DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD AGENDA Thursday 8 December 2005 Guide to the Agenda
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive any declarations of interest Members may wish to make including the term(s) of the Grant of Dispensation(s) by the Standards Committee. 3. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD (Pages 3 - 10) ON 10 NOVEMBER 2005
4. 05/00283/FUL (Pages 11 - FORMER WEST HILL HOSPITAL SITE, WEST HILL, 28) DARTFORD BARRATT SOUTH LONDON Redevelopment of land to provide 239 residential units, including associated parking, open space, improved access arrangements, restoration of chapel to provide day nursery, conversion of police station to retail use, new health centre and Red Cross centre with associated parking & demolition of existing Red Cross building. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal 5. 05/00516/FUL (Pages 29 - 39 HIGHFIELD ROAD, DARTFORD, KENT 38) NORTH WEST KENT MUSLIM ASSOCIATION Application for the Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DA/01/00276/COU in respect of increasing the number of persons allowed from 50 to 80 persons on Fridays between 1200 noon & 1400 hours. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal
1 6. 04/01247/FUL (Pages 39 - LAND SOUTH OF BOB DUNN WAY AT THE ROUNDABOUT 48) JUNCTION OPPOSITE JOYCE GREEN LANE, DARTFORD GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC Construction of a new link road and access from Bob Dunn Way roundabout, south to the GlaxoSmithKline site plus provision for future access to Joyce Green Lane. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 7. 05/00968/FUL (Pages 49 - REAR GARDEN OF 182 HEATH LANE, DARTFORD, KENT 54) MR D FRY Erection of a part two/part single storey detached 3 bedroom house with associated car parking and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 8. 05/00302/FUL (Pages 55 - LAND BETWEEN WESTGATE PRIMARY SCHOOL & 70) FORMER NORTH WEST KENT COLLEGE, MISKIN ROAD CREST NICHOLSON (SOUTH EAST) LTD Erection of 13 x 3, 5 x 2 & 3 x 1 bedroom houses and 34 x 2, 3 x 1 bedroom flats with associated access, parking & landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Approval (subject to satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement within six months of the date of this resolution). 9. 05/00859/FUL (Pages 71 - 47 & 48 & LAND REAR OF 36-48 ANNE OF CLEVES ROAD, 80) DARTFORD T CRAWLEY C/O OPEN ARCHITECTURE & SURVEYING Demolition of Nos 47 & 48 Anne of Cleves Road and erection of 2 blocks of terrace houses comprising 13 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom houses with dormer windows in front and rear elevations together with new access road and associated car parking and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval subject to satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement within six months of the date of this resolution.
2 10. 04/01207/OUT (Pages 81 - 389 - 397 PRINCES ROAD, DARTFORD, KENT 90) BRAKENELL PROPERTIES LTD Outline application for the demolition of existing buildings & erection of 9 houses with associated parking. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Outline Permission. 11. 05/00956/COU (Pages 91 - MANOR COTTAGE, BARN END LANE, WILMINGTON 96) WILMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Change of use of cottage from residential to youth and community centre (sui generis) together with the erection of boundary fencing. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved). 12. 04/00522/REM (Pages 97 - GREENWOOD, BROOKLANDS PARK, DARENTH ROAD, 102) DARTFORD THE JTS PARTNERSHIP Application for approval of reserved matters relating to landscaping pursuant to Conditions 1 and 12 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for the erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5). RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details 13. 04/01231/REM (Pages 103 - GREENWOOD, BROOKLANDS PARK, DARENTH ROAD, 106) DARTFORD THE JTS PARTNERSHIP Submission of details relating to cross-sectional profiles pursuant to condition 10 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5). RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details
3 14. 05/00082/REM (Pages 107 - GREENWOOD, BROOKLANDS PARK, DARENTH ROAD, 108) DARTFORD THE JTS PARTNERSHIP Submission of details relating to access road, layout of access road and foul and surface water drainage pursuant to Conditions 6 and 14 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for the erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5). RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details 15. 05/00826/REM (Pages 109 - GREENWOOD, BROOKLANDS PARK, DARENTH ROAD, 110) DARTFORD THE JTS PARTNERSHIP Submission of details relating to boundary walls & fencings pursuant to Condition 11 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5). RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details 16. 05/01168/REM (Pages 111 - GREENWOOD, DARENTH ROAD, DARENTH 112) P J MULLANS & SONS LTD Submission of details relating to external materials pursuant to Condition 9 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for the erection of detached houses (Plot 1-5). RECOMMENDATION: Approval of details. 17. 05/01042/FUL (Pages 113 - LAND ADJACENT 72 OAKFIELD LANE, DARTFORD, KENT 120) DENKEN BUILDERS Erection of a detached 4 bedroom house with integral garage and the formation of a vehicular access onto classified road C286. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 18. 05/00552/OUT (Pages 121 - 7 WOODLAND CLOSE, LONGFIELD, KENT 128) MR D WELLS
4 Outline application for demolition of existing dwelling & erection of one replacement dwelling and erection of one additional dwelling with garages. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Outline Permission 19. 05/01000/FUL (Pages 129 - 36 DEVONSHIRE AVENUE, DARTFORD, KENT 132) MRS S MANN Erection of a first floor side/rear extension. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 20. 05/00973/FUL (Pages 133 - 34 HEATHER DRIVE, DARTFORD, KENT 138) MR ANDREW BROWN Erection of a part two/part single storey side/rear extension. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 21. 05/01058/FUL (Pages 139 - 26 THE CLOSE, WILMINGTON, KENT 142) MRS M TERRY Erection of a first floor side/rear extension and a two storey front extension. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 22. 05/01072/FUL (Pages 143 - OLD RECTORY, ST MARYS ROAD, STONE 148) MEDWAY DESIGN & BUILD LTD Erection of a two storey extension to existing office to provide additional 5 offices. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 23. 05/00879/FUL (Pages 149 - DARENT VALLEY HOSPITAL, DARENTH WOOD ROAD, 156) DARENTH JUST LEARNING LTD
5 Erection of a single storey detached building to provide a children’s day nursery together with associated car parking and play areas. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 24. 05/01064/FUL (Pages 157 - 19 WOODWARD TERRACE, HORNS CROSS, KENT 162) MR & MRS WILLBYE Erection of a two storey side extension. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) 25. 05/01029/FUL (Pages 163 - 41 LARCH ROAD, DARTFORD, KENT 168) MR AJAYI OLUWADARE Demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey side extension. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) 26. 05/01045/FUL (Pages 169 - 43 LONGFIELD AVENUE, LONGFIELD, KENT 174) MR K NEWMAN Erection of a single storey side and front extension. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 27. 05/01077/FUL (Pages 175 - ARJO WIGGINS, DARTFORD PAPER MILL, PRIORY ROAD 186) NORTH, ARJO WIGGINS LTD Construction of a replacement Effluent Treatment Plant comprising new sludge treatment building, balance, settlement, sludge, bio filter and secondary clarifier tanks and provision of replacement car parking area. RECOMMENDATION: Approval
6 28. 05/00370/FUL (Pages 187 - ST MARYS CHURCH, LONDON ROAD, GREENHITHE 194) PCC OF ST MARYS CHURCH Excavation works to land east of church to provide new car park, car park entrance from Mounts Road, drop off lay by & pedestrian front path & a detached garage. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) 29. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS (Pages 195 - 210)
30. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE (Pages 211 - REPORT 252) To report on performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2005. RECOMMENDATION: That the report be noted. 31. SECTION 106 AGREEMENT AT 77-83 HYTHE STREET, (Pages 253 - DARTFORD 254) The point has now been reached where the S106 agreement is now on the verge of completion. Notwithstanding the imminence of completion, as more than 6 months has elapsed since Members last approved an extension of time in which to allow completion of the legal agreement Member approval is required for a further period. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 That a further period of 6 months be allowed to enable completion of the S106 Agreement authorised on the 28 April 2005 in connection with application DA/04/00091/FUL. 2 That the matter be the subject of a further report to the Board if the Agreement is not completed within that period. 32. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 1 2005 - 4 THE (Pages 255 - BEECHES, NEW BARN 258) To seek authority to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 1 2005. RECOMMENDATION:
