is a disused railway line in a cutting.
There is a public footpath NU16 which adjoins the western boundary of the site. The site also adjoins at its western end the former Gravesend West railway line in a deep cutting. The public footpath crosses over the railway cutting over a bridge previously used by farm traffic.
To the east of the undeveloped part of the site and on the east side of Hall Road are the rear gardens of dwellings in Fleet Road on the Pepper Hill estate. The dwellings themselves are on an embankment and are generally about 60 metres away from the site boundary.
Page 126
2. Planning History
The Whole Site
The Sainsbury’s site originally contained a farmhouse and a number of agricultural buildings at Wingfield Bank Farm.
In 1987 outline planning permission was granted (application GR/86/787) for,
(a) Residential development.
(b) Seeboard Depot.
(c) Light Industrial development.
(d) Replacement agricultural building.
(e) Construction of new roads.
The site which extended to 6.14 hectares included the current Sainsbury’s site and the land to the south west up to the existing Northfleet East Grid substation.
The outline consent also gave permission for re-alignment of the Springhead Road/Hall Road junctions and the re-positioning of the existing roundabout to accommodate a proposed fourth leg off the roundabout into the development site.
The two agricultural buildings on the site (30m x 15m and 24m x 15m) were granted planning permission in 1989 (reference GR/89/305).
In 1998 planning permission was granted for a new substation for National Grid Company on the adjoining substation site.
The Existing Sainsbury’s Site
A detailed planning application for residential development (GR/89/613) for 73 two storey detached dwellings on the Sainsbury’s site was approved in November 1989.
That scheme was never implemented.
In 1990 duplicate outline applications (GR/90/305 and 306) were submitted by J Sainsbury for a retail store at the site. The proposals involved the erection of a retail store of 64,700sq.ft) with a sales area of 34,000sq.ft and a non-sales area of 27,250sq.ft and lobby areas of 3,450sq.ft all at single storey level with the exception of a small area at first floor level comprising plant and equipment with locker room, staff facilities and offices. The store would employ 330 staff and provide 601 car parking spaces.
The applications were considered by the Planning Committee in December 1990 and planning permission was granted on 1 May 1991 subject to planning conditions including,
• a limitation on non convenience goods (maximum 15 per cent).
• no retail sales on Sundays (but no restriction on other opening times). Page 127
• no delivery of goods between 9.00pm and 7.00am and not at all on Sundays.
• storage area to be used only for storage purposes.
There was also a legal agreement which required various off site highway works to be carried out.
A detailed planning application for the retail store (GR/91/497) and the provision of 601 parking spaces, access and highway works was approved on 18 September 1991.
The store was built in 1992 along with Wingfield Bank as road access for customers into the store. The store times were stated to be 8.30am to 8.00pm on weekdays (9.00pm on Friday); 8.30am to 6.30pm on Saturdays and closed on Sundays.
In February 1993 a planning application (GR/92/609) to allow Sunday trading of the store was refused but was allowed on appeal on 28 January 1994.
In April 1993 an outline planning application (GR/92/735) for a petrol filling station and alterations to the car park was granted permission. The application showed a reduction of the car park to 527 spaces. A condition of the permission was for the petrol filling station not to operate between 9.00pm and 7.00am and not at all on Sundays.
Detailed approval for the petrol filling station with ancillary kiosk was granted on 1 July 1993 (GR/93/268). The details showed a reduction in the customer car park to 518 parking spaces.
In August 1993 an application (GR/93/358) for the retention of the store without complying with condition (xii) of the original outline consent, GR/90/305, to allow delivery of goods between 9.00pm and 7.00am on weekdays and any time on Sundays was refused.
In April 1994 planning permission was granted for an application (GR/94/89) for variation of condition (vi) of application GR/92/735 to allow the petrol filling station to open on Sundays between 9.30am and 4.30pm.
In August 1995 planning permission was granted for an application (GR/95/209) for the erection of a car wash building and plant room adjacent to the petrol filling station. The application involved the loss of 17 car parking spaces although it was stated that the capacity of the car park prior to the car wash was 495 spaces.
In November 1995 planning permission was granted for an application (GR/95/551) for an extension at the front of the store to provide a coffee shop and restaurant. The extension added a further 353m 2 (3,800sq.ft.) and resulted in the loss of 19 parking spaces, reducing the car parking capacity to 459 spaces.
A planning application (GR/96/816) for variation of condition (vi) of application GR/92/735 to allow extended hours for the petrol filling station was refused on 11 February 1997. The hours sought were from 6.00am to 11.00pm on Monday to Saturday and 9.00am to 5.00pm on Sundays. The hours were subsequently amended to 7.00am to 10.30pm on Mondays to Saturdays and 9.00am to 5.00pm on Sundays. The application was allowed on appeal on 5 August 1998.
Page 128
An enforcement notice relating to the locking of gates within the site when the store is closed was quashed and an appeal allowed, also on 5 August 1998. The planning condition was discharged. Costs were also awarded against the Council.
In September 1998 a planning application was submitted (application GR/98/525) for an extension on the eastern side elevation of the store to form an enlarged retail sales area and customer entrance and for use of part of the existing storage area as sales floor space, together with a revised car parking layout and associated landscaping.
The extension (12.5m wide by 61m long) amounted to 758m 2 (comprising 631m 2 new build and 127m 2 new build preparation area) and 187m 2 additional retails sales area arising from a reduction in the existing rear storage area. The total additional retail sales area was 818m 2 or a 26 per cent increase in the existing retail area.
The purpose of the extension was stated to be for reorganisation of the existing sales area to introduce wider aisles, new gondolas and additional checkouts and to allow the introduction of an extended bakery and delicatessen. It was also to cater for growth in fresh fruit and vegetables and breakfast cereals and crisps. The proposals were not to diversify the product range or extend the comparison goods offer and it was indicated that the turnover would increase by 10 per cent. It was stated that the extension would create a further 35-40 jobs.
The application was considered by the then Planning and Transportation Committee on 9 February 2000 who resolved to grant planning permission.
The permission was subject to a number of planning conditions.
The permission was also subject to a legal agreement to,
1. Ensure that security barriers to the car park facing Springhead Road are when the store is closed to customers closed 30 minutes after the store closes and 30 minutes before the store reopens again the next morning.
2. Ensure that no part of the store is used for or subdivided to provide concessionary stores.
3. Limit the hours of operation of the petrol filling station to those that existed prior to the appeal decision in respect of application GR/96/816, namely between the hours of 7.00am and 9.00pm on weekdays and Saturdays and between 9.30am and 4.30pm on Sundays.
The planning permission and legal agreement was issued on 30 June 2000.
In December 2000 planning permission was granted (application ref. GR/2000/544) for a front and side extension to the existing kiosk at the petrol filling station and alterations to the pump islands.
Two planning applications were submitted in May 2002 to relax the planning condition imposed on the original consent for the store to extend the delivery hours which at that time prohibited deliveries on a Sunday and between the hours of 9.00pm and 7.00am on weekdays.
Page 129
Application GR/02/419 sought permission to commence deliveries an hour earlier in the morning at 6.00am on weekdays, so that the delivery hours would be 6.00am to 9.00pm but not to have deliveries on Sundays.
Application GR/02/420 sought permission to have deliveries on Sundays for two hours between 9.00am and 11.00am.
The applicant’s agents at the time stated that Sainsbury’s preferred option was for deliveries to be extended both during the week and to a Sunday and therefore considered that a single consent which referred to both extended delivery hours should be issued and this would provide more certainty as to the permitted delivery hours.
The applicant’s agents in their supporting statement stated:
Sainsbury are prepared to offer limitations on Sunday deliveries in terms of just between 9.00am and 11.00am and during this time to restrict the number of deliveries to only three. They are agreeable to a temporary period permission of one year to test the acceptability of Sunday deliveries.
In terms of the extra hour requested during weekdays this is needed to spread out the deliveries during the day thus reducing congestion in the storage area and ensure that the shelves are stocked prior to the store opening.
The applications were reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 31 July 2002 but a decision was deferred as the then Head of Environmental and Public Health Services was not able to offer a judgement as no supporting noise evidence had been submitted and information on delivery time conditions on comparable stores elsewhere was requested.
Following receipt of this additional noise information the application was reported back to the Regulatory Board on 13 November 2002 when permission was recommended for both the earlier hour on weekdays and for the two hours on a Sunday for a 12 month temporary period. Members of the Board resolved however to defer a decision on the applications in order to visit the site, to consider the impact on amenity, and highway safety.
The site visit took place on Saturday 30 November 2002. An account of the site visit was reported to the Board at its meeting on 11 December 2002.
A revised recommendation was made in a supplementary report recommending permission on a temporary basis for six months and with the extended delivery times on weekdays being from 6.30am to 9pm and not 6am to 9pm as applied for. Signage was also a requirement of the permission to be displayed outside the service yard to require site users to keep noise levels to a minimum and for delivery vehicles not to be parked in the highway when the service yard was closed.
The Board, however, resolved to refuse application GR/02/419 to extend the delivery times in the morning for the following reason:
The proposed earlier morning delivery times to the existing retail store is likely to be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of adjacent dwellings in Springhead Road by reason of noise and disturbance from vehicle movements and activity associated with the delivery of goods including noise from reversing vehicles, vehicle horns and disturbance from vehicle lights; as such the proposal is contrary to policies H1 and TC1 Page 130
of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and Policy NE19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (Deposit Version).
It was resolved to refuse application GR/02/420 to allow delivery times on a Sunday for the following reason:
The proposal to allow delivery of goods to the existing retail store on Sundays is likely to be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of adjacent dwellings in Springhead Road by reason of noise and disturbance from vehicle movements and activity associated with the delivery of goods, including noise from reversing vehicles, vehicle horns and disturbance from vehicle lights on a day of the week when local residents would expect quiet enjoyment and relief from such noise and disturbance; as such the proposal is contrary to policies H1 and TC1 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and Policy NE19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (Deposit Version).
Appeals were lodged by Sainsbury’s against both refusals and were determined by an appointed Inspector on 9 September 2003. Both appeals were ALLOWED.
The Inspector concluded in relation to early morning delivery times that:
There is no evidence that there would be a substantial increase in noise levels in Springhead Road between 06.00 and 07.00 hours and I consider that there would not be a significant increase in noise or disturbance experienced by local residents. I conclude therefore that the proposal would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of nearby residents and would not conflict with the provisions of Local Plan Policies H1 and TC1.
In terms of Sunday deliveries the Inspector commented:
The store is allowed to open on Sunday and in my view, there is public expectation that a shop open on Sunday will provide an adequate level of service. Consequently deliveries on Sundays would, in my consideration, be a reasonable part of the commercial operation. Traffic levels on Springhead Road are at high levels even on Sundays and there is no evidence that they would be significantly increased by deliveries between 09.00 and 11.00 hours. My conclusion in respect of weekday opening is the same as Appeal A and in respect of Sunday deliveries I conclude that the proposal would not cause significant harm to living conditions of nearby residents and would not conflict with the provisions of Local Plan Policies H1 and TC1.
He did not consider that temporary permissions were appropriate as there was no overwhelming evidence that impact of noise would be harmful.
He imposed the following new condition:
No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 09.00 hours and 11.00 hours on Sundays and outside the hours of 06.00 hours and 21.00 hours on any other day.
An application was submitted in April 2007 (reference GR/07/0362) for temporary planning permission to vary condition (xii) of the original grant of outline planning permission for the Sainsbury’s retail store to extend delivery hours at the store in order to allow deliveries to take place up until 1am (Monday – Saturday) for a temporary period of six months.
Page 131
The application was reported to the meeting of the Council’s Regulatory Board on 20 June 2007 and it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions that the permission be for a temporary period of six months, that new gates be installed to the service yard, that only two deliveries are taken between 9pm and 1am, that a log be kept of the deliveries and a nose limitation is placed on the operation of the service yard.
An application (20080686) was submitted in July 2008 for permanent planning permission to vary condition (xii) of the original grant of outline planning permission for the Sainsbury’s retail store to extend delivery hours at the store. This was refused at the Regulatory Board meeting on 10 December 2008 for the following reason:-
The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity and living conditions of local residents living close to the Sainsbury Superstore in Springhead Road, Northfleet, by virtue of the noise and disturbance caused by delivery lorries entering and leaving the service yard and also unloading and manoeuvring within the service yard, during the night, and in the early morning.
An appeal against refusal was ALLOWED on 7 July 2009 and planning permission granted but not for permanent permission but on a temporary basis only for a further six months subject to conditions
A further application was submitted in November 2009 (20090902) again seeking permission for the permanent variation of condition (xii) of the original outline planning permission for the retail store to allow deliveries to take place until 01.00 hours Monday to Saturday within the delivery yard in Springhead Road.
The application was reported to the Board meeting on 13 January 2010 who RESOLVED to grant a further temporary consent for two years subject to the following conditions:-
1. The variation in condition and extended hours for deliveries to the store hereby permitted shall apply for a period of two years from the date of this decision, after which the delivery times shall revert to those permitted in decision APP/K2230/A/03/1112853 and APP/K2230/A/03/1112553, dated 9 September 2003 in respect of applications GR/2002/0419 and GR/2002/0420.
2. For a period of two years from the date of this decision no deliveries shall be taken or despatched from the site outside the hours of 09.00 and 11.00 on Sundays and outside the hours of 06.00 and 01.00 the following morning on any other day.
3. There will be a maximum of two deliveries during each four hour period between 21.00 and 01.00 on weekdays and Saturdays. Immediately after 01.00 the yard shall be vacated and no further activity shall take place in that area until the next permitted operating period. A log shall be kept detailing all deliveries made to the store and shall be provided on a monthly basis to the Local Planning Authority for the period of this temporary permission.
4. Between 23.00 hours and 01.00 hours each delivery event commencing with the arrival of the delivery vehicle at the gates shall not cause the LA (MAX) to exceed 60dBA. Noise measurements shall be taken at the garden boundary of the nearest residential premises.
5. All delivery events within, to and from the service yard shall fully adhere to the terms and requirements of the approved Sainsbury Pepper Hill Service Yard Management Plan (SYMP) dated 18 June 2009; the operation and effectiveness of SYMP shall be fully Page 132
reviewed and amended as necessary at or before the expiry of this temporary planning permission.
6. All delivery events to the service yard shall take place with the yard gate closed (and flaps engaged) save for the entry/exit of vehicles. The gates shall be maintained in full functioning order at all times the service yard is in use.
An application (20091005) for two refrigeration condensing units within the service yard was reported to the Board meeting on 17 February 2010. The Board resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions. The condenser units have now been installed.
There have been a number of advertisement applications on the site for consent to display various forms of signage including on the building, within the car park and related to the petrol filling station.
There have been a number of refusals of consent to display illuminated free standing advertisements within the store site and for hoardings at the car park entrance. Consents have been granted only for non-illuminated signage where they have been proposed to be displayed directly facing residential properties in Springhead Road or the Fleet estate.
Proposed Extension to the Store 2009
An application was submitted by Sainsbury in September 2009 (application reference 20090726) and described as erection of single storey extension to the store to provide additional sales area and circulation, relocated restaurant, kitchen and customer facilities and additional back up/warehousing; extension within the service yard for 'Sainsbury's To You' online grocery service; relocation and enlargement of petrol filling station; reconfiguration and extension of customer car park (619 spaces); realignment of Wingfield Bank access road and relocation of service yard access in Springhead Road.
When the planning application was first submitted the proposals did not include the relocation or diversion of Wingfield Bank other than at the far end and the customer car parking for the store was shown to be either side of Wingfield Bank. The access to the relocated petrol filling station was shown as being through the southern car park. The access to the service yard was also shown as being in its existing position in Springhead Road opposite no’s 121-125 Springhead Road.
Revised proposals were submitted in late December 2009 and included the diversion of Wingfield Bank, relocation of the service yard access, additional parking spaces (increasing from 550 to 619 spaces), changes to the external appearance of the extended building and additional landscaping within the store car park.
The proposals were to extend the store by 5,484m 2 (Gross External Area – GEA) resulting in an increase of the existing gross floorspace from 7,644m 2 to 13,128m 2 as in the current application.
In respect of the split between convenience goods (essentially food) and comparison goods (non-food) the proposal was for 1,005m² net convenience floorspace and 3,014m² Page 133
comparison floorspace. Therefore the proposed extension was principally to provide non food rather than food floorspace.
The application was originally consulted on and publicised in October 2009 and subsequently in January 2010 following the receipt of the revised plans in December 2010. There were a number of objections from local residents in the area and other interested parties including other retailers and representatives of town centre traders.
The application was reported to the Regulatory Board on 6 October 2010.
The Board was advised that the applicants had already lodged an appeal against non- determination on 17 September 2010.
The Board was advised that although the original planning application had been lodged with the Borough Council for a considerable length of time the proposals had required careful consideration and assessment in terms of their retail impact and the policy background and evidence base to support the Local Development Framework has been slowly emerging. New national planning advice had been issued since the application was first submitted in September 2009, PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) in December 2009, which had required further re-assessment of the proposals in relation to the new planning advice. There had also been lengthy discussions and negotiations between the applicants and Kent Highways and the Highways Agency concerning the traffic impact of the proposals and it was only in August that the Highways Agency had withdrawn their holding direction.
The Board was advised that negotiations with the applicants had sought to reduce the size of extension and floorspace proposed but no concessions had been forthcoming on that particular issue to date.
The Board RESOLVED that it notes that an appeal against non-determination had been submitted for application GR/2009/0726 and that, had it been able to determine the application, it would have resolved to DEFER a decision for negotiation; and the above decision be taken forward for the duplicate application GR/2010/0898.
The ‘Chinacorp’ Site
Outline Planning Application
An outline planning application was submitted in March 2004 for a retail development of this site (reference GR/2004/0270) with all matters (design, external appearance, siting, landscape and means of access) to be submitted for detailed (reserved matter) planning approval.
The application did, nevertheless, comprise an illustrative site layout and was supported by various documents including a planning supporting statement, a viability study, an assessment of the industrial and office market in Gravesend and a transport assessment.
When the application was originally submitted in March 2004 the content of the proposal was for:-
Page 134
• a class A1 shop unit (3,326m 2 or 35,800 sq ft) to be occupied by Homebase (DIY supplier) with a garden centre (743m²; 8000 sq ft) and a possible mezzanine (1,115m²; 12,002 sq ft).
• an A3 (food and drink) unit (309m 2 or 3,326 sq ft) to be occupied by a fast-food restaurant operator (McDonalds).
• A combined total floor space of 5493m² (59,128 sq ft)
• 147 customer parking spaces for the A1 unit and 23 for the fast food unit.
Following discussions and negotiations with the applicants the A3 use was deleted from the scheme in May 2005. The revised content of the proposal was for:-
• A Class A1 stand alone non-food retail unit of 3251m2 (35,000 sq ft), still to be occupied by Homebase, with a garden centre of 1015m 2 (10,925 sq ft)
• The store would also include a 1425m 2 (10,925 sq ft) mezzanine for staff/warehouse and also sales.
• Therefore the total floor space as now proposed is 5691m 2 (61,259 sq ft)
Significant changes were made to the indicative layout also as a result of discussions during the processing and assessment of the application.
When the application was first submitted the illustrative site layout indicated that the retail/store would be located towards the eastern end of the site with service yard next to the eastern boundary and therefore adjacent to the A2260 Hall Road South.
With the deletion of the A3 fast food unit the illustrative site layout was revised.
The illustrative proposals showed,
• the proposed building to be located towards the western end with the garden centre and service yard at the western extremity with car parking on the eastern part of the site
• the vehicular access to the customer parking would be located approximately 65 metres from the junction of Wingfield Bank with the Pepper Hill roundabout and about 40 metres before the vehicular entrance from Wingfield Bank into the Sainsburys superstore
• provision for 134 car parking spaces and 16 cycle spaces.
In respect of employment the applicants advised that the total number of employees at the store would be in the region of 70 (40-50 being full time staff). The number of deliveries was given as six HGV’s per week for 40 weeks and during the remaining 12 peak trading weeks there would be nine HGV deliveries per week.
An appeal was lodged by the applicants against non-determination in late September 2006.
Page 135
At the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 11 October 2006 it was resolved that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Council would have REFUSED the application for the following reasons:-
1. The proposal is contrary to policy EP15 of the approved Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006, policies S0, S1 and S2 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and policies RS1, RS2, RS7 and RS8 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (Deposit Version) 2000 in that the proposal is likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Gravesend Town Centre and local centres and that the Borough Council is not satisfied that such an out of centre location is the most appropriate having regard to the sequential consideration of sites for retail development. The proposal is in any event premature to consideration of the future retailing needs of the Borough through the preparation of the Local Development Framework.
2. The proposal is also contrary to Government guidance in PPG6 and PPG13 in that it is likely to undermine existing town centre strategy and contribute to increased use of the car for shopping. This would be to the detriment of sustainable development and sustainable transport policies.
3. The proposal is contrary to policy TP12 of the approved Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006, policies T1 and T5 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and policies T1 and T12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (Deposit Version) 2000 in that the proposal is likely to generate a significant increase in traffic resulting in congestion, traffic delays and increased risk of crashes and difficulties of access to and from the site onto Wingfield Bank, the Pepper Hill Roundabout, the immediate highway network and the A2 trunk road to the detriment of highway safety and where the current highway network is already at or near capacity. The Borough Council is not satisfied that the impact on the highway network has been properly and fully assessed by the applicants particularly having regard to the current traffic conditions on the highway network and in the light of more recent traffic survey work commissioned by SEEDA.
4. Notwithstanding the findings of the applicant’s air quality assessment and in the absence of any assessment of noise from the development the Borough Council considers that the proposals are likely to result in a significant and noticeable increase in pollution and noise arising from car traffic generated by the development to the detriment of local amenity in an area which is shown as an Air Quality Management Area. As such the proposal is contrary to policies NR5 and NR7 of the approved Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006, policies NE16 and NE19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (Deposit Version) 2000 and the general guidance in PPG24: Planning and Noise.
5. The proposals are contrary to proposal PM14 of the approved Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 that shows the site of Wingfield Bank Farm as being for retail purposes and B1 employment development. The proposal is also contrary to policy E4 (New Employment Areas) of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000 which identifies the site as suitable for employment development or redevelopment and specifically for B1 (a) offices. The proposal also does not conform with the preferred land use as business use as identified in the Land West of Springhead Road Development Brief dated January 1997.
Page 136
The Appeal
The appeal against non-determination was heard at a public inquiry on 27 and 28 March 2007. The Borough Council withdrew the fourth notional reason for refusal relating to air quality and noise in January 2007 but re-affirmed its decision that it would have refused the application at the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 14 February 2007.
At the public inquiry a unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was submitted by the applicants and signed by the Borough Council. The undertaking includes:-
1. A highway contribution of £200,000 to the County Council for highway works being measures to reduce traffic level queuing and delays on Hall Road between the A2 Pepper Hill junction and the Springhead Road/Hall Road roundabout within three years of the store opening for trading.
2. An environmental contribution of £150,000 to the Borough Council for environmental works for traffic calming and/or environmental improvement with the aim of reducing both the quantity and impact of traffic on local roads in the vicinity of the site and of increasing pedestrian accessibility to the store.
The appeal decision was received on 19 April 2007. The appeal was ALLOWED and planning permission granted subject to conditions. The conditions included a restriction on the gross floorspace (to 5,691m 2) but no restriction on net sales area, no internal subdivision, and a restriction on the type of goods to DIY goods, wall and floor coverings, furniture and furnishings, lighting, electrical products including sound and vision; homewares; household textiles; household appliances; motor parts; tools and accessories; kitchen and bathroom and outdoor living goods; garden supplies and equipment; and ancillary items thereto.
A separate costs application against the Borough Council was also ALLOWED the Inspector granting a full application for costs.
In summary the Inspector concluded that,
• The new development would share a similar catchment to the Sainsburys superstore;
• The function of the Sainsbury’s superstore would not be affected by the proposal;
• The introduction of the new store would offer potential for linked trips and would complement the Sainsbury’s store;
• There were no more sequentially preferable sites to accommodate the proposed development;
• The vitality and viability of town centres would be unaffected by the proposed development providing a suitable condition is imposed restricting the range of goods to be sold; and
• The site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.
Page 137
Reserved Matter Applications
A planning application (reference GR/2007/1056) for detailed planning approval for a retail store at Wingfield Bank designed to meet the requirements and branding of Homebase was submitted at the end of November 2007.
The basic layout involved a rectangular shaped retail building on the rear half of the site with a garden centre and service yard towards the rear and with a surfaced customer car park on the front half of the site next to Hall Road and the Wingfield Bank roundabout. The car park would provide 139 car parking spaces. Access into the car park was from Wingfield Bank approximately 65 metres from the roundabout.
The proposed building was shown as a steel frame construction faced in a composite insulated cladding panel finished in silver. The main roof had a 6º pitch and finished in grey Kingspan with roof lights. The height of the building was 10m to the ridge and 7.5m to the eaves.
The highway proposals included the provision of a pedestrian refuge/crossing point just to the west of the access into the car park and before the entrance into the Sainsbury’s store; a crossing point/refuge across the new access; a new three metre wide footpath/cycleway on the southern side of Wingfield Bank, a new turning head at the end of Wingfield Bank and minor modifications to the carriageway to tie in the new road works carried out at the end of Wingfield Bank which had been provided as a construction access into the Ebbsfleet Springhead Park residential development being built by Countryside Properties for Land Securities.
The application was considered by the Regulatory Board on 28 May 2008 and was approved subject to additional conditions.
The detailed planning approval for Homebase has not been implemented although it remains as an extant permission
Variation to Condition 12
A planning application (GR/2007/0550) was submitted in June 2007 for the variation of condition 12 of the appeal decision reference number APP/K2230/A/06/2024882 for the outline permission for erection of one A1 non-food retail unit, to allow the development to be subdivided into units no smaller than 929 sq.m. (10,000 sq.ft) in size.
The condition imposed in the appeal decision would preclude the subdivision of the building. The condition states:
The development hereby permitted shall not be internally sub-divided into separate units.
The application meant that based on the approved floor area of the single DIY store for Homebase that potentially the building could be divided into six units if the floor area including the mezzanine and garden centre was taken as a whole. It was pointed out in the Report to the Board that it did not necessarily follow that a detailed planning scheme for up to six units on the site would subsequently be submitted given that there was already a detailed planning application being processed for a single unit store to be occupied by Homebase at the site but that the variation would give the applicants the flexibility to do so.
Page 138
In terms of retail impact it was considered that there would be no greater impact on the vitality/viability of the town centre as a subdivided unit or several different units than if it were a standalone single retail unit.
The Board was also advised that condition 13 of the permission still offered some degree of control as it limited the development to ‘bulky goods’ and non-food albeit that the range of goods was quite wide but this was to reflect the typical range of goods to be found in an Homebase retail format.
It was resolved by the Regulatory Board meeting on 19 March 2008 to grant PERMISSION for variation of condition 12 of appeal decision reference number APP/K2230/A/06/2024882 for the outline permission for erection of one A1 non-food retail unit, subject to the other conditions imposed therein, so far as they are still subsisting and capable of taking effect and subject to the following condition in substitution:
The development hereby permitted shall not be subdivided into units which are smaller than 929 sq m (10,000 sq ft) in size.
3. Proposal
This duplicate planning application was first submitted in late September 2010 as a consequence of the earlier 2009 extension application being appealed on non-determination grounds. However following recent negotiations the proposals have been amended and the proposals as referred to below are as negotiated with comparisons made with the plans/documents first submitted.
The Proposals in General
The proposals are, as in the appealed application, for a significant enlargement to and refurbishment of the existing Sainsbury’s store, an extension of the customer car park into the land opposite (the Chinacorp site) and relocation of the petrol filling station (pfs) from its current location into the land opposite and adjacent to the Pepper Hill roundabout.
The existing road (Wingfield Bank) would be diverted south along the southern edge of the land opposite (the Chinacorp site). The service yard would remain but the access into the yard would be relocated from its present position opposite houses in Springhead Road to a position at the northern edge of the site just beyond the junction of Springhead Road with Waterdales.
The principal extension to the store will be on the south east elevation in car park nearest to Springhead Road. There will also be an extension at the rear to provide additional back up/warehouse and an additional extension in the service yard for ‘Sainsburys to You’ online grocery service.
The front elevation of the store will also be squared off and the restaurant relocated into the new extension.
Proposed Floorspace and Size of Extension
The revised scheme proposes the following floorspace changes as set out in the table below:
Page 139
(all figures sq m) Existing Submitted Revised Scheme Scheme Gross External Area 7,664 13,128 12,237 CC Net Sales 3,537 7,557 6,968 Convenience 3,006 4,011 4,878 Comparison 531 3,545 2,090
Gross External Area
In summary the proposals will extend the store by 4573m2 (Gross External Area – GEA). This would represent an increase in the GEA of the store by 60 per cent.
(The originally submitted scheme was for an increase in the Gross External Area of the store by 5,464m 2 or a 71 per cent increase in GEA)
Net Retail Floorspace
In respect of total net retail sales area the proposals will increase the floorspace in the store by 3431m 2 (based on the Competition Commission definition which excludes checkouts, lobby, restaurants, concessions and rest rooms). This would represent an increase in net floorspace by 97per cent.
(The originally submitted scheme was for an increase in the net retail sales area of the store by 4019m² or a 113 per cent increase in net sales floorspace)
Warehousing Floorspace
The back up area (for storage/warehousing and on line service) is shown in the plans as being increased by 1297m² (Gross External Area – GEA)
Size of Extension
The main sales extension would measure some 41 metres wide by 62 metres deep and the restaurant/customer toilet extension would be 16 metres wide by 30 metres deep. At its nearest point the extension (back up area) would be six metres from the boundary of the site to Springhead Road.
The footprint of the store has been reduced from the plans originally submitted by shaving a metre off the width of the extension on the eastern side, by reducing the forward projection at the front of the store by 3 metres and by reducing the restaurant/customer toilet extension by 4 metres in depth. In addition customer toilets are now shown to be located within the main sales area of the extension which has therefore reduced the net area available for sales.
Convenience/Comparison Split
In respect of the split between convenience goods (essentially food) and comparison goods (non-food) the proposal is for 1872m² of the revised floorspace of the extension to be devoted to convenience floorspace and 1559m² for comparison floorspace, thus about 55 per cent of the extension would be for convenience goods.
Page 140
If the floorspace of the existing store is taken into account, and having regard to the current restriction on the floorspace for comparison goods (15%) the overall split of the extended store is indicated as being 70% convenience floorspace and 30% comparison floorspace.
(The originally submitted scheme was for 1,005m² net convenience floorspace and 3,014m² comparison floorspace and therefore the proposed extension was principally to provide non food rather than food floorspace and in percentage terms the split was 25% convenience and 75% comparison. Moreover the previous scheme would have meant almost half of the floor area of the whole store would have been devoted to comparison floorspace)
Turnover Increase
In turnover terms the revised retail assessment indicates that the estimated turnover for the proposed extension is likely to increase convenience goods turnover by £12.7m and comparison goods turnover by £9m i.e. £21.7m in total compared to the current turnover for the store of £47.2m, thus resulting in an increased turnover of 85%.
(The figures in the original assessment were £6.8m convenience and £17.4m comparison or £24.2m in total or a doubling in turnover)
Employment.
The existing store has a total of 360 employees of which 71 are full time and 289 part time. The extended store would result in the requirement of additional employees, taking the total to between 500 and 600. The applicants indicate that the actual staff requirement is not possible to predict but they estimate (based on similar store extensions) that between 140 and 240 new jobs would be created with a similar split to that as existing between full time and part time employees.
Design and External Appearance
In respect of the external appearance the existing brick store and new extension would be re-clad in glazing and cladding panels. The front elevation will be clad in pale grey horizontal composite panels with dark grey composite roof cladding panels. The applicants suggest that the design/materials are cleaner and more elegant. The front elevation will include in part some brickwork with contrast details and piers and partly to the return elevation to Springhead Road.
An art panel on the existing store would be relocated onto the front façade.
The front entrance will be partly glazed with panels above.
The inclusion of part brick elevations was negotiated in the 2009 application.
Car Parking and Access
The main vehicle access to the store for customer parking would be from a new roundabout from Wingfield Bank which will be diverted from its present alignment southwards. Wingfield Bank is currently an adopted highway and a stopping up order under the Highways Act will be necessary to achieve the diversion of the road. The existing pedestrian entrance from Springhead Road would be retained.
Page 141
The customer car park would provide 620 car parking spaces, 32 would be designated for the mobility impaired and 22 for special needs (parent and child). This would be an increase in the total number of parking spaces by approx 220 spaces. The eastern most section of the new car park would be gated off when the store is not open for customers.
Landscaping/Landform
Much of the existing landscaping and all the protected trees along the Springhead Road frontage would be retained although the applicant’s arboriculturalists have identified signs of canker within the protected horse chestnut trees.
Additional landscaping will be provided within the new car park. The inclusion of trees within the car park was negotiated in the 2009 application. This will compensate for the loss of existing trees within the current car park although the tree survey accompanying the application did indicate that many of the car park trees have poor physiological condition and would have been lost through natural causes.
There will also be new planting to screen the lighting impact of the petrol filling station from Hall Road and planting along the new south west boundary to partially screen the electricity station from the car park and store.
The revised proposals in addition to the landscaping to the petrol filling station also include bunding, a retaining wall and an acoustic fence. This is a recent amendment to the current application and was offered by the applicants in order to reduce the visual and noise impact of the petrol filling station to the residential properties opposite.
The proposals will result in changes to ground levels across the site. In particular that part of the site where the petrol filling station is proposed to be located will be reduced in height.
Petrol Filling Station (pfs)
The plans show the petrol filling station would have eight pump islands. The access for customers and deliveries into the petrol filling station would be from a new roundabout on the relocated Wingfield Bank.
The pfs shop/kiosk is 14.8m wide by 12m deep and 4m high. It will be constructed with a brick front elevation and part returns and the remainder in light grey composite panels. It will be located about 11m from the edge of the site adjacent to Hall Road and there would be an access road between the Hall Road verge and the kiosk for cars exiting the pfs to get back to Wingfield Bank.
A car wash facility will also be provided next to the petrol filling station.
Service Yard
The entrance to the service yard would be relocated to the north at the end of the site just beyond the junction with Waterdales. No additional loading bays will be provided but it is proposed to erect an extension of 16.2m by 17m (275m²) as a ‘Sainsbury’s To You’ on line grocery store. The building will include 5 loading bays. The site of this extension is currently occupied by two recently installed refrigeration condenser units.
The online delivery operation would accommodate 8 vehicles and outside of operational hours, the vehicles would remain on-site. Page 142
Other Facilities
The restaurant/coffee shop will be extended and relocated into the new extension. Customer toilets will also be located towards the front of the store ion the new extension.
The plans show the ATM’s would be relocated to the front elevation of the new extension. In front of the store would be a pick-up lay-by. There would be a motorcycle parking area for 18 motorcycles. There will be cycle parking in front of the store for 24 cycles.
The bus stop and a new shelter would be relocated/provided on the north side of the diverted Wingfield Bank opposite the petrol filling station.
A new recycling bay will be provided within the customer car park.
CCTV surveillance will be installed in the car park and new lighting provided within the car park. Detailed lighting plans have not been developed for the proposed change in lighting arrangements at the store but it is indicated that lighting levels for the car parks will be 50- 100 lux, 30 lux for open areas and 15 lux for walkways.
Sustainability
The proposals will incorporate energy efficient technologies and possible rain water harvesting. A total of 12 cycle hoops will be installed.
Hours of Use
In the application form accompanying the application the hours of use for the food store are given as,
Monday to Friday 0800-2200 Saturday 0730-2200 Sundays and Bank Holidays 1000-1600
There is currently no condition or restriction on the trading hours of the existing store and potentially Sainsbury could operate on a 24 hour basis although Sunday Trading restrictions would of course apply.
There are current restrictions however in respect of the operation of the service delivery yard (6am to 1am the following morning on weekdays and 9am to 11am on Sundays), the restricted hours being permitted on a temporary basis for two years.
The proposed petrol filling station opening hours are stated to be confirmed but were indicated in the 2009 application as being,
Monday-Friday: 0700-2300 Saturday: 0630-2300 Sunday: 0900-1700
Currently the trading hours of the existing petrol filling station are,
Monday to Friday 0700-2100 Saturday 0700-2030 Page 143
Sundays and Bank Holidays 0930-1630
However the planning condition imposed in 1998 on an appeal decision relating to a variation to the hours of does allow the petrol filling station to operate between 0700 to 2230 on Mondays to Saturdays and 0900 to 1700 on Sundays.
It is indicated that the hours of operation for the Sainsbury’s To You on-line grocery service will be between 0900 and 2300 Monday to Saturday and 1000 and 1600 on Sundays.
Reasons for the Proposals
A number of reasons for the extension are suggested by the applicants in the various submitted documents as follows:
• not meeting modern customer expectations and customer satisfaction
• upgrade to the store
• more space needed to display the desired range of food and non-food items
• important shopping destination in the locality
• wider range of convenience durables and everyday non food
• expansion of the store will serve the new population of Ebbsfleet
• enables reorganisation of store layout
• improved shop-ability and quality
• the store is significantly over-trading
• overcome store congestion at peak times
• allow innovative and attractive product displays
• keeping pace with competitor stores.
Documents supporting the Application
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
• Plans and Elevations of the Extension(s) and Petrol Filling Station (September 2010 and earlier dates in respect of some plans)
• Planning Statement (September 2010)
• Gravesend and Pepper Hill Household Survey of Shopping Habits (May 2009)
• Retail Assessment (September 2010 and November 2010 update)
Page 144
• Design and Access Statement (September 2010)
• Employment and Skills Statement (September 2010)
• Transport Assessment and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (September 2010)
• Colleague Travel Plan (September 2010)
• Preliminary Geo-Environmental and Geotechnical Assessment (rev2 September 2010)
• Noise Assessment (September 2010)
• Air Quality Assessment (September 2010)
• Flood Risk Assessment (August 2010)
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (September 2010)
• Environmental Desk Top Study (April 2009 with updated site plan September 2010)
• Lighting Impact Assessment (September 2010)
• Desktop Archaeological Assessment (August 2010)
• Arboricultural Report (Revision C) (November 2010)
• Community Consultation Statement (September 2009)
• Addendum to Community Consultation Statement (September 2010)
Revised floor plans and elevations have been submitted together with revised landscaping plans to reflect the changes to the footprint of the extensions.
4. Development Plan
The Development Plan comprises:-
• The Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994)
• Saved Policies of the Local Plan First Review (1994)
There are a number of other un-adopted planning documents (e.g. The Gravesham Local Plan Second Review) which are of some relevance and are a material consideration, together with national planning advice and guidance (PPG’s/PPS’s) and the emerging policies in the Local Development Framework.
On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced the revocation of Regional Strategies with immediate effect. However following the judgement in the case brought by Cala Homes in the High Court, which considered that the powers set out in section 79 [6] of the Local Democracy, Page 145
Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety.
The effect of this decision is to re-establish Regional Strategies as part of the development plan. However the Secretary of State wrote to Local Planning Authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate on 27 May 2010 informing them of the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Strategies in the Localism Bill and that he expected them to have regard to this as a material consideration in planning decisions.
Therefore consideration still needs to be given to the policies in the adopted South East Plan.
Local Planning Guidance
Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994
The Gravesham Local Plan First Review was adopted in November 1994.
The Gravesham Local Plan still remains as the adopted local planning document and the written statement and proposals map will continue to have effect as the development plan pending the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF). A substantial number of policies of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review have been saved by a Direction dated 25 September 2007 of the Secretary of State under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
In the Gravesham Local Plan First Review Proposals Map the existing Sainsbury’s site and the land to the south of Wingfield Bank are shown as subject to proposal PM14.
The pre-amble to Proposal PM14 in the Written Statement is as follows:
“Part of the land at Wingfield Bank Farm, Northfleet was originally allocated for housing development. In May 1991 the Borough Council granted planning permission for a food superstore after careful consideration of a number of studies, particularly in relation to traffic and retail impact. Accordingly this development is shown as a proposal to reflect this. The remaining portion of land is considered suitable for employment development within Use Class B1”.
Proposal PM14: Wingfield Bank, Northfleet
Land at Wingfield Bank Farm, Northfleet will be developed as a food superstore subject to suitable safeguards on design, traffic, retail impact and local environmental matters and for employment development within Use Class B1.
The general shopping policies of the Plan, S0, S1 and S2 are also relevant.
Policy S0: General Shopping Policy
The Borough Council will not normally permit new retail development outside established centres, unless such proposals can be justified as an exception when considered against the criteria set out in the Approved Kent Structure Plan (see paragraph 5.4 of the Borough Plan Review). Emphasis will be placed on the need to husband the long term undeveloped urban land supply in the Borough without infringing the Green Belt (See Policy C0). Page 146
Policy S1: Location of New Shopping Development
The Borough Council will actively support, enhance and expand the primary shopping role of Gravesend Town Centre, within the hierarchy of Kent shopping centres, in support of policies in the Approved Kent Structure Plan. In the case of retail warehousing preference will be given to the development of a retail warehouse park at the Imperial Business Estate (See Proposal PM6).
Policy S2: Change of Use to Shopping
The Borough Council will not normally permit the change of use of buildings to shopping or the provision of new shopping, outside the areas indicated on the Proposals Map as "Town Centre Shopping Area" and "Local Centres", except for:-
(i) the specific proposals set out in this Plan.
(ii) cases of minor extensions to existing shops.
(iii) minor proposals for change of use which would be in accordance with the area policies set out in this Written Statement.
Note: It should be noted that the Kent Structure Plan as superseded by the later Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and the polices therein are no longer in force as is ceased to have effect as a development plan on 6 July 2009.
The residential dwellings opposite the Sainsbury’s site in Springhead Road are shown in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review as being within a housing area and subject to policy H1, although policy H1 is not a saved policy. This policy nevertheless seeks to ensure that within the “Housing Areas” the residential character will be consolidated and enhanced and change of use of premises or new developments that would be detrimental to amenity will be resisted.
Policy TC1 of the Local Plan First Review is a general design policy that requires all new development not to cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
Other relevant policies are:-
Policy T0: General Policy for Transport Policy T1: Impact of Development on the Highway Network Policy T2: Channelling of Traffic onto the Primary and District Distributor Network Policy T5: New Accesses onto Highway Network Policy TC0: General Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy TC10: Landscaping Policy P3: Vehicle parking standards
Local Plan Second Review Draft Deposit Version 2000
The draft Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000 has been adopted by the Borough Council for development control purposes but in view of the provisions of the Page 147
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the intention to prepare a Local Development Framework, it is not being progressed any further. It remains a material consideration but the policies therein are of limited weight. The weight which can be attached to its policies is greater where the policies are consistent with Government guidance and with policies of the adopted Local Plan First Review.
In the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version the site is subject to policy RS8. This states:
Policy RS8: Superstores
Superstores, as defined on the proposals map will be treated as other local centres providing any proposal for expansion and/or alteration can be demonstrated as not having a significant impact on vitality of the town centre or other local centres. At Wingfield Bank expansion of facilities will be encouraged in the context of, at a form appropriate to, and at a rate commensurate with, the development of the Springhead Quarter of Ebbsfleet.
Retail policies RS1, RS2 and RS7 are also relevant considerations to this proposal.
Policy RS1 sets out the general retail policy where the emphasis is on maintaining the role, vitality and viability of the Town Centre and local centres by not permitting retail development outside such locations unless it can be justified according to a set of criteria.
Policy RS1: General Policy on Retail and Service Proposals
Retail and service proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:- i. the sequential test on location (with Gravesend Town Centre as the primary town centre, followed by edge-of-town centre, local centres and only in exceptional cases, out-of-town); ii. a balance between uses should be maintained in centres to ensure that as full a range of facilities as possible is offered, subject to the scale and character of the centre concerned; iii. the impact of the proposals, both individually and cumulatively, on the vitality and viability the Town Centre and local centres; iv. the implications for public transport, parking and highways, in particular the range of means of accessibility and overall effect on travel patterns and car usage; and v. the other policies and proposals of this Local Plan Review.
This general policy is reinforced by Policy RS2 (Gravesend Town Centre) which again emphasises that the Town Centre will be the prime location for any new or redeveloped retail floor-space. It states:-
Policy RS2: Gravesend Town Centre
Gravesend Town Centre, as defined on the Town Centre Inset to the Proposals Map, will be the prime location for any new or redeveloped retail floorspace. The primary, secondary and tertiary frontage policies define the traditional Town Centre for retail purposes. The Imperial Business and Retail Park is for those businesses involved in Page 148
bulky goods which the public normally collect directly from the store. Any site specific policies on land use have precedence. All proposals for retail or service uses will need to:- i. contribute to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre; ii. be of high quality design, and be acceptable in terms of the built environment and conservation policies (see Chapter 10 of this Plan); iii. not seriously detract from the amenity and functioning of any adjoining property and uses; iv. not cause the cumulative impact of any one use in a particular street to detract from the retail function or range of facilities provided; v. not cause the loss of existing, or the possibility of reinstatement of, separate accesses to upper floors; and vi. meet the requirements of transport policy, in particular car parking and access as appropriate to the location and use.
Policy RS7 (Local Centres) gives support to maintaining and enhancing the local centres as the foci for the local community.
Policy RS7: Local Centres
Local centres, as defined on the Proposals Map, will be supported, enhanced and protected from a loss of floorspace from retail or service uses. Where appropriate, local centres will be encouraged to develop their own distinctive characters but not at the expense of their local “walk-in” function. Over dominance of service uses will be resisted.
In the Local Plan Second Review policy NE19 is a policy relating specifically to noise- generating development. This states:
Policy NE19: Noise- Generating Development
Proposals for noise-generating development will require a full assessment of the impact, in the form of a competent report to be provided by the developer. The Borough Council will assess such proposals for their impact on:- i. noise-sensitive uses (including housing, offices, hospitals and schools); and ii. areas where the background noise levels are very low and which are important for their quiet recreational and amenity value.
Such development will only be allowed if it does not have a significant adverse noise impact on noise-sensitive uses or if it is not located in an area with low background noise levels which is important for its quiet recreational, amenity or wildlife value.
Other general policies of the plan that are relevant include,
Policy T1: Location of Development Policy T12: New Accesses on Highway and Public Transport Network Policy T16: Car Parking Standards Policy NE4: Tree Preservation Orders Page 149
Policy NE6: Trees and Landscaping within New Developments Policy NE16: Air Quality Policy BE1: Townscape Conservation and Design Policy BE12: Design of New Development, Extensions and Alterations Policy BE19: Public Art
Local Development Framework
The Council has been in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework (LDF) for the Borough since 2005. Progress to date on this document has focussed on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which was adopted in March 2007 and the Core Strategy.
The Local Development Scheme (LDS), which sets out the programme for taking forward the LDF, was reviewed in order to address deficiencies in the evidence base and the changes introduced by PPS12 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. The revised LDS was approved by GOSE on 16 January 2009.
A number of public consultation exercises have been carried out to identify the key issues and priorities for consideration in the Core Strategy.
More recently a draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Regulation 25 document – Issues and Options) was considered by the Council’s Cabinet in December 2009 who approved the document for the purposes of public consultation. A six week consultation period was undertaken between 28 January and 11 March 2010 to enable residents, local businesses and stakeholders to have their say in the future planning for the borough.
It is anticipated that this will be examined by an independent Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate in 2011 for adoption in 2012.
Core Strategy Policies
The most relevant core strategy policies are,
Core Strategy Policy 2: Urban Area Core Strategy Policy 5: Development and Design Principles Core Strategy Policy 11: Town Centre and Retailing Core Strategy Policy 15: Transport Core Strategy Policy 16: Strategic Sites
Core Strategy Policy 11: Town Centre and Retailing is set out below.
Core Strategy Policy 11: Town Centre and Retailing
The Borough’s town, neighbourhood and village centres will continue to be the focus for new retail development, providing a range of services in a well-designed environment that is accessible to everyone. The Council will promote a strategy that recognises and respects the distinctive role and character of the Gravesend town centre, the local, Page 150
neighbourhood and village centres and that supports their vitality and viability, within the context of a clear hierarchy detailed as follows:
(1) Primary Town Centre (figure 9)
Gravesend historic town centre
(2) Edge of Town Centre (figure 9)
Imperial Retail Estate
(3) Local Centres and Larger Village Centres (figure 10)
(4) Neighbourhood Centres and Smaller Village Centres (figure 10)
(5) Potential new or enhanced retail provision on the following major sites:
Ebbsfleet
Northfleet Embankment
Canal Basin
(5) Out of Centre Superstores
The sequential approach will be used to assess sites for new retail development. Retail development proposals will generally be acceptable where they are in accordance with the retail hierarchy above. Where retail development cannot be accommodated within the identified network of centres, retail development should be directed at the edge of these centres.
The growth of retailing and other town centre uses such as leisure and entertainment, offices, arts, culture and tourism facilities and housing, the latter particularly in mixed- use, multi-storey developments is promoted to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre.
Proposals which enhance the range and quality of retail, leisure, office, cultural and tourist facilities or increase the vitality and viability of existing the town centre and network of centres will be supported where:
1. in the case of retail and other uses, they are located within the town centre and network of centres as defined on the Proposals Map;
2. they are of a scale and nature appropriate to the size and function of the centre;
3. they can be accessed conveniently by public transport, bicycle and on foot;
4. they are well designed and of high quality;
5. they provide additional employment opportunities;
6. they make best use of underused or vacant sites and buildings;
Page 151
7. in local, neighbourhood and village centres proposals which help to meet people’s day-to-day needs for local shopping and other services will be supported where they are consistent with the size and function of the centre and are of a scale and type;
8. Outside these locations proposals for retailing and leisure uses will be considered in the light of identified need and the sequential approach;
In every case the scale and location of proposals should accord with the spatial development strategy, the development principles, and other LDF policies. In all locations, proposals which result in the loss of an existing facility or service will not be supported unless satisfactory alternative provision is made or the facility can be demonstrated to be not financially viable.
Development Management Policies
The most relevant development management policies include,
Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design Development Management Policy 15: Employment Development Management Policy 18: Policies for Gravesend Town Centre
There are also a number of development management policies relating to transport and parking including Policy 30: Assessment Criteria for Transport Proposals, Policy 31: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, Policy 32: Transport Network and Accesses and Policy 33: Vehicle Parking Standards
Development Management Policy 18: Policies for Gravesend Town Centre states:
Development Management Policy 18: Policies for Gravesend Town Centre
Gravesend Town Centre’s position within the retail hierarchy will be promoted and enhanced by:
1. directing retail, cultural and service development to the Town Centre through the ‘sequential test’. This will include, in the first instance, directing new retail development proposals towards the primary shopping area, as defined on the Proposals Map;
2. ensuring that the scale and use of new development is consistent with the role and function of the centre and, therefore, does not harm the vitality and viability of other centres;
3. expanding the Town Centre to serve its catchment and the projected increase in need of those within this catchment over the period of the Gravesham LDF;
4. securing qualitative improvements to the Town Centre through regeneration schemes and developer contributions.
Within the Primary Frontages of the Town Centre as defined on the Proposals Map, proposals for A1 retail use will be supported. The change of use of ground floor Class A1 units to other Class A uses, as defined within the Use Classes Order 1987 (as Page 152
amended), will only be permitted if the balance of retail vitality and viability is not likely to be significantly harmed. Non retail uses can break the continuity of the browsing experience for the shopper, and result in dead frontage or cut-off points beyond which shoppers will not go. In order to protect these frontages function, at least 80 per cent of retail units will be retained in the A1 use class and proposal will not be supported that would result in three or more adjoining units in non-A1 use. Within the Primary Frontages, proposals for office, leisure or residential accommodation on upper floors will be supported.
Within the Secondary Frontages in the Town Centre as defined on the Proposals Map, proposals for retail, leisure, and culture uses will be supported. The change of use of ground floor Class A1 uses to other Class A, B1(a) and D1 uses, as defined within the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended), will only be permitted if the medium to long-term retail vitality and viability is not likely to be significantly harmed. Within the Secondary Frontages, proposals for office, leisure or residential accommodation on upper floors will be supported.
Gravesham LDF Retail and Commercial Leisure Study
The evidence base to support the emerging retail policies in the LDF has included a Retail Study undertaken by consultants for the Borough Council (Roger Tym and Partners), a final report being published in December 2009.
An addendum to the report (July 2010) has also now been published and this provides more robust and up to date evidence.
Both documents are also relevant to the consideration and assessment of the Sainsbury’s planning application.
Regional Spatial Strategy
South East Plan
There are a number of general regional policies that are of some relevance to the application. However the most relevant polices are TC1 (Strategic Network of Town Centres) that identifies Gravesend as a secondary town centre and policy TC2 (New Development and Redevelopment in Town Centres) which indicates that plans and strategies prepared by local authorities and other stakeholders should have regard to, amongst other things, the potential impact on the vitality and viability of town centres.
Also relevant are policy KTG1 (Core Strategy for Kent Thames Gateway) and policy KTG5 (The Role of the Retail Centres). The latter states:
A network of retail and service centres will be developed in which: i. Bluewater will continue to maintain its specialist regional role as an out of centre regional shopping centre for comparison goods shopping. Any proposals for additional floorspace at the centre that would maintain this role will be considered through a review of the RSS. Any such proposals should provide for improved access to the centre by non-car modes
Page 153
ii. the town centres of Dartford, Gravesend, Sittingbourne and, on a larger scale, Chatham, will be further developed as the major town centres at which new mixed retail, leisure and service uses will be concentrated iii. at Ebbsfleet, ancillary retail and service space will be provided at a scale and character to serve the resident and daytime population iv. local development documents will make provision for local and district facilities in appropriate town centres in conjunction with the development of major new neighbourhoods.
Planning Policy Guidance and Statements
The following Government planning advice documents are also material considerations:-
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005)
Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (2007)
Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009) (which has replaced PPS6)
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010)
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2001)
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (1994)
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (2010)
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
The Government guidance in PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009) is of particular relevance to the determination of this application as it includes a number of national policies in relation to retail proposals. It provides five key policies for dealing with such planning applications – EC10, EC14, EC15, EC16 and EC17. Policy EC17 is summarised below.
Policy EC17: The Considerations of Planning Applications for Development of Main Town Centre Uses not in a centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan.
Planning Applications for main town centre uses not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused where there is
- non compliance with the sequential approach
- clear evidence of significant adverse impacts, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, development under construction and completed development.
Page 154
Where there is no significant adverse impact applications should be determined taking account of
- positive and negative impacts
- likely cumulative effect of recent permissions etc.
Judgements about the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan and town centre health checks.
PPS4 (Practice Guide on the Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach)
There is also an accompanying practice guidance to PPS4 (Practice Guide on the Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach) which although not policy is a guide to reviewing impact assessments and sequential site assessments.
5. Reason for Report
The site and the proposals has been the subject of previous reports to the Regulatory Board.
Major Development Proposal
6. Consultations and Publicity
Consultations
Roger Tym and Partners, Retail Consultants for Gravesham Borough Council
Response is appended to this report
Planning Policy, Gravesham Borough Council
Roger Tym and Partners (RTP) for the Council have carried out a comprehensive assessment of the revised application, and the revised WYG impact assessment in the light of the tests set out in PPS4, highlighting many of the concerns that officers had previously raised. On the sequential test they conclude that the applicant has demonstrated compliance. There will clearly be impacts on the town centre and other stores, but they judge these not to be clear and significant in the terms of the PPS. The overall conclusion is that the negative impacts on the retail side need to be balanced against the other issues.
Taking the matter purely as a retail matter the revised application is a significant improvement over the original from the non food side though potentially increases the food impact due to additional convenience floorspace. Impacts are all under 7%, and are primarily on other major food stores. Impacts further afield (e.g. Dartford) will be smaller still. In current economic Page 155
circumstances convenience expenditure projects can be regarded a relatively robust, with the caveat that population growth in the short term is going to be reduced due to the lack of development in Ebbsfleet (excluding Springhead) and Eastern Quarry in particular. Retail development in those sites is intended to support the new development on a sustainable basis. Comparison goods are more problematic due to recession and the uncertainty over the Heritage Quarter at local level.
Regulatory Services
Comments are as per the original application which is as follows:-
Composite Response (May 2010)
Noise
Comments relating to Noise Assessment Report A024414 5 th issue prepared by WYG Environment dated April 2010.
The noise assessment covers the predicted impacts associated with the proposed store extension which involves the relocation of the petrol filling station (PFS), the change in the car park layout, change of access to the delivery yard and the introduction of a Sainsbury’s To You (STY) on line facility. It is confirmed that delivery hours will remain unaltered as a result of this application. The assessment uses appropriate noise modelling software to provide predicted noise levels as a result of these changes. The revised report provides a number of noise contour plans showing existing L90 and LAeq (daytime and night-time) and predicted L90 and LAeq (daytime and night-time) for traffic noise, car park noise, PFS noise, car wash noise, STY yard use and includes predicted levels for the permitted development to the west of the store.
The changes to the delivery area will require the existing Store Yard Management Plan (SYMP) required by planning condition to be reviewed to ensure the plan remains relevant and effective.
The new petrol filling station (including car wash) and STY operation have been assessed using the appropriate British Standard.
British Standard 8233 lays out different levels of internal noise in the range good to reasonable in living rooms, bedrooms and gardens. It has been used to determine what the effect of noise is due to the changes at the store.
The report details the assumptions made and figures used to provide he noise figures due to increased levels of traffic generated by the store. It includes data from existing noise levels due to traffic around the site, and ‘worst case’ noise measurements taken at a Sainsbury’s petrol filling station comparable to the one being proposed. The levels predicted for the car wash are from measurements at an existing car wash and the STY operations have been similarly obtained assuming a worst case of all eight bays being continually used during the day each having two manoeuvring and loading events per hour. At night it is assumed 2 bays will be in constant operation though it is more realistic that only one will be in use. The report advises that the STY operation will be between 09:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays. This should be conditioned. Page 156
It is noted that the entrance of the delivery yard is now shown as being to the north of existing on a spur road just to the south of the old railway line. This change is an improvement as the delivery yard entrance is now 60 metres from nearest residence façade which is an improvement to the existing situation where the entrance is 38 metres from nearest residence façade. The report advises the service yard will be enclosed to provide a further barrier to residential premises. The report’s prediction assumes a maximum sound reduction provided by this of 20dB R W. In addition the habitable rooms of the nearest residence are aligned so that they do not face directly towards the roadside access to the delivery yard. This will reduce the impact from the headlights of delivery vehicles as they leave the yard entrance. 226 and 228 Waterdales will however be affected by this impact to some extent. To avoid this it is therefore recommended that the roadside exit from the delivery yard is restricted so that it is left turn only.
A number of receptor locations have been selected which are accepted as being representative of the properties most likely to be affected by the changes. The assessment results for deliveries to the store show that internal levels at sensitive receptors with windows open for normal ventilation would be within the BS8233 ‘good’ target noise levels during the day and night for all receptors except one which would fall into the ‘reasonable’ target level. With windows closed all receptors are predicted to meet ‘good’ target levels from delivery noise. An assessment has also been carried out on the existing delivery noise experienced by a property opposite the existing delivery yard opening (in the area where a ‘reasonable’ target of noise is met) compared with the levels predicted to be experienced when the yard access is changed. This shows a reduction to the existing noise experienced from this operation of 1.9dB during the day and 0.8dB at night. The assessment results for the STY show that internal levels at sensitive receptors with windows open for normal ventilation would be within the BS8233 ‘good’ target noise levels during the day and night at all receptors and that when compared with existing background noise the noise resulting from the STY operation would not be above existing background levels at any time as measured at the nearby residential properties. The same assessments were made for the PFS and again show that internal levels at sensitive receptors with windows open for normal ventilation would be within the BS8233 ‘good’ target noise levels during the day and night at all receptors and that when compared with existing background noise the noise resulting from the PFS operation would not be above existing background levels at any time as measured at the nearby residential properties. Noise intrusion from car parking and general traffic noise are also assessed and show that internal levels at sensitive receptors with windows open for normal ventilation would be within the BS8233 ‘good’ target noise levels during the day and night at all receptors and compare the ‘average’ sound levels with and without development with car parking at maximum capacity and show there to be negligible significance at the receptors.
Given the findings of the noise assessment the following comments are made:
Control of noise emitted from the premises condition: The rating level of the noise emitted from any plant or equipment associated with this store shall not exceed the existing background noise level. The noise levels shall be determined at Page 157
the points nearest to adjacent residential premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997.
Service Yard noise condition:
Prior to the first use of this development the applicant shall advise the Local Planning Authority in writing details of the sound reduction provided by the enclosure to the Service Yard which shall be no less than 20dB R W.
Delivery Noise condition:
It is not clear whether the application is requesting a relaxation in the current hours of operation/numbers of deliveries. This needs to be clarified. At the current time it is considered that the existing conditions on this operation be transferred to the new permission.
Home delivery service operational noise condition:
This operation only to be carried out between 09:00 and 23:00 Monday to Friday and 10:00 to 06:00 Sundays and Public holidays.
The rating level of the noise resulting from the STY operation within the delivery bay shall not exceed the existing background noise level. The noise levels shall be determined at nearest residential premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997.
Petrol Filling Station including carwash operational noise condition:
The rating level of the noise resulting from the operation of the petrol filling station (other than noise from the exit or entry of road vehicles), shall not exceed the existing background noise level. The noise levels shall be determined at nearest residential premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997.
Car Park Condition :
A condition relating to ensuring the car park is adequately protected from non customer use when the premises are closed is necessary.
Lighting
Comments relating to Lighting Impact Assessment Report A024414 prepared by WYG Environment dated August 2009 second issue dated 28 April 2010.
The assessment uses a recognised light modelling tool to predict the increase in illuminance levels at modelled receptors adjacent to the development. This model now includes an assessment of the permitted residential development of Springhead Park to the North West of the store.
The assessment concludes that some nearby receptors will experience a very small increase in light levels. Some of these properties are sited along Springhead Road some of whom already exceed the Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) guidance due to street lighting in front of the properties. No new exceedances of the ILE guidelines for light spillage are predicted. Page 158
The report states that a planting plan has been included with the application which will mitigate the spillage of light from the development however no correction has been made for the screening effect of vegetation because lighting models are not able to accurately represent the light screening effect of specific species of plant. It is considered that as no new exceedances of the ILE guidelines for light spillage are predicted then it is not necessary to pursue this matter further.