7 That Members confirm Tree Preservation Order No.1 2005.
8 Page 1 Supplementary Information
GUIDE TO THE AGENDA INTRODUCTION The function of the Development Control Board is to consider planning applications and also to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control and related matters. AGENDA LAYOUT Planning applications appear in the agenda on gold coloured paper. Applications which raise major policy issues, or have generated significant public interest are usually placed first. The agenda sometimes includes reports dealing with other matters, such as delegated decisions where no objections have been lodged, breaches of planning control or quarterly performance reports. These are printed on different coloured paper, not gold, at the end of the agenda. Each report on a planning application describes the application site, the proposed development, any relevant planning history, responses from those who have been consulted on the application along with any other comments received, and, lastly, a report on the main planning issues relevant to the application. Each report on a planning application contains a recommendation to the Board Members, generally either for refusal or approval. The recommendation appears at the beginning and at the end of each report. There is a narrative by the Planning Officer of his/her consideration and the reason for refusal, or the conditions to be attached to an approval, are set out at the end of the report. Occasionally, the recommendation is that the application be deferred for delegated approval, subject to outstanding matters being resolved. This means that there are some matters, usually relatively minor, which have yet to be resolved with the applicant. Subject to these being resolved, authority is given to Officers to issue the approval decision without reference back to the Board Members. UPDATE (available at the meeting) The main agenda is printed some time before the Board meeting. The Update is a document printed on white paper, which is prepared on the day of the meeting and is circulated to Members just before the Board meeting. It provides information about applications to be considered at the meeting which has emerged since the agenda was printed. This could include further comments from interested parties, recent changes to the application and amendments to the recommendation. Copies of the Update are made available to the public. THE MEETING The Chairman and Vice-Chairman sit on the dais at the front of the Council Chamber. Planning Officers sit on their right and a legal representative and the Committee Co-ordinator usually sit on their left. The Chairman may take agenda items in an order which reflects the degree of public interest. Before dealing with Planning Applications on the agenda (gold coloured paper), the Chairman usually asks the Board if any Member wishes a site meeting for any item. Site meetings enable Members to consider a proposal in more detail, to view the site and to hear from neighbours and other interested parties. Any item for which a site meeting is agreed will not be discussed further
1 of 2 D:\apps\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\8\7\AI00000783\GuideToTheAgendaNEWGUIDEREVISED27Oct05inclJS trackchanges0.doc Supplementary Information Page 2
at this meeting . Anyone who made representations on a planning application which has been deferred for a site meeting will be notified of the arrangements for the site meeting. Such applications are usually reported to the next meeting of the Board for determination. The Chairman may also invite Members to indicate those items on the agenda they would like to discuss. If items are not proposed for discussion, the Chairman will ask Members to vote on each of them in accordance with the Officer recommendation. However, those items where a member of the public has registered to speak against the Officer recommendation will be discussed by the Board, unless it has already been agreed to hold a site meeting. There will be no need for public speakers to address the Board if the speaker was going to support the Officer recommendation . These items will not be discussed further, as the applications will have been decided in accordance with the Officer recommendation. Remaining Applications For the remaining items on the agenda, the Planning Officer will usually make a presentation, describing the proposal, outlining the main planning considerations and concluding with the recommendation. Where a request to speak has been made by 12 noon on the designated date, and granted, the Chairman will invite speakers to sit in a designated area equipped with microphones. Where the Officer’s recommendation is to allow the application, the objectors will have the opportunity to speak first, followed by any supporter. The reverse order will apply in cases where the Officer’s recommendation is that the application be refused. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes to make their points. Members or Officers may clarify any points with the speaker(s) before Members consider the application. Thereafter, no public speaking will be allowed and the speaker(s) will be asked to return to the public gallery. The Chairman has the discretion to curtail or extend speaking in individual cases if it is considered appropriate. FURTHER INFORMATION The items on this agenda represent a small proportion of the total applications dealt with by the Council. Many applications (see white pages at the back of the agenda) are determined by means of powers delegated to senior Officers. Should you have any queries regarding the way in which Dartford Borough Council deals with planning applications, please contact the Council's Development Control Section on 01322 343203 where an appropriate Officer will be pleased to explain matters to you.
2 of 2 Page 3 Agenda Item 3
DARTFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD MINUTES of the meeting of the Development Control Board held on Thursday 10 November 2005. PRESENT: Councillor T C H Smith (Chairman) Councillor D E Hunnisett (Vice-Chairman) Councillor D R Appadoo Councillor D J Baker Councillor C Broadley Councillor A R Brooker Councillor F G Byrne Councillor P F Coleman Councillor K J Fickling Councillor I T N Jones Councillor E J Lampkin Councillor D E Lawson Councillor A R Martin (in place of Councillor J A Kite) Councillor J I Muckle Councillor M J Murphy Councillor Mrs N C Wightman (in place of Councillor Mrs J A Rickwood) 142. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors J A Kite Councillor A R Martin substituting) and Mrs J A Rickwood (Councillor Mrs N C Wightman substituting). 143. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Legal Services representative declared a Personal Interest in Parish / Town Council membership on behalf of all Parish / Town Councillors present at the meeting. Councillor E J Lampkin declared a Personal Prejudicial Interest in agenda item 18 as the applicant was known to him. 144. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13 OCTOBER 2005 That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2005 be confirmed. 145. 05/00586/FUL SPORTS GROUND REAR OF 25-63 KNOCKHALL ROAD GREENHITHE MARK PROJECT LTD & WESTBURY HOMES The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the redevelopment of land to provide 13 No. 3 bedroom town houses & 1 1 Agenda Item 3 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005 No. 4 bedroom detached house with associated car parking/garaging & new access road with additional parking facilities for existing bowls club and sports pitch. The Chairman introduced Mr Ricks who spoke in favour of the application. RESOLVED: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report. 146. 05/00302/FUL LAND BETWEEN WESTGATE PRIMARY SCHOOL & FORMER NORTH WEST KENT COLLEGE MISKIN ROAD CREST NICHOLSON (SOUTH EAST) LTD The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the erection of 13 x 3, 5 x 2 & 3 x 1 bedroom houses and 34 x 2, 3 x 1 bedroom flats with associated access, parking & landscaping. RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site meeting. 147. 04/01247/FUL LAND SOUTH OF BOB DUNN WAY AT THE ROUNDABOUT JUNCTION OPPOSITE JOYCE GREEN LANE DARTFORD GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the construction of a new link road and access from Bob Dunn Way roundabout, south to the GlaxoSmithKline site plus provision for future access to Joyce Green Lane and drew Members' attention to the update circulated at the meeting. RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site meeting. 148. 05/00905/REM MIMA CADA THE AVENUE GREENHITHE MR & MRS PATEL The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the submission of details relating to boundary walls and fences, landscaping, motorcycle and cycle parking and disabled access and facilities
2 Page 5 Agenda Item 3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005 pursuant to Conditions 2, 3, 6 and 9 of Planning Permission DA/05/00420/COU for change of use of property to dental surgery. RESOLVED: That the application be formally discharged. 149. 05/00874/FUL 5 THE BEECHES NEWBARN DARTFORD MR S KEDDY The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the variation of Condition 13 of Planning Permission DA/99/00359/FUL in respect of conversion of existing garage into habitable room together with the erection of an attached garage with room in the roof space and a single storey side extension to existing lounge. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions, reasons and informative set out in the report. 150. 05/00887/FUL 66 OLIVE ROAD DARTFORD KENT MR J DELAMERE The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the erection of a part two/part single storey side/rear extension. RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved). 151. 05/00926/FUL 13 ST LUKES CLOSE DARENTH KENT MR B HAWORTH The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the erection of a rear conservatory and retention of shed and drew Members' attention to the update circulated at the meeting. RESOLVED: 3 Agenda Item 3 Page 6 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005 That the application be deferred for delegated approval subject to amendments being satisfactory and no new issues arising as a result of re- consultation and condition 04 to be amended to read: 04 The northern side elevation of the conservatory shall be constructed of white/opaque panels in accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. 152. 05/00804/FUL 18 WALLIS CLOSE WILMINGTON KENT MR & MRS J BALDWIN The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the erection of a two storey side extension and a part two storey/part single storey rear extension. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions, reasons and informative set out in the report. 153. 05/00806/FUL 39 LEYTON CROSS ROAD WILMINGTON KENT MR & MRS M WELSTEAD The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the erection of a two storey side/rear extension. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions, reasons and informative set out in the report and including the following additional informative: The applicants attention is drawn to the fact that it will not be permissible to use Dartford Heath for the parking of any vehicles or the storage of plant or materials associated with the construction of the development herby approved.