The updated report model concludes that the realigned access road is now such that there is no significant risk of additional car headlight glare beyond that of the baseline conditions. It is accepted that additional mitigation is unnecessary.
The impact of light from the construction phase of the development can be controlled by the condition requiring a Code of Construction Practice.
The report concludes that provided the good lighting measures as set out in it are implemented then the residual significance of the proposed development on light spillage is considered to be negligible. This conclusion is accepted and the following condition is considered necessary to ensure compliance:
Lighting Condition:
Prior to first use of this development a detailed lighting management plan and appropriate lighting survey shall be carried out to demonstrate that the overall change in measured illuminance on residential receptors is no greater than that modelled within Table 12 of Lighting Impact Assessment Report A024414 second issue prepared by WYG Environment dated 28 April 2010 or that there are no exceedances of the post curfew light trespass into windows of 2lux at receptor locations as a result of the development. The details and results of this shall be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority (LPA)
The report advises there may also be light sources associated with the construction phase of the development. It is considered given the scale of the development and the proximity to sensitive receptors that it is appropriate for a code of construction practice to be produced by the applicant. This should be conditioned
Construction impacts condition:
The commencement of the development shall not take place until a comprehensive Code of Construction Practice covering all relevant environmental issues is provided by the applicant and submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. No building works shall commence until approval of this report has been given by the Local Planning Authority.
Contaminated Land Comments Comments relating to the WYG Environmental Desk Study Report A024414 dated April 2009 and the TEC Ltd. Report on a Preliminary Geo-Environmental & Geotechnical Assessment dated June 2009.
The reports address the contamination issues insofar as a desk top study has been carried out and an assessment of risks to receptors made based on the information available. An intrusive investigation was carried out which revealed visual and olfactory evidence of hydrocarbons in the area of the car wash at 1.95m to 2.4m depth. However, no contaminant Page 159
concentrations were recorded in excess of the generic site screening values. Limited ground gas monitoring was carried out but did not indicate the requirement for gas protection measures. The conclusions and recommendations are acceptable on the basis of the information available from these reports. The recommendations included additional monitoring to confirm the ground gas regime and I look forward to the results of such monitoring. The local planning authority will need to be informed of any further investigations at the site of the petrol filling station including decommissioning proposals with final confirmation when the station has been successfully decommissioned. The Environment Agency should be consulted regarding these reports and proposals. Notwithstanding the above comments, the following land contamination condition is recommended as part of any permission:-
Land Contamination Condition:
No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (in accordance with the CLEA guidelines and CLR 11 methodology) and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. a) 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. b) 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. c) 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. d) 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). 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. e) 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 our 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 Page 160
together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site. f) Where applicable, a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long- term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over an agreed period of time, and the provision of reports on the same, must be prepared and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme, and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced and submitted to the local planning authority.
Air Quality
The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) dated 03 August 2009 for the Sainsbury’s extension was found to be lacking basic information. There was no information about the locality of the development, nature and scale of the development, timescale, phasing, number of car parking spaces, alteration of road access, planned energy uses etc. Information with regards some of these was obtained from the Transport Assessment that was found to be more comprehensive than the Air Quality Assessment.
In addition to the above no future years were predicted except for 2010, 2009 being the baseline year, despite the development being unlikely to be fully operational in 2010. It would have been good practice to model a suitable future year to provide information about the impact of the development in a typical year.
It was encouraging however to note that the AQIA included reference to the declared A2 Trunk Road Air Quality Management Area which covers part of the site and adjacent roads.
The methodology of the Air Quality Impact Assessment was not agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to it being carried out and various issues have been identified with regards the methodology and verification of the modelling. This includes the use of the National Archive’s 1km grid squares for background Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2) levels instead of the use of the council’s own data from its comprehensive background network which would give a more accurate local background level. In the case of this site this equates to a background figure being used in the AQIA of 22.8 µg/m 3 for 2009 and 21.71 µg/m 3 for 2010 whereas the council’s monitored background for 2009 (before local bias adjustment) was averaged across the borough at 31.63 µg/m 3 or for Northfleet was 33.51 µg/m 3. The background monitored figure for Northfleet being 10.7 µg/m 3 more than that in the AQIA, affecting the findings of the report significantly, albeit the council’s data is prior to local bias adjustment.
Another matter of concern was that none of the council’s passive monitoring data was used despite the council having several relevant sites in Hall Road and Springhead Road the data for which is available at www.kentair.org.uk . The only monitoring data from passive diffusion tubes that was used was from 6 sites done by the consultants over a period of only one to three months. Whilst additional passive monitoring data can be used to supplement the council’s data it is considered poor if not bad practice for such short term data from kerbside sites to be used instead of the council’s robust data.
By way of example, in one case, i.e. at 1 Hall Road, the kerbside site data collected over a period of three months and averaged as 45.95 µg/m 3 was used and then modelled back to the façade of a property at Hall Road as 36.73 µg/m 3 on which the council has had a diffusion tube Page 161
for many years. It is widely accepted that models do not accurately model kerbside data dissipating back to façade and that where possible monitoring located on façade must be used. Therefore the data from the longstanding diffusion tube site on the façade of the property was the most appropriate data to use and a sense check would have strongly supported this. The monitored data for that tube site was 52.58 µg/m 3 Nitrogen dioxide for 2009 (before local bias adjustment). Some 15.85 µg/m 3 more than the model predicted.
The conclusion states that there will be no exceedences at any receptors with either do minimum or do something scenarios despite there being additional traffic movements in the locations where both the consultants and the council’s monitoring data indicate that there are current exceedences of the National Air Quality Strategy objectives for annual mean Nitrogen dioxide. Therefore this part of the conclusion cannot be agreed. It is considered however that the predicted increase of 0.93 µg/m 3 caused by the increased traffic flow from the development is likely to be correct or if not under predicted. If the consultant had used the council’s monitoring data, for example at the receptor in Hall Road, this increase would equate to an 3 approximate NO 2 level at the receptor of 53.51 µg/m (using the 2009 and before local bias adjustment) which is unlikely to result in a decrease to 37.65 µg/m 3 in 2010 with the development as the AQIA predicts.
In summary despite the council not agreeing the methodology, nor the monitoring input data, nor the conclusion that no receptors will be in exceedence with or without the development, the predicted impact of the development i.e. an increase of 0.93 µg/m 3 on the known levels of Nitrogen dioxide is broadly accepted. It is considered that such an increase using the EPUK’s Magnitude and Significance Tables is of very small magnitude with a significance of slight adverse. This agrees with the corresponding part of the AQIA’s conclusion.
This increase is significantly higher than that predicted by two separate air quality consultants used by the applicant of the development already permitted on the site south of Wingfield Bank, which were in the region of 0.7 µg/m 3 and 0.3 µg/m 3 after traffic management actions had been included in the modelling. Therefore the applicant must provide a satisfactory scheme of suitable and sufficient mitigation measures to significantly reduce the impact of the development on the local air quality significantly, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This will include the provision of a suitable and sufficient Travel Plan including low emission/latest Euro standard delivery vehicles, traffic management schemes, road improvements etc.
The impact of Particulate matter (PM10) from this development is considered to be unlikely to be significant except during the construction phase therefore the conclusion of the section relating to the impact of the Construction phase i.e. that mitigation is necessary, is agreed.
Mitigation Condition:
With regards the list of mitigation measures put forward for the construction period the applicant needs to add the requirement for appointed staff to visually assess fugitive (windblown) dust on site on a frequent and regular basis and to take action to cease the activity until a more favourable wind direction occurs. Also the requirement to provide additional suppression or to cease dusty activities if dust is seen to go beyond the boundary of the site.
Financial Contribution to Air Quality Monitoring:
The applicant’s Air Quality Impact Assessment indicates that there will not be a significant impact from the development. In order to ensure that this is the case monitoring of nitrogen dioxide will need to continue in the vicinity of the site and at the nearby continuous monitoring Page 162
station for the foreseeable future. The Council therefore requests a contribution to local air quality monitoring in order to assist in financing this monitoring.
The contribution requested is for a total of £4000 towards the air quality monitoring network for the monitoring of nitrogen dioxide from traffic emissions in the locality.
The breakdown is that £1000 is a contribution towards the passive monitoring in the locality of the Sainsbury’s site. This amount equates to funding three diffusion tube sites for a period of five years i.e. baseline, throughout construction and into operation with an assumption of a 5 per cent increase in cost year on year.
The further £3000 will be put towards the cost of carrying out continuous monitoring at the roadside site in Northfleet approx one third of a mile from the Sainsbury’s site. This site is used to validate and verify the passive nitrogen dioxide air quality monitoring in the borough. A portion of the amount will be put towards the cost of replacement of the nitrogen dioxide analyser.
Both sums to be paid to the council within three months of any permission given.
Alternatively the applicant could provide their own robust air quality monitoring for a period of five years in the vicinity of the site in accordance with the council’s quality assurance and quality control standards with the results being made available to the council on a monthly basis.
Kent Highways
Kent Highways have previously negotiated and agreed a scheme to mitigate the impact of the original proposal and future traffic projections to a methodology agreed with both Kent Highways and the Highways Agency which indicated that with these mitigation measures in place there will be a peak hour decrease in overall vehicle movements at the Sainsburys roundabout compared to the current store flows + permitted Chinacorp flows. In addition to this decrease, there will be improvements made to pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities on the Hall Road approaches to the store from the A2 and from the east, improvements to the entry alignment of the Springhead Road arm of the Sainsburys roundabout and a re-location of the service yard access to the store which will decrease vehicular conflict with the junction of Springhead Road and Waterdales.
Any reduction in the size of the proposed store extension will have an equivalent impact on the projected traffic flows as one figure is derived from the other. Therefore, as the on-site and off- site highway works are proposed to remain the same, there will be an equivalent reduction in the highway impact of the proposal on the highway network. Taking this reduction in impact into consideration, there is no highway justification for a revised TA to support the principle of the revisions through the planning process as the existing TA provides a ‘sensitivity test’ which shows that the traffic generation and parking demand generated by a larger store extension than that now on offer can be accommodated by implementing the proposed mitigation measures.
Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that the detailed design of the highway improvement measures which include a sensitive multi-signal phased junction may now require additional modelling work based on the down-sized store extension and associated traffic projections. However, this work, should it be deemed necessary would be carried out at the post-planning stage as part of the detailed highway design audit. Page 163
Moving on to the additional information supplied by Meyer Brown to clarify the highway proposals, there is no objection to the off-site works summary and associated improvement diagrams being used to clarify the highway mitigation measures. However, there is some concern about the inclusion of a comparison table of traffic projection between the original and revised store extension proposals as such a comparison table is not necessary to justify the highway position. Furthermore, without a revised Traffic Assessment to explain the methodology behind the projected peak hour decreases, there is no direct way of confirming the accuracy of these projections and the KHS preference would be for this table to not be used in isolation. In our view, it would be more appropriate to simply use the equivalent table from the existing TA to show that with the highway mitigation measures in place, the projected traffic movements at the Sainsburys roundabout will reduce when compared to the current flows + permitted Chinacorp flows.
In conclusion, there are no highway objections to the revised proposals subject to the previously agreed highway mitigation measures being secured and subject to the previous suggested highway conditions being attached to any future planning permission.
Highways Agency
The Highways Agency has no comment on this application and does not intend to issue a direction on this matter. However this no comment, as the no comment in the response to Sainsbury’s 2009 planning application is based on improvements negotiated between the applicant, Kent County Council, and the Highways Agency being delivered under the section 106, 278 or other agreement before the proposed development comes into operation.
A mitigation measure at New Barn Roundabout, in the form of widening the A2 offslip, was agreed between the Highways Agency and Sainsbury’s in order to ensure that ‘nil detriment’ is achieved following development. There are proposals to signalise the A2/B262 junction to remove the need for some vehicles to U-turn at Springhead Roundabout.
To the best of our knowledge, design checks and Road Safety Audits have not been undertaken on the proposed highway mitigation measures, and therefore the layouts proposed should also be subject to these processes.
Kent Fire Brigade
The means of access is considered satisfactory.
Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer
At present, I have no major problems with the store or car park. I am a little concerned regarding the PFS.
As you may be aware "driving off without payment" is a major problem for us. All retailers are aware of these problems yet I see nothing in the supplied documentation to show how this has been considered.
Security is mentioned at the rear of the D and A, I was expecting more from such a major retailer. Page 164
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the applicant.
Public Rights of Way Officer, Kent County Council
The proposed development directly affects Public Footpath NU16.
From looking at all the different documents and plans it seems there is an intention, given the existence of the Footpath is a material consideration, to divert the route. However there is a lack of clarity and information currently particularly as on the application form it is stated there is no need to divert or extinguish the route as the applicant has ticked no in that section. There is also doubt in terms of what sections may be open to shared use (to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians) and those to pedestrians only depending on which plan you look at. It may have been missed but there seems to be no specification for materials or signage.
It is noted the access road for construction traffic is to be retained as a pedestrian link once development to the west of the application site has been completed. Further details on this are required. Is there a need to duplicate the already proposed pedestrian access? If there is no need for the vehicular access to be retained could this be landscaped to soften the visual appearance of the area and provide a greener backdrop to what will presumably be the new route of NU16.
It is well known that during busy periods traffic is backed up on Wingfield Road and into the supermarket car park. If this continues post development there is potential for the crossing to be blocked. Further detail is required as to design of and signage around the crossing so that pedestrians will have safe and free movement.
Where a diversion or Order is sought, the grant of planning consent does not entitle the applicant to obstruct the Right of Way or carry out any works on it until such time as the Order necessary for the diversion has been confirmed and the new route provided. Temporary closures of the Right of Way to enable development work to progress prior to confirmation of a permanent Diversion Order will not be considered. The successful making and confirmation of a Diversion Order should not be assumed. Any obstruction of Rights of Way by the applicant before the confirmation and certification of any Orders for the diversion of the Rights of Way will, in normal circumstances, result in the County Council using powers available to it under the Highways Act 1980 to bring a prosecution.
I wish to place a holding objection until such time the following detail is forthcoming and can be agreed:- i) the applicant states their intentions on whether a diversion or extinguishment is to be sought to formally deal with the current route (noting the point above that the successful outcome of any order cannot be guaranteed) ii) details are provided and agreed on materials and signage both for the proposed new route and the crossing point that links the 2 sections iii) status of the proposed new route is clarified given reference to both pedestrian and shared use on different plans
Page 165
iv) the position on the access road (for construction traffic) is clarified and if there is no further need for vehicular use (after development to the west is completed) this area be landscaped as there is no need for parallel pedestrian routes.
Environment Agency
This is a duplicate application (your ref. 20090726), therefore we would like to make the same comments as before:
We have no objection to this proposal, provided that the conditions within this letter are imposed on any permission granted:
Flood Risk
The proposal is appropriate for the level of flood risk at this site. It must also be ensured that the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere.
The FRA acknowledges (section 3.2.2) that part of the car park extension will be on undeveloped land, but it unclear whether the estimated attenuation storage of 700m3 assumes greenfield runoff rates for this section of the site. There is also no indication of how this storage will be provided.
There is insufficient detail to confirm that runoff from the site will be controlled appropriately to prevent an increased risk of flooding elsewhere, however we accept that practical options for the drainage exist and are therefore satisfied that a condition can be imposed requiring further drainage details.
We encourage the use of SUDs to manage surface water runoff. Support for the SUDS approach to managing surface water run-off is set out in paragraph 22 of Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS): Delivering Sustainable Development and in more detail in Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk at Annex F. Paragraph F8 of the Annex notes that "Local Planning Authorities should ensure that their policies and decisions on applications support and complement Building Regulations on sustainable rainwater drainage".
Approved Document Part H of the Building Regulations 2000 establishes a hierarchy for surface water disposal, which encourages a SUDS approach. Under Approved Document Part H the first option for surface water disposal should be the use of SUDS, which encourage infiltration such as soakaways or infiltration trenches. In all cases, it must be established that these options are feasible, can be adopted and properly maintained and would not lead to any other environmental problems. For example, using soakaways or other infiltration methods on contaminated land carries groundwater pollution risks and may not work in areas with a high water table. As such, they will not be permitted on or adjacent to the area of the petrol filling station. Where the intention is to dispose to soakaway, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under Building Research Establishment (BRE) Digest 365.
Flow balancing SUDS methods which involve the retention and controlled release of surface water from a site may be an option for some developments at a scale where uncontrolled surface water flows would otherwise exceed the local greenfield run off rate. Flow balancing should seek to achieve water quality and amenity benefits as well as managing flood risk.
The drainage scheme proposed should provide a sustainable drainage strategy to include Page 166
SUDS elements with attenuation, storage and treatment capacities incorporated as detailed in the CIRIA SUDS Manual (C697).
The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring the following drainage details.
Condition
Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.
Reason
To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance.
Groundwater and Drainage
The application states that surface water will be disposed of to "as existing" drainage and according to the FRA, the drainage, both foul and surface, discharges to mains sewers. The FRA also discusses the potential to use SUDS as part of the redevelopment, in particular using permeable paving beneath the car park extensions. Part of the extension is to be over the existing petrol filling station, where we would not permit the use of any infiltration technique due to the risks this would pose to the underlying aquifers.
There is potential for SUDS to be incorporated into parts of the site where it can be demonstrated that the discharge will be into clean, natural ground, and away from areas previously impacted by contamination, or land identified as contaminated. If SUDS are to be proposed, then full details will need to be submitted to the Environment Agency for comment and approval.
The applicant must be aware of the following:
Informative:
The area beneath the petrol filling station canopy and any off-set fill/delivery areas must drain to the foul sewer or a sealed tank only. We will object to any discharge to the surface water system from these areas. Similarly, the run-off from the carwash (if proposed to be re- incorporated into the site) will need to discharge to the foul drainage system.
Condition
No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
Reason
The site is underlain by the Thanet Sands and Upper Chalk aquifers. It is also located within Page 167
Source Protection Zone II for a number of groundwater abstraction boreholes. The boundary for Source Protection Zone I is located within 60 metres of the site. The site is therefore located within a sensitive groundwater protection area.
Petrol Filling Station
The following guidance documents should be used during the design and operational phases of the proposed new petrol filling station: Institute of Petroleum document "Guidelines for soil, groundwater and surface water protection and vapour emission control at petrol filling stations", The Groundwater Protection Code: Petrol Stations and Other Fuel Dispensing Facilities involving Underground Storage Tanks (DEFRA, 2002), and Environment Agency document "Wetstock reconciliation at fuel storage facilities". The applicant should also utilise the information in Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 7: Refuelling Facilities, and PPG 27: Installation, decommissioning and removal of underground storage tanks (enclosed) for further information.
Storage of Fuels/ Chemicals
Informative:
Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25 per cent of the total capacity of all oil stored.
Informative:
Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/ unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas for storage should not drain to any surface water system.
Contamination
Thank you for submitting the desk study and geo-environmental reports. The reports make no reference to whether PCBs could be associated with the sub-stations. This should be investigated further. The geo-environmental report made reference to the Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater. This report has been withdrawn, and has been replaced by the Environment Agency’s Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3).
The report did not discuss the removal of the current tanks associated with the petrol filling station. In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23), a site must not be capable of being determined under Part 2A following redevelopment. If the tanks remain on site, there is therefore no assurance that the risks to controlled waters have been fully addressed as there may be residual contamination remaining in the aquifer beneath or surrounding the tanks. It is not acceptable to the Environment Agency for the tanks to remain on site, and we will expect the site to be fully decommissioned in order for us to determine that no Part 2A liabilities remain.
We consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following planning conditions are imposed as set out below. Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the Page 168
environment and we would wish to object to the application.
Condition
Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Condition
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Reason
The site is underlain by the Thanet Sands and Upper Chalk aquifers. It is also located within Source Protection Zone II for a number of groundwater abstraction boreholes. The boundary for Source Protection Zone I is located within 60 metres of the site. The site is therefore located within a sensitive groundwater protection area. There is currently no assurance that no unacceptable risks to controlled waters remain at this site as it has not been possible to fully assess the part of the site currently occupied by the petrol filling station.
Informative/ advice to LPA
This condition has been recommended as the Environment Agency is satisfied that there are generic remedial options available to deal with the risks to controlled waters posed by Page 169
contamination at this site. However, further details will be required in order to ensure that risks are appropriately addressed prior to development commencing.
In line with the advice given in PPS23, we understand that the Authority must decide whether to obtain such information prior to determining the application or as a condition of the permission. Should the Local Planning Authority decide to obtain the necessary information under condition we would request that this condition is applied.
Model Procedures and Good Practice
Informative/ advice to applicant
The Environment Agency recommends that developers should:
1. Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination.
2. Refer to the Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health.
3. Refer to our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information.
Southern Water ( Atkins Ltd)
The site lies within Source Protection Zone 2 of a public water supply. It is imperative, in order to protect groundwater quality which is ultimately abstracted for public consumption, that measures to deal with potential contamination from the existing and proposed petrol filling station sites are agreed in advance of any construction works. Such measures may include the installation of groundwater quality monitoring in advance of any works on site and agreement of proposed foul and surface water disposal.
We would be grateful if any planning consent were conditional upon the agreement prior to the commencement of any works on site of details relating to:
• monitoring of groundwater quality at locations to be agreed with Southern Water for a minimum of six months before starting enabling works, groundworks or construction.
• Agreement for groundwater monitoring regime during construction and for one year post construction.
• Method statement relating to construction of on-site drainage.
• Details of petrol filling station relating to aquifer protection.
For further advice please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk
Page 170
EDF Energy Networks
No objections
National Grid
National Grid has no objections to the development but has safety concerns regarding the proposal and requests that its safety requirements are observed dues to proximity to underground cables and overhead lines.
UK Power Networks
No objections
Union Rail
No comments received
Network Rail
No comment or objection
Arriva
No comments received.
Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council
No observations
Southfleet Parish Council
1. The Parish Council is opposed to the application on the grounds of the very serious concerns set out in their letters of 30 September 2009 and 21 January 2010.
2. On traffic and highway grounds, in our opinion what is proposed would impose an additional burden on the local highway system which cannot cope adequately now with the load placed upon it.
3. In the light of the original constraints which were placed upon the store when consent was first given, how can the applicant continue to ask for more retail opportunity? The increasing amount of movement of all kinds can only have an adverse effect on the surrounding residential area.
4. The impact on Gravesend town centre surely is a matter of serious concern to your Council. Page 171
Medway Council
No objection
Dartford Borough Council
The Borough Council wish to raise objection to the proposal subject to the reasons specified hereunder:
Circular 02/2009 requires retail developments for extensions of 2,500 square metres or more which when aggregated with the existing floorspace, would exceed 5,000 square metres to be referred to the Secretary of State. Please confirm that the Council has referred the application to the Secretary of State.
With regard to the planning application the Borough Council has a number of outstanding concerns.
The response from WYG Planning and Design dated 7 July has not addressed this Council’s concerns about the Retail Assessment. In particular:
1 The Assessment has not assessed the impact on Dartford centres within the study catchment beyond 2012 as required by PPS4. The revised application proposes a larger amount of convenience floorspace than the earlier scheme and the Council still has concerns that the application will have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Dartford town centre.
2 That there has been a double-counting of expenditure arising from the new Eastern Quarry and Ebbsfleet populations that will overstate the level of expenditure available. This is likely to impact on the economic and physical regeneration of Ebbsfleet Valley and the delivery of sustainable shopping patterns, particularly in Eastern Quarry, with a resulting harmful impact on the trunk road network
There are significant discrepancies with the Dartford Retail Study, July 2010.
Overtrading is not considered to be a justification for the scale of additional floorspace proposed. Overtrading is more appropriately addressed through good quality provision in the town centres, which are sequentially preferable to this location. Such provision is currently lacking in Dartford Town Centre but the Council is seeking to bring forward new investment that will address this issue. PPS4 policy EC1.4 states that consideration should be given to the need to increase competition and retail mix.
KCC Planning
No comments received
KCC Archaeological Officer
Previous comments in relation to the 2009 application apply
Page 172
KCC Petroleum Officer
No comments received
Countryside Properties
Our Springhead construction access route runs over the public highway which currently divides the Sainsbury’s site and runs across the Sainsbury’s land into our site. We therefore have concerns that these proposals do not take into account our continued use of this route for the foreseeable future and request that if permission if granted than a planning condition is included in our favour to ensure the continued use of the construction access by Countryside Properties onto our site at Springhead.
Publicity
The proposal was advertised on site and in a local newspaper as a major development proposal, as development affecting a public right of way and under Article 8.
Individual notification was also sent to 88 adjoining dwellings/premises.
Local Resident Responses
No representations have been received from local residents to the duplicate planning application although the Board should take into account the comments and representations that were made in respect of the original planning application (20090726) where there were a number of objections relating to environmental impact concerns in respect of increased noise, disturbance, air quality and light pollution and concerns at the increased traffic generated by the development.
Representations on behalf of Competing Traders or Developers
Drivers Jonas Deloitte on behalf of Edinburgh House Estates Ltd (first response)
We are writing on behalf of our client, Edinburgh House Estates Ltd (hereafter known as “EHEL”), to object to the above planning application for an extension to the existing Sainsburys (ref: 20100898) in its current form.
EHEL is the developer responsible for the Gravesend Heritage Quarter regeneration scheme in the heart of Gravesend Town Centre. EHEL has invested £80m into Gravesend since 2001 with the acquisition of the St George’s and Thamesgate Centres. Since the end of 2003, EHEL has been in dialogue with the Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) regarding their aspirations for the Heritage Quarter. A Development Agreement between GBC and EHEL was entered into on 2 February 2007 for a comprehensive development, and a hybrid planning application for the Heritage Quarter submitted to GBC planning officers in July 2008. Following discussions with planning officers at GBC and key stakeholders regarding the form and content of the application, amended planning submissions for the Heritage Quarter were submitted in November 2009 and July 2010. Despite the refusal of planning permission for the proposals in September 2010, EHEL retains an interest in Gravesend Page 173
town centre and is currently exploring its options for taking this forward. It is on this basis that EHEL continues to object to Sainsbury’s proposals.
On behalf of EHEL, we objected to the previous planning application (ref 20090726) for an extension to the existing Sainsbury’s store at Northfleet. We note that this application was appealed by the applicant on the grounds of non-determination and will now be heard at a Public Inquiry in February 2011. We also note that following the lodging of the appeal the application was heard at Regulatory Board and Members decided that, had it been able to determine the application, it would have resolved to defer a decision for negotiations to significantly reduce the size of the extensions proposed, and that this decision be taken forward for the duplicate application 20100898.
We understand from discussions with planning officers at Gravesham Borough Council that the duplicate application is identical to the original application. The planning application, therefore, still proposed an extension which will result in an additional 5,484 sqm of floorspace, increasing the unit from 7,644 sqm to 13,128 sqm. Of the total net increase of 4,019 sqm floorspace, 1,005 sqm will be food and 3,014 sqm will be non-food.
We understand that the applicant’s agents have met with the Council officers and discussed an “offer” to reduce the size of the store by 7.8 per cent and imposing conditions on any consent restricting the quantum and make up of floorspace in the extension. EHEL notes these reductions do not formally form part of the duplicate planning application, nor have been submitted as amendments to the scheme. Nonetheless, such a minor reduction would not substantially address EHEL’s concerns.
It is in this context that EHEL continues to object to this application on the following grounds:
1. Impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre.
The application seeks a significant quantum of new convenience and comparison floorspace. The applicants base their assessment in part on an extant permission for circa 5,000 sqm of retail floorspace.
This is subject to a bulky goods condition and should not be used as a direct comparison. The operators linked to a primary bulky goods scheme will have a different effect on the town centre compared to open A1 uses. On this basis, we do not agree with the applicants in its Retail Statement that less trade would be diverted from the application scheme compared with the extant permission. As the applicant’s rightly point out, the Borough Retail Study indicates that the town centre lacks clothing and fashion shops and large modern units.
Further justification for the comparison element of the proposals should be given by the applicant before the application is considered again by Members. The range of comparison goods in the town centre will have to directly compete with the comparison provision in the superstore. Commercially, Sainsbury’s could dilute the market demand from new retailers that could be attracted to a regenerated Heritage Quarter. Despite the refusal of planning permission for the Heritage Quarter, appropriate redevelopment of the town centre is still a regeneration and planning priority for the Borough.
2. Sequential assessment
Whilst this is an extension to the existing store, we object to the quantum of comparison and convenience floorspace proposed, which should be directed to the town centre in the first Page 174
instance in accordance with planning policies. The additional floorspace, and its potential impact on the existing town centre trading, will have a prejudicial effect on the Heritage Quarter, which is sequentially preferable and could bring about comprehensive regeneration benefits. Whilst PPS4 only requires cumulative assessment of committed schemes, the accompanying practice guidance clearly sets out that applicants should consider the cumulative impact of a proposal along with other proposals in the study area. The Heritage Quarter should be considered, at the very minimum, as an alternative site, as plans for its regeneration have been promoted by GBC for a number of years. In addition, EHEL is currently assessing its options for further progressing its own proposals for the Heritage Quarter. This work has not been undertaken under the heading “Sequential Test” of the applicant’s Retail Statement.
3. Growth assumptions
The assumptions adopted in the applicant’s Retail Statement for expenditure growth are optimistic, particularly for comparison expenditure. Further justification of the assumptions used should be requested prior to the determination of the planning application.
4. The Retail Statement assumes the extension will trade at 75 per cent of company average.
We do not consider this to be realistic as company averages take into account all types of trading floorspace. Indeed, the applicant’s Retail Statement asserts the store is currently trading at 57 per cent above company average and no justification is given for assuming the extension would only trade at 75 per cent. There may be a quantitative justification for increasing the convenience floorspace, but we cannot see a similar case to be made for the comparison floorspace.
5. Inappropriate scale
Doubling the size of the unit with an emphasis on the non-food floorspace has the potential to undermine investment in the town centre, stretching the appropriateness of scale test in PPS4. There is no scope for establishing links with the town centre or encouraging linked shopping trips; it is therefore queried as to whether the proposal is indeed genuinely accessible by alternative means of transport (i.e. walking and cycling).
In summary, EHEL continues to object to this planning application in its current form and considers that planning permission should be refused.
Drivers Jonas Deloitte on behalf of Edinburgh House Estates Ltd (second response)
EHEL objected to the duplicate planning application submitted by the applicant in September 2010 (ref: 20100898) in a letter dated 4 November 2010, which highlighted five main areas of concern with the application and its content is still relevant. In summary, this stated EHEL’s concerns related to:
1. Impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre;
2. Sequential Assessment;
3. Growth Assumptions;
Page 175
4. The Retail Statement assumes the extension will trade at 75 per cent of company average; and
5. Inappropriate scale.
EHEL understands that amendments to the duplicate planning application (ref: 20100898) have now been submitted to Gravesham Borough Council (GBC), including an updated Retail Assessment and revised plans. We understand that the amended application reduces the total GEA by 891 sqm from that previously submitted and the net sales area by 589 sqm (7.8 per cent). The mix of convenience and comparison floorspace in the new store would now be circa 70:30 (compared to 85:15 in the existing store and 53:47 in the previous application). We also understand from discussions with planning officers that the total footprint of the building has also now been reduced by circa 800 sqm.
EHEL notes that in the report to Regulatory Board in November 2010 GBC Officers were critical of the proposed amendments, stating that they dismissed the offer of a 7.8 per cent reduction in floorspace as being cosmetic and still had concerns about the impact of the proposal on the town centre.
EHEL does not consider that the amendments address the previous concerns set out in its letter of 4 November 2010, or Officers own concerns as detailed in the November Committee Report. EHEL, therefore, continues to object to this planning application in its current form.
A summary of the main reasons for our objection are set out below, with full details contained within our letter of 4 November 2010.
1. Impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre
The application seeks a significant quantum of new convenience and comparison floorspace. The applications base their assessment in part on an extant permission for circa 5,000 sqm of retail floorspace. This is subject to a bulky goods condition and should not be used as a direct comparison.
2. Sequential assessment
Whilst this is an extension to the existing store, we object to the quantum of comparison floorspace proposed, which should be directed to the town centre in the first instance in accordance with planning policies. We note that the updated Retail Assessment now includes the Heritage Quarter as a potential sequentially preferable site. EHEL does not agree with the conclusions of the applicant’s Assessment and considers that the quantum of convenience and comparison floorspace proposed in the extension could be accommodated in a regenerated Heritage Quarter scheme.
3. Growth assumptions
The assumptions adopted in the applicant’s Retail Assessment for expenditure growth are still optimistic, particularly for comparison expenditure. Further justification of the assumptions used should be requested prior to the determination of the planning application.
4. The Retail Statement assumes the extension will trade at 75 per cent of company average Page 176
We do not consider this to be realistic as company averages take into account all types of trading floorspace. Indeed, the applicant’s Retail Assessment asserts the store is currently trading at 57 per cent above company average and no justification is given for assuming the extension would only trade at 75 per cent.
5. Inappropriate scale
Despite some minor changes to the retail mix of the proposals, the considerable increase in the size of the store, coupled with the significant quantity of non-food floorspace (30 per cent), has the potential to undermine investment in the town centre, stretching the appropriateness of scale test in PPS4. There is no scope for establishing links with the town centre or encouraging linked shopping trips, it is therefore queried as to whether the proposal is indeed genuinely accessible by alternative means of transport (i.e. walking and cycling).
In summary, EHEL continues to object to this planning application in its current form and considers that planning permission should be refused. EHEL wishes to ensure that an unacceptable development is not permitted by Members purely to enable the withdrawal of the appeal on non-determination of the previous application.
Peacock and Smith, Chartered Town Planners on behalf of Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc
We have been instructed by our clients Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc (‘Morrisons’), to object to the above planning application by Sainsbury’s. The application seeks consent for an extension to their existing store at Wingfield Bank which would result in an increase in sales area of 4,019 sq m net. In assessing this application we would be grateful if you could take account of our client’s concerns regarding the scheme. These are set out below and are informed by relevant national and local planning policy.
Policy EC17.1 of PPS4 states that:
“Planning applications for main town centres uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused planning permission where: a. the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (Policy EC15); or b. there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (the impact assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments”
Whilst the Second Review Local Plan Proposals Map allocates the application site as a superstore (thus affording the site ‘Local Centre’ status) under Policy RS8, this review was never adopted and therefore the proposed application is not in accordance with an up-to- date development plan and the application site should be considered as out-of-centre.
The planning application must therefore be considered against the tests of sequential approach and impact, and for planning permission to be granted, all the criteria set out in policy EC17.1 should be met. Page 177
Sequential Approach
Policy EC15 of PPS4 states that:
“In considering sequential assessments required under policy EC14.3, local planning authorities should: a. ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability b. ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered c. ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are not won centre sites to accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge-of-centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access. d. ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of:
i. scale; reducing the floorspace of their development;
ii. format: more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multi- storey development s with smaller footprints;
iii. car parking provision; reduced or reconfigured car parking; and
iv. the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development…”
We note that the applicants state that the main purpose of the extension is to relieve problems of overtrading in the store. We consider that this overtrading is due to the relative attractiveness of this store in relation to existing town centre facilities. This should not in itself justify the proposal, or indeed the applicant’s failure to fully address the sequential test.
Whilst the Council’s Retail Study (Roger Tym, 2009) indicates that the Sainsbury’s store is trading above company benchmark levels, the study notes that unless there are very large differences from national average sales densities, statements about overtrading and undertrading are contentious. It states that it is impossible to demonstrate overtrading unless the differences are very large and are supported by independent evidence of congestion in the subject stores. Roger Tym do not consider that this is the case with Sainsbury’s store.
National policy requires developers and operators to demonstrate flexibility in their business model when applying the sequential approach. Whilst it is not the purpose of policy to require development to be split into separate sites, it does require that flexibility in their business model and the scope for disaggregation to have been demonstrated. In deed, paragraph 6.33 states that “The decision by an individual retailer to promote a business model which cannot be accommodated in an existing centre will not justify discounting more central sites where they are available, suitable and viable”.
Page 178
Paragraph 6.32 of PPS4 Practice Guidance (December 2009) discusses the sequential approach specifically in relation to large foodstores. It notes that the trend for supermarkets selling a wide range of comparison goods has created particular issues. It clearly states that such proposals will need to demonstrate flexibility in terms of the scale and format of development proposed, car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation. This will need to be set in the context of other national planning policy objectives for town centres, including the requirement to provide consumer choice and promote competitive town centre environments.
We note from the Council’s Committee report (dated 6/10/10) which considered the undetermined planning application by Sainsbury’s (Ref. 20090726) for the same quantum of development, that Officers consider the Heritage Quarter and the Lord Street/Parrock Street sites as potentially capable of meeting demand for additional retail floorspace. Furthermore, we note that the final paragraph of this report states that there could be a justified case to reject the proposal on (inter alia) failure to fully comply with the requirements of PPS4 in terms of the sequential test. Indeed, paragraph 5.6 of the Practice Guidance confirms that:
“The sequential approach forms a key policy consideration, and can in itself be a clear reason for refusal. As such it is critical that applicants carry out a through assessment to explore alternative options…As the onus rests on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach, failure to undertake such an assessment would constitute a reason for refusal”.
Impact
Policy EC16 states that:
“Planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be assessed against the following impacts on centres (inter alia): a. the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal b. the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer c. the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan d. in the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made… e. if located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres”.
We do not consider that there is sufficient quantitative need to justify the proposed uplift in convenience floorspace (+1,005 sq m net). The Council’s 2009 Retail Study indicates that at 2016 there is capacity for in the region of only 140 sq m net of additional convenience Page 179
floorspace. This figure is taken from the “Low” scenario, which takes into account the impact of the recession and uses slower population increases, slower growth in per capita expenditure and lower sales density increases. We consider that it is justified to use this figure in the short–term (i.e. to 2016).
The proposed uplift in comparison floorspace (+3,014 sq m) will mean that the store will directly compete with the comparison function of the town centre. The applicant considers that the extant consent for bulky goods retail on the site is justification for the current proposals. However, we consider that the type of comparison goods sold within supermarkets (such as clothes, toys, cds/dvds and electrical items) differs significantly from DIY/bulky goods and is instead similar to those comparison goods sold within town centres. vacancy rates provide a good indication of the relative health of centres and the Council’s 2009 Retail Study indicates that 11 per cent of units within Gravesend town centre are vacant, which is higher than the national average (nine per cent). This indicates a centre which has certain weaknesses and any significant trade diversion may be detrimental to the centre’s continued vitality and viability.
Criteria (e) of Policy EX16 demonstrates that scale is still an important consideration in the determination of planning applications for town centre uses. We are concerned that the scale of development proposed by this application is inappropriate. The application proposes a 72 per cent (5,484 sq m) increase in gross floorspace and a 114 per cent (4,019 sq m) increase in sales area. If approved, Sainsbury’s would be considerably larger, with a floorspace of 13,128 sq m gross (7,556 sq m net), than any of its competitors in the town.
Details of competing supermarkets in Gravesend
Fascia Address Location Net floorspace
Asda Thames Way, Out of centre 5,766 Gravesend
Morrisons Coldharbour Road, Out of centre 3,195 Gravesend
Sainsburys Wingfield Bank, Out of centre 7,556 Gravesend (proposed)
Tesco New Road, Gravesend Gravesend Town 2,329 Centre
(Floorspace figures obtained from the WYG Retail Assessment submitted in support of this planning application)
We consider that the scale of retail provision proposed by Sainsburys, particularly the level of comparison floorspace proposed, is such that the store will directly compete with the comparison retail function of the town centre.
Lastly, we do not consider that there is a strong qualitative case for an extended Sainsbury’s store. The 2009 retail study states that there is a range of convenience provision in the borough, all of which are trading at or around company average levels. It suggest that any additional convenience provision should be directed to the town centre, to help reinforce the centre and assist it to withstand competition from emerging centres at Ebbsfleet and Eastern Quarry. Page 180
Summary
It is clear that the application does not satisfy the criteria contained within Policy EC17.1 o PPS4. The applicant has failed to adequately address the sequential test. Furthermore, by reason of its out-of-centre location and the nature of the goods that will be sold from the store, it is likely that the proposed development will draw a significant amount of trade away from existing stores in Gravesend, to the detriment of the vitality and viability of the town centre.
In the light of the above, we consider that the scheme is contrary to development plan policy and that it does not accord with the key retail tests set out in PPS4. In this regard, we respectfully request that the application is refused.
Peacock and Smith, Chartered Town Planners on behalf of Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc (Second Response)
We write with reference to proposed amendments to the above planning application by Sainsbury’s to extend their store at Wingfield Bank. We note that the applicant proposes a reduction in the size of extension as follows:
(all figures sq m) Existing Submitted Revised Scheme Scheme Gross External Area 7,664 13,128 12,237 CC Net Sales 3,537 7,557 6,968 Convenience 3,006 4,011 4,878 Comparison 531 3,545 2,090
We previously submitted comments dated 4 November 2010 and we request that you still take into account the issues raised in this letter. We remain concerned that the application fails to meet the key policy tests set out in PPS4 and we summarise our outstanding concerns briefly below.
Sequential Test
Section 2 of the applicant’s revised Retail Assessment considers the sequential test and paragraph 2.02 states that “The revisions to the submitted application do not affect the conclusions of the original retail assessment on this matter, which are summarised briefly below”. As such our original comments regarding the applicant’s assessment of the sequential test still stand.
Impact
In our previous correspondence we consider that there was insufficient quantitative need to justify the proposed uplift in convenience floorspace (previously +1,995 sq m net). The revisions to the planning application propose an increase in the level of convenience floorspace (+1,872 sq m net). The Council’s 2009 Retail Study indicates that at 2016 there is capacity in the region of only 140 sq m net of additional convenience floorspace. This figure is taken from the “low” scenario, which takes into account the impact of the recession and uses slower population increases, slower growth in per capita expenditure and lower sales density increases. We consider that it is justified to use this figure in the short term (i.e. to 2016). Page 181
Whilst we note that the applicant has reduced the amount of comparison floorspace, the proposed uplift is still significant (+1,559 sq m net). We do not consider that the extant consent for bulky goods retail on the site is justification for the current proposals, given that the type of comparison goods sold within supermarkets differs significantly from DIY/bulky goods. The proposed uplift in comparison goods floorspace will mean that the store will directly compete with the comparison function of the town centre.
Summary
We still consider that the application does not satisfy the criteria contained within Policy EC17.1 of PPS4. The applicant has failed to adequately address the sequential test. Furthermore, by reason of its out-of-centre location and the nature of goods that will be sold from the store, it is likely that the proposed development will draw a significant amount of trade from existing stores in Gravesend, to the detriment of the vitality and viability of the town centre.
7. Service Manager (Development Control) Comments
Introduction
The Original Application and the report to the October Board meeting
The original planning application for extending the store (reference GR/2009/0726) which was first submitted to the Borough Council in September 2009 was reported to the Regulatory Board meeting on 6 October 2010.
The officer’s recommendation was,
That the Board note that the application has been appealed against non- determination and that had it been able to determine the application it would have resolved to DEFER a decision for negotiations to significantly reduce the size of the extensions proposed.
This was because an appeal had been lodged on 24 September 2010 by the applicants to the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination.
A public inquiry is due to commence on 8 February 2011 and is currently programmed for a duration of 5 days.
Although the original planning application had been lodged with the Borough Council for a considerable length of time the proposals had required careful consideration and assessment in terms of their retail impact and the policy background and evidence base to support the Local Development Framework had been slowly emerging. New national planning advice had been issued, PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) in December 2009, which had required further re-assessment of the proposals in relation to the new planning advice. There had also been lengthy discussions and negotiations between the applicants and Kent Highways and the Highways Agency concerning the traffic impact of the proposals and it was only in August that the Highways Agency had withdrawn their holding direction. Page 182
The application was originally consulted on and publicised in October 2009 and subsequently in January 2010 following the receipt of the revised plans in December 2010 and there had been a number of objections from local residents in the area and other interested parties including other retailers and representatives of town centre traders.
The report to the October Board advised that negotiations with the applicants had sought to reduce the size of extension and floorspace proposed but that no concessions had been forthcoming on that particular issue to date.
The report concluded that the proposals represented a substantial expansion and extension of this out-of-centre food retail store and that they raised fundamental issues in terms of retail impact and had required very thorough and careful consideration of the key issues in terms of retail impact, traffic and highway impacts and environmental and visual impacts.
The report acknowledged that the development would create new employment opportunities at this site. It also acknowledged that there were some positive gains out of the development, notably that it was proposed to relocate the service yard access further north in Springhead Road and thus away from opposite the fronts of existing houses and which had been the source of complaints for a number of years. The report also noted that there were some positive highway improvements to highway junctions including the A2 junction and the Springhead Road roundabout and improved connectivity to the store.
However the report suggested that the fundamental issue was the size of the extension proposed, the intended use of the extension principally to extend the comparison goods offer within the store and the overriding concerns at the potential impact on other centres, particularly the Gravesend Town Centre and whether this site was sequentially appropriate for the provision of additional floorspace. It was noted that this had to be balanced against the applicants stated reasons for the extension (overtrading and congestion in particular) and the existence of the still unimplemented planning permission for a bulky goods retail (DIY) unit at this site. There was also some scope identified in the Council’s retail reports informing the policy approach to be taken in the LDF for additional retail floorspace particularly for a limited increase in convenience floorspace.
In weighing all the issues the overall conclusion of the report was that whilst there could be a justified case to reject the proposals as submitted (on grounds of significant adverse impacts, insufficient capacity to justify the level of additional floorspace particularly comparison floorspace and failure to fully comply with the requirements of PPS4 in terms of the sequential test) it was nevertheless considered by officers that had the Borough Council been in a position to determine the application had the application not been appealed it would have recommended that a decision be deferred in order for further negotiations to be carried out to achieve a significant reduction in the size of the extension proposed.
At the Board meeting Members’ principal concern was the retail impact of the extension. There was also discussion over other issues and Board Members had indicated that they would also have wished to negotiate improvements or mitigation or imposed planning conditions for the traffic and highway impact relating to the Pepper Hill roundabout, the out of hours delivery service and the location or screening of the proposed relocated petrol filling station.
The resolution of the Board was as follows:-
Page 183
The Board RESOLVED that it notes that an appeal against non-determination had been submitted for application GR/2009/0726 and that, had it been able to determine the application, it would have resolved to DEFER a decision for negotiation; and the above decision be taken forward for the duplicate application GR/2010/0898.
The Current Application and the Report to the November Board meeting
The October Board was advised that at the same time as the lodging of the appeal against non-determination a duplicate application (the current application - 20100898) had been submitted which was identical in its content to the appealed application but had been submitted for the purpose of negotiations.
The Board received a further report at the meeting of the Board on 10 November 2010.
The reason for the further report following the resolution of the Board meeting on 6 October was twofold. Firstly to seek the clarification of the Board of the scope of the issue(s) that should be considered at the public inquiry into the planning appeal against non- determination of the original planning application for extending the store, and secondly to advise the Board of discussions and negotiations in the context of the recently submitted duplicate or re submission application.
The November Board meeting was advised that officers had met with the applicant and their agents and various consultants on 28 October 2010 to discuss the proposals within the duplicate planning application.
The applicant’s agents (White Young Green, Planning and Design) had written to officers prior to the meeting indicating the issues that they sought to resolve (based on the discussions at the Board meeting) so that the resubmitted application could be determined, “as quickly and efficiently as possible resulting in withdrawal of the current appeal .”
The matters that they indicated would be considered were,
• Size of the extension • Position of the petrol filling station • Mitigation of impact of the petrol filling station and • Highway Matters.
The letter from the applicants agents (dated 11 October 2010) was also accompanied by three appeal decisions between Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd and various Councils which the applicant’s agents indicated had all been allowed and revolved around similar issues to those raised the Pepper Hill store proposals.
The meeting on 28 October included officers from planning (development control), planning policy, environmental health and highways including Kent Highways.
At the officer level meeting it was agreed that matters relating to noise, light, air quality and odour could be addressed though planning conditions although in respect of the impact of the petrol filling station the applicant’s agents offered to include some bunding to reduce the visual/noise impact and revised plans would be submitted accordingly.
Page 184
At the Board meeting on 6 October planning and highway officers advised the Board that there were practical difficulties in relocating the proposed petrol filling station to the back of the site. The applicants would write to confirm this.
It was considered by both officers and the applicant’s agents that there had perhaps been a failing to set out in clear terms to the Board what was being proposed in terms of highway mitigation and how that solution had been arrived at.
The applicant’s agents therefore agreed to provide a note and drawing that clearly shows what is being proposed by way of highway improvements.
In respect of the more fundamental issue of the size of the extension at the meeting on 28 October the applicant’s agents offered a reduction in the proposed floorspace but not a reduction in the footprint of the extension.
The Board will recall that the original proposal was as follows:-
Existing Net Floorspace 3537m 2 (38,073 sq ft) Proposed Net Floorspace 4019m 2 (43,260 sq ft)
Total Net Floorspace of Store 7556m 2 (81,333 sq ft)
The “offer” from the applicant’s agent was to reduce the store to a total net retail floorspace of 6968m 2 (75,000sqft) comprising 50,000 sq ft of convenience and 25,000 sq ft of comparison goods floorspace.
This would mean a reduction in floorspace of 7.8 per cent thus losing 588m 2 (6,333 sq ft).
The offer would mean that the comparison floorspace would be 33 per cent of the total net floorspace (compared to the current restriction of 15 per cent).
The applicant’s agents indicated that the remainder of the footprint would be used for storage and that it would be therefore “future proofed”. The applicant’s agent indicated that the Council could impose conditions to restrict the retail floorspace but there was also a suggestion of some floorspace being used as a creche facility if there was the demand.
Officers at the meeting rejected the offer as being cosmetic in that the footprint would not be reduced, there would be difficulty in enforcing the instructions on floorspace, that it would be difficult to resist the floorspace being extended internally at a later date, that there was still a need for a reasoned justification in terms of national policy and there were still concerns at the impact of the proposal on the town centre.
Officers also considered that reducing the footprint would also assist in producing a better elevation to Springhead Road and reduce its perceived impact.
The Board was advised at the November meeting that the applicants had subsequently agreed now to reduce the footprint of the building commensurate with the reduction in the net floorspace. They had also agreed to a planning condition restricting the comparison goods floorspace to 30 per cent of the net retail floorspace of the extended store. This was set out in a letter from Sainsburys to the members of the Board.
The resolution of the November Board was
Page 185
(1) for the purpose of the forthcoming planning appeal the singular issue to be considered shall be the size and impact of the proposed extension;
(2) negotiations continue with the applicants in respect of the duplicate application in order to seek the withdrawal of the appeal against non-determination.
Conclusion of the Negotiations and Summary of the Current Proposals
Subsequent to the November Board meeting the applicant’s agents have submitted revised proposals including revised plans and elevations of the extended store and site sections.
The letter accompanying the revised plans confirms that the revised scheme will reduce the gross external area by 891m² and competition commission (CC) defined sales area by 589m². They advise that this reduces the proposed CC sales area by 7.8 per cent when compared to the originally submitted scheme and that the CC comparison good floorspace is now proposed to be 2,090m² - a 41 per cent decrease compared to that originally submitted.
The table below summarises the proposed floorspace changes:
(all figures sq m) Existing Submitted Revised Scheme Scheme Gross External Area 7,664 13,128 12,237 CC Net Sales 3,537 7,557 6,968 Convenience 3,006 4,011 4,878 Comparison 531 3,545 2,090
The Retail Assessment has been revised and re-assessed to reflect the proposed floorspace changes.
The other supporting documents have not been revised as it is considered by the applicants that the impact levels in terms of air quality, noise etc should be lower. An update to the design and access statement is being produced.
The applicant’s highway consultants (Mayer Brown) have however submitted a revised table of predicted traffic generation associated with the development which is reproduced below. The totals include both arrivals and departures.
Weekday Weekday AM PM Weekday PM Saturday
(0800 – (1500 – (1700 – 1800) (1200 – 1300) 0900) 1600) Planning Application 160 217 254 vehicles 292 vehicles Number vehicles vehicles 20100898 Reduced 140 191 224 vehicles 257 vehicles Scheme vehicles vehicles Net - 20 - 26 - 30 - 35 Change
Page 186
The reduced scheme leads to a reduction in traffic generation associated with the proposed store extension. This ranges from between 20 and 35 less vehicles per hour depending upon which peak hour is considered.
In addition a summary of the proposed highway improvements has also been provided together with a single plan showing all the highway improvements.
These are appended to the report.
Assessment of the Current Proposals
The key issues in the determination of this duplicate application remain the same as those in the original application, the subject of the non-determination appeal, namely
• the retail impact of the proposed extension,
• the traffic, highway and parking impacts particularly in relation to the Pepper Hill roundabout junction with Wingfield Bank and the A2 junction with Hall Road,
• and the environmental and visual/design impacts of the development.
Retail Impact and Assessment – the methodology
The retail impact of the proposals is assessed against both the planning policy background and an analysis of the very detailed technical assessments. The planning policy background comprises the development plan i.e. the saved policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review, the emerging policy approach in the Local Development Framework and national planning policy documents, in particular Planning Policy Statement PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth).
In addition with the re-establishment of the Regional Strategies as part of the development plan from 10 November 2010, as a result of the Cala Homes decision, the policies in the South East Plan are also a relevant consideration.
The emerging policy approach for the LDF has been informed by a Retail Study undertaken by consultants for the Council (Roger Tym & Partners) and for which an updated assessment was received in July and the conclusions of those documents are relevant to the assessment of retail impact.
In addition an assessment of the technical retail documents and data in the duplicate application has been sought from the Council’s retail consultants (Roger Tym & Partners) who have been engaged to prepare the Council’s case should the appeal against non- determination on the original application still proceed to the public inquiry set for February 2011.
The Board will note that as in the original appealed application strong policy objections to the development have been received from consultants on behalf of Wm Morrison Supermarkets and Edinburgh House Estates (the Heritage Quarter developers) as well as from Dartford Borough Council and these are also a material consideration. It is not proposed in this report to respond in detail to the specific policy and retail impact Page 187
representations made as they are considered in general terms in the proceeding paragraphs and the matters and concerns raised have been considered in the Roger Tym and Partners analysis of the current extension proposals.
Planning Policy
The policy basis in considering proposals for new retail development as set out in planning policies at a local level (in the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994, the draft deposit version of the Local Plan Second Review 2000, and the emerging policies of the Local Development Framework), at a regional level in the South East Plan (May 2009) and the national planning policy advice in PPG6 (Planning for Town Centres) and its replacement in PPG4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) has been more or less consistent in its approach over many years.
In summary local and regional planning policy and, by implication, national planning policy gives support to Gravesend Town Centre as the focus for and prime location for any new or redeveloped retail floorspace, that proposals that impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and other local centres should be resisted and that where there is an identified need for new retail floorspace that it should be considered sequentially with the clear preference being for retail development to be located within the Gravesend Town Centre, followed by edge of town centre, then local centres and only in exceptional cases, out of centre. In sequential terms the existing Sainsbury’s site is an out of centre site.
It is appropriate to apply the sequential approach in the case of extensions to supermarkets. Moreover the current national planning advice in PPS4 indicates that in assessing “main town centre uses” (i.e. retail development) consideration can be given to the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail development, that is to say that it may be possible to separate parts of a development onto separate sequentially preferable sites. This could mean for example that separate consideration could be given to the food floorspace elements as opposed to non-food floorspace element at different locations within the Borough.
The Case for the Applicant
The various reasons why the applicants are proposing an extension to the store have been summarised in bullet form in the Proposals sections of this report.
The applicant’s detailed case for retail development at the existing Sainsburys store at Pepper Hill is set out in the original retail impact assessment accompanying the application (September 2010).
That document contained a substantial amount of statistical evidence to justify the development.
In summary the applicant’s original retail assessment indicated that:
• The proposed development is in accordance with relevant retail provisions of the development plan and national planning guide.
• Based on an up-to-date survey, population and expenditure statistics there is a clear quantitative and qualitative need for the development in a more spacious and Page 188
attractive environment to serve the “bulk food shopping requirements” of the catchment population.
• The proposed extension is of an appropriate scale, and will complement the existing retail role and function of the town centre and is necessary to improve the existing Sainsbury’s store to meet modern customer expectations.
• The proposed development satisfies the sequential approach to site selection in meeting a site specific need to improve the existing Sainsbury’s store and is incapable of being located elsewhere (i.e. that it cannot be disaggregated).
• An analysis of trade diversion, based on an examination of the shopping patterns relating to the existing retail store and centres evidenced by an up-to-date household survey, has shown that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant negative impact upon the vitality and viability of Gravesend and other town centres in the Study Area, any existing, committed or planned public and private investment within any centre within the catchment area or the trading position/turnover of Gravesend Town Centre or any other centre in the catchment area.
The applicant’s case has also focused on two key issues.
• Firstly, that the existing store is significantly over trading and is congested for its customers and,
• Secondly, that the site includes an extant consent already for a non-food retail store (Homebase) of a total of 5,691m 2 gross floorspace which could still be implemented (or possibly as five retail warehouse units) and that the current proposal will deliver slightly less gross floorspace overall and that this permission (sometimes termed the “fall back position”) should be a materially overriding consideration.
Overtrading means that the store is congested in terms of average company or benchmark turnover compared to the retail floorspace within the store with 25 per cent above or below being the threshold beyond which a store may be over or under trading. It means that at peak periods the store is congested and shelves needing to be replenished more often than usual. The applicants own survey indicates that the store is trading 57 per cent higher than a typical Sainsbury’s store.
As indicated in the report on the original 2009 application it was accepted that having regard to the advice in PPS4 (at EC1.4 d (ii)) overtrading should be taken into account (when assessing need for retail development in the formulation of planning policy) although the estimate by the Councils retail consultants RTP was that the Sainsbury’s store was overtrading by 48 per cent which is slightly less when compared with the estimate by Sainsbury’s consultants (57 per cent).
Moreover the report on the original 2009 application indicated that there may be other factors that can contribute to the success or overtrading of a store such as efficient management, good store design, prices and offers and most stores in any case would for profitability want to be overtrading in order to increase their market share. Overtrading may also be due to the general popularity of out-of-town stores.
Page 189
However it is acknowledged that the greater proportion of new floorspace in the revised scheme for the extended store is for convenience floorspace and that the increased floorspace will provide more space to display goods and stock a greater number of products.
In respect of the applicants second key reason for justifying the scale of the development, what effectively the applicants are suggesting is that the planning permission for the bulky goods DIY store (total floorspace of 5691m 2 (61,259 sq ft)) already granted permission (on appeal) at this site, but still live and unimplemented, can be converted in floorspace terms to a general retail use.
As indicated in the report on the original 2009 application it was acknowledged that there were some similarities in the types of goods that would have been retailed in the Homebase format and within the comparison goods floorspace of the proposed extended Sainsbury’s store. However the Homebase was still essentially a bulky goods DIY retail store with other retail goods available within the store and a significant proportion of the floorspace would have been devoted to a garden centre and storage.
Moreover the previous report indicated that whilst the need for additional bulky goods floorspace was accepted by officers then (through retail studies at the time) if the permission was simply converted to general retail as opposed to bulky goods retail warehousing that need for additional bulky goods floorspace would still exist and would have to met elsewhere within the Borough at some other location.
It is also acknowledged that planning permission had been subsequently granted to allow the development of the non food retail unit at the site to be subdivided to potentially smaller units (no less than 10,000 sq ft) but it was pointed out that the application was made only on the basis of providing a degree of flexibility in the light of any changes in market conditions (but still for non-food bulky goods retail development) and it was stated that it remained the intention that the scheme be occupied by a single tenant.
While the DIY permission is extant and can be lawfully subdivided this doesn’t necessarily represent a fall back position to the five unit retail park concept. Potentially new reserved matters approvals would be required. However, there is a time limit on the submission of the approval of reserved matters and this appears to have lapsed in April 2010 and would prevent further reserved matters applications.
Revised Retail Assessment
Due to the changes to the submitted scheme (reduction in floorspace and footprint by almost 8 per cent and a significant reduction in comparison floorspace within the scheme) since the duplicate application was first submitted in September 2010 a revised retail assessment has been submitted to assess the revised impact.
The revised assessment indicates that the revisions to the application, by reducing the size of the store and reducing the extent of comparison floorspace, do not affect the overall conclusions of the original retail assessment although the Board should note that it does result in a different type of impact.
The revised assessment indicates that the store would still be primarily a food retail destination within which the non-food offer would be a secondary attraction.
In sequential terms the applicants revised retail assessment indicates that the specific need for the development is locationally site specific and incapable of being located elsewhere. Page 190
The sequential assessment in any case suggests that there are no suitable available or viable sequentially preferable sites in or on the edge of Gravesend Town Centre.
The revised statement indicates that the impact on the vitality and viability of the Gravesend Town Centre is acceptable and would not materially harm the trading position of existing retail facilities. Convenience impacts are assessed as being 3.7 per cent on the Tesco store in the town centre and 6.4 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively on Asda and Morrisons, but that the latter are trading in excess of benchmark turnovers.
In respect of comparison impacts the trade division is assessed as only 1.8 per cent on the Gravesend Town Centre. The comparison goods impact on the extant consent for the Chinacorp development floorspace as potentially subdivided into five separate retail units is assessed at 4.0 per cent on the town centre.
In respect of the original assessment of retail impact contained in the September 2010 retail assessment the convenience impacts were assessed as being 1.9 per cent on the Tesco store in the town centre and 3.4 per cent on the edge of centre Asda store and the same on the out of centre Morrisons store. Therefore notwithstanding the reduction in floorspace the convenience impact on other stores is assessed by the applicants as being greater but this is due to the switch in the proposal to a greater content of convenience (food) floorspace.
Conversely the applicants original retail assessment in terms of comparison impact was assessed as being in the magnitude of 3.5 per cent on the Gravesend Town Centre and therefore not surprisingly with a reduction in the comparison goods floorspace in the scheme (by 41 per cent) the impact on the Gravesend Town Centre in terms of trade draw and trade diversion is significantly less.