4 Page 7 Agenda Item 3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005 154. 05/00790/FUL 10 BARNFIELD CLOSE HORNS CROSS STONE MR & MRS A B BROWN The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the variation of Condition 11 of Planning Permission DA/95/00061/FUL in respect of landscaped area to driveway. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report. 155. 05/00925/COU 23 & 24 KINGFISHER DRIVE GREENHITHE KENT COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES PLC The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the change of use of ground floor flats to show house for temporary period. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report. 156. 05/00941/TPO WILMINGTON HOUSE CHURCH HILL WILMINGTON GAVIN M SIMMS, VALLEY LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application to lift lower branches from trees overhanging vehicular and pedestrian accesses, prune back trees overhanging building together with ongoing maintenance works to various trees of mixed species subject to Tree Preservation Order No.2 1992. RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for delegated consent following expiration of consultation period. 157. 05/00968/FUL REAR GARDEN OF 182 HEATH LANE DARTFORD
5 Agenda Item 3 Page 8 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005 KENT MR D FRY The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the erection of a part two/part single storey detached 3 bedroom house with associated car parking and landscaping and drew Members' attention to the update circulated at the meeting. RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site meeting. 158. 05/00955/FUL 12 & 14 MILTON STREET SWANSCOMBE KENT MR & MRS RANA HEMANT The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the installation of a new shop front and erection of a single storey rear extension in connection with the conversion of the two shops into one (to be Newsagents and Convenience Store). RESOLVED: That the application be withdrawn from the agenda. Having already declared a Personal Prejudicial Interest Councillor E J Lampkin left the chamber and took no part in the debate or decision of the following item. 159. 05/00892/FUL MANOR COTTAGE COMMON LANE WILMINGTON MR & MRS G MAYATT The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above retrospective application for Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission DA/04/00665/FUL in respect of provision of additional velux window to side elevation together with the deletion of a first floor side window. The Chairman introduced Mr Merrington who spoke against the application. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions, reasons and informative set out in the report. 6 Page 9 Agenda Item 3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005 160. 05/00870/COU UNIT G2 RIVERSIDE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE RIVERSIDE WAY MR S M THORNE The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the change of use of property to Class B1 & B2 (car servicing) and drew Members' attention to the update circulated at the meeting. RESOLVED: 1 That the wording of the description be amended as above (deletion of “& MOT’s”). 2 That the application be approved subject to the conditions, reasons and informative set out in the report and reason and condition 04 to be amended to read: 04 The use shall be limited to the repair, servicing or testing of 2 vehicles at any one time. 161. 05/00924/FUL THE AXTON CHASE SCHOOL MAIN ROAD LONGFIELD AXTON CHASE SCHOOL The Regeneration Director reported in connection with the above application for the renewal of Planning Permission DA/99/00668/FUL for continued use of part of school grounds for holding of boot fairs from 1 March 2006 to September 2006. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report. 162. 05/00726/FUL 1 HILL VIEW ROAD LONGFIELD KENT MR & MRS P SYMES The Regeneration Director reported that the above application, for the retention of the erection of a single storey side extension and provision of a dormer window in rear elevation in connection with providing additional rooms in the roof space together with retention of a rear conservatory. 7 Agenda Item 3 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005 The Chairman introduced Mr Edmonds who spoke against the application. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions, reasons and informative set out in the report. 163. 05/00834/FUL 4 SYLVAN MEWS GREENHITHE KENT MARK WILKINSON The Regeneration Director reported that the above application, for the retention of the retention of a satellite dish and drew Members' attention to the update circulated at the meeting. RESOLVED: That the application be approved. 164. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS The following items were reported for Members’ information: - Decisions taken under Delegated Powers. RESOLVED: That the report be noted. 165. HAVELOCK ROAD - JUDICIAL REVIEW The Planning and Environmental Lawyer introduced the report which updated Members about the Council’s application for Judicial Review of the Inspector’s decision on the Havelock Road application. RESOLVED: That the report be noted. The meeting closed at 8.35 pm Councillor T C H SMITH CHAIRMAN
8 Page 11 Agenda Item 4
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00283/FUL Officer: Mr Graham Parkinson Location: Former West Hill Hospital Site West Hill Dartford Kent Proposal: Redevelopment of land to provide 239 residential units, including associated parking, open space, improved access arrangements, restoration of chapel to provide day nursery, conversion of police station to retail use, new health centre and Red Cross centre with associated parking & demolition of existing Red Cross building Applicant: Barratt South London Agent: Bidwells/Carpenter Planning Consultants Steeple House Church Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 1NH Date Valid: 24/03/2005 Parish / Ward: / West Hill RECOMMENDATION: Refusal SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Policy H1 identifies the site for housing while a small section at the south east corner falls within the Dartford Conservation Area and is therefore subject to policy B8 requiring that new development will respect the character and setting of the Conservation Area and policy B9 which presumes against the demolition of unlisted buildings within the Conservation Area (2) Dartford Local Plan Review - Policy H1 continues to identify the site for housing development purposes while policy H2d sets out the criteria that any housing redevelopment of the site will need to meet in order to be acceptable. Policy H16 identifies it as a site where 30% of the housing will be affordable. The part of the site falling within the Conservation Area is subject to policies BE1 presuming against demolition of unlisted buildings in the Conservation Area and BE2 relating to new development in Conservation Areas. SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The former West Hill Hospital complex, which has now been demolished, is sited just to the west of Dartford town centre and occupies an area of 4.25 hectares. The site is bounded by housing in King Edward Avenue along the western boundary and in Priory Hill along the eastern and northern boundaries. Our Lady's Catholic Primary school, the Coldart and Agenda Item 4 Page 12
Coleburt Business Centre are on the opposite side of King Edward Avenue. The road is generally characterised by spacious detached and semi detached houses (4) The northern site boundary is defined by Priory Hill and is currently occupied by buildings used by the Red Cross. Priory Hill mainly comprising terraced houses loops round the eastern side of the application site. Further south, houses on the west side of Priory Hill give way to a high retaining wall, opposite which are further narrow fronted terraced houses before finally reaching the junction with West Hill. (5) The south east corner of the application site abuts the Dartford Conservation Area set at a lower level overshadowing Twistleton Court, while to the west of Twistleton Court fronting West Hill there is the former lock-up which is a Grade II Listed Building. (6) There are a number of TPO trees on site with the main grouping sited in a north to south line running along the top of the retaining wall fronting Priory Hill. There are also individual trees in the proximity of the former chapel and a small grouping sited within the centre of the site just to the east of houses in King Edward Avenue. PROPOSAL (7) Detailed planning permission is being sought to redevelop the site for a mixed housing development comprising a number of elements. The application as originally submitted was for a mixed development of flats and houses comprising a total of 247 dwelling units. In seeking to address concerns over the design, layout and density, the number of dwellings has now been reduced to 239. The proposal also originally involved refurbishment and enlargement of the fire damaged former chapel to provide a day nursery for 80 children. Though the applicants advise that they are still committed to this element of the proposal they no longer want it considered as part of the application and have requested that it be left for further more detailed consideration to a later stage. (8) The proposed housing mix of the development comprises 2 no: 1 bedroom flats, 130 no: two bedroom flats, 44 no: four bedroom houses and 63 no: three bedroom houses. Affordable housing will be provided at a level of 30%. (9) The southern sector of the site extending from West Hill northwards to the line where houses in King Edward Avenue and Priory Hill commence is to be developed mainly as flats laid out in enclosed courtyard arrangements. An area of public open space is to be provided also intended to provide a setting for the refurbished chapel to be used for crèche purposes. The northern sector of the site is to be developed for houses. (10) Also involved is the refurbishment of the listed lock up (the subject of a separate Listed Building application) and its reuse for retail purposes. (11) Dilapidated former hospital buildings abutting the existing access onto West Hill are to be demolished to make way for the proposed development and which are the subject of a separate application for Conservation Area consent for their removal. (12) The health centre proposed at the corner of King Edward Avenue and West Hill is intended to act as a 'wrap around' landmark feature to replace the existing health centre at Tower Road and is a requirement of the development brief. Though a design has been submitted this in only indicative as the final details will need to be agreed with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and the Red Cross being the intended users of the facility. (13) The facility has the potential for providing up to 30 consulting/treatment rooms and have four levels of accommodation with the Red Cross being accommodated at lower ground floor level though this will be at street level of West Hill. (14) Regarding site access, the development brief advises, subject to it being demonstrated by a traffic impact assessment that it is acceptable in highway terms, that primary vehicular access to the development should be from King Edward Avenue. The proposal shows the Page 13 Agenda Item 4
access of King Edward Avenue with West Hill being widened with changed priorities and traffic management measures to respond to altered traffic conditions and a single main site access off King Edward Avenue just opposite the primary school. The brief also requires that a secondary access onto Priory Hill should be provided for emergency purposes and to allow access to garages at the rear of King Edward Avenue and these measure have been incorporated into the proposal. (15) Car parking is to be provided at an overall ratio of 1.35 car parking spaces per unit and 1 cycle space per unit with 40 spaces being provided for the health centre, 12 for the school, 3 for the retail use of the lock up and 14 for the nursery. Parking for the health centre, school and nursery will be available for residential use when the allocated spaces are not required for their identified purpose. (16) The proposal also involves the provision of public open space having an area of approximately 0.4 hectares that will include facilities for children play sited in an open area to the north and east of the former chapel. Amenity space provision for the houses will be provided within the rear gardens though a triangular green will provide a visual focus and setting for the houses. The flats have been laid out to within open areas intended to provide a mix of both communal and private open space and to provide them with a setting. The applicants advise that both open and closed balconies to the flats will assist in providing usable private space for the residents. (17) In addition to the above the applicants have submitted design and planning statements setting out their design approach in accordance with Government Guidance set out in PPG3. RELEVANT HISTORY (18) On the 26th June 2003 outline planning permission was refused under ref: DA/01/01002/OUT for mixed use development of the site comprising 207 residential units (Class C1), 8067m2 food retailing (Class A1) & community uses (Class D1) with associated car parking, servicing & landscaping. (19) The reasons for refusal were (a) that the proposed retail use did not comply with the intended use of the site for housing; (b) that the out of town retail location would harm the vitality and viability of the town centre; (c) , that the housing element could not be accommodated on site without harming amenity (d) that the design, scale and siting of the retail building was unacceptable (e) failure to safeguard the interests of cyclists and pedestrians and (f) harm the character and setting of nearby listed buildings and Conservation Area and loss of existing features lending to the character of the Conservation Area. (20) The current application has also been accompanied by applications seeking Listed Building Consent to refurbish and rebuild the listed lock up under ref: DA/05/00282/LBC and Conservation Area Consent to demolish former hospital buildings to the east of the retaining wall abutting the former hospital access onto West Hill under ref: DA/05/00281/ DEMCON. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS on proposal as originally submitted (21) KCC Archaeology: Taking into account the past uses and activity on the site there are complex heritage issue requiring careful consideration. The submitted details need upgrading to reflect this as it is difficult to assess the impact of the proposal on these. In order to safeguard the position it is recommended that conditions are imposed requesting details of foundation design and any other works involving excavation and an archaeological field evaluation to identify and safeguard in situ any remains that are identified. (22) English Heritage: Concerned that the proposal for the area surrounding the chapel appears to overly enclose it without showing how the proposal evolved. Also concerned that the design of the development could be undertaken in a more modern manner but taking its cue from nearby traditional forms. Also concerned that some of the blocks seem overly bulky and that some of the balcony details do not appear integral to the design. Consider that the Agenda Item 4 Page 14
height of the development needs to reflect the topography of the site and that the roofscape should be more varied while the road layout designed to meet current highways standards has resulted in an inflexible road dominant layout. (23) Kent Police: Too many of the parking areas lack natural surveillance - would prefer to see parking within dwelling curtilages while the parking area close to the Priory Hill access point is also unobserved. The health centre has access points on either side in addition to the public access through the building causing security concerns. A significant proportion of the open space appears unsupervised and there does not appear to be any clear differentiation between public and private areas. The site has too many access points in an attempt to make it a walkable neighbourhood resulting in the creation of security issues. Crime prevention is a material planning consideration and the conclusion is that the development fails sufficiently to address the requirement to deter crime. (24) English Nature: No objection subject to site clearance being undertaken outside the bird nesting season. (25) KCC: The development will create demand for additional secondary school place provision that cannot be accommodated within the locality. A developer contribution of £1,486.05 will therefore be sought from every applicable dwelling. In addition the proposal brings a need for additional community facilities with an identified need for library and social service provision for children and families, old people and people with physical and learning disabilities. (26) Environment Agency: No objection is identified to the development and welcomes the use of a sustainable urban drainage system (suds) as a means of dealing with surface water drainage subject to the imposition of conditions to deal with site contamination and to prevent pollution of controlled waters. (27) Environmental Health Services Manager: No objection to the proposal on air quality or site contamination grounds subject to imposition of conditions to secure the necessary decontamination measures along with conditions to control hours of constructions, no bonfires, hours of opening of the Red Cross Centre and retail unit, controls over use of the communal parking areas and measures to provide acoustic protection for dwellings that have been identified as being affected by external noise. (28) Landscape Design Officer: No objections are identified to the proposed landscape strategy but it lacks detail on what planting is intended, that insufficient planting is proposed for the main area of open space and that further details of levels in the area of the proposed circus should be obtained. Regarding tree loss, due to site levels, redevelopment is likely to involve more regrading etc. than a level site which will impact on retention of existing vegetation. The scheme concentrates upon retaining the central two most important trees whilst keeping the boundaries as green as possible. Some are in a situation or are of a quality where retention is not wise and therefore it is crucial that replacements are of a size and quality to make up for this. In view of the importance which will be given to certain strategic trees, e.g. in the circus, these will need to be of a substantial size. (29) Projects Manager Regeneration: Raises no objection on design grounds or effect on the setting of the conservation area or adjoining listed building. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION: (30) 14 objections were received relating to the application as originally submitted and the concerns raised are paraphrased as follows: Character of area and impact on nearby properties Flats proposed flanking West Hill appear overly dominant and out of scale. Terraced houses and flats in King Edward will appear cramped, overcrowded, overly dominant and out of character. Page 15 Agenda Item 4
Unacceptable loss of sunlight and outlook to houses in King Edward Avenue and Priory Hill. The loss of mature trees fronting King Edward Avenue will result in substantial harm to visual amenity and should be avoided. The proposed density of 247 dwelling is well in excess of the 200 units that has been deemed acceptable for the site. The use of the lock up as a shop is unacceptable which should be restored and retained as a feature of the site as should the chapel but both should otherwise remain unused. The justification put forward for the retail use of the lock up is that it will bring an active frontage to this part of West Hill. However this could be equally well achieved by a non retail use. In addition the retail use of the lock up will adversely affect the viability of existing businesses in West Hill and while having an adverse impact on the physical fabric of the Listed Building. The Dartford Local Plan states that no part of the site should be used for retail purposes - proposed use of the lock therefore in breach of this. The entrance to the retail unit will be from West Hill which will encourage vehicles to stop in West Hill causing traffic congestion. No specific mention is made of what the future plans are for the retaining wall along the rear of houses in King Edward Avenue. Highways and parking (31) Provision of health centre welcomed but consider that 40 parking spaces not sufficient; insufficient parking generally. (32) The proposal places undue weight on walking and cycling movements in reducing traffic considered to be unrealistic. (33) Having primary access onto the secondary road of King Edward Avenue will significantly increase local traffic congestion and danger to primary school children. Access to the site from Priory Hill is unacceptable in highway terms and circulation within the development should be by a one-way system. (34) Additional traffic onto West Hill will add dramatically to traffic congestion on already overcrowded roads - will also be a source of highway danger to school in King Edward Ave - relocation of bus stop in West Hill will expose children to greater highway danger compared to siting of the existing bus stops and will result in a poorer service. The removal of the pelican crossing at the top of West Hill will also result in an unacceptable erosion in pedestrian safety which given the proposed siting of the medical centre cannot be supported. The proposed light controlled crossing will not be sited on the existing crossing desire line thereby encouraging people to cross West Hill in a dangerous position. (35) The parking area to the rear of 28 King Edward Avenue has been used for parking for many years and any proposal should ensure that any rights that may exist for this purpose remain. Local services (36) The proposal will place an unacceptable additional strain on local services including health care, schools, emergency services and community provision. Insufficient open space provision made for children of age group 14 years and over. (37) No provision has been made for elderly accommodation - there is a clear need for this type of accommodation in Dartford. (38) Nine objections received in connection with the revised proposal as follows: Agenda Item 4 Page 16