The Assessment of Retail Impact
In the report on the original 2009 application to the October 2010 Board meeting it was indicated that the key points and concerns in the Council’s own policy assessment were that,
-there may be a case for some additional floorspace based on evidence of overtrading but a town centre site would be preferable
-there may be some scope for additional floorspace to meet local need due to slow progress in bringing forward the Ebbsfleet development proposals and other major development sites
-allowing for commitments there was scope for a limited amount of additional convenience floorspace
-the proposed comparison floorspace would be in direct competition to the town centre
-the size of comparison floorspace proposed was substantial
-there is a clear scheme at Heritage Quarter which meets the requirements for comparison floorspace (excluding retail warehousing) retail potential until 2016 (10,490m 2 retail floorspace of which no more than 25 per cent is convenience), albeit that this application was refused by the Board at the special meeting on 20 September 2010 but not for retail reasons.
-the applicants analysis was not fully PPS4 compliant. Page 191
The overall conclusion was that the convenience floorspace should be accepted but not the comparison floorspace other than within the15 per cent parameter and possibly the range of goods should be restricted.
The revised scheme has through the recent negotiations resulted in a reduction in the proposed floorspace in both net retail terms and in the footprint of the built development although perhaps not to the extent that would have been preferred.
More significantly the comparison floorspace has also been reduced significantly and the applicants would accept a restriction through a planning condition on the extent of the comparison floorspace within the extended store to not more than 30%. Again this is not as restrictive as would have been preferred but is nevertheless consistent with the restriction on the Asda edge of town centre store within Gravesend.
The revised proposals have been assessed in terms of retail impact and in relation to national planning advice in PPS4 by the Council’s retail consultants (Roger Tym and Partners).
A copy of the consultant’s assessment (final draft) is appended to this report.
The conclusions and recommendations in the assessment are as follows:
“Our assessment has thoroughly considered the case for the extended store promoted as part of the amended application B. If permitted, this store would result in 3,431 sqm of sales floorspace (1,872 sqm of convenience and 1,559 sqm of comparison floorspace). Policy EC17 of PPS4 sets out the Government’s guidelines for considering planning applications for town centre uses. Paragraph EC17.1 explains that applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused planning permission where:
(a) the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (Policy EC15); or
(b) there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1 (the impact assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments (our emphasis).
Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1, Policy EC17.2 of PPS4 advises that planning applications should be determined by taking account of:
(a) the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policies EC10.2 and 16.1, and any other material considerations; and
(b) the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.
Page 192
Finally, Policy EC17.3 states that, ‘judgements about the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan ’. Policy EC17.3 also notes that recent local assessments of the health of town centres and any other published local information are also relevant.
We consider, on the basis of the evidence available to date, that the applicant has followed the sequential approach, and that there is no sequentially preferable opportunity which meets the ‘available’, ‘suitable’ and ‘viable’ tests, even allowing for the flexibility required by Policy EC15.1.d. As a consequence, we consider that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach.
In respect of whether there is ‘clear evidence’ of ‘significant adverse impact’, we have carefully considered the case. We have some concerns over the size of the application proposals since we consider they go beyond those necessary to meet locational needs. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that the ‘fall back’ argument about the Chinacorp permission in respect of a five unit retail park carries significant weight, whilst we consider that the trade impact calculations are generous in favour of the development. Therefore, we expect there to be an impact on the town centre and that some further trade will be lost through the diversion of linked trips spending between the Asda and the remainder of the town centre.
The question for the Council is whether there is clear evidence of a significant adverse impact to justify the refusal of this application under EC17.1b. In our view, there is certainly evidence to suggest that there would be some degree of an adverse impact, which is explained above. However, based on our interpretation of the evidence, we do not consider that there is clear evidence of a significant adverse impact to justify a refusal on this basis alone.
If the Council agrees with our conclusion that the application passes the first two limbs of EC17, there is an opportunity to undertake a balancing exercise that considers the positive and negative impacts of the proposal, other material considerations and the cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. This provides the Council with a further opportunity to refuse the application if it concludes that the negative impacts outweigh any positive benefits.
In our view, the case is marginal. We are concerned at the creation of such a large store which will be some 1,200 sqm larger than the Asda in the town centre. We are also concerned at the potential loss of linked trips spending with the town centre and a potential sharp impact of the clothing retailers that do exist. However, since we consider that the application has satisfied the sequential approach and that there is no clear evidence of a significant adverse impact in respect of the impact tests in EC16 and those we have examined in EC10, we can see a case for permission of this extension, if carefully controlled by planning conditions. Furthermore, we are aware that there are supporting arguments in respect of an improved shopping environment that enhanced consumer choice as well as regeneration arguments of a vacant site and highways improvements (including the relocation of the service yard).
If the Council concludes that the positive elements of the proposal outweigh the negative impacts on the town centre and wish to grant planning permission, we consider that there should be conditions that control the nature of the store, including the following:
Page 193
• A cap on the total amount of sales floorspace in the store
• Controls over the amount of comparison floorspace, restricting it to 30 per cent of the sales area
• Controls over any sub-division of the store to create clothing concessions
Given that the main concern from this application surrounds the amount of clothing floorspace to be sold from the store, the Council may wish to investigate mechanisms that limit the floorspace that can be devoted to clothing in the store. Furthermore the Council may wish to introduce a condition or Section 106 clause which seeks to maximise the take up of the net job gain by socially and economically deprived residents in the local area”.
In conclusion and having regard to the revisions made in terms of the reduction in floorspace, the reduction in built footprint, the significant reduction in the extent of comparison floorspace and taking into account the conclusions in the Council’s retail consultants assessment of the revised proposals whist there are still some undeniable concerns at the degree of adverse retail impact there is now not clear evidence of a significant impact and other positive impacts in the proposals may weigh against refusal.
Traffic, Highways and Parking Impacts
The highway impact of proposals were the subject of extensive discussions and negotiations between the Highway Authority (Kent County Council), the Highways Agency (responsible for the A2 trunk road) and the applicant’s traffic consultants (Mayer Brown) to address highway concerns in the context of the 2009 extension application.
The submitted proposals in the 2009 application and in the current scheme include both on- site and off-site highway works to mitigate the impact of the proposed increase in vehicle movements. These proposals include,
• a revision to the junction at the A2 to the south of the site to mitigate the impact of additional traffic by removing the majority of existing u-turn movements at the Sainsbury’s roundabout. It is proposed that a right turn facility would be re- introduced onto the coast bound A2 with a revised junction arrangement including improvements to pedestrian and cycle facilities.
• provision of a formal toucan crossing point in Hall Road to provide improved pedestrian and cycle links between the store and local residential areas.
• minor alterations to the Sainsbury’s roundabout.
• re-alignment of Wingfield Bank and amendments to the footway/cycle/verge in Springhead Road and Hall Road.
• alterations of the A2 junction arrangement at the New Barn roundabout and London bound A2 off-slip.
• re-location of the service yard access onto Springhead Road to a location north of the Waterdales junction. Page 194
Although it had been considered, the proposals do not propose the introduction of a signal controlled arrangement at the A2 junction or the Sainsbury’s roundabout for physical reasons. In any event the opening of the Ebbsfleet link road may have resulted in reducing flows of traffic using the Sainsbury’s roundabout.
No additional highways contributions have been offered by the applicants.
In the context of the revised planning application, which the applicants highway consultants have demonstrated will have a reduced highway impact in terms of traffic generation and in particular a reduction in traffic on the Sainsbury’s roundabout, it should be noted that all the on-site and off-site highway works would still be provided prior to the opening of the extended store.
It was agreed that the extent of highway improvements proposed was probably not made sufficiently clear to the Board previously when the earlier extension application was considered and this has been remedied by the production of a summary document and plan that is appended to this report.
In respect of car parking provision it was indicated in the report on the 2009 application that although there is a slight decreased ratio of parking spaces to retail floorspace this is consistent with the levels of parking expected to be associated with a store of this size, particularly when considering the proposed introduction of a significant percentage of additional non-food items and this would still fall within the Council’s adopted parking standard guidance.
The Board will recall whilst it had objected to the Chinacorp (Homebase) proposal on this site on highway grounds, contrary to officers advice, the Planning Inspector in allowing the appeal did not consider that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety or the free flow of traffic at the Springhead Road roundabout subject to an imposition a Grampian condition in respect of the opening of the Ebbsfleet link road precluding the opening of the store before the route is brought into public use.
The Board are also reminded that the permission on appeal for the Chinacorp (Homebase) development would not have resulted in any direct off site highway improvements only highway contributions.
In conclusion, as in the 2009 extension proposal, there are no grounds to reject the proposals in terms of highway or car parking implications.
The Board will note the holding objection of the KCC footpaths officer due to lack of detail on the proposed footpath diversion. However the applicants have confirmed that an application to divert the footpath using powers in Town and Country planning legislation can only be done once a planning permission I sin place and the KCC footpath officer is generally satisfied that the link is being retained.
Environmental and Visual/Design Impacts
In respect of the environmental impact of the development the application as in the earlier 2009 application is supported by a number of environmental assessments, the key ones being noise, lighting and air quality in addition to reports on contamination, archaeology, ecology and trees. Page 195
The noise assessment indicates that a comparison between the existing service yard layout and the proposed service yard layout and associated access change shows a reduction in noise levels at the closest sensitive receptor (121 Springhead Road) would occur as a result of the changes.
The assessment indicates that noise levels from the proposed Sainsbury’s To You operation at nearby receptors are predicted not to exceed background noise levels at any point over a 24 hour period. This is also predicted in relation to the petrol filling station and that in respect of traffic noise any additional traffic on nearby and surrounding roads would be considered of negligible significance for all receptors.
Noise impact was not considered to be an overriding factor in relation to the Chinacorp (Homebase) planning permission and the Head of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) raises no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
The lighting impact assessment indicates that some nearby receptors will experience a very small increase in light levels but that the closest receptors (along Fleet Road and Pepper Hill) would be within Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) guidance limits for light spillage with or without the development. The report also indicates that in the case of some properties in Springhead Road they already have a significant lighting impact and exceed ILE guidelines due to street lighting but that no new exceedences or light spillage would occur as a result of the proposal.
The assessment of the Head of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) is that there is no objection to the scheme in lighting terms subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring a detailed lighting management plan.
In respect of air quality impacts from the development there were some concerns at the methodology used by the applicants agents from the Head of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) and some concern that there would be an increase locally of air quality impacts than was predicted for the permitted Homebase scheme at this site and is therefore seeking mitigation measures and contributions to monitoring of air quality. The Board are advised that a contribution to air quality monitoring is being officered by the applicants through a unilateral agreement.
In respect of design and built form issues the proposals will result in a significant change in the appearance of the building and a more contemporary approach and will also result in the building being significantly closer to facing properties in Springhead Road.
However some visual improvements to the external appearance of the extended building were negotiated on the previous application.
The Board will recall from the discussions on the 2009 extension application that there were concerns at the position of the relocated petrol filling station but the applicants concurred with officers advice that this was the optimum location and that other locations would create the following problems:
(i) Customers wishing to use the PFS only and oil tankers would have to negotiate the customer car park to access the PFS (ii) Areas of customer car parking would be cut off from the store, forcing customers to cross the internal car park access road (iii) Insufficient room to accommodate the PFS without encroaching on the store footprint Page 196
However additional mitigation has now been shown in the revised plans to reduce the impact of the petrol filling station including bunding, a retaining wall and an acoustic fence in addition to landscaping on the eastern side of the site facing existing houses.
In conclusion as in the 2009 extension proposals there are insufficient grounds in terms of the environmental or visual impact to reject the revised proposals.
Overall Conclusions
This revised application still represents a significant expansion and extension of this out-of- centre food retail store and it raises fundamental issues in terms of retail impact and has required very thorough and careful consideration of the key issues in terms of retail impact, traffic and highway impacts and environmental and visual impacts.
The crucial planning issue and concern is the size of the extension proposed and the impact that the extension will have on the town centre or other centres.
There are still a number of strong objections to the application in respect of retail impact from consultants on behalf of Wm Morrison Supermarkets and Edinburgh House Estates (the Heritage Quarter developers) as well as from Dartford Borough Council.
The application has been the subject of protracted and difficult negotiations and whilst it would have been preferable to have achieved a more significant reduction in the size of the extension it is considered that the current revisions are the best that can be achieved through the negotiations. The agreement to reduce the footprint and in particular to reduce significantly the extent of comparison floorspace has clearly made the proposal more palatable.
There is still no doubt that the extension will have a degree of adverse impact. However the consultants advice is that there is not clear evidence of a significant impact to justify refusal on this basis alone.
Moreover the negatives have to be considered against the positive impacts in weighing the issues. In this respect the development will create new employment opportunities at this site and assist with local employment. The applicants have agreed to the principle of an initial local recruitment and skills and training initiative for new employees hired at the time of store opening and to secure this by way of a unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Acts pursuant to PPS4 policy EC10.d objectives.
It is also acknowledged that there are some other positive gains out of the development, notably that it is proposed to relocate the service yard access further north in Springhead Road and thus away from opposite the fronts of existing houses and which has been the source of complaints for a number of years.
There are also some positive highway improvements to highway junctions including the A2 junction and the Springhead Road roundabout and improved connectivity to the store. This would not have been achieved with the extant Homebase permission.
Therefore in weighing all the issues and balancing the positive benefits against the negative impacts the balance now just lies in favour of permission . Page 197
A raft of planning conditions are recommended to address any outstanding concerns and to ensure proper controls and limitations are placed on the development proposed.
If permission is granted the application will need to be referred to the Secretary of State by reason of paragraph 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 (which came into force in April 2009). This requires retail developments for extensions of 2,500 square metres or more which when aggregated with the existing floorspace, would exceed 5,000 square metres to be referred to the Secretary of State.
In the analysis of the planning issues and the subsequent recommendation consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act and it is concluded that any breaches or interference to individual human rights are reasonable and fair. Page 198
Planning Application 20100898
RECOMMENDATION
Subject to
1. An agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, to secure a financial contribution towards air quality monitoring
2. An agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, to secure an initial local recruitment and skills and training initiative for new employees hired at the time of store opening pursuant to PPS4 policy EC10.d objectives.
3. Referral to the Secretary of State by reason of paragraph 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009
PERMISSION as amended by applicants agents (WYG Planning and Design) letter dated 16 November 2010 and revised drawings
CHQ.08.8667-PL06G: Proposed Site Plan CHQ.08.8667-PL07B: Proposed Store Plan CHQ.08.8667-PL08B: Elevations CHQ.08.8667-PL09B: Proposed Roof Plan CHQ.08.8667-PL10A: Proposed PFS Elevations CHQ.08.8667-PL12A: Proposed Site Plan: Public Rights of Way CHQ.08.8667-PL13A: Existing and Proposed Site Sections CHQ.08.8667-PL14A: Site Sections Overlay applicants agents (WYG Planning and Design) letter dated 22 November 2010 and revised drawings/documents
Arboricultural Report (Revision C) (November 2010) including Tree Survey Schedules Drawing Number 645-07 rev A: Inter Car Park Tree Pit Detail Drawing Number 745-01 rev C: Tree Survey Drawing Drawing Number 745-04 rev D: Vegetation Loss and Retention Proposals Drawing Number 745-06 rev I: Outline Landscape Proposals
Updated Retail Assessment, November 2010
Mayer Brown Summary Document of Proposed Highway Improvements, November 2010 Mayer Brown Highway Improvements Overview Plan (SSLNORTHFLEET.1/SK49) November 2010
Page 199
CONDITIONS/REASONS
General
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in its entirety and in complete accordance with the following approved plans,
Existing Plans
Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL01: Site Location Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8392-PL02: Existing Site Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL03: Existing Store Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL04: Existing Elevations Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL05: Existing Roof Plan
Proposed Plans
Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL06G: Proposed Site Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL07B: Proposed Store Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL08B: Elevations Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL09B: Proposed Roof Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL10A: Proposed PFS Elevations Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL12A: Proposed Site Plan: Public Rights of Way Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL13A: Existing and Proposed Site Sections Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL14A: Site Sections Overlay
Tree and Landscaping Plans
Drawing Number 645-07 rev A: Inter Car Park Tree Pit Detail Drawing Number 745-01 rev C: Tree Survey Drawing Drawing Number 745-04 rev D: Vegetation Loss and Retention Proposals Drawing Number 745-06 rev I: Outline Landscape Proposals
and pursuant to any condition contained hereinafter.
Reason: In order to ensure that the details of the development are satisfactory.
Use Restrictions
3. The net retail sales area (as per the Competition Commission definition) of the extended store shall not exceed 6,968m 2; no more than 30 per cent (2,090m 2) of the net retail sales area of the extended store shall be Page 200
devoted to comparison goods (as defined in PPS4 – Appendix B: Definitions and the Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach – Appendix A: Glossary of Terms).
Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of nearby town centres within the defined catchment area of the store and in support of the adopted planning policies of the Local Plan and national planning advice in PPS4.
4. The area shown on the approved site layout plan (Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL06G) and approved store plan (Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL07B) as “proposed back up area extension” and “online” (total Gross External Area (GEA) 1297m2) shall not at any time be used for retail sales or retail floorspace.
Reason: In order that the storage areas remains as an ancillary warehousing to the retail store, having regard to issues of amenity, traffic safety and the prevailing planning policies.
5. Unless with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority no part of the extended retail store hereby permitted shall be subdivided into separate retail units or as concessionary stores.
Reason: In order that the provision of separate retail units or concessionary stores may be the subject of a separate planning application which the Local Planning Authority would wish to consider on its merits having regard to issues of amenity, traffic safety and the prevailing policies and with particular regard to retail impact on the town centre.
6. Unless with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority the customer toilet facilities and new customer café/restaurant in the extension hereby permitted shall remain in the position shown in the approved plan CH.08.8667/PL06G.
Reason: In order that the an other use of the floorspace taken by the location of the toilet facilities and customer café/restaurant may be the subject of a separate planning application which the Local Planning Authority would wish to consider on its merits, having regard to issues of amenity, traffic safety and the prevailing planning policies.
7. The café/restaurant hereby permitted shall only be used as customer restaurant ancillary to the existing retail store and its opening hours shall coincide with those of the existing store and it shall at no time trade independently; and no hot food shall be sold from the café/restaurant for consumption off the premises.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
Hours of Use Page 201
8. The extended store hereby permitted shall be open to customers during the following hours:
Monday to Friday 0800 – 2200 Saturday 0730 – 2200 Sundays 1000 – 1600.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
9. The relocated petrol filling station hereby permitted shall be open to customers during the following hours:
Monday to Friday 0700 – 2230 Saturday 0700 – 2230 Sunday 0900 – 1700.
Reasons: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
10. The Home Delivery service operation from the store shall only to be carried out between 0800 and 2200 Monday to Saturday and 1000 to 1600 on Sundays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
11. Following the relocation of the service yard access in Springhead Road no deliveries to the revised service yard shall be taken or despatched from the site outside the hours of 0900 and 1100 on Sundays and outside the hours of 0600 and 0100 the following morning on any other day. There shall be a maximum of two deliveries during each four hour period between 21.00 and 01.00 on weekdays and Saturdays. Immediately after 01.00 the yard shall be vacated and no further activity shall take place in that area until the next permitted operating period.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings
Noise
12. The rating level of the noise emitted from any plant or equipment associated with the extended store shall not exceed the existing background noise level as identified in Table 12 of the WYG Environment Noise Assessment (A024414) dated September 2010. The noise levels shall be determined at the points nearest to adjacent residential premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings Page 202
13. Prior to the first use of this development details of the sound reduction provided by the enclosure to the revised Service Yard, and which shall be no less than 20dB R W, shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings
14. The rating level of the noise resulting from the Sainsburys To You Home Delivery Service operation within the delivery bay shall not exceed the existing background noise level as identified in Table 20 of the WYG Environment Noise Assessment (A024414) dated September 2010. The noise levels shall be determined at nearest residential premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings
15. The rating level of the noise resulting from the operation of the petrol filling station (other than noise from the exit or entry of road vehicles), shall not exceed the existing background noise level as identified in Tables 23 and 24 of the WYG Environment Noise Assessment (A024414) dated September 2010. The noise levels shall be determined at nearest residential premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings
Lighting
16. Before the extensions hereby permitted and the relocated petrol filling station are first brought into use a detailed lighting management plan including detailed lighting layout plans and luminant specifications and details of any mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the lighting as may be approved shall ensure that the overall change in measured illuminance on residential receptors is no greater than that modelled within Table 12 of Lighting Impact Assessment Report A024414 (sixth issue) prepared by WYG Environment dated September 2010 or that there are no exceedances of the post curfew light trespass into windows of 2lux at receptor locations as a result of the development; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter no additional lighting shall be installed without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
Page 203
Construction
17. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a comprehensive Code of Construction Practice and Method Statement covering all relevant environmental issues in the construction of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Code of Construction Practice and Method Statement shall provide the following details:
i. how the construction of the development will be phased
ii. the location of parking of vehicles for site operations and visitors
iii. the loading and unloading of plant and materials
iv. the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
v. the provision of wheel washing facilities
vi. the measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction
vii. the measures to control noise and vibration during construction
viii. the method for recycling and disposing of waste during demolition and construction works
All construction operations, including any demolition works shall be carried out in accordance with the hours set out below (to be known as normal working hours), unless with the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority
0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0800 to 1300 hours Saturday
Unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no operations or work shall be carried out on a Sunday or on Bank and Public Holidays.
In addition to the above times the contractor may use up to one hour before and up to one hour after normal working hours for start up and close down of activities. Examples of these activities would be:
a) day to day maintenance, checking, lubrication and cleaning/washing down of plant and machinery
b) refuelling of plant and machinery (from on-site storage facilities only)
c) deliveries and unloading
d) site inspections and safety checks, but excluding any works necessary to make the working zone and/or construction site safe (which are to be undertaken within normal working hours) Page 204
e) arrival and departure of workforce and staff at the construction site, but only in so far as the arrival and departure times provide for the minimum time necessary to undertake the tasks allowed by these start up/close down activities
f) site meetings, other than office based activity.
g) site clean up.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
18. Unless with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority, for the duration of the construction works in connection with the development hereby permitted a means of access to the adjacent development at Springhead Park and for access to the public footpath (NU16) shall be maintained at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.
Drainage
19. Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance.
20. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground shall be permitted other than with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained; such permission may only be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
Reason: The site is underlain by the Thanet Sands and Upper Chalk aquifers. It is also located within Source Protection Zone II for a number of groundwater abstraction boreholes. The boundary for Source Protection Zone I is located within 60 metres of the site. The site is therefore located within a sensitive groundwater protection area.
21. Development shall not begin until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating those areas and facilities that will be drained to the foul sewerage system; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Unless otherwise agreed in writing all areas, other than toilets and Page 205
domestic washing facilities, draining to the foul sewerage system or to a surface water drainage must drain via petrol interceptors.
Reason: The site is underlain by the Thanet Sands and Upper Chalk aquifers. It is also located within Source Protection Zone II for a number of groundwater abstraction boreholes. The boundary for Source Protection Zone I is located within 60 metres of the site. The site is therefore located within a sensitive groundwater protection area.
22. Prior to the commencement of works on site details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Southern Water, relating to:-
• Monitoring of groundwater quality at locations to be agreed with Southern Water for an agreed period and which shall not be greater than six months before starting enabling works, groundworks or construction.
• Agreement for groundwater monitoring regime during construction and for one year post construction.
• Method statement relating to construction of on-site drainage.
• Method statement for abandonment of existing petrol filling station.
• Details of new petrol filling station to aquifer protection.
Reason: The proposed development lies within Source Protection Zone 2 of a number of groundwater abstractions, including the important Southern Water Hazells Source and in order to protect the security of the public drinking water supply.
Contamination
23. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
Page 206
3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not proceed on a contaminated site.
24. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Reason : The site is underlain by the Thanet Sands and Upper Chalk aquifers. It is also located within Source Protection Zone II for a number of groundwater abstraction boreholes. The boundary for Source Protection Zone I is located within 60 metres of the site. The site is therefore located within a sensitive groundwater protection area. There is currently no assurance that no unacceptable risks to controlled waters remain at this site as it has not been possible to fully assess the part of the site currently occupied by the petrol filling station.
Design and Materials
25. Full details including samples of all external materials and surface treatments to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
26. Before the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details of all boundary treatments to the site including details of the gates to the customer car park, the revised service yard and the petrol filling station shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the approved boundary treatments including the retaining wall, acoustic fence and bunding to the eastern boundary of the relocated petrol filling station as shown in drawing nos. CHQ.08.8667-PL13A: Existing and Proposed Site Sections and CHQ.08.8667-PL14A: Site Sections Overlay shall be carried out before the development hereby permitted is first occupied. Page 207
Reason: No such details have been submitted and in the interests of visual amenity.
27. Before the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details of the covered walkway within the extended car park, the relocated recycling centre, and the location of any trolley grids shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: No such details have been submitted and in the interests of visual amenity.
28. The existing artwork panel on the existing front elevation of the retail store shall be relocated onto the same elevation of the extended store before the extensions hereby permitted are first brought into use.
Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the store and in pursuance of policy BE19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000.
29. Before the new customer restaurant/café is brought into use details of fume extraction equipment to the kitchen area and preparation room including details on any external flues and ducting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the approved fume extraction equipment shall be installed before the development hereby permitted is first occupied.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
30. Upon completion of the development and prior to its first occupation full details of all the sustainable construction measures and energy efficient technologies incorporated in the development to demonstrate how the carbon footprint of the store is being reduced shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The technologies to be employed shall include the switching off of external lighting outside the operating hours of the store and petrol filling station. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the development shall not be occupied unless the minimum very good BREEAM rating has been achieved.
Reason: In support of sustainable planning principles.
Trees, Landscaping and Ecology
31. The landscaping scheme shown in the approved drawing (Outline Landscape proposals Drawing No 745-06 rev I) shall be carried out in its entirety in the first planting season following the commencement of works Page 208
on site, or in accordance with a programme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority; all new planting shall be watered and mulched during the first year to aid establishment and where necessary the planting shall be protected, staked and tied. If within a period of five years from the implementation of the planting scheme any of the trees or plants that form part of the approved landscaping scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased then they shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
32. Before the commencement of the development all trees and landscaping to be retained on the site shall be protected from construction in accordance with the approved drawing (Vegetation Loss and Retention Proposals – Drawing No 745-04 Rev D) in compliance with BS5837:2005 – Trees in Relation to Construction, and such protection shall be maintained on site until the development has been completed. No works, storage, excavations or changes in land levels shall take place within the protection areas.
Reason: In order to safeguard existing established vegetation in the interests of visual amenity.
33. Before the extensions hereby permitted are first brought in to use bat and bird boxes shall be incorporated into the site in appropriate locations before the development hereby permitted is first occupied.
Reason: To enhance the ecological value and biodiversity of the site.
Highways and Parking
34. The revised and extended customer car parking and circulation areas shown in the approved site layout plan drawing (Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL06G) shall be formed, surfaced, drained and marked out before the extensions hereby permitted are first brought into use; not less than 32 of the total number of car parking spaces shall be marked out for the use of the mobility impaired and not less than 22 of the total number of car parking spaces shall be marked out for the use of other special needs parking (parent and child); thereafter the car parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas so provided shall be used for and kept available for such at all times when the store is open for customers.
Reason: That the development without satisfactory provision for vehicle parking and manoeuvring is likely to result in inconvenience and danger by virtue of cars parking on the public highway, and in compliance with adopted local plan policy and adopted vehicle parking standards.
35. Before the extensions to the store and the relocated petrol filling station hereby permitted are first brought into use the relocated access road (Wingfield Bank) and associated junctions including pedestrian access points and crossing points to the store have been constructed in Page 209
accordance with the requirements and specification of the Highway Authority
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.
36. The entire off site highway works and improvements shown in the approved Transport Assessment (Mayer Brown, September 2010 – paragraphs 5.24-5.38 and summarised in figure 5.5 of Appendix B) shall be fully implemented before the extensions to the store and the relocated petrol filling station hereby permitted are first brought into use or in accordance with a timetable to be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.
37. The travel plan measures set out in the approved Mayer Brown Colleague Travel Plan (September 2010) accompanying the application including the appointment of a travel plan co-ordinator and measures to encourage the use of public transport, walking, cycling and car sharing for staff, shall be fully implemented within the timescales indicated in the plan and evidence to demonstrate that the initiatives are in place and are being monitored and reviewed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of one year following the first occupation of the development permitted.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable planning principles.
38. The cycle parking spaces and parking bay designated to motor cycle parking shown in the approved site layout plan drawing (Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL06G) shall be provided before the first occupation of the development permitted.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable planning principles.
Service Yard
39. Before the extensions to the store and the relocated petrol filling station hereby permitted are first brought into use the new vehicular access from Springhead Road to the store service yard shall be formed and constructed and the existing service yard access shall be permanently closed off and the footway reinstated in accordance with the requirements and specification of the Highway Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.
40. Before the extensions to the store and the relocated petrol filling station hereby permitted are first brought into use a Service Yard Management Plan (SYMP) for the revised service yard detailing the operation of the service yard shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; all delivery events within, to and from the service yard Page 210
shall thereafter fully adhere to the terms and requirements of the approved Service Yard Management Plan (SYMP).
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
41. Before the extensions to the store and the relocated petrol filling station hereby permitted are first brought into use full details of the revised location for the refrigeration condenser units permitted under reference 20091005 within the service yard including details of their noise rating levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: No such details have been submitted and in order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
42. No open storage or container storage, other than the storage of roller cages and delivery vehicles, shall take place at any time within the revised service yard hereby permitted.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings and in the interests of visual amenity.
Archaeology
43. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of
i. 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
ii. 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.
Reason: 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.
Safety and Security
44. Full details of the measures to provide safety and security to the extended retail store and relocated petrol filling station shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development; the measures shall follow the advice in Secured by Design; such measures shall be implemented before the Page 211
extended store and relocated petrol filling station are first brought into use and thereafter maintained in place at all times.
Reasons: In order to address community safety issues having regard to S17 of the Crime and Disorder Act and the advice of Secured by Design.
45. The security gates shown in the approved site plan drawing to be located within the eastern section of the reconfigured and extended customer car park shall be installed before the extended store hereby permitted is first brought into use; thereafter the security gates shall be closed 30 minutes after the store is closed to customers and opened 30 minutes before the store re-opens to customers again the next morning.
Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining dwellings.
INFORMATIVES
1. REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION
Having regard to all the relevant material planning considerations, planning permission has been granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, the development would not materially harm any interest of acknowledged importance.
The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals of the development plan and in particular,
Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994
Proposal PM14: Wingfield Bank, Northfleet Policy S0: General Shopping Policy Policy S1: Location of New Shopping Development Policy S2: Change of Use to Shopping Policy T0: General Policy for Transport Policy T1: Impact of Development on the Highway Network Policy T2: Channelling of Traffic onto the Primary and District Distributor Network Policy T5: New Accesses onto Highway Network Policy TC0: General Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy TC1: Design of New Developments Policy TC10: Landscaping Policy P3: Vehicle parking standards
Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) Draft Deposit Version 2000
Policy RS8: Superstores Policy RS1: General Policy on Retail and Service Proposals Policy RS2: Gravesend Town Centre Policy NE19: Noise- Generating Development Policy T1: Location of Development Page 212
Policy T12: New Accesses on Highway and Public Transport Network Policy T16: Car Parking Standards Policy NE4: Tree Preservation Orders Policy NE6: Trees and Landscaping within New Developments Policy NE16: Air Quality Policy BE1: Townscape Conservation and Design Policy BE12: Design of New Development, Extensions and Alterations Policy BE19: Public Art
Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Regulation 25 document – Issues and Options)
Core Strategy Policy 2: Urban Area Core Strategy Policy 5: Development and Design Principles Core Strategy Policy 11: Town Centre and Retailing Core Strategy Policy 15: Transport Core Strategy Policy 16: Strategic Sites
Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design Development Management Policy 15: Employment Development Management Policy 18: Policies for Gravesend Town Centre Development Management Policy 30: Assessment Criteria for Transport Proposals Development Management Policy 31: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans Development Management Policy 32: Transport Network and Accesses Development Management Policy 33: Vehicle Parking Standards.