The reduction in the number of dwellings to 239 units still does not address the fact that the proposal still considerably exceeds the limit set out in the development brief. The overall provision of green space on the site is welcomed but the removal of the 5 trees in King Edward Avenue will result in a significant loss of visual amenity. The restoration of the chapel continues to be welcomed but the requirement to extend as proposed indicates that if it is not large enough to accommodate a day nursery without such an extension then maybe consideration should be given to its use by the Red Cross or restored so that multi faith reflection can take place. There is an existing flight of steps to the side of Twistleton Court and would request that consideration be given to opening up and using this rather the alterations proposed. The development should make more provision for family housing in order to achieve a better long-term population balance. Consideration should be given to providing education, retail or hospital facilities on the site. Support the notion of a school drop off point but given its location would question whether it will be used. Concerns about the lock up, loss of trees, impact on adjoining properties, the King Edward Avenue frontage, access to the site from King Edward Avenue and Priory Hill remain. (39) One response raising no objection subject to restrictions on construction days and hours of construction and no construction traffic to use Priory Hill. RELEVANT POLICIES (40) The following policies are applicable to the proposed development: Dartford Local Plan (41) H7 (Housing development within the urban area), H8 (Density and dwelling mix of new housing development, development briefs and supplementary planning guidance), H10 (Layout and design standards for new housing development), H13 (Guidelines for flats and flat conversions), T5 Public transport facilities and infrastructure within new development), T19 (Relationship of development to highway network and capacity), T20 (Formation of new accesses onto distributor roads), T21 (Agreements for highway improvements related to development proposals), T22 (Development proposals to include parking provision), T27 Provision for pedestrians in new development and highway schemes), RT18 Open space and play space provision in new housing development), B1 (Criteria for consideration of development proposals), B2 (Development briefs to be prepared for major sites), CF1 (Service infrastructure for new development) and CF3 (Provision of social, community, educational and cultural facilities). Dartford Borough Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft 2002 (42) DD1Public Transport Orientated Development, DD3 Walkable Neighbourhoods, DD4 Mixed-Use Development, DD6 Green Grid, DD11 Development and Design General Criteria, DD13 Security, DD14 Public Art, H1 Housing Provision, H2d West Hill Hospital, H4 Windfall Sites, H8 Layout, Design and Density, H10 Vehicles in Residential Development, H16 Affordable Urban Housing, H19 Special Needs Accommodation, H21 Lifetime' Homes, R4 District and Local Shopping Centres, CF1 Community Facilities - Siting and Accessibility, CF2 Utilities Infrastructure - Siting and Design, CF3 New Development Requirements, T7 Transport Infrastructure and Services, T8 Off Site Transport Measures, T9 New Accesses, T11 Vehicle Parking Requirements, T13 Parking Strategy, T14 Parking Layout, T15 Cycle Parking, T16 On Site Design and Transport Measures, T17 Travel Plans, T18 Transport Assessments, BE1 Demolition of Listed Buildings in a Conservation Area (CA), BE2 New Development within a CA, BE3 Alterations and Extensions to a Building Page 17 Agenda Item 4
in a CA, BE4 Change of Use of a Building in a CA, BE5 Alteration, Extension or Minor or Partial Demolition of a Listed Building ( LB), BE6 Total or Substantial Demolition of a LB, BE7 Change of Use of a LB, BE8 Development Affecting the Setting of a LB, BE9 Areas of Special Character, LRT12 New Open Spaces, NR1 Sewerage and Drainage, NR5 Water Resources, NR8 Surface Water, NR10 Air Quality: Minimisation of Pollutants, NR13 Noise: Residential Development, NR20 Contaminated Land, NR23 Energy Efficiency. (43) The site is subject to a detailed Planning and Design Brief adopted as supplementary planning guidance on the 24th September 2003 but subsequently amended by the General Assembly of the Council on the 26th April 2004. The key change is that the original Planning and Design Brief referred to an indicative estimated dwelling yield of 287 units. However following the adopted amendment this figure has been replaced with an indicative estimated capacity of 200 dwellings. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (44) Given the local plan policy background set out in policy H2d of the Local Plan Review which safeguards the site for residential development, there can be no objection to the principle to the proposed development. The main issues arising from this application are therefore density; design and layout and how this will affect amenity of future residents within the site and those existing residents overlooking and abutting the site; effect of the development on the listed lock up and the character and setting of the adjoining conservation area; highway issues; affordable housing; open space, play areas and landscaping and community facilities. Site Density (45) When undertaking density calculations for development, PPG3 in Annex C gives advice on what areas should be taken into account in calculating a net site density which is considered to be a more refined estimate than a gross site density. This will include access roads within the site; private garden space; car parking areas; incidental open space and landscaping; and children's play areas where these are to be provided but excludes major distributor roads; primary schools; open spaces serving a wider area; and significant landscape buffer strips. (46) When the public open space in the proximity of the chapel, the Listed lock up and area devoted to the health centre are excluded from the site area for density calculation purposes, the site area reduces to 3.54 hectares. 239 units therefore results in a net site density of just over 67 dwellings per hectare (dph). Policy H1 puts forward an indicative capacity of 200 units for this site. Policy DD1 advocates an average density of 50 dph within convenient walking distance of a good quality public transport service. Higher densities may be appropriate in areas with particularly good public transport accessibility, such as the town centre. This site does not fall within the designated town centre in the Local Plan. Whilst West Hill is clearly a busy route, the site is some distance from the railway station and from the main bus interchanges in the town centre. I would therefore not accept that it has particularly good public transport accessibility and consequently, I do not consider that this proposal complies with policy DD1. Density in itself is not of course the sole determinant of whether development is acceptable. This is dependent upon, amongst other things, an assessment of the impact of the form and character of the proposed development both in its own right and on its surroundings. Visual Impact and Amenity Considerations (47) Dealing first with the main elements of the proposal i.e. the residential development comprising the flats and houses, the main housing area backs onto the rear of houses fronting Priory Hill and King Edward Avenue also involving demolition of the Red Cross Buildings. Agenda Item 4 Page 18
(48) This housing area is triangular in shape and has a central area of open space which will also be used to provide communal parking. This layout approach provides an open landscaped area in close proximity to the houses and will in my view contribute to the feeling of space and separation within this sector of the development. (49) Regarding the houses backing onto King Edward Avenue, these are grouped into 5 terraces, each comprising 4 units and will have accommodation at three levels each with an integral garage. Cross sectional details submitted by the applicant also show that these properties will be set at a lower level than the houses overlooking the site in King Edward Avenue. Taking into account a 'back to back' distance of between 23 and 26 metres between the rear of the proposed dwellings and the two storey elements of the existing houses, I consider that the impact of these units on the houses in King Edward Avenue to be acceptable. The 'flank to flank' relationship with 4 King Edward Avenue is also acceptable in my view. (50) Concerns have been raised regarding the future of the boundary wall defining the rear boundary of houses in King Edward Avenue with the application site. I see no reason why it should not be retained at its existing height which could be secured by condition. (51) Abutting this line of properties at their northern end will be a communal parking area which will also provide access to existing garages at 26 and 28 King Edward Avenue. Though I can identify no objection to such an arrangement solely in visual amenity or noise and disturbance terms I suggest that a condition be imposed requiring lighting details to be submitted for this car park. (52) Regarding development fronting Priory Hill on the site of the Red Cross Centre, this comprises a single terrace of 4 units with parking provision to the rear. The front of the terrace will line through with the front of 44 Priory Hill, a detached bungalow sited immediately to the east but I am satisfied that given the 'flank to flank' relationship with this property is acceptable. (53) Turning to the impact of the development on houses in Priory Hill, cross falls of the site in relation to those properties mean that the development will occupy an elevated position. However the 'window to window' distances at first floor exceed the minimum specified in policy H8 of the local plan review. As a further safeguard development should be set further into the ground, which could be secured by condition. Concern has also been raised regarding the future of the brick wall but again this could be safeguarded by condition. Detailed design considerations (54) The proposed flats have articulated elevations, including balconies, full height forward projecting features capped by tiled roofs with small dormers elements. I think that the overall approach is reasonable and I have no intrinsic objection to the design and appearance of the proposed flats in themeselves. (55) The design of the houses within the northern sector represents examples of domestic scale architecture appropriate to their setting and is acceptable in my view. (56) Regarding the houses fronting King Edward Avenue, the requirements of the adopted planning and design brief is that they should be seen to comprise executive style housing. A total of 25 houses are proposed fronting King Edward Avenue comprising five terraces of three units and two terraces of 4 units, these latter two blocks providing entrance portals to the main site access. (57) Though terraced housing is being proposed in a road mainly made up of wider fronted detached and semi detached houses, by replicating the height, bulk and width of the adjoining detached and semi detached houses in King Edward Avenue I am satisfied that overall impression of wide frontage detached houses is maintained. Page 19 Agenda Item 4
(58) Given the above I am satisfied that the design of the proposed development can be seen to enhance appearance of King Edward Avenue in accordance with the provisions of the adopted planning and design brief and is acceptable. Provision of private amenity space for the flats (59) Though I am satisfied that the private amenity space proposed for the houses is acceptable consideration needs to given as to whether the private communal amenity spaces provided for the flats meets the requirements of policy H10 of the adopted local plan and policy H8 of the local plan review which advises, amongst other things, that private communal amenity space for flats should be usable, private and of regular shape, be readily and directly accessible from the dwellings that it serves, receive sunlight for part of the day throughout the year and that at least part of the amenity space should be shielded from view from any public right of way or from neighbouring properties. (60) In the absence of these standards being met the requirement is that open space provision shall be made at a ratio of 30 square metres per flat. The adopted local plan applies a more rigorous standard with amenity space provision of 35 sqr metres for flats with two habitable rooms and 50 sqr metres for a flat with three or more habitable rooms. (61) As originally submitted the proposal materially failed to meet the requirements of policy H8 in relation to the flats. The applicants have now submitted details of private amenity space devoted to individual blocks of flats, including balconies, which together works out at an overall figure of 30.07 sqr metres per flat. However policy H8 makes no reference to balconies in calculating private amenity space. I recognise that in certain circumstances balconies may be seen contribute to usable private amenity space and the applicants have submitted balcony details to demonstrate that , in their opinion, they are capable of achieving this. However, balconies, unless they are capable of making a significant amenity contribution to the flats they serve should not, in my view, be taken into account. The balcony details submitted show small cramped facilities having limited amenity value which in my view should not be included when assessing overall levels of private amenity space. (62) Overall private amenity space provision after deducting the area devoted to balconies therefore comes out to 25.72 metres per unit. However provision is varied. For example block 18 comprising 8 flats sited immediately to the east of the listed lock up comes out at only 21.4 sqr metres. Though this area can be seen to meet some of the requirements of policy H8 it is irregularly shaped while facing onto West Hill it will be subjected to high levels of road traffic noise making its use as an amenity area questionable. Regarding the areas serving blocks 16 and 19, comprising a total of 48 flats served by 1005.8 sqr metres of private amenity space this averages out at 21 sqr metres per unit. However the amenity area to the west of block 19 and an area to the south of block 16 are both heavily overshadowed by the bulk of the flats or the adjoining retaining wall and cannot be considered to meet the requirements of policy H8 in full. The remaining usable amenity area for block 19 will be provided in the courtyard area and be subject to high levels of direct overlooking by the houses that overlook this area. (63) Block 15 comprises 44 flats served by 1281.03 sqr metres of private amenity space giving a ratio of 29.11 sqr metres per flat. A significant proportion of this amenity area is overshadowed by bulk of the flats immediately to the south while it will be open to views from the car parking areas flanking it on its north and west boundaries. Again though this block comes close to meeting the space requirement I consider that the quality of the space again fails to meet all the requirements of policy H8 with a significant area subject to overlooking and overshadowing. (64) Finally block 27, comprising 32 units has 937.26 sqr metres of private open space sited to the north and east of the block giving an area of 28.28 sqr metres of amenity space serving each unit. However much of this area will be overshadowed and overlooked and therefore cannot be seen to meet the quality requirement of policy H8 appendix 1a. (65) As a general comment the majority of the private amenity areas fail the privacy tests to a greater or lesser degree in that they will all be overlooked at close quarters by flats or houses Agenda Item 4 Page 20
abutting the areas. I am also particularly concerned that the area serving block 18 will be subjected to excessive road traffic noise while the strip of space between the retaining wall and the rear of block 18 and part of block 16 will be heavily overshadowed with little access by sunlight. In the circumstances it would be difficult to argue that that the private open space provision that has been made meets the provisions of policy H8 relating to the quality of spaces that are required to satisfy this policy. Furthermore it is evident that at 25.72 sqr metres of space per unit (excluding balconies) that the proposal also materially fails to satisfy the requirement of 30 sqr metres of communal space per flat as other communal areas of land outside the identified private amenity areas are restricted in the main, to narrow frontage strips providing landscaped strips provide minimal separation between the front of the blocks and the back edge of the roadways. (66) In the circumstances I am satisfied that the proposal materially fails to comply with the provisions of policy H10 of the adopted local plan and policy H8 of the Local Plan Review both in terms of the quality of private open space to serve the flats and also in overall quantity terms. This lends weight to the view that what is being proposed represents an overdevelopment of the site and which should be refused on these grounds. Design and siting of the health centre (67) The adopted planning and development brief states that if a relocated 'all in one' health centre is to be provided on site it should (a) include approximately 15 doctors surgeries to deal with shortfalls in the locality and also to serve the development (b) be sited at the south west part of the site in an area of high accessibility (c) not contribute to traffic generation problems in the vicinity of the school and (d) make provision for the resiting of the Red Cross currently sited at the northern end of the site. (68) The health centre proposed at the corner of King Edward Avenue and West Hill meets the siting requirements and is intended to act as a 'wrap around' landmark feature to replace the existing health centre at Tower Road. Though a design has been submitted this is indicative as the final details have yet to be agreed with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and the Red Cross being the intended final users of the facility. (69) The applicants advise that the facility has the potential for providing up to 30 consulting treatment rooms and have will four levels of accommodation with the Red Cross being accommodated at lower ground floor level at the West Hill street level. (70) The intention is that the centre can be accessed both from West Hill, King Edward Avenue or from within the development providing for a permeable facility also provide an active frontage on West Hill. Car parking and a drop off point will be provided at the rear while landscaping will provided around the corner to replace the trees lost as part of the road widening to King Edward Avenue. (71) Taking into account the above I am satisfied that the proposed centre meets and exceeds the surgery capacity requirements while satisfying the other requirements set out in the development brief and is acceptable in its general impact. Furthermore the Primary Care Trust advise that the size of the building and the site area covered at this stage can be seen to meet their foreseeable requirements. In the circumstances subject to alterations to the design of the building at the corner of West Hill and King Edward Avenue to reinforce its landmark building status. I raise no objection to the principle of the building of the size and siting proposed. (72) Matters that will need to be addressed relate to controls over the number of consulting rooms on highway and parking grounds and hours of operation both of the health centre and Red Cross in order to protect the aural amenity of the future residents of nearby housing within the development. Impact on the character and setting of the Listed Lock up and the Conservation Area Page 21 Agenda Item 4
(73) These form key elements in consideration of the proposal and conversion of the lock up to retail use and demolition of existing buildings within the Conservation Area are the subject of separate Listed Building and Conservation Area applications. (74) The adopted planning and design brief requires, amongst other things, that any development should be seen to complement the historic and architectural character of the old police station (lock up), chapel, workhouse and entrance workshops, should be made focal points within the development and that the scale of new development should not tower over these features. (75) Dealing first with the impact of the proposal on the character and setting of the Listed lock-up, the block of flats to the north will have an effect in this respect. However, it should be taken into account that the setting of the Listed Lock has historically been dominated and overshadowed by the development platform of the former hospital and the buildings previously situated on this. In the circumstances, I have therefore taken setting of the Listed lock up to be that extending up to the retaining wall of the former hospital which I feel fairly reflects the size and character of the building. (76) The applicants have responded to concerns that the lock up would be overly dominated by amending the design and reducing the scale of the block of flats in a manner which I feel responds more sensitively to the setting of the lock up and is now acceptable. (77) Regarding the impact on the non Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area, dealing first with Twistleton Court I have already advised that I feel that the step down of blocks along the West Hill frontage can be seen to meet the requirements set out in the Planning and Design Brief in connection with this building. (78) Turning to the impact of the development on the character and setting of the fire damaged chapel sited just within the Conservation Area, the applicants shows this as a key feature sited along the southern boundary of the proposed public open space. I am satisfied that in terms of respecting its setting and providing it with a new role that the proposed development passes the tests set out in the adopted planning and development brief. However, the proposed ground floor extensions by providing a wrap around skirt around the whole base of the building would in my view have obscured essential ground floor features forming an intrinsic part of its character and detracting from its appearance as a simple chapel. Rather than pursue the matter at this stage the applicants have requested that the details of the conversion be dealt with by condition and I am satisfied that this represents an appropriate way of safeguarding the position. (79) Regarding the entrance workshops, rather than seek to retain and integrate these buildings into the development, the intention is that they shall be demolished. (80) Given their size, layout and condition I am not convinced that they make such an overriding contribution either individually or collectively to the character and setting of the Conservation Area that their visual contribution cannot be replicated by suitably designed and sited new buildings. I am satisfied that in design and siting terms the proposed buildings will result in an improved aspect to the Conservation Area more than offsetting the loss of the existing buildings. I think that the balance of issues falls in favour of their removal and will not result in a material breach of the adopted planning and development brief or the relevant policies in the adopted local plan and the local plan review. Refurbishment and conversion of Listed Lock up to retail use (81) The Listed lock up is in very poor condition and the work to reinstate it involves, amongst other things, retention of the existing pediment above the main entrance, complete reroofing of the remaining structure, reinstatement of existing doors and windows, enlargement of an existing window on the rear (north facing elevation), the insertion of two new windows either side of the main entrance. The surrounding area is also to be laid out as a garden with a footway from the rear of the building to a parking area served from within the main Agenda Item 4 Page 22