South East Plan
Policy TC1: Strategic Network of Town Centres Policy TC2: New Development and Redevelopment in Town Centres Policy KTG1: Core Strategy for Kent Thames Gateway Policy KTG5: The Role of the Retail Centres
In addition the Local Planning Authority had regard to:
The Borough Council’s adopted vehicle parking standards Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 Central Government Planning Policy Guidance
2. APPROVED PLANS/DOCUMENTS
For the avoidance of doubt the approved plans and documents are,
Existing Plans
Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL01: Site Location Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8392-PL02: Existing Site Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL03: Existing Store Plan Page 213
Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL04: Existing Elevations Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL05: Existing Roof Plan
Proposed Plans
Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL06G: Proposed Site Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL07B: Proposed Store Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL08B: Elevations Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL09B: Proposed Roof Plan Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL10A: Proposed PFS Elevations Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL12A: Proposed Site Plan: Public Rights of Way Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL13A: Existing and Proposed Site Sections Drawing Number CHQ.08.8667-PL14A: Site Sections Overlay
Tree and Landscaping Plans
Drawing Number 645-07 rev A: Inter Car Park Tree Pit Detail Drawing Number 745-01 rev C: Tree Survey Drawing Drawing Number 745-04 rev D: Vegetation Loss and Retention Proposals Drawing Number 745-06 rev I: Outline Landscape Proposals
Documents supporting the Application
Planning Statement (September 2010)
Gravesend and Pepper Hill Household Survey of Shopping Habits (May 2009)
Retail Assessment (September 2010 and revised November 2010)
Design and Access Statement (September 2010)
Employment and Skills Statement (September 2010)
Transport Assessment and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (September 2010)
Summary Document of Proposed Highway Improvements, November 2010 including Highway Improvements Overview Plan (SSLNORTHFLEET.1/SK49) November 2010
Colleague Travel Plan (September 2010)
Proposed Junction Modification Stage 1 Safety Audit (August 2009)
Preliminary Geo-Environmental and Geotechnical Assessment (rev2 September 2010)
Noise Assessment (September 2010)
Air Quality Assessment (September 2010)
Flood Risk Assessment (August 2010)
Page 214
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (September 2010)
Environmental Desk Top Study (April 2009 with updated site plan September 2010)
Lighting Impact Assessment (September 2010)
Desktop Archaeological Assessment (August 2010)
Arboricultural Report (Revision C) (November 2010) including Tree Survey Schedules
Community Consultation Statement (September 2009)
Addendum to Community Consultation Statement (September 2010)
3. FLOORSPACE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
For the avoidance of doubt the proposed floorspace of the extended retail store hereby permitted is as set out in the letter dated 16 November 2010 from WYG Planning and Design (Ref: A024414/DL/AJ) and as shown in the approved plans as listed in that letter and the updated Retail Assessment and not as indicated in the Planning Statement (September 2010), Transport Statement (September 2010), and Design and Access Statement (September 2010), accompanying the application.
4. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ADVICE
The applicants are advised of the following Environment Agency (EA) advice:
Groundwater and Drainage
The area beneath the petrol filling station canopy and any off-set fill/delivery areas must drain to the foul sewer or a sealed tank only. The EA will object to any discharge to the surface water system from these areas. Similarly, the run-off from the carwash (if proposed to be re-incorporated into the site) will need to discharge to the foul drainage system.
Petrol Filling Station
The following guidance documents should be used during the design and operational phases of the proposed new petrol filling station: Institute of Petroleum document "Guidelines for soil, groundwater and surface water protection and vapour emission control at petrol filling stations", The Groundwater Protection Code: Petrol Stations and Other Fuel Dispensing Facilities involving Underground Storage Tanks (DEFRA, 2002), and Environment Agency document "Wetstock reconciliation at fuel storage facilities". The applicant should also utilise the information in Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 7: Refuelling Facilities, and PPG 27: Installation, decommissioning and removal of underground storage tanks (enclosed) for further information.
Storage of Fuels/ Chemicals
Page 215
Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25 per cent of the total capacity of all oil stored.
Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/ unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas for storage should not drain to any surface water system.
Contamination
The Environment Agency recommends that developers should:
1. Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination.
2. Refer to the Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health.
3. Refer to their website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information.
5. NATIONAL GRID SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
The applicants are advised of the following National Grid (NG) safety requirements
1. There are High Voltage Overhead Lines which run outside of the proposal area - Barking – Northfleet – Spans – YN071 – YN069.
National Grid has safety concerns regarding access to the Northfleet substation outlined below:
• For operational and safety reasons National Grid requires unrestricted access to our substation sites. Due to the increase of traffic outside of their substation, the access and aggress into Northfleet is dangerous with the present traffic. National Grid would like to be involved in any change or modification to the B262. NG would request that any proposed changes to roads/layouts in the vicinity of our site have regard to the need to maintain access. National Grid’s overhead lines are protected by renewable or permanent agreements with landowners. These grant NG legal rights that enable them to achieve efficient and reliable operation, maintenance, repair and refurbishment of their electricity transmission network. However unrestricted vehicular access needs to be maintained at all times. Page 216
National Grid recommends that no permanent structures are built directly beneath overhead lines, at least 10 metres clearance is maintained at the base of their towers.
National Grid will also need to ensure that their tower access is maintained during and after construction.
Please consult the Technical Specification EN-43-8 for "Overhead Line Clearances" Issue 3 (2004). The applicants need to be sure that any existing clearances are not infringed. The construction can not be closer than 5.3m to the nearest (lowest) conductor.
The overhead line is held under the terms of a permanent easement which grants rights to retain the line in its current position. The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing overhead lines is contained within the Health and Safety Executive’s (www.hse.gov.uk ) Guidance Note GS 6 “Avoidance of Danger from Overhead Electric Lines” and all relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.
The statutory minimum safety clearance is 7.6 metres to ground and 8.1 metres to a normal road surface. Further detailed information can be obtained from the Energy Networks Association’s (www.energynetworks.org.uk) Technical Specification 43-8 for “Overhead Line Clearances”, Issue 3 (2004).
Plant, machinery, equipment, buildings or scaffolding should not encroach within 5.3 metres of any of NG’s high voltage conductors when those conductors are under their worse conditions of maximum “sag” and “swing” and overhead line profile (maximum “sag” and “swing”) drawings should be obtained via the National Grid’s Plant Protection Team at Hinckley.
If any changes in ground levels are proposed either beneath or in proximity to their existing overhead lines then this would serve to reduce the available safety clearance to such overhead lines. Safe clearances to existing overhead lines must be maintained in all instances and circumstances.
If a landscaping scheme is proposed as part of the works, NG request that only low growing and slow growing species of trees and shrubs are planted either directly beneath or immediately adjacent to the existing overhead line, as ultimately they may grow to attain heights that compromise safe statutory clearances to the conductors.
Drilling or excavation works should not be undertaken if they have the potential to disturb or adversely affect the foundations or “pillars of support” of any existing tower. These foundations always extend beyond the base area of the existing tower and foundation (“pillar of support”) drawings can be obtained via the Plant Protection Team at Hinckley.
Flammable or explosive, (e.g. fireworks), substances or materials should not be stored near to a tower or beneath an overhead line.
2. There is a High Voltage Underground Cable which runs through this land parcel, Northfleet East -Northfleet Power station (GB/S097). Page 217
National Grid has safety concerns regarding works around their easement strip for ground alterations near to their cable.
• Ground cover above their cables should not be reduced or increased.
• National Grid requires further information on the works involved for the proposed relocated 8 pump PFS. The normal recommendation is to keep two metres clear either side of the one metre wide trench containing the DC cable. • Their cables are protected by a permanent agreement. Hence NG requires that no permanent structures are to be built over their cables or within the easement strip. National Grid will require assurances as to what measures the developers will be taking to ensure the safety of their assets. • A National Grid representative will be monitoring the works to comply with HS (G) 47. Their underground cables are protected by renewable or permanent agreements with landowners or have been laid in the public highway under our licence. These grant us legal rights that enable NG to achieve efficient and reliable operation, maintenance, repair and refurbishment of our electricity transmission network. Hence NG require that no permanent structures are built over or under cables or within the zone specified in the agreement, materials or soil are not stacked or stored on top of the cable route or its joint bays and that unrestricted and safe access to any of their cable(s) must be maintained at all times. The information supplied is given in good faith and only as a guide to the location of our underground cables. The accuracy of this information cannot be guaranteed. The physical presence of such cables may also be evident from physical protection measures such as ducts or concrete protection tiles. The person(s) responsible for planning, supervising and carrying out work in proximity to their cable(s) shall be liable to NG, as cable(s) owner, as well as to any third party who may be affected in any way by any loss or damage resulting from their failure to locate and avoid any damage to such a cable(s). The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing underground cables is contained within the Health and Safety Executive’s ( www.hse.gov.uk ) Guidance HS(G)47 “Avoiding Danger From Underground Services” and all relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.
Their cables are normally buried to a depth of 1.1 metres or more below ground and cable profile drawings showing further details along the route of the particular cable, a PDF drawing of the cable route is enclosed within this response. (Go to Sheet Numbers, 5,6,7,8,9,10,16,17,18,21,22)
If a landscaping scheme is proposed as part of the works, NG request that no trees and shrubs are planted either directly above or within three metres of the existing underground cable, as ultimately the roots may grow to cause damage to the cable.
The relocation of existing underground cables is not normally feasible on grounds of cost, operation and maintenance and environmental impact and NG believe that successful development can take place in their vicinity. Page 218
The relocation or under-grounding of existing overhead lines is not normally feasible on grounds of cost, operation and maintenance and environmental impact and NG believe that successful development can take place in their vicinity. (To view the National Grid Policy’s for under-grounding. Please use the link below) http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/Undergrounding/
To view the Development Near Lines Documents. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/SC/devnearohl_final/
To view the National Grid Policy's for our Sense of Place Document. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/
22.6m 196
227 214 TERDALES WA
20 8 23
9
220
9 24
TCB TCB
LB 22
2 23.5m 228 44
p
SPRINGHE
El Sub Sta 7 6
121
AD Wombwell RO
AD Park
30 Posts 57
El Sub Sta
1
33 7
Superstore 4
1 6
37 143
Posts
26.0m
OAD
R Page 219
N
N 2
25 WY G Key
Shelter
15 3
Mast (Telecommunication)
182 The Site
13 174 ay
Railw d 164
165 COLYER R smantle
Di OA D Application Ref : GR/2010/0898
9 7 2
269 Site Location : Sainsburys 1 6 2
El Sub Sta 1
Tank Wingfield Bank, 1 251 Pepper Hill,
11 15 Northfleet 21 Board Date : 08 December 2010 23
HALL RO AD Ward Bdy Scale : 1:2,500 CR 31.4m
35 Northfleet East Substation Slopi ng ma so FL 47 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material nr EE y 1 T R 3 O AD with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the
29.6m Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown
East 62 10
2 2 1 33.2m ation B Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes copyright
25 and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
22 FLEET ROA Gravesham Borough Council Licence No. 100019166/10 2 8 D 26
B 21 6 y r
Tank g mason
in 1 36 Slop Northfleet East Grid Sub Station
3 1
27.4m
15 D 2
OA El Sub Sta
4 VIKING RO AD LEETR F ^
2 Planning and Regeneration Services
29
ROMAN 16 N www.gravesham.gov.uk Tel : 01474 56 44 22 E N BURIAL GROUND LA L Page 220
This page is intentionally left blank Page 221
Planning Application 20100898 – Sainsbury Extension, Pepper Hill
Page 222
This page is intentionally left blank Page 223
Planning Application 20100898 – Sainsbury Extension, Pepper Hill
Page 224
This page is intentionally left blank Page 225
PROPOSED STORE EXTENSION
SAINSBURY’S PEPPERHILL, NORTHFLEET
PROPOSED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
NOVEMBER 2010
Page 226 Proposed Stor e Extension, Sainsbury’s Pepperhill, Northfleet Proposed Highway Improvements
1.1 This statement summarises the following highway improvements associated with the proposed store extension at Sainsbury’s Pepperhill , Northfleet:
A2(T) / B262 Hall Road Signal Junction Benefits;
A2(T) / B262 Hall Road Signal Junction Pedestrian & Cycle Facilities;
Service Yard Access Relocation;
Springhead Roundabout Alterations; and,
New Barn Roundabout Alterations.
1.2 In order to illustrate the proposed highway improvements, an existing and proposed layout drawing has been included in this statement.
1.3 These highway improvements have been agreed in principle with Kent Highway Services (KHS) (the Highway Authority) and the Highways Agency (HA) who are responsible for the A2(T).
1.4 It is proposed to implement all of these highway improvements via a S278 agreement
Page 227 Proposed Stor e Extension, Sainsbury’s Pepperhill, Northfleet Proposed Highway Improvements
A2(T) / B262 Hall Road Signal Junction Benefits
1.5 As part of proposed store extension, the off-site highway works include improvements to the intersection of B262 Hall Road and A2(T) coast bound slip roads. These improvements will benefit the operation of Springhead roundabout, which provides vehicular access to the store via Wingfield Bank.
1.6 The drawing overleaf numbered SK44 illustrates the existing and proposed route taken by vehicles travelling northbound along the B262 Hall Road in order to access the A2(T) coast bound on slip.
Existing Situation
1.7 Traffic surveys undertaken at the Springhead Roundabout identified that a large number of vehicles carry out u-turn movements which create queuing and delay during peak periods.
1.8 In particular there are a significant number of vehicles travelling northbound along the B262 Hall Road and then u-turning at the roundabout in order to access the A2(T) coast bound on slip.
1.9 Observed u-turn movements carrying out this manoeuvre are shown below:
Friday AM Friday PM Friday PM Saturday (0800 - 0900) (1500 - 1600) (1700 - 1800) (1200 - 1300) 287 vehicles 252 vehicles 264 vehicles 226 vehicles
Proposed Situation
1.10 The proposed signalisation of the A2(T) / B262 Hall Road junction will significantly reduce the number of vehicles u-turning at the Springhead Roundabout. This is achieved by allowing vehicles travelling northbound on the B262 Hall Road to turn right onto the A2(T) coast bound on slip before they reach the Springhead roundabout.
Summary
1.11 The proposed junction improvements will benefit the Springhead roundabout through a reduction in the number of u-turn movements. This will lead to less queuing and delay at the junction during peak periods.
Page 228 Page 229 Proposed Stor e Extension, Sainsbury’s Pepperhill, Northfleet Proposed Highway Improvements
A2(T) / B262 Hall Road Signal Junction Pedestrian & Cycle Facilities
1.12 The existing pedestrian and cycle facilities and proposed changes arising from the introduction of traffic signal control at the existing A2(T) / B262 Hall Road junction are set out below.
1.13 The drawing overleaf numbered SK45 illustrates the pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities associated with the existing and proposed junction layout.
Existing Arrangement
1.14 Pedestrian and cycle facilities at this junction currently comprise dropped crossings and tactile paving in four locations. Since there is no form of control at these locations, pedestrians and cyclists are required to cross when they see a suitable gap in the traffic.
Proposed Arrangement
1.15 The proposed signal junction incorporates controlled pedestrian and cycle crossing points. These include Toucan crossing facilities across the B262 Hall Road and the A2(T) coast bound on-slip.
1.16 The provision of a controlled Toucan crossing facility across the A2(T) coast bound off-slip was considered in consultation with both KHS and the HA. However, junction modelling demonstrated that this would adversely affect the operation of the proposed junction during peak periods. Accordingly, it was agreed with KHS and the HA that the pedestrian and cycle crossing point at this location would remain as existing.
Summary
1.17 The proposed signalisation of the A2(T) / B262 Hall Road junction will significantly improve the pedestrian and cycle facilities at this location since it will enable controlled crossing facilities to be provided across the majority of the junction arms.
Page 230 Page 231 Proposed Stor e Extension, Sainsbury’s Pepperhill, Northfleet Proposed Highway Improvements
Service Yard Access
1.18 The Sainsbury’s service yard is currently accessed from B262 Springhead Road, opposite numbers 121 and 123 Springhead Road. Adjacent to the existing service yard access Waterdales, which provides access to the residential areas to the east of the store, forms a priority junction with the B262 Springhead Road.
1.19 The drawing overleaf numbered SK46 illustrates the existing and proposed service yard access arrangements.
Existing Arrangement
1.20 Access to the service yard is currently gained from a simple major / minor priority junction on B262 Springhead Road, 35 metres south of its junction with Waterdales.
Proposed Arrangement
1.21 It is proposed to close the existing access and relocate it approximately 50 metres north. This will effectively reverse the existing staggered junction with Waterdales.
1.22 The existing pedestrian refuge situated in the vicinity of the proposed service yard access will be re-sited, approximately 14 metres north. This will ensure that the pedestrian crossing facilities at this location are retained.
1.23 The proposed junction geometry prevents articulated delivery vehicles turning northbound out of the junction. This supports the proposed weight restriction associated with the proposed B262 Springhead Road traffic calming scheme.
Summary
1.24 The proposed relocation of the service yard access will address existing concerns relating to the impact upon adjacent residential properties.
Page 232 Page 233 Proposed Stor e Extension, Sainsbury’s Pepperhill, Northfleet Proposed Highway Improvements
Springhead Roundabout
1.25 The Springhead roundabout is located to the southeast of the site at the intersection of B262 Springhead Road / Hall Road / B262 Hall Road and Wingfield Bank. The latter provides customer vehicular access to the store..
1.26 The drawing overleaf numbered SK47 illustrates the existing and proposed Springhead roundabout junction layout.
Existing Arrangement
1.27 Wingfield Bank currently runs along the southern boundary of the existing site, and continues to a construction site to the west. A priority junction is provided for vehicles accessing the customer car park, which also includes a petrol filling station and bus stop. Bus services are currently required to circulate within the customer car park.
1.28 The B262 Springhead Road approach to Springhead roundabout flares to three lanes. Dropped crossing points and tactile paving are provided across all arms of the junction. In addition, an existing uncontrolled crossing point and pedestrian central refuge is provided on Hall Road to the east of the store.
Proposed Arrangement
1.29 It is proposed to realign Wingfield Bank in order to provide separate access points for the petrol filling station and customer car park. In addition, a bus stop will be located on Wingfield Bank to remove the need for buses to circulate within the car park. Access to the adjacent site will also be maintained for construction vehicles.
1.30 Narrowing will be undertaken at the B262 Springhead Road approach to the junction to provide a two lane approach. This will support the B262 Springhead Road traffic calming scheme, through the provision of a widened pedestrian central refuge.
1.31 Footways on either side of Wingfield Bank will be widened in order to accommodate a footway/cycleway from Springhead Road and B262 Hall Road. In addition a zebra crossing point will be provided on Wingfield Bank and the existing Hall Road crossing will be upgraded to a Toucan crossing.
Summary
1.32 The proposed alterations will allow for an improved site layout whilst also improving infrastructure and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists at this location.
Page 234 Page 235 Proposed Stor e Extension, Sainsbury’s Pepperhill, Northfleet Proposed Highway Improvements
New Barn Roundabout
1.33 The New Barn roundabout is located to the south of the store and is formed at the intersection of B262 Hall Road / A2(T) westbound slip road / New Barn Road and Station Road.
1.34 The drawing overleaf numbered SK48 illustrates the existing and proposed New Barn roundabout junction layout.
Existing Arrangement
1.35 Junction analysis of the existing arrangement indicates that the A2(T) westbound slip road operates slightly over capacity in all peak periods in future year scenarios, prior to any proposed development flows being added.
Proposed Arrangement
1.36 It is proposed to make slight alterations to the A2(T) westbound slip road approach arm through widening of the carriageway.
1.37 These changes will improve the junction arm capacity whilst maintaining appropriate junction geometry in regards to vehicle deflection. This will ensure that the proposals not only improve capacity but also do not adversely affect junction safety.
1.38 A comparison of the existing and proposed junction analysis, with the proposed changes included, demonstrates better than nil-detriment to the A2(T) slip road arm of the New Barn roundabout for all peak periods.
Summary
1.39 Following the completion of the proposed Sainsbury’s Pepperh ill store extension and associated New Barn Roundabout highway works there will be better than nil- detriment to the A2(T) westbound slip. This will benefit the wider strategic road network operated by the HA.
Page 236 Page 237
Mayer Brown Limited e-Innovation Centre, SE216 University of Wolverhampton Telford Campus Priorslee, Telford TF2 9FT Telephone 019 52 288230 Fax 01952 288205 [email protected] www.mayerbrown.co.uk
Page 238
This page is intentionally left blank Page 239 Page 240
This page is intentionally left blank PageRoger 241Tym & Partners t: 020 7831 2711 Fairfax House f: 020 7831 7653 15 Fulwood Place e: [email protected] London WC1V 6HU w: www.tymconsult.com
Gravesham Borough Council Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet PPS4 audit of revised store extension proposals
Final Report November 2010 Page 242 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
Unless alternative contractual arrangements have been made, this report remains the property of Roger Tym & Partners until fees have been paid in full. Copyright and other intellectual property laws protect this information. Reproduction or retransmission of the information, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the copyright holder, is a violation of copyright law.
Job Number: P2057
Page 243 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Terms of reference ...... 2 Structure of report ...... 3 2 PLANNING POLICY ...... 4 Development plan ...... 4 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth ...... 4 Retail policy tests ...... 5 3 EXPENDITURE CAPACITY AND QUALITATIVE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SCHEME ...... 7 Council’s evidence base ...... 7 Review of WYG assessment ...... 8 RTP conclusions on capacity and qualitative justifications ...... 10 4 SEQUENTIAL APPROACH UNDER POLICY EC15 ...... 12 WYG approach ...... 12 RTP comments on WYG sequential assessment ...... 12 RTP conclusions under policy EC14 ...... 14 5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT UNDER POLICIES EC10 AND EC16 ...... 15 WYG case ...... 15 RTP comments on WYG trade impact assessment ...... 15 RTP conclusions under policies EC10 and EC16 ...... 21 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 2 3
Page 244 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
1 INTRODUCTION
Background 1.1 Roger Tym & Partners (RTP) was instructed in November 2010 to provide advice on the merits of a revised application to extend the existing Sainsbury’s store at Pepperhill in Northfleet. The current application follows a previous application to extend the store that is subject to an appeal in respect of its non-determination and an inquiry is due to be held in February 2011. In order to advise fully on these revised proposals, it is important to understand the distinction between the applications. Therefore, we refer to the two applications as A and B as follows in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Details of planning applications Existing Application Application
store A B Gross external area (sqm) 7,664 13,128 12,237 CC net sales area (sqm) 3,537 7,557 6,968 Convenience floorspace (sqm) 3,006 4,011 4,878 Comparison floorspace (sqm) 531 3,545 2,090
Source: WYG Retail Assessment, November 2010 (para. 1.03)
1.2 The split between convenience and comparison floorpsace in the existing store is 85:15 and is controlled by planning condition. Under application A, an additional 4,020 sqm of sales floorspace (1,005 sqm of convenience and 3,014 sqm of comparison floorspace) is proposed and the convenience and comparison split would change to 53:47. However, under application B (which we are assessing in this report), a smaller extension of 3,431 sqm of sales floorspace (1,872 sqm of convenience and 1,559 sqm of comparison floorspace) is proposed and the convenience and comparison split would change to 70:30. 1.3 Both applications A and B comprise, inter alia, an extension to the existing superstore various reconfigurations to the store, relocation and enlargement of the petrol filling station, realignment of the access road to the store and relocation of the service yard access in Springhead Road. To facilitate this development, the vacant site known as ‘Chinacorp’ to the south west of the superstore would be used to accommodate the relocated petrol filling station, a realigned access road and additional parking. This site benefits from an extant permission for a DIY retail warehouse and if one of the two extension applications are permitted and then implemented, the DIY permission could not proceed. 1.4 In respect of the extant DIY permission, in the supporting documentation to both applications A and B the applicant attaches significant weight to the fall back position of the extant DIY store permission and alternative impact on the town centre if this development were to proceed. The applicant also raises the possibility to sub dividing this store into five units and thus potentially attracting a mix of retailers that could have an even sharper impact on the town centre than the DIY store or the Sainsbury’s extension. To facilitate a five unit retail park, it is likely that a fresh set of reserved matters applications would be
Final Report | November 2010 Page 245 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
required. Condition three of the original outline permission granted at appeal (ref. APP/K2230/A/2024882) required reserved matters applications to be submitted within three years from the date of the permission (i.e. 19 April 2010). Therefore, it appears that the opportunities to submit further reserved matters applications have lapsed and this would limit the fall back to the permitted scheme. Although the permission has been varied to allow for a sub-divided unit, it will be challenging to adapt the permitted DIY unit within the parameters of the reserved matters approvals to provide a commercially attractive five unit retail park. Furthermore, we have seen no market evidence to suggest that there is any likelihood that retail park occupiers could be secured in this location. Therefore, in our view the fall back, as far as it exists, applies only to the permitted DIY store and not a theoretical five unit retail park. 1.5 Sainsbury’s lodged an appeal in respect of the non-determination of application A on 17 September 2010. Subsequently, this application was taken to committee on 24 September 2010 and the Council resolved that if they could have determined this application, then they would have sought to defer the application to negotiate with the applicant to achieve a significant reduction in the size of the extension. In addition, in the Statement of Case in respect of application A, the Council stated that they will ask the Inspector to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of the potential impact on Gravesend town centre and compliance with the sequential approach. 1.6 We have not provided detailed advice on the retail policy merits of application A. However, based on our initial review of the supporting material, including the committee report, we share the Council’s concerns over the size of the extension. In particular, we consider that the impact of the additional comparison floorspace on Gravesend town centre and the potential threat to private and public sector investment in the town are grounds to conclude that the scheme is unacceptable in retail planning policy terms.
Terms of reference 1.7 Our agreed terms of reference for this report are as follows: i. Review background evidence ii. Critique the quantitative methodology used by White Young Green (WYG) to estimate expenditure capacity iii. Assess appropriateness of key empirical assumptions, including trade draw estimates for application B (i.e. the assumptions used to estimate the trade diverted from existing destinations to the extended store) iv. Consider whether the applicant has satisfied policy EC17 of PPS4 under the following terms: a. Satisfying the sequential approach, based on the material submitted to date and the guidance in both PPS4 and its practice guidance b. Demonstrating that there is no significant adverse impact (under primarily the tests in policy EC16) and that the application should be approved taking account of positive/negative impacts and the cumulative effect of recent permissions
Final Report | November 2010 Page 246 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
v. Make recommendations on whether the application B has provided a sufficiently robust case for planning permission under the terms of policy EC17 in PPS4 1.8 In advising the Council on this revised application, we have read the supporting documentation in respect of both applications, the committee report to application A and objections from other retailers, landowners and developers. However, for the avoidance of doubt, this report considers the retail planning policy merits of application B only and does not consider any wider planning issues beyond PPS4.
Structure of report 1.9 Our report is structured as follows: In Section 2, we outline the relevant planning policy as it applies to this application on retail matters In Section 3, we review expenditure capacity with recourse to existing evidence and the applicant’s own evidence submitted in support of the application In Section 4, we review the applicant’s justification in respect of the sequential approach In Section 5, we review the applicant’s impact case, focusing primarily on the economic and retail impacts in PPS4 Finally, in Section 6 we conclude on whether we consider the applicants have presented an adequate case for planning permission bearing in mind the development plan and PPS4
Final Report | November 2010 Page 247 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
2 PLANNING POLICY
Development plan 2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that ‘…if regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’ The development plan for this site now technically comprises the South East Plan, although the Coalition Government has stated its intention to revoke RSSs and has stated that the revocation will be enacted by way of the Localism Bill. In any event, we find no need to consider the South East Plan policies. 2.2 At a local level, the development plan technically comprises those policies from the Local Plan First Review (1994) which were saved by the Secretary of State in 2007. Although a Second Review deposit draft was published in 2000, this has now been superseded by the LDF Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents, both of which went to public consultation under Regulation 25 in January 2010. Although emerging development plan policies are material considerations, we consider that the most relevant material considerations to this application are the development management policies in national guidance in the form of PPS4 (as described below).
Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 2.3 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4) sets out a series of development management policies covering the approach to determining planning applications for town centre uses (such as this application). Local planning authorities require all planning applications for economic development (including town centre uses) to be assessed against five criteria in policy EC10, considering impact on climate change, accessibility, design, regeneration and employment. 2.4 Policy EC14 sets out the supporting information required for applications for town centre uses. Since this application is for an out of centre extension to an existing retail store over 200 sqm (and over 2,500 sqm), both a sequential assessment (under EC15) and an impact assessment (under EC16) are required. Policy EC14 states that assessments of impact should focus on the first five years after the implementation of a proposal. 2.5 Policy EC15 sets out details of the sequential approach. This requires that sequentially preferable sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability. Importantly, part (d) of EC15.1 requires that operators have demonstrated flexibility in respect of scale, format, car parking and the scope for disaggregation. However, in respect of disaggregation, the policy states that local planning authorities should not seek arbitrary sub-division of proposals. Policy EC15.2 also requires local planning authorities to take into account any genuine difficulties which the applicant can demonstrate are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from a sequentially preferable site. 2.6 Policy EC16 sets out six impact tests against which this application should be assessed against. These are as follows:
Final Report | November 2010 Page 248 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan In the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres Any locally important impacts on centres 2.7 The final two bullet points do not apply to this application, since the site is not within or on the edge of a town centre and no locally important impacts have been set in an adopted development plan document.
Retail policy tests 2.8 When considering the retail policy merits of the application, we focus on the PPS4 development management policies. As required by policy EC17 of PPS4, for this application to acceptable in retail policy terms the Council must be satisfied on the following grounds: Compliance with the requirements of sequential approach That there is no clear evidence of any significant adverse impact (under policies EC10 and 16) That permission should be granted taking into account the positive and negative impacts of the proposal, any material considerations and the likely effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments 2.9 When assessing whether we are satisfied that a case has been presented for permission, we draw on the applicant’s supporting material and consider the practice guidance to PPS4.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 249 Page 250 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
3 EXPENDITURE CAPACITY AND QUALITATIVE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SCHEME 3.1 There is no ‘needs’ test in PPS4 and therefore it is not necessary for the applicant to demonstrate quantitative of qualitative need for planning permission to be granted. However, both expenditure capacity and qualitative considerations remain fundamental to the consideration of the sequential and impact assessments. This is evidenced in CLG’s ‘Good practice guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach’ (now referred to as ‘the practice guidance’) as follows: Checklist: adopting a sequential approach (page 46 of practice guidance) ‘Is the need ‘location specific’ or even ‘site specific’, or is it more generalised?’ (Our emphasis)
‘Have they been thoroughly tested, having regard to their suitability, viability and availability having regard to the identified need /demand and the timescale over which it arises?’‘ (our emphasis) How to: measure the effects on planned investment in nearby centres (page 54 of practice guidance) ‘Whether there is sufficient ‘need ’ for both?’ (our emphasis) How to: assess impact on turnover/trade (page 56 of practice guidance) ‘The starting point for the assessment is a realistic assessment of current consumer spending and shopping patterns, based on modelling supported by survey evidence.’ (our emphasis) 3.2 As well as looking at quantitative factors, it is also important to consider qualitative factors connected with consumer choice and competition. If there are flaws in the assessments, then the subsequent consideration of both the sequential and impact assessments could be misdirected.
Council’s evidence base 3.3 Floorspace capacity forecasts can be found in the Gravesham LDF Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (December 2009), which have been updated in an Addendum dated July 2010. The capacity figures in the Addendum are as follows:
Final Report | November 2010 Page 251 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
Table 3.1 Quantitative need (sqm net) for Gravesham in Addendum Study (July 2010) 2016 2021 2026 Baseline Comparison 6,000 12,350 18,400 High Comparison - 23,500 30,500 Baseline Retail Warehouse 6,800 13,300 20,250 High Retail Warehouse - 15,000 22,600 High Convenience 2,500 4,300 6,500
Source: Gravesham LDF Retail and Commercial Leisure Addendum Study (July 2010)
3.4 Application B proposes some 1,872 sqm of convenience and 1,559 sqm of comparison floorspace. Therefore, before we consider any sequential or impact merits of the application, we conclude that there is evidence of quantitative capacity for both additional convenience and comparison floorspace. However, it does not necessarily follow that any of this should be met through an extension to the Sainsbury’s store. Furthermore, the calculations are based on population projections that incorporate developments that show little sign of occurring in the short term (i.e. Ebbsfleet and Eastern Quarry, excluding Springhead) and therefore the expected in-migration attracted to these developments will not necessarily occur in the expected timeframe. 3.5 In respect of the capacity for convenience floorspace, the case is marginal and the proposed extension to Sainsbury’s would represent some 75% of the floorspace capacity to 2016. However, we appreciate that there it could be argued that the theoretical overtrading of existing stores could represent a further source of capacity. The Addendum report suggests that existing superstores are overtrading by some £22.6 million in aggregate. If supported by qualitative factors, this is a potential further source of capacity that could justify the convenience element of the proposed extension. 3.6 In summary, the evidence demonstrates capacity for additional retail floorspace through population and expenditure growth forecasts. Such estimates are necessarily sensitive to empirical inputs and therefore should be carefully monitored. However, based on the outputs of the quantitative exercises, we have concluded that there is sufficient capacity for the application proposals, without prejudice to our conclusions on whether the scheme satisfies the sequential assessment or impact tests in PPS4.
Review of WYG assessment 3.7 We have considered WYG’s Retail Assessment (dated September 2010) and the more recent statement (dated November 2010) that supports the amended extension proposals. These submissions include assessments of expenditure capacity and qualitative considerations. Quantitative arguments 3.8 The WYG quantitative capacity model adopts a five zone catchment area, with zones 1 and 2 incorporating Gravesend and Northfleet. Zone 5 encompasses Dartford and zones 3 and 4 are more outer zones extending east towards the Thames Estuary and south towards
Final Report | November 2010 Page 252 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
Borough Green. For the purposes of this assessment, and subject to the application of reasonable market shares, this is an appropriate catchment. However, we do not expect that all of the residents of the outer zones would look to Gravesend or Northfleet to undertake their convenience shopping. 3.9 When projecting expenditure growth, WYG adopt a growth rate of 2.31% per annum for comparison goods from 2009 and 0.26% per annum for convenience goods. These growth rates are consistent with published projections, although they have been revised recently. To calculate expenditure capacity, WYG adopt a standard step by step approach, and incorporate a survey of households to estimate where residents of the catchment are spending their money on convenience and comparison goods. The eventual outputs of this exercise enable WYG to estimate expenditure growth under constant market shares. We summarise the expenditure growth estimates in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Expenditure capacity under constant market shares according to WYG 2009-2012 2012-2014 2014-2017
(£m) (£m) (£m) Comp - Gravesend town centre 14.8 9.9 26.1 Comp – All zone 1 stores 33.1 22.1 58.3 Conv – Large stores zones 1 & 2 9.1 6.1 9.3
Source: WYG Retail Statement, November 2010
3.10 Generally, we consider the expenditure growth model undertaken by WYG is sound. This indicates that there is sufficient expenditure growth in the area to support the turnover of the proposed additional floorspace by 2014. However, as with the conclusions from the evidence base documents, it does not necessarily follow that any theoretical floorspace capacity that exists due to this expenditure growth should be met through an extension to the Sainsbury’s store. In addition, the uncertainty over population projections that incorporate Ebbsfleet and Eastern Quarry also apply here. 3.11 As part of the quantitative model, WYG have estimated the survey derived turnover of existing foodstores and compared this by company benchmarks. This exercise indicates that the convenience element of the existing Sainsbury’s store is overtrading £18.1 million (or 57%) and WYG attach significant weight to this figure. As mentioned above, we accept that some of this ‘overtrading’ turnover could be used to support additional floorspace, if supported by qualitative arguments. Qualitative arguments 3.12 The qualitative arguments for the extended store focus on a need to improve consumer choice by relieving overtrading, increase display space for existing convenience goods and introduce a wider comparison goods offer in order to remain competitive. Clearly, some of these qualitative arguments are commercial objectives to improve the turnover of the store. However, we agree that they are linked to planning arguments such as improving consumer choice, competition and quality.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 253 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
3.13 The practice guidance explains that overtrading claims should be corroborated by evidence such as overcrowding and congestion rather than simply comparison with a retailers’ company average. We are not aware of any specific corroborating evidence, such as car parking or in-store surveys, which might substantiate the overtrading claim. However, we have visited the store on a Thursday morning and we considered that the store was busy, with an almost full car park and queues observed at checkouts. Therefore, we consider that the claim the store is overtrading by some degree has merit, although we recommend caution if relying solely on this to justify the additional convenience floorspace in the store. 3.14 The WYG case focuses significantly on the requirement for a large extension to compete with other foodstores and to provide a range of goods to that meet customer expectations. To achieve this, the extension promoted will result in a very large store. Indeed, we have listed the extended store along with other nearby foodstores in the below table:
Table 3.3 Large food superstores with extended Sainsbury’s Store Net sales area Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill (as extended) 6,968 Asda, Thames Way, Gravesend 5,766 Asda, Swanley Centre, Swanley 5,460 Tesco, Lunsford Park, Aylesford 4,482 Morrisons, Knight Road, Strood 3,252 Morrisons, Coldharbour Road, Gravesend 3,195
Source: WYG Retail Assessment, November 2010
3.15 This data demonstrates that the extended store will be significantly larger to any other existing store used regularly by residents of the catchment area. Indeed, it will be some 1,202 sqm larger (in terms of sales floorspace) than its main competitor, which is the town centre Asda store in Gravesend. Therefore, we do not accept that the size of the extension can be justified simply to remain competitive since a store of this size does not currently exist in the catchment. 3.16 On the other hand, we do appreciate that there are other large foodstore proposals in the pipeline that may well compete with Sainsbury’s in the future. This includes live proposals for a large replacement Tesco in Strood (some 5,975 sqm net additional floorspace), another permitted Sainsbury’s store in Strood as well as ongoing proposals for a Tesco store in Dartford. Therefore, the food retailing sector is dynamic and we appreciate the rationale behind ensuring local stores provide adequate consumer choice. 3.17 In conclusion, we recognise the need to support and improve consumer choice, competition and quality. However, we consider that the store extension proposed goes beyond what is necessary to meet consumer choice demands in the catchment.
RTP conclusions on capacity and qualitative justifications 3.18 We find that there is expenditure capacity to support both the convenience and comparison elements of the proposed store extension. Turning to the more specific localised
Final Report | November 2010 Page 254 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
quantitative and qualitative factors raised by WYG, we agree that there is some quantitative evidence that suggests the existing Sainsbury’s store is overtrading. We also agree that there are qualitative factors that support the overtrading argument, although this does necessarily mean that 100% of the overtrading turnover should be translated to new floorspace. 3.19 In respect of the comparison goods offer, we agree that the existing store has a restricted offer compared to many modern foodstores and Verdict suggests that typical Sainsbury’s stores have a split of approximately 70:30, which is based on a typical superstore format. Therefore, we agree there is case to increase the comparison goods offer in the store to improve consumer choice. 3.20 Finally, in respect of the size of the store, we agree that there are arguments for an extended store to relieve some of the overtrading of the convenience floorspace and to enhance the comparison goods offer in the store. However, given that the extended store would be the largest in the Borough by some 1,202 sqm and larger than any other store used regularly by residents of the catchment, we do not agree that the size of the extension is driven entirely by valid planning arguments of improving competition and quality. 3.21 In summary, we are persuaded that there are quantitative and qualitative arguments supporting an extension to this store for both convenience and comparison floorspace. However, we do have concerns over the scale of the extension and whether this can be justified under the planning arguments of consumer choice and competition. Although we find some quantitative and qualitative support for a store extension, this does not necessarily mean that the extension complies with the sequential approach or satisfies the impact assessment.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 255 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
4 SEQUENTIAL APPROACH UNDER POLICY EC15
WYG approach 4.1 As required by EC15 of PPS4, WYG have undertaken a sequential approach in support of the application. The findings can be summarised as follows: The needs of the extension are entirely locationally specific and therefore are incapable of being located anywhere else Permissions for the extension to Morrisons, the Chinaporp permission and its subsequent variation to allow sub-division were approved between 2007 and 2008 and it is suggested that since these applications satisfied the sequential approach, then the extension to Sainsbury’s should also satisfy the sequential approach The business model is a superstore format and thus having assessed the sequential merits of four sites (i.e. the Heritage Quarter, Lord Street, Parrock Street and Island Block), it is concluded that the development is consistent with the sequential approach. 4.2 We now turn to review the case made by WYG.
RTP comments on WYG sequential assessment Approach 4.3 In the first instance, we do not consider that the applicant can rely on decisions in 2007 or 2008 to support an application that is being determined in 2010 or even 2011. This is because the sequential assessment is a ‘live’ policy requirement. In other words, sequential sites come forward all the time, whilst each application must be assessed on its own merits since different schemes have varying characteristics. 4.4 The practice guidance to PPS4 tells us that when adopting a sequential assessment, the scale and form of development needed and whether the need is location specific or site specific are relevant considerations (checklist on page 46). However, importantly, it also tells us paragraph 6.26 that a requirement in itself is not location specific simply because a retailer is seeking an extension to an existing store. 4.5 In respect of flexibility and disaggregation, the practice guidance tells us in paragraph 6.33 that in every case it will be necessary to strike an appropriate balance between the requirements of the commercial sector and the requirements of national policy based on local circumstances. It also tells us in paragraph 6.33 that an operator claiming to be unable to be flexible about its chosen business model would be expected to demonstrate why a smaller store could not meet a similar need. 4.6 In Section 3, we agree that there are quantitative and qualitative grounds to extend the store to meet some locational needs connected with consumer choice, although we consider that the size of the extension goes beyond locational needs. However, we agree that the extension is part of a superstore format that includes both convenience and comparison floorspace. Sainsbury’s do not currently trade a non-food only format in the UK and therefore we would not expect the applicant to look for sequential sites for the comparison element of the store on its own.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 256 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
4.7 WYG argue that it is logical to undertake a sequential search on the basis of the extended site area of 4.62 ha and state that it would not be logical for Sainsbury’s to down size their retail offer in the area. Whilst we are sympathetic to this argument, we consider that to meet the flexibility tests in PPS4, Sainsbury’s must consider whether there are opportunities to achieve a superstore format in a sequential preferable site, although not necessarily of the size being promoted as part of the extended proposals. This is because we find the extension proposals to be larger than necessary to meet locational needs and that it is plainly possible for Sainsbury’s to consider a smaller superstore format since they have recently reduced the size of the application scheme from application A. Sequential sites 4.8 WYG consider four sites within their sequential assessment, which were agreed with the Council. In our view, the sequential search should consider whether a large superstore format (i.e. larger that the existing Sainsbury’s store, but not necessarily the same size as the proposed extended store), could be achieved either through a sequential site on its own or an extension to another store. 4.9 In respect of the potential for an extension to an existing town centre store, we are aware that Sainsbury’s do not currently trade from a town centre location. Other than Asda, the only town centre store that could be extended or improved is the Tesco store. However, since this in an alternative ownership and we have no evidence that Tesco wish to sell their store or promote a store extension themselves, we do not consider that this is a realistic sequential option. Furthermore, we are not aware of any clear development site that could facilitate the extension to the Tesco store. Heritage Quarter 4.10 The Heritage Quarter has long been a published Council priority for development to attract retail investment into the town centre. According to the WYG analysis, the site is approximately 5.8 hectares. Edinburgh House Estates Limited (EHEL) has promoted a non food retail development on the site, which would extend to either between 11,195 and 12,605 sqm gross of retail floorspace and is designed to meet primarily a comparison goods need to provide much needed investment into the town centre. An option for development was included in the application to provide for a small foodstore, although we understand that this was not for a superstore format. We understand that the site is in mixed ownership and includes some Council owned land. Given that a redevelopment scheme is being promoted, we consider it is reasonable to conclude that the site is available, even if it is not within Sainsbury’s ownership. 4.11 An application for the EHEL scheme was refused by the Council on 20 September 2010 for reasons including height, bulk and massing of the proposals. To date, an appeal has not been lodged against this decision. Whilst we consider that this is a sequentially preferable site that is of a sufficient size to accommodate a superstore, we have no evidence that a superstore format is being considered and the future timescales for its redevelopment and viability are uncertain due to the refusal of the submitted scheme. Clearly a new scheme may have to be redesigned and if this is to include a large superstore, it may jeopardise the ability for the site to include the high street format comparison floorspace necessary to
Final Report | November 2010 Page 257 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
regenerate the town centre and to meet the comparison floorspace needs. For these reasons, we consider that the site fails the suitability and potentially the viability criteria under PPS4. Lord Street and Parrock Street 4.12 The Lord Street and Parrock Street sites comprise public car parks and are considered as a combined site by WYG and extend to some 2.2 hectares. They are in Council ownership and are identified for a mixed use development, although they will need to include car parking. Whilst the sites in combination are theoretically large enough to accommodate a superstore scheme if flexibility applied to format, there are a number of constraints that would need to be overcome. We agree that the requirement for a residential element and the relocated car parking is likely to provide obstacles to the availability, suitability and viability as a sequential site for a superstore development. We also note the concerns over the linkages with the main shopping area. Whilst we consider a case has been made to dismiss this site as a sequential option, the sequential assessment requirement is a live test and this site’s development potential should be considered again if there is any delay with the application proposals. Island Block 4.13 The Island Block site extends to 0.3 ha and has a mix of uses. WYG argue that the small size of the site means that it is not suitable or viable for this proposal. We agree with this conclusion.
RTP conclusions under policy EC14 4.14 Whilst we have some technical concerns over the WYG sequential approach, the only sequential preferable site that potentially could include a superstore format store is the Heritage Quarter site. It is our understanding from the evidence, that only a small foodstore was being considered as an option by the developer. Therefore, we agree that this would not provide the improved choice to consumers from the extension to the Sainsbury’s store or relieve any overtrading that does existing. Therefore, we agree that this is not a suitable sequential site. In summary, we consider that the applicant has satisfied the sequential approach, although any changes of circumstances in the sequential opportunities should be carefully monitored until determination of the application.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 258 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT UNDER POLICIES EC10 AND EC16
WYG case 5.1 The WYG impact assessment in their September and November submissions considers the trading effects of the application under policy EC16 and the wider impact considerations under EC10. The impact case presented by WYG can be summarised as follows: There would not be an adverse impact on town centre investment because there is sufficient expenditure to support significant amounts of comparison floorspace in the short and medium term, that the Council’s retail study is a conservative estimate since it does not allow for a increase in market share and that the extant scheme that allows for five units is more likely to divert interest from the town centre than the Sainsbury’s extension The impact on the vitality and viability of Gravesend town centre is acceptable because the trade diversion from facilities in the town centre are low (and lower than from the extant permission), it would not lead to the closure of any stores, growth in expenditure will offset any diversion and that the town centre is currently healthy and performing well The trade impact of the proposed development on Gravesend town centre will not be significant and will have less of an impact than the extant permission The proposed development will meet the tests in policy EC10 of PPS4 relating to climate change, accessibility, design, the economy and employment 5.2 We now turn to comment on this impact assessment, referring to the WYG case and PPS4 policy.
RTP comments on WYG trade impact assessment Fall back position 5.3 Much of the WYG case refers to the fall back position of an extant permission for a DIY store on the Chinaporp site. We agree that this permission is relevant, although we question the amount of weight that WYG afford it. As explained in Section 1, we consider that the fall back position should be limited to the DIY permission and not the theoretical ability to sub-divide the DIY unit into five retail park units. The DIY unit could theoretically be used by another type of bulky goods retailer itself, but we have seen no evidence to suggest that another user would take this unit. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that it would be used for its designed purpose as a Homebase store – i.e. a by a DIY retailer with a garden centre. If the unit is occupied by a DIY retailer, we expect that the development will have a focused impact on other DIY units in the area and that the impact on Gravesend town centre (excluding the Imperial Retail Park) would be limited. Trade impact approach 5.4 When reviewing the trade impact approach taken by WYG, we first consider the approach adopted to estimate turnover of the proposed development before considering the trade draw estimates for both the convenience and comparison impact exercises.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 259 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
Turnover estimates 5.5 When estimating the turnover of the additional floorspace, WYG assume that the new floorspace will achieve 75% of the Sainsbury’s benchmark for both convenience and comparison floorspace. The argument in support of this type of assumption is that the floorspace will result in a redistribution of the trade within the store (i.e. mutual impact on the existing turnover of the store). Whilst we appreciate this argument has merit in some circumstances where the store is overtrading, the method should be examined separately for both convenience and comparison floorspace. 5.6 Considering convenience floorspace first, surveys have indicated that the store is overtrading between £15.3 million (48%) and £18.1 million (57%). Therefore, we accept that there will be some internal re-distribution of trade on the convenience side. The question is whether 75% of the benchmark is appropriate. Comparing the 75% of the benchmark with the existing turnover of the store according to WYG indicates that the additional convenience floorspace would achieve a sales density of 46% the existing store turnover and after the extension the store would still be trading higher than its company average. We consider that this is a reasonable assumption, although the evidence from the applicant would benefit from reference to some before and after examples to substantiate this approach. 5.7 In respect of the comparison assessment, since there is only a limited comparison goods offer in the store, we consider that there is less justification for this approach. The reason is that we have no evidence the comparison element of the store is overtrading because the existing floorspace is so limited. We expect that Sainsbury’s would wish to achieve a higher turnover per sqm than is currently being achieved in order to justify the additional floorspace devoted to comparison goods. Therefore, we consider that WYG should have tested the full company benchmark in the comparison assessment. Convenience assessment 5.8 The convenience assessment is based trade draw assumptions applied to the five zone study area. The methodology is broadly sound and the trade draw estimates are that 50% of the additional turnover will be drawn from zone 1, 23.3% from zone and the remainder from zones 3 to 5 and outside the study area. We consider these trade draw estimates are reasonable. 5.9 As expected, the impact assessment reveals that the majority of the trade diversion is from other large foodstores in the area, mainly the Asda and Tesco in the town centre and the Morrisons store on Coldharbour Road. The proportion of trade drawn from each store is not shown separately in the appendices and thus we have presented the total levels of diversion in the following table.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 260 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
Table 5.1 WYG convenience trade diversion estimates Store Study Trade Trade Negative area draw diversion impact derived estimated from turnover by WYG proposal in in 2012 2012 Asda, Thames Way 61.4 30.7% 3.9 6.4% Morrisons, Coldharbour Road 52.2 28.3% 3.6 6.9% Tesco, New Road 21.5 6.3% 0.8 3.7% Local Stores Gravesend 5.0 0.8% 0.1 2.0% Other stores - 33.9% 4.3 - Total Turnover - 100.0% 12.7 -
Source: Derived from WYG Retail Assessment, November 2010
5.10 As is evident above, just over a third of the turnover is estimated to be diverted from both the Asda and Morrisons stores each. The Tesco store at New Road is only expected to achieve a modest level of trade diversion, which is a function of its more limited offer compared to the other large superstores. At the margin, it appears that the amount diverted from a range of other stores across the catchment and outside is somewhat generous (i.e. over a third of the total additional turnover). Equally, we expect the very small diversion from local stores in Gravesend to be an under-estimate. Comparison assessment 5.11 The comparison assessment utilises an identical pattern of zonal trade draw as the convenience assessment. This is consistent with the argument that the comparison floorspace is supplementary to the main convenience function of the store. As with the convenience assessment, the proportion of trade draw from each destination is not shown separately and thus we do so in the following table.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 261 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
Table 5.2 WYG comparison trade diversion estimates Destination Study Trade draw Trade Negative area estimated diversion impact derived by WYG from turnover proposal in in 2012 2012 Bluewater 190.3 37.8% 3.4 1.8% Gravesend town centre 188.8 24.4% 2.2 1.2% Imperial Retail Park 39.1 8.9% 0.8 2.0% Dartford Town centre 108.8 7.8% 0.7 0.6% Other stores - 21.1% 1.9 - Total 100.0% 9 -
Source: Derived from WYG Retail Assessment, November 2010
5.12 This exercise demonstrates that the majority of the trade attracted to the new store will be diverted from Bluewater. Whilst we appreciate that some trade will be diverted from Bluewater as shoppers might occasionally spend less that they normally would when visiting the shopping centre, it is inconsistent with the WYG argument that the comparison floorspace is not the primary purpose of visiting the store. We expect that the main source of diversion to be from other foodstores that have a similar comparison goods offer (mainly Asda in Gravesend) and other stores that offer a similar non-food offer in the town centre. Therefore, we consider that the trade impact figures for the comparison assessment lack credibility since we expect the impact to be much sharper on the Asda in Gravesend and other stores in Gravesend town centre, as well as potentially Dartford. 5.13 To reconcile our concerns over the sales density adopted for the comparison assessment and the trade draw estimates, we have undertaken a brief alternative impact assessment without prejudice to our position. This has used a sales density of £7,205 (i.e. 100% of the comparison benchmark for Sainsbury’s according to WYG) and adjusted the trade draw figures, as presented in the following table.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 262 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
Table 5.3 RTP adjusted comparison trade draw estimates Destination Study Trade draw Trade Negative area estimated diversion impact derived by WYG from turnover proposal in in 2012 2012 Bluewater 190.3 15% 1.8 0.9% Gravesend town centre 188.8 35% 4.1 2.2% Imperial Retail Park 39.1 20% 2.3 6.0% Dartford Town centre 108.8 10% 1.2 1.1% Other stores - 20% 2.3 - Total 100% 11.7 -
Source: Derived from WYG Retail Assessment, November 2010 and adjusted by RTP
5.14 These impact figures are simply an alternative approach in light of our concerns over the WYG approach. We interpret these figures within our assessment of the impact policy tests in PPS4 below. Policy EC16 of PPS4 5.15 In assessing compliance with policy EC16 of PPS4, we focus on tests (a), (b) and (d). Test (c) concerns the impact on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan; this is not relevant in this case. Test (e) concerns in or edge of centre proposals and therefore is also not relevant since the site is out of centre. Finally, test (f) concerns locally important impacts and we are not aware of any such impacts enshrined in policy. We now turn to our analysis of the three impact tests we do consider are relevant. EC16.1a Public and private sector investment 5.16 This test requires the impact of the proposal on existing investment in centres to be considered. Drivers Jonas Deloitte (DJD) has objected to the proposal on behalf of Edinburgh House Estates Limited (EHEL) with the most recent objection dated 26 November 2010 that considers the revised scheme. 5.17 As things stand, the EHEL proposals have been refused by the Council primarily due to bulk and massing of the design; the decision has not yet been appealed. The scheme promoted by EHEL comprises primarily comparison goods floorspace, but also includes an option for a small foodstore. The scheme as currently designed does not include any superstore proposals and therefore is not competing directly for the same type of occupier, although we appreciate that some of the goods sold from the extended Sainsbury’s are likely also to be sold from comparison goods shops in the new development. 5.18 We appreciate that the EHEL proposals, if they eventually proceed, will absorb much of the short term growth in comparison goods expenditure. However, due to the refusal of planning permission, timescales are uncertain and in the medium term to 2021 there will be
Final Report | November 2010 Page 263 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
sufficient expenditure to support both the EHEL proposals and the comparison element of the Sainsbury’s proposals. 5.19 We are aware of ongoing proposals by Tesco to develop a new large superstore in Dartford town centre. Although Dartford BC has objected to this application, it does not suggest that there is any threat over investment in the town centre and neither Tesco nor St James (the developer) have objected to this application. Therefore, although there is a potentially competing superstore scheme in the town, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that this would represent a significant adverse impact. 5.20 Despite the concern expressed by EHEL and Dartford BC, we are not convinced that the impact on the investment is significant for the purposes of Policy EC17.1b of PPS4. This is because there is clear uncertainty over the timescales of the EHEL scheme, since it has been refused, and there is no evidence that the development is proposing a superstore. Whilst superstore proposals are being promoted in Dartford, we have no evidence that this application would put these under threat. EC16.1b Town centre vitality and viability 5.21 A health check of Gravesend town centre was undertaken as part of the evidence base to the LDF. Most of the fieldwork was undertaken in 2008 and it concluded that the town centre is relatively healthy against a number of health check indicators, although we note that a high vacancy rate was observed (11% compared to 9% GB average). The health check also highlighted a lack of fashion operators and a lack of large units in the centre suitable for national multiples. This health check is currently being updated to take into account more recent pressures resulting from the recession. Therefore, whilst the centre is ‘relatively healthy’, it clearly needs to be protected from any adverse impact in order to maintain its vitality and viability in the current difficult economic circumstances. 5.22 We expect the primary impact from this development to be on Gravesend town centre, although there is also likely to be an impact on Dartford town centre, which is highlighted by recent objections from Dartford Borough Council. The WYG material has not assessed the impact on Dartford town centre in detail and this is potentially a gap in the evidence. We have not undertaken any detailed audit of Dartford town centre, but we expect a modest comparison trade impact on the centre and therefore we see no clear evidence that this will result in a significant adverse impact. 5.23 We expect that there will be some negative impact on the vitality and viability of Gravesend, through the breakdown of some of the linked trips spending with the Asda store. However, we have no evidence that any stores will close following this development, therefore we consider that the loss to vitality and viability of will not significant for the purposes of Policy EC17.1b of PPS4. EC16.1d Impact on in-centre trade/turnover 5.24 As explained above, we have some concerns over the projected convenience impact, whilst the comparison impact assessment has some more serious flaws. We consider that the scale of trade projected by WYG to be diverted from Bluewater is very ambitious. Indeed, in light of the more budget clothing offer in Gravesend town centre, we expect the trade diversion to be much sharper on the town centre than as forecast by WYG.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 264 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
5.25 Based on our revised assessment, we have estimated a potential impact of about £4.1 million (or 2.2%) on Gravesend town centre. This is about double the impact forecast by WYG. However, despite this higher level of impact, compared to the overall turnover of the town centre and projected growth in spending, it is relatively modest. We expect the trade diversion estimates from the town centre to be focused mainly on budget clothing retailers and the clothing element of Asda, with other comparison goods diversions dispersed amongst a number of other retailers. We have no evidence that any town centre retailers will close following this development and although the likely sharp impacts on certain town centre retailers, we do not expect the trade diversion to represent a significant adverse impact. 5.26 It should also be noted that the impact figures do not take into account any diversion from linked trip spending. Since Asda is the only other nearby superstore that has a significant clothing range, we expect that those shoppers that wish to visit a superstore with clothing may divert their trade from Asda to Sainsbury’s. Therefore, the impact may be more pronounced than has been estimated within this assessment and if the application is approved, the scale of comparison floorspace in the extended store should be carefully controlled by means of a planning condition. 5.27 Despite the under-estimate of the likely convenience and comparison trade diversion from Gravesend town centre from WYG, we consider that these levels will not be significant for the purposes of Policy EC17.1b of PPS4. EC10 of PPS4 5.28 In respect of policy EC10, we only consider tests (d) and (e) on regeneration and employment. We accept that the proposed development will deliver regeneration of a vacant site and will attract new jobs. However, we consider that the WYG suggestion that it will bring 300 jobs to the local community as a somewhat generous estimate. This estimate does not take into account any displacement of existing jobs, nor does it consider the balance between part time and full time. 5.29 Despite a minor concern over the estimate of additional jobs created (we consider 300 is an over estimate), we expect that the extension will create some additional jobs and will assist in regenerating a vacant site. Therefore, we conclude that this development will deliver positive benefits under criteria (d) and (e) of policy EC10 of PPS4. It is beyond our instructions to advise on climate change, design and accessibility.
RTP conclusions under policies EC10 and EC16 5.30 In conclusion, we consider that the applicant have afforded too much weight to the theoretical fall back position. Whilst we consider a fall back position exists in respect of the DIY permission, if implemented this is likely to primarily impact on other DIY units and the impact on the town centre itself will be limited. In some areas, we consider the trade impact assessment presents an over optimistic view, while WYG suggest that the Asda store in Gravesend is out of centre, yet in reality it falls within the defined town centre boundary. We also consider that the trade diverted from the comparison element of the scheme will not be as pronounced from Bluewater.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 265 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
5.31 We consider that the impact assessment has under-estimated the trade drawn from the town centre and we consider there are also concerns over the loss of linked trip spending with other businesses in the town centre, particularly between the Asda and Tesco stores in the town centre. Furthermore, the impact from the clothing element of the scheme would result in a sharp impact on the clothing retailers that do existing in the town. However, on the other hand, we have seen no evidence to suggest that any retailers would close following the development and in broad terms the town is relatively healthy (although requires protection). 5.32 EHEL have objected to this application, primarily due to the size of the extension and failure to comply with PPS4. We appreciate that some of the goods that will be sold from the extended Sainsbury’s could also be sold from comparison goods stores in the proposed town centre scheme. However, there is no evidence that EHEL are proposing a superstore format store in the development and there is uncertainty over the future of the scheme since the most recent application has been refused. Therefore, whilst objections from a major town centre investor are a concern, we can see no evidence that suggests significant adverse harm to this investment. 5.33 In summary, we are concerned over the impact of the application scheme on turnover of the town centre stores and the resultant loss of linked trips spending. However, we appreciate that there is no clear evidence that stores might close and in general the town is relatively healthy. We also appreciate that the proposed development would bring positive benefits in terms of regeneration of a vacant site and creating additional employment.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 266 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Our assessment has thoroughly considered the case for the extended store promoted as part of the amended application B. If permitted, this store would result in 3,431 sqm of sales floorspace (1,872 sqm of convenience and 1,559 sqm of comparison floorspace). Policy EC17 of PPS4 sets out the Government’s guidelines for considering planning applications for town centre uses. Paragraph EC17.1 explains that applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused planning permission where: a) the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (Policy EC15); or b) there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1 (the impact assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments (our emphasis).
6.2 Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1, Policy EC17.2 of PPS4 advises that planning applications should be determined by taking account of: a) the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policies EC10.2 and 16.1, and any other material considerations; and b) the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.
6.3 Finally, Policy EC17.3 states that, ‘judgements about the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan ’. Policy EC17.3 also notes that recent local assessments of the health of town centres and any other published local information are also relevant. 6.4 We consider, on the basis of the evidence available to date, that the applicant has followed the sequential approach, and that there is no sequentially preferable opportunity which meets the ‘available’, ‘suitable’ and ‘viable’ tests, even allowing for the flexibility required by Policy EC15.1.d. As a consequence, we consider that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach. 6.5 In respect of whether there is ‘clear evidence’ of ‘significant adverse impact’, we have carefully considered the case. We have some concerns over the size of the application proposals since we consider they go beyond those necessary to meet locational needs. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that the ‘fall back’ argument about the Chinacorp permission in respect of a five unit retail park carries significant weight, whilst we consider that the trade impact calculations are generous in favour of the development. Therefore, we expect there to be an impact on the town centre and that some further trade will be lost through the diversion of linked trips spending between the Asda and the remainder of the town centre. 6.6 The question for the Council is whether there is clear evidence of a significant adverse impact to justify the refusal of this application under EC17.1b. In our view, there is certainly
Final Report | November 2010 Page 267 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill, Northfleet
evidence to suggest that there would be some degree of an adverse impact, which is explained above. However, based on our interpretation of the evidence, we do not consider that there is clear evidence of a significant adverse impact to justify a refusal on this basis alone. 6.7 If the Council agrees with our conclusion that the application passes the first two limbs of EC17, there is an opportunity to undertake a balancing exercise that considers the positive and negative impacts of the proposal, other material considerations and the cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. This provides the Council with a further opportunity to refuse the application if it concludes that the negative impacts outweigh any positive benefits. 6.8 In our view, the case is marginal. We are concerned at the creation of such a large store which will be some 1,200 sqm larger than the Asda in the town centre. We are also concerned at the potential loss of linked trips spending with the town centre and a potential sharp impact of the clothing retailers that do exist. However, since we consider that the application has satisfied the sequential approach and that there is no clear evidence of a significant adverse impact in respect of the tests in EC16 and those we have examined in EC10, we can see a case for permission of this extension, if carefully controlled by planning conditions. Furthermore, we are aware that there are supporting arguments in respect of an improved shopping environment that enhanced consumer choice as well as regeneration arguments of a vacant site and highways improvements (including the relocation of the service yard). 6.9 If the Council concludes that the positive elements of the proposal outweigh the negative impacts on the town centre and wish to grant planning permission, we consider that there should be conditions that control the nature of the store, including the following: A cap on the total amount of sales floorspace in the store Controls over the amount of comparison floorspace, restricting it to 30% of the sales area Controls over any sub-division of the store to create clothing or other retail concessions 6.10 Given that the main concern from this application surrounds the amount of clothing floorspace to be sold from the store, the Council may wish to investigate mechanisms that limit the floorspace that can be devoted to clothing in the store. Furthermore the Council may wish to introduce a condition or Section 106 clause which seeks to maximise the take up of the net job gain by socially and economically deprived residents in the local area.
Final Report | November 2010 Page 268
This page is intentionally left blank Page 269 Agenda Item 5g
8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
20/0 4/2010 20100333 08/12/2010
Lancaster House, Gravesend Road, Higham, Rochester, Kent, ME3 7DZ
Change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food take away and installation of extraction duct routed through existing chimney stack at side.
Mrs Ahmed
Recommendation: REFUSAL see page 8
1. Site Description
The application site comprises of a detached two storey building with a vacant retail unit at ground floor (A1) and residential accommodation at first floor level. To the front of the property is hard standing which has direct access onto the A226. Rear of the property is the private amenity space for the first floor flat.
Surrounding the property is primarily residential properties with a MOT/garage to the northeast of the property.
The site has a number of site specific constraints which are as follows:
• Higham Arable Farmlands • Groundwater Source Protection Zone 3 • Village envelope of Higham
2. Planning History
From visiting the site it would appear that the property in the past has been used for a café. On the west flank elevation there is the remains of an advert for a café on the premises. However, there is no planning history to identify when the café was in use on the site. It has also been used as an off-licence.
A full planning application was received on 10 August 2009 for change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food takeaway and was validated on 20 August 2009. Following consultation with internal consultees and neighbours the application was refused under delegated powers on 13 October 2009 on the following grounds:
1. The proposed change of use of the premises to a hot food take-away stands to be considered under policy S7 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review. This requires that the proposed use should not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of any nearby residential accommodation and that it should be possible for ventilation trunking to be discretely located on the building. The application site lies within a residential area and with residential accommodation above the retail unit. Therefore, the use of the premises as a hot food take-away, would
Page 270
lead to noise and disturbance to local residents by reason of customers visiting the site, on-street parking around the site and possible odour emissions associated with cooking. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted development plan policy.
2. The proposed change of use of the premises to a hot food take-away stands to be considered under policy S7 of the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First Review. This requires that there should be adequate parking space available which will not interfere with the free flow of traffic along the highway. This proposal being located on the A226 will bring an increase in the intensity of traffic arriving, parking and turning outside the premises onto the A226 to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted development plan policy.
Following the refusal the applicants asked about a resubmission, and were advised that the Council would not support a A5 use at Lancaster House, and were referred to the previous decision notice. The Case officer also advised the applicants not to purchase the property without the benefit of planning permission as they may be left with a property which cannot be used for their desired use.
A resubmission was submitted (GR/2010/0353) on 16 May 2010 for change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food takeaway and installation of extraction duct at the rear. However, this application was not supported by the council and was refused on 18 June 2010 on the following grounds:
1. The proposed change of use of the premises to a hot food take-away stands to be considered under policy S7 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review. This requires that the proposed use should not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of any nearby residential accommodation and that it should be possible for ventilation trunking to be discretely located on the building. The application site lies within a residential area and with residential accommodation above the retail unit. Therefore, the use of the premises as a hot food take-away, would lead to noise and disturbance to local residents by reason of customers visiting the site, on-street parking around the site and possible odour emissions associated with cooking. Furthermore, the ventilation trunking will be highly visible from Hollytree Drive and be harmful to the streetscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted development plan policy.
3. Current proposal
A change of use application for change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food take away and installation of extraction duct routed through existing chimney stack at side was submitted on 6 October 2010 and was validated on 7 October 2010.
4. Development Plan
A substantial number of policies of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review have been saved by a Direction dated 25 September 2007 of the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The draft Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000 (Draft Local Plan Second Review) has been opted by the Borough Council for development control purposes but in view of the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, it is not being progressed any further. Nevertheless, the Borough Council
REPORT NO PAGE 2 Page 271
considers that it remains a material consideration. It is acknowledged that the policies are of limited weight but that the weight which can be attached to its policies is greater where the policies are consistent with Government guidance and with policies of the adopted Local Plan First Review.
The Council is in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework (LDF) for the Borough. Progress to date on this document has focussed on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which was adopted in March 2007 and the Core Strategy. Work is currently progressing on the Core Strategy Preferred Options Report. The Local Development Scheme (LDS), which sets out the programme for taking forward the LDF, was reviewed in order to address deficiencies in the evidence base and the changes introduced by PPS12 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. The revised LDS was approved by GOSE on 16 January 2009. In 2010 a Regulation 25 Consultation lasting six weeks on the Core Strategy and Development Plan Policies DPD finished on 11 March 2010.
In the development plan documents the application site is consistently shown as being within the village of Higham.
Gravesham Local Plan First Review
The following policies in the adopted Local Plan (Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994) are relevant to the consideration of this application.
S7 - Hot Food Shops and Restaurant and other A3 uses*
Changes of use of existing retail shops to Class A3 uses* will be considered according to the following criteria:-
(i) They should not cluster with other similar uses to create a dead frontage.
(ii) They should not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of any nearby residential accommodation.
(iii) There should be adequate parking space available which will not interfere with the free flow of traffic along the highway.
(iv) It should be possible for ventilation trunking to be discreetly located on the building.
Where such uses are found to be acceptable in principle, conditions will be imposed in any planning permission granted to ensure that environmental disturbance is kept within suitable limits.
Local Development Framework It is anticipated that the core strategy will be examined by an independent Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate in March 2011 for adoption in August 2011. The most relevant core strategy policies are,
Core Strategy Policy 5: Development and Design Principles Core Strategy Policy 13: Residential Development
The most relevant development management policies include,
REPORT NO PAGE 3 Page 272
Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design
National Planning Policy Guidance
Relevant statements of national planning policy guidance are capable of being material considerations in planning decisions. The following are particularly relevant to this appeal.
PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth)
5. Reason for Report
At the request of the Service Manager, Development Control.
6. Consultations and Publicity
Individual notification letters were sent to 10 surrounding properties as well as a notification letter to Higham Parish Council and internal consultees. The following responses have been received.
Summary of comments received:
Higham Parish Council
The Parish Council strongly objects to this application. It is in a residential neighbourhood and entirely unsuitable for this area of Higham.
It is also concerned regarding the extra traffic which would exit onto the A226 and car parking which might occur on the main road (although it notes that the shop has two parking spaces).
Higham already has three other takeaways in the village.
Senior Development Engineer, Gravesham Borough Council
I have considered the revised submission for this Hot Food takeaway and discussed this with Kent Highways. In view of the previous use of the premises and the availability of forecourt parking (albeit limited) I feel that a refusal on highway safety grounds cannot be sustained in this case.
Regulatory Services
Health and Safety
Please note from July 2007 all workplaces in England must be smoke free. All relevant premises must display no smoking signage in a prescribed format. Proprietors will have a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent staff and patrons from smoking.
The applicant must ensure that these premises comply fully with the Health and Safety at Work (etc) Act 1974 and all relevant regulations made there under. For information
REPORT NO PAGE 4 Page 273
and advise on health and safety matters please contact the Gravesham Borough Council Environmental Health on 01474 337 598.
Food Safety Comments
The applicant must ensure that the kitchen fully comp[lies with current food safety legislation to the satisfaction of the Head of regulatory Services. Structural and operational requirements are covered by the legislation notably Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006. For further information and advise on the legislation please ring 01474 337 598.
The provision and location of sinks and wash hand basins is an important consideration in the design and planning of a kitchen. You are advised to contact the environmental Health Commercial Section for advice at the earliest opportunity on 10474 337 598.
It is a requirement under article 6(2) of Regulation 852/2004 that food business operators must register their establishments with the appropriate competent authority (in this case Gravesham Borough Council Environmental Health) at least 28 days before food operations commence. Please call 01474 337 598 for a registration form.
The proposed location is a single commercial unit in a low density residential area. The proposed A3 use will therefore have an impact on nearby residents by reason of increased disturbance due to noise and smell.
The information provided on odour and noise reduction appear to be in line with best practice however even the very best odour extraction plants are not 100% effective and allow a noticeable smell to be emitted from the ventilation system. In addition to this, odour extraction plants do not deal with the problem of fugitive odour emission coming from doors and windows left open especially during the summer months. It is often odours from this origin that cause problems and are almost impossible to abate. It should also be noted that once an odour reduction system has been installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and there is subsequently found to be a problem, the premises can rely on the ‘Best Practicable Means’ defence. This would mean that no further action could be taken under Environmental Health legislation.
There will also be an impact from the use of the premises particularly later on in the day due to customer noise which cannot be effectively dealt with by the nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that this Service enforces. It is not clear whether a takeaway delivery service is proposed which will of course increase further the noise from the premises.
Were members minded to approve this application the following comments are provided:
Hours of Use – General
These need to be conditioned as per the application.
Ventilation Extraction System Requirements
Details of ventilation extraction system, particularly regarding odour elimination abilities and likely noise emissions, to be submitted for approval in writing to the District Planning Authority prior to commencement of works.
REPORT NO PAGE 5 Page 274
Ventilation Extraction System – Advisory Notes
Compliance with the following is required regarding the ventilation extraction system:-
• The extraction system including odour reduction equipment shall be maintained at all times; • A full spectrum octave analysis of the ventilation fan shall be made demonstrating that the Noise Rating Curve 30 will not breached at the nearest residential premises. • Inclusion of activated carbon filtration into the installation • The ventilation system should be capable of achieving 30 air changes per hour after the odour reduction filters have been fitted • the flue outlet shall be situated one metre (1.0m) above the eaves of the roof
It should be noted that compliance with such requirements however, may not necessarily preclude action taken by this Department with regards to noise or odour nuisance arising from the ventilation extraction installation.
Further information can be obtained by contacting the Regulatory Services. Telephone (01474) 337 334.
Commercial Refuse Arrangements
Storage facilities provided shall be of sufficient capacity having regard to the quantity of waste produced and the frequency of waste collection. All waste shall be removed from site on a regular basis by a licensed waste carrier and disposed of at a licensed waste disposal site.
Commercial Refuse Arrangements – Advisory Notes
Compliance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 “Duty of Care” is essential.
Advise on Solid Waste Management an be obtained from Waste Services on (01474) 337 533.
Works of Construction
Please add works of construction informative.
Summary of neighbour objection letters
43 Objection letters have been received from surrounding residential properties with two additional petitions submitted, one signed by 12 local residents and the other signed by 18 local residents. The main objections from locals are:
• Inadequate parking for the proposed use • Access onto the A226 will be dangerous • Smells from the extraction unit • The takeaway might attract anti-social behaviour • Litter and noise might be generated from the site
REPORT NO PAGE 6 Page 275
Summary of neighbour support letters
75 letters of support have been received during the consultation process. However, the letters appear to be the result of someone canvassing local residents and all the letters appear to be same variant of one template. Therefore the letters of support are being treated more as a petition in favour of the application than individual letters of support.
Other supporting evidence
77 survey sheets have been submitted by the agent on 8 November 2010 which are dated from January to March 2010. This survey was undertaken to find out if there is a demand for an Indian takeaway in the area prior to submitting this current application. All the survey sheets which have been submitted are from local residents who state they are in favour of an Indian takeaway. It should be noted this survey sheet does not state where the location of the Indian takeaway will be.
7. Service Manager (Development Control) comments
The key issues for Members to consider are as follows:
• Is the proposed location a acceptable location for a A5 use? • Impact on the change of use on surrounding properties? • Will the change of use have a detrimental impact on highway safety?
Lancaster House is an A1 use with a premises license allowed trading up to 11pm at night Monday to Saturday and up to 10:30pm on Sundays.
Even though the licensing hours could be similar in length to a A5 use it is the view of the Council that there is significant differences on the impact on the surrounding area between a A1 and A5 Use.
Policy S7 of Gravesham Local Plan first Review (1994) sets out four tests for changing a retail unit to an A5. The proposal will be analysed against policy S7 below.
The first test states:
They should not cluster with other similar uses to create a dead frontage
Lancaster House is not located within a local centre and it will not result in clustering of similar uses or result in dead frontage.
The second test states:
They should not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of any nearby residential accommodation.
In terms of impact on the neighbouring properties Lancaster House is situated in with middle of a residential area and there are residential properties surrounding the site to the east and west and directly across the road to the south.
REPORT NO PAGE 7 Page 276
With an A5 use there will be the impact on the surrounding properties by the customers who will use the establishment. With an A1 use customers would use the shop throughout the day buying a variety of goods. However, with an A5 use customers would turn up mainly during the evening to collect their fast food and quickly depart. It is likely that people using the establishment late in the evening would turn up in cars and therefore could leave the engine running on the forecourt; as a result of this the living conditions on surrounding properties could be effected by the comings and goings from the shop.
Secondly the use could attract people who are vacating public houses and therefore could be create more noise than people simply visiting the shop as an A1 use.
The third test states
There should be adequate parking space available which will not interfere with the free flow of traffic along the highway.
Following a revised application being submitted which shows parking to the front and rear of the property no objection has been raised from Gravesham Senior Development Engineer. Therefore, a ground of refusal on impact on the highway network cannot be sustained.
It should be possible for ventilation trunking to be discreetly located on the building.
The previous applications which have been submitted showed trunking attached externally to the building which would have had an unacceptable visual impact on the surrounding residential properties.
To overcome this issue the application will run the trunking internally and up through the existing chimney therefore resulting in no visual impact on the surrounding properties. No objection is raised form Regulatory Services relating to the ventilation system which is being proposed.
Human Rights Act 1998
Officers have considered the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 in reaching a recommendation to refuse this application. They consider that the interference with the human rights of the applicant under Article 8/Article 1 of Protocol 1 is justifiable and proportionate for the protection of the rights and freedom of others or the control of his/her property in this way is in accordance with the general interest.
Conclusion
A number of the concerns from the previous application have been addressed with this application such as the parking provision and layout as well as the trunking system. The main concern left with this application is if the A5 use outside the local centre is acceptable. In this instance with the property being located in a residential area it is felt the A5 use will result in amenity impact on the surrounding properties which will be unacceptable.
REPORT NO PAGE 8 Page 277
Consultation expiry date: 29 October 2010
Recommendation
REFUSAL:
The proposed change of use of the premises to a hot food take-away stands to be considered under policy S7 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review. This requires that the proposed use should not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of any nearby residential accommodation. The application site lies within a residential area and with residential accommodation above the retail unit. Therefore, the use of the premises as a hot food take-away, would lead to noise and disturbance to local residents by reason of customers visiting the site, and possible odour emissions associated with cooking. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted development plan policy.
REPORT NO PAGE 9 Page 278
This page is intentionally left blank Page 279
22 5
5
1
EVERGREEN CLOSE 18
HO 11 16
LLY 5
TREE 1 chard
1
ARTON ROAD s C
roft
c D
RIV ny 2
ramble
B E Sun
The o 1
2
mal 1
Ku
tenville dna Ar e a e Ken n Th ren ngs G i crai r
o a o ar Balla b M At s ay ghw Hi lycroft y 73.4m Hol lfwa ge Ha Gara
er 2 se u ancast GR L Ho AVESEN
view D ry R O Mer A LB RH D Higham ene e kd n Oa rkde Yo h le itt leig L rth oodglake No W Kin h g ne e t d b t thlei n u Co o hurs n m So e o l m ft e y B L tonhurst Cli Sea
Tk F
m a igh H ra Ga
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Scale: 1:1,250 © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 29/11/2010 This copy has been produced specifically for Planning and Building Control purposes only. No further copies can be made. Lancaster House, Gravesend Road, Higham Gravesham Borough Council Licence No.1000191666 ± Drawn by: AJC Page 280
This page is intentionally left blank Page 281 Agenda Item 5h
8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.
20/0 4/2010 20100245 8/12/2010
Shorne Grazing Paddocks, Pear Tree Lane, Shorne, Gravesend, Kent
Erection of a pole barn
Mr Digby Light
Recommendation: Permission
1. Site Description
The ap plication site extends some 3.7 ha and is located outside the village envelope of Shorne in the Metropolitan Green Belt. To the west and south is the settlement of Shorne Ridgeway which includes the designated Conservation Area of Chestnut Green which also contains a number of Grade II listed buildings.
The site has a number of site specific constraints which are as follows: • Article 4 - Land At Tanyard Hill - Ar/83/4 • Green Belt • Shorne Woodland Landscape Character Assessment • Grade 2 Agricultural Land • Groundwater Source Protection Zone 3
2. Planning History
On 26 April 1983 an Article 4 Direction made under the Town & Country Planning General Development Order 1977 (As amended) and this is known as Land at Tanyard Hill - Ar/83/4.
The reasoning for the Article 4 Direction was the site originally formed part of the farmland associated with Overblow House. At the beginning of 1981 the farm was sub divided into four or five parcels. As a result of the fragmented use of these parcels of land the Council imposed a Article 4 Direction to control any future use of the sites.
In 1983 a full planning application (GR/1983/0837) was submitted for a field shelter for young livestock. This application was refused and an appeal was lodged (APP/k2230/A/84/0184496) but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn.
3. Proposal
A full planning application for the erection of a pole barn was submitted on 19 March 2010 as a prior approval application. However, the proposed pole barn is not permitted development under Part 6 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 1995 as the proposed pole barn is situated on an agricultural unit of
Page 282
less than 5.0a. Furthermore as the Article 4 has removed all Permitted Development Rights from the site a full application is required.
The application was validated as a full planning application on 2 September 2010.
4. Development Plan
A substantial number of policies of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review have been saved by a Direction dated 25 September 2007 of the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The draft Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000 (Draft Local Plan Second Review) has been opted by the Borough Council for development control purposes but in view of the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, it is not being progressed any further. Nevertheless, the Borough Council considers that it remains a material consideration. It is acknowledged that the policies are of limited weight but that the weight which can be attached to its policies is greater where the policies are consistent with Government guidance and with policies of the adopted Local Plan First Review.
The Council is in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework (LDF) for the Borough. Progress to date on this document has focussed on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which was adopted in March 2007 and the Core Strategy. Work is currently progressing on the Core Strategy Preferred Options Report. The Local Development Scheme (LDS), which sets out the programme for taking forward the LDF, was reviewed in order to address deficiencies in the evidence base and the changes introduced by PPS12 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. The revised LDS was approved by GOSE on 16 January 2009. In 2010 a Regulation 25 Consultation lasting six weeks on the Core Strategy and Development Plan Policies DPD finished on 11 March 2010.
In the development plan documents the application site is consistently shown as being within the village of Higham.
It should be noted that on 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced the revocation of Regional Strategies with immediate effect. As a result the South East Plan was no longer a material consideration. However, the Cala Homes judicial review has over-turned that decision, and the Regional strategy is again a material consideration.
Gravesham Local Plan First Review
The following policies in the adopted Local Plan (Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994) are relevant to the consideration of this application.
GB2 – Development within the Green Belt
There will be a strong presumption against permitting new development in areas subject to Green Belt policies, other than in accordance with Approved Kent Structure Plan Policy MGB2
C1 – Areas of Special Significance for Agriculture
Policy CC3 of the Approved Kent Structure Plan, which defines Areas of Special Significance for Agriculture, will be applied to the areas delineated in this Plan. The
REPORT NO PAGE 2 Page 283
Borough Council will give long term protection to these areas and will give priority to the needs of agriculture over other planning considerations .
TC1 – Design of New Development
The Borough Council will not normally permit proposals for new development which cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance. Applications will be considered in accordance with the following design principles:-
(i) The scale and massing of the buildings should normally be in keeping with their surroundings.
(ii) The design of new developments should accord with the principles of the Kent Design Guide and in the case of residential development, with Housing Policies H2 and H3 of this Plan.
(iii) The design of any alteration or extension shall respect the character and appearance of the existing building and safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents.
(iv) Materials used should be of good quality and sympathetic to the area concerned.
National Planning Policy Guidance
Relevant statements of national planning policy guidance are capable of being material considerations in planning decisions. The following are particularly relevant to this appeal.
PPG 2 (Green Belt)
5. Reason for Report
At the request of the Cllr Theobald.
6. Consultations and Publicity
Individual notification letters were sent to 11 surrounding properties as well as a notification letter to Shorne Parish Council and internal consultees.
Summary of comments received:
Shorne Parish Council: The Council wishes to register an Objection to the application on the following grounds:- a) The Council considers the size of the proposed barn to be excessive in relation to the size of the holding b) The site is in an area within which Green Belt policy applies and the proposed building will adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt. c) The Council finds it difficult in finding justification for this development. d) Building elsewhere in this area, where occupied unlawfully for residential use until immune from enforcement action and Council is concerned that a building of this size in this location could be similarly misused.
REPORT NO PAGE 3 Page 284
e) If permitted this building would set a precedent for similar buildings in the open countryside.
Regulatory Services Please add works of construction informative
Council’s Agricultural Consultant I refer to your letter of 03 September 2010 requesting agricultural advice on the planning application submitted by Mr Digby Light for the erection of a mono-pitch, timber clad pole barn (30m x 8m and 4m tall) for housing livestock, and livestock feed/bedding, at the above location.
The grazing land concerned extends to some 3.7 ha (just over 9 acres) and is rented by Mr Light on a 5-year licence, having been occupied by him on a series of licences for the last 22 years. Mr Light also has use of a further 15.8 ha (39 acres) of other grazing elsewhere in the locality.
Whilst mainly employed outside agriculture, Mr and Mrs Light use the application site as a base for a small agricultural enterprise by way of another part-time interest and to provide their family with self-sufficiency in meat. They currently have 6 beef heifers, due to calve next February, and a bull, plus a beef steer, 6 breeding ewes, due to lamb in March, a breeding sow, (whose last litter has just been slaughtered), a young gilt (maiden sow) and a boar. There are also several family ponies.
There is one existing, fairly limited shed on the premises (approx 11m x 8m x 2.8m tall) and there is insufficient space for storing all the required winter bedding and feed if bought in bulk, as well as for lambing the sheep and housing the cattle when required over the winter. A lot of bales have had to be stored outside to date, resulting in wastage. Overall, although this is only a small-scale venture, I consider the proposed building to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture here, and appropriately designed for the intended uses.
If there were any concern as to the implications of future non-agricultural use, the Council could consider imposing the same sort of condition that would have applied, had the building been allowable under the “agricultural permitted development” provisions, i.e. that the building would have to be removed if agricultural use permanently ceased within 10 years of its construction.
7. Service Manager (Development Control) comments
The key issues for Members to consider are as follows: • Is the proposed development acceptable in the Green Belt? • Is there justification for the pole barn?
The application was originally submitted as a prior approval but the identified area is less than 5 ha and under the Class A, Part 6, Schedule 2 of the GPDO require there to be an agricultural unit (occupied for the purposes of an agricultural trade or business) of at least 5.0 ha. Furthermore, there is a Article 4 direction (Ar/83/4) on the land removing all Permitted Development rights.
As the site is within the Green Belt by definition all development is harmful unless it agricultural or forestry related. In this instance the existing pole barn on the site (11m x 8m x 2.8m tall has insufficient space for storing all the required winter bedding and
REPORT NO PAGE 4 Page 285
feed if bought in bulk as well as for lambing the sheep and housing the cattle when required over the winter.
Turning to the proposed building it is larger than the existing building (11m x 8 m x 2.8m tall) and measures 30m x 8m x 4m tall). However it is the view of the Councils agricultural consultant that there is reasonable need for the pole barn.
In terms of the live stock on the site there is the following:- • 6 beef heifers due to calve next February • A bull • Beef Steer • 6 breeding ewes due to lamb in march • A breeding sow • A young gilt • One Boar • Several ponies.
The building is of functional design with ‘hit and miss’ timber slats on the elevations and a monopitch steel roof. Internally the layout is one large open space which will provide all the required space for storage of feed, equipment and livestock during the winter.
Taking into account there is reasonable need for the building and support from the Council’s agricultural consultant the issue of the building is acceptable.
The Parish Council has raised concern that the proposed barn is excessive in relation to the size of the building. However, it is considered there is justification for a pole barn of this size. In terms of the impact on the Green Belt it is viewed that this proposal complies with the requirements of PPG2 and will not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
Further concern is raised from the Parish Council that the building would set a precedent for similar buildings within the Green Belt. The Council takes a very tough stance on agricultural buildings and consultants an agricultural specialist on all agricultural applications for independent expert advice. Unless there is a clear need for the building it is unlikely the application would be supported.
To safeguard the impact on the openness of the Green Belt various conditions can be imposed including, no residential use, and that if the barn is no longer required for agricultural use it shall be removed.
Consultation expiry date: 17 August 2010
Recommendation
PERMISSION subject to the following Conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
REPORT NO PAGE 5 Page 286
Reason In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of and Class A, Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order or in any equivalent provision to that Class in any order revoking or re-enacting that order no extension or alteration of the building hereby permitted or excavation or engineering operations which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture shall be carried out on the agricultural unit without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having been first obtained.
Reason In order that any extension or alteration of the building or the carrying out of engineering works may be the subject of a separate planning application which the Local Planning Authority would wish to consider on its merits having regard to issues of amenity, traffic safety and the prevailing planning policies.
3. If the pole barn hereby permitted becomes redundant for the purposes of agriculture it shall be removed from the site in its entirety.
Reason That the building is only required for the purposes of agriculture and if that requirement ceases then the barn shall be removed to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.
4. Before the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details and colour samples of all external facing materials (including door openings) to be used in the building hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason In the interests of the visual amenity and open landscape of the locality and which is within a Green Belt area.
5. Before the commencement of the development full details of all boundary treatments to the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
Reason No such details have been submitted and in the interests of visual amenity
REPORT NO PAGE 6 Page 287
Issues
Starwood
Phoenix
Pear Tree Cottage Ch erry-He
Pond
St Ma r gar et' s
97.6m
ANE Well Cottage Little Ganavan ARTREE L Bush PE
Virginia Cottage Airieland
Dairy Cottage
Furzebank
Furze Bank
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Scale: 1:1,250 © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 29/11/2010 This copy has been produced specifically for Planning and Building Control purposes only. No further copies can be made. Shorne Grazing Paddocks, Pear Tree Lane, Shorne Gravesham Borough Council Licence No.1000191666 ± Drawn by: AJC Page 288
This page is intentionally left blank Page 289 Agenda Item 6
Hackney Carriage Sub-Committee
Monday, 8 November 2010 10.00am
Present:
Cllrs: Michael Wenban (Chairman) John Burden Harold Craske
Martin Goodman Corporate Lawyer Christina Hills Senior Licensing Officer Carlie Plowman Committee & Scrutiny Assistant Tim Worthington Hackney Carriage Officer Sunitpal Khroud Trainee Solicitor
Also in Attendance:
Christopher Fuller Hackney & Private Hire Liaison Officer, North Kent Police Hackney Carriage Licence Holder & his representative
1. Appointment of Chairman
Cllr Michael Wenban was appointed Chairman of the Sub-Committee.
2. Declarations of Interest
Cllr Harold Craske declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 4 as he knows the Hackney Carriage Driver.
3. Exclusion
Resolved pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded during the following item of business because it was likely in view of the nature of business to be transacted that, if members of the public were present during this item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.
4. Possible revocation of a Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence
The Corporate Lawyer suggested a procedure to be followed, which was adopted by the Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee was required to consider whether a Hackney Carriage Driver was a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage Drivers licence.
1 Page 290 Hackney Carriage Sub-Committee 8.11.2010
The Sub-Committee was informed that the Hackney Carriage Driver had been arrested and cautioned for the possession of an imitation firearm contrary to the Firearms Act 1968.
The Borough Council had suspended the Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence on 25 June 2010 under Section 61 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as amended by Section 52 Road Safety Act 2006.
The Senior Licensing Officer apprised the Sub-Committee of the record of the Hackney Carriage Driver.
The Hackney & Private Hire Liaison Officer for North Kent Police requested the Sub- Committee to revoke the Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence with Gravesham Borough Council.
The Hackney Carriage Driver and his representative requested that the Hackney Carriage Licence be reinstated.
The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider its decision.
Resolved that
(1) the Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence be suspended for six months commencing on 25 June 2010;
(2) the 12 points accrued by the Hackney Carriage Driver for the offence remain on his licence for a period of 36 months.
Close of meeting
The meeting ended at 11.14 am.
2 Page 291 By virtue of Agenda Item 10 Regulation 22(1)(A) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.
Document is Restricted Page 308
This page is intentionally left blank Page 309 By virtue of Regulation 22(1)(A) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.
Document is Restricted Page 310
This page is intentionally left blank