development. The applicants also advise that any fixtures or fittings that relate to the historic character and fabric of the building will be retained in situ. (82) I am satisfied that subject to condition requiring that the detail of the work be agreed with the Conservation Officer beforehand, that in general terms what is proposed should enable the physical fabric of the building to be safeguarded. Conditions relating to the submission of joinery details, use of brick bonds and use of roofing materials will need to be imposed on any Listed Building consent that the Council may see fit to grant. (83) Turning to the principle of the change of use, both policy H2d of the Local Plan Review and also the adopted planning and design brief presume against any retail development on the site. The development brief goes further by stating amongst other things, that local shopping needs generated by the new development can be met locally within West Hill itself and the town centre. As such there is no need for such facilities on site and that allowing retail facilities on site may adversely impact on the vitality and viability of other shops. (84) Notwithstanding the above, all applications must be dealt with on their merits and I am satisfied that as the proposed unit will be small it would be very difficult to make a sustainable case that sales from this unit alone would materially affect the viability of existing shops. Depending on the type of retail this may have a positive affect in increasing local choice not only within the development but also the wider locality. I therefore cannot support objections to the proposal on these grounds. (85) Regarding highway objections to the use, given the nature of West Hill with its parking restrictions and proximity to Town Centre parking I feel that it is more likely that people will visit the premises on foot and I cannot support highway objections to this change of use. Highway and parking considerations (86) Moving onto the detailed highway implications of the proposal, the adopted development brief states that any Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) will need to identify measures to improve the surrounding road infrastructure in particular: - A new signal controlled junction at West Hill/King Edward Avenue and to assess pedestrian crossing facilities at West Hill and how these can be improved and relocation of the bus stop on the south side of West Hill. - Assess need for additional measures to further minimise the use of the roads surrounding the site as "rat runs" and look at additional traffic calming measures - Subject to the outcome of a TIA it may be appropriate for development proposals to make a contribution to the conversion of the Highfield Road South to two-way working. (87) The development brief also advises that the following access considerations will need to be taken into account. - The primary vehicular access into the development should be from King Edward Avenue, not West Hill. - The current access at the southern boundary on West Hill should be closed to vehicular traffic unless it can be demonstrated that this would seriously impair access to the site. Thought should be given to how it might be made into an attractive pedestrian/cycle only access; - A secondary access should be provided at the northern boundary onto Priory Hill to create an emergency access link and to allow access to the garages at the rear of King Edward Avenue. This road should be of a size to allow access by emergency vehicles and should be kept clear of obstructions; and Page 23 Agenda Item 4
- A hierarchy of on-site roads to ensure an efficient flow of traffic both within the site and in the surrounding area without creating a new route for 'rat-running'. The road layout will also need to ensure that the needs of pedestrians and cyclists are provided for before those of the car and be in accordance with Kent Design. (88) The application has been accompanied by a TIA which in essence concludes that subject to the provision of a light controlled junction with West Hill and King Edward Avenue and increasing the width of both West Hill and King Edward Avenue for part of its length, that there is no objection to the proposal on the free flow of traffic or highway safety grounds in its impact on the local road network. (89) Regarding the other requirements of the development brief, the proposal retains the use of the existing access onto Priory Hill both as an access to the development and also for emergency access. The existing access onto West Hill will be stopped off for use by vehicles. It will however serve as a pedestrian access in day to day use and as an alternative emergency access. (90) I am also satisfied that the development subject to the appropriate traffic calming measures, to be agreed with KCC Highway Services, should assist in discouraging rat running traffic through the site while providing a good network of pedestrian and cycle routes through the site. (91) Car parking is being provided at an overall ratio of 1.35 car parking spaces per unit and 1 cycle space per unit with 40 spaces being provided for the health centre, 12 for the school, 3 for the retail use of the lock up and 14 for the nursery. The health centre, school and nursery parking allocation will be available for residential use when the spaces are not required for their identified purpose. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the proposed parking provision both in terms of overall numbers and siting can be seen to meet the broad objectives of the development brief and is acceptable in these respects. However the adopted planning brief required as part of an overall parking strategy that consideration should be given to on site parking restrictions to prevent commuter parking and also to enable a review of existing parking restrictions in neighbouring streets to prevent overspill parking from the development. Though these matters have not been addressed as part of this application, I am satisfied that these can be left to KCC Highway Services to review the need for parking restrictions both within the development and surrounding streets. (92) The development brief also required that in the event of the health centre being located on-site that consideration should be given to allowing use of its parking area by parents at the beginning and end of the school day, in order to reduce the impact of this activity on the local road network. However the applicants consider that this is poorly located to the school while potentially causing conflict with users of the health centre. As an alternative they are proposing 12 dedicated parking bays for dropping off and picking up children with a walk through between houses to a protected crossing point opposite the main school access. The intention is that the parking spaces will be signed to the effect that they are to be used for the school drop off and pick ups though outside when they are required for their designated use they will be available for general visitor parking to the site. (93) Subject to parking restrictions being in force along King Edward Avenue to discourage the possibility of parents dropping off and picking up children around the school access point I am satisfied that the proposed arrangements can be seen to meet the requirements of the adopted development brief. Affordable Housing Provision (94) The applicants are showing affordable housing provision at 30% of the overall development making a total of 72 units. These will be divided into 4 categories being affordable rent, intermediate rent, shared ownership and low cost units for sale. However, I am not satisfied that the applicants have yet shown a housing mix that sufficiently reflects dwelling type with a disproportionate number of flats compared to houses (12 houses and 60 flats). The applicants advise that Hyde Housing Association are supportive of the affordable Agenda Item 4 Page 24
housing approach being proposed nevertheless negotiations are continuing in order to ensure that more houses are affordable and I will update Members at the meeting. Public Open Space (95) The adopted planning and design makes clear the importance of open space bringing with it a requirement, amongst other things, that open space including play space provision should be made on site. The adopted brief requires approximately 0.5 hectares of open space with provision for under 8 and also 8-14 years old on one site to be located within 200 metres of the new dwellings, to provide for natural surveillance and to avoid crossing roads and to be available for local children to make good such deficiencies within the local area. (96) I am satisfied that overall provision can be seen to meet the requirements of the brief and that open space and play areas within the development should not only serve future residents but also supplement existing play and open space provision with the locality to the benefit of the wider community. I am therefore satisfied that both the quantity and quality of public open space provision can be seen to meet the requirements of the adopted planning and development brief and the relevant adopted local plan and local plan review polices and is acceptable. Impact on trees (97) The adopted planning and development brief requires that where possible all trees the subject of tree preservation orders (TPOs) be retained. The proposal involves loss of some protected trees and the applicants have undertaken a detailed tree survey to establish the condition of all trees in order to inform the decision on trees to be retained and those to be felled. (98) Three TPO trees within the site interior are to be felled, two trees immediately abutting the chapel and a single yew tree as a direct result of the development. It is also intended to remove a group of TPO trees that the applicants consider should be felled because they are dead, dying or dangerous. Three other TPO trees are to be felled because of their condition or structural reasons. These are a single holly which is dying back and two sycamore trees that are sited fronting Priory Hill abutting the northern boundary with Twistleton Court. The applicants structural engineer advises these latter two trees should be removed for structural reasons. (99) Though loss of any protected tree is to be regretted, the Landscape Design Officer agrees that the tree groups, making up a mix of stunted trees that are mainly dead, dying or diseased should be felled. His main concern is that the two large horse chestnuts situated centrally within the site and the perimeter planting fronting Priory Hill should be retained. I agree with this assessment and the applicants have retained the two large protected horse chestnuts within an area of open space, while the trees along Priory Hill are also retained. (100) Regarding tree loss along King Edward Avenue, the development brief acknowledges the contribution that this avenue of trees makes to the character of the area and states that the vehicular access onto King Edward Avenue should be located to avoid loss of any of these trees. However this has to be reconciled with other requirements of the development brief which are that primary vehicular access into the development should be from King Edward Avenue and not West Hill. The applicants advise that five frontage trees (all lime trees), will need to be removed on order to enable the necessary road widening and sight lines can be achieved to ensure that the development is acceptable in highway safety and free flow of traffic terms. (101) While I regret the loss of these trees, I am satisfied that in order to bring the development of this site forward in accordance with the terms of the development brief that some tree loss along King Edward Avenue is inevitable. Furthermore I am also satisfied that there is sufficient space between the proposed houses fronting King Edward Avenue and the flank of the proposed health centre and the road to enable replacement planting to be undertaken that will over time replicate the visual contribution of the trees to be lost. Page 25 Agenda Item 4
Community facilities (102) The adopted planning and design brief seeks on site provision of the health centre. The Primary Care Trust (PCT) who have responded by advising that they welcome the commitment to a new medical centre and are keen to promote an integrated model of health and social care provision rather than remaining with the older model. The PCT are continuing to develop plans to this effect and hope that the applicants can work with them in bringing these to fruition. (103) The applicants advise that they are happy to enter into a s106 agreement to secure the ultimate implementation of the health centre and I am satisfied that this is achievable. (104) Regarding replacement of the Red Cross Centre, the intention is that this will be provided as part of the new health centre. However, given the uncertainty over when this will be provided it is essential the Red Cross building and facilities are not resited until new facilities are ready and waiting for occupation. This is a matter that should, in my opinion, be made the subject of a s106 agreement if permission were to be granted. (105) Regarding contributions to KCC to meet the requirement for additional education, library and social services provision generated as a consequence of the development, the applicants advise that having given the matter further consideration they feel that a developer contribution of £340,000 towards social service provision cannot be justified while making the development unviable. They argue that in other areas in Kent of developer contributions are being sought for education and libraries and not for social service provision in Dartford. Where social service contributions are being sought for Eastern Quarry or Swanscombe Peninsula these will be large settlements where there are no existing services and such sites allow high levels of contributions to be absorbed. They argue that the site is close to the town where there are existing services while the proposal also makes provision for a health centre. Development of West Hill will incur significant abnormal costs in excess of £2,763, 000 and in addition to the health centre, the applicants will also be providing 30% affordable housing. They conclude that he development appraisal taking into account the KCC community contributions indicates that the requisite profit margin cannot be met. (106) I understand that the applicants and KCC are continuing their negotiations into the level of Social Service contributions and I will update Members on how this is proceeding at the meeting. Other issues Security (107) Police concerns about the permeability of the development can be seen to conflict with one of the aims of the planning and development brief seeking to maximise opportunities for people to walk/cycle through the development. Their key concern, which I shared, was that there was inadequate distinction between public and private spaces leading to people entering parts of the development not intended to fall within the public domain. (108) The applicants response to this has been to suggest a range of measures including additional lighting to pedestrian routes and entrances, additional windows overlooking community areas, low level gardens wall and fences, use of landscaping and types of surfacing to differentiate and to discourage people from straying from what is clearly public space into what is more private areas of the development. I am satisfied that such an approach represents a proportionate response to this issue and could be dealt with by conditions. (109) A further consideration is that many of the terraced houses have side and rear access points which if not gated could permit unauthorized access to be gained to the rear making them vulnerable to crime. A condition could be imposed requiring the provision of locked gates at these points for security. Agenda Item 4 Page 26
(110) I am therefore satisfied that it is possible to balance the need for security with the other aspirations for this site and that the applicants have demonstrated an acceptable approach in reconciling these issues. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (111) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSIONS (112) My main reservation to the proposal is that private open space provision for many of the flats fails to meet the quality standards required as part of policy H10 of the adopted local plan and policy H8 of the Local Plan Review. In my view, this symptomatic of an excessive number of units and this leads me to the conclusion that as its stands the proposal represents cramped and overcrowded development. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal 01 Proposed private open space serving many of the flats will be subjected to excessive overlooking and overshadowing while that area allocated to serve the block of flats to the north of the Listed Lock up will additionally be exposed to road traffic noise from vehicles using West Hill. It is therefore considered that this will result in a cramped and overcrowded form of development resulting in a poor physical environment for future occupants of the proposed flats. The proposal is therefore considered to materially breach the requirements of policy H10 of the adopted local plan, policies DD1, DD11, H2d and H8 of the Local Plan Review and the planning and design brief for the West Hill Hospital site adopted as supplementary planning guidance by the Borough Council in September 2003 and subsequently amended in April 2004. Page 27 Agenda Item 4
Application No: : 05/00283/FUL Address : Former West Hill Hospital Site West Hill Dartford Kent Date: 30 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank Page 29 Agenda Item 5
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00516/FUL Officer: Mrs B Lidster Location: 39 Highfield Road Dartford Kent DA1 2JT Proposal: Application for the Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DA/01/00276/COU in respect of increasing the number of persons allowed from 50 to 80 persons on Fridays between 1200 noon & 1400 hours Applicant: North West Kent Muslim Association Agent: Robin F Clark & Co 198 Parrock Street Gravesend Kent DA12 1EW Date Valid: 25/05/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Town RECOMMENDATION: Refusal SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Central Business Area of Dartford. (2) Local Plan Review - Town Centre Policy Area SITE DESCRIPTION (3) No. 39 is a detached 2 storey property. It is located on the west side of Highfield Road in a row of similarly proportioned detached or semi-detached buildings which have either remained in residential use or have been converted into a range of office uses. (4) To the rear of the property is a 20m long area of hardstanding used as a car park. This abuts another car parking area to the north and to the south is the private residential garden at a lower level to No. 41. Further west across Summerhill Road are more residential properties. PROPOSAL (5) The proposal is to vary Condition 4 of a previous planning permission to allow more people to attend the site on Friday lunchtimes between 12:00 and 14:00. The existing permission restricts the number of people at the site to 50 and this proposal seeks to increase this figure to 80. Agenda Item 5 Page 30
(6) Condition 04 of Planning Permission DA/01/00276/COU currently reads as follows: 'The premises shall be used for prayer meetings for no more than 50 persons on Fridays only between the hours of 12:00 noon and 14:00 hours. At all other times prayer meetings and other activities shall be limited to allow no more than 20 persons on the premises at any given time.' (7) There is currently no restriction on the hours of use of the premises. RELEVANT HISTORY (8) The change of use of the ground floor rooms from residential to offices was approved in 1954, and the change of use of the first floor rooms was similarly converted after a 1958 permission. (9) In 1989 planning permission was granted for a two storey extension at the rear but this was never implemented. (10) In April 2000 permission was refused for the change of use of the property from offices to meeting rooms together with an external fire escape staircase on the side elevation and erection of a conservatory. The grounds of refusal were based on the potential level of noise and disturbance generated by visitors (maximum 77) which would cause a detrimental impact on adjacent residents and the potential loss of privacy from such a large body of people gathering at the front and rear of the site at meeting time. (11) Planning permission for the change of use of the premises to Class D1 (Muslim Cultural Centre) for prayer meetings and associated activities together with the erection of a rear conservatory and provision of rear access disabled ramp was granted in October 2001 under reference DA/01/00275/COU. The change of use has been implemented as has the rear access ramp; however the rear conservatory has never been erected. (12) Planning permission for a two storey rear extension was submitted in August 2004 but Members have deferred making a decision until issues relating to the numbers are resolved. (13) This application was deferred from the 18 August 2005 Development Control Board meeting. Members requested that Officers, the applicant, local residents and Councillors meet to discuss the possibility of revising the hours of operation, number and duration of permission should planning permission be granted to vary this condition. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (14) Kent Highways Services - Increase in numbers is 30, therefore an increase of 6 additional parking spaces could be required. Facility is close to Town Centre and public transport links but car parks are well used and on street parking in the area are limited. No supporting information regarding usage of public transport whereas evidence submitted by local residents suggests that own car park is over used and poorly managed. Applicant needs to support request with a travel survey of people attending on Fridays identifying where the persons journey originates, how they travel and if by car where they park. Survey should be carried out for at least three consecutive Fridays. (15) Further comments as a result of the traffic survey - Some sheets have been duplicated and some answers are ambiguous which places doubt on interpretation. Wide range of people attending the premises but this could be due to time of year with holidays etc. Maximum recorded visitors are 51, but due to the nature of the questions it could be more. The question was how many passengers in the car so was the driver included or not? In terms of the analysis if the figure was zero it was changed to one but all figures were otherwise left as the form was completed so the number attending could have been higher. The evidence submitted would suggest that the people using the premises are generally finding adequate parking provision in the local area. A travel plan could be requested and this may have some benefit. The figures show that for the additional 30 people an additional 14 spaces would be required within the local area. Ideally this needs a survey of local car parks Page 31 Agenda Item 5
and a tour of local roads on a Friday and they are unable to do this before the first Friday in August. If they are yo rely on instinct then it is unlikely that a reason for refusal could be sustained at appeal on highways grounds. (16) Environmental Health Services Manager - Recommends that the variation of the condition is refused. Noise generated from building is from people coming and going and these types of noise are not covered by legislation and have no powers to control the level of noise generated. Increase in numbers may cause parking problems and only limited parking in the area. If permission is granted an assessment is made to ensure adequate toilet facilities are provided for the increase in numbers. The application should be referred to the Fire Officer to check the occupancy of the building. (17) Kent Fire and Rescue Service - An inspection was made on 27 April 2005 where the occupiers have been informed that they strongly advise that a risk assessment is carried out. This is not a workplace and as such they can only advise that a risk assessment is done as the owners have a duty of care to users of the premises. A draft schedule was prepared in that at present the maximum occupancy should not exceed 50 persons but it would be acceptable to increase this number to 80 persons subject to certain provisos, set out in the draft schedule, which include the front door being re-hung to open in the direction of escape, a platform being provided etc. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (18) 17 letters of objection and three petitions containing 32 signatures have been received objecting to the proposal with one letter in support from Dr Howard Stoate MP. (19) Dr Stoate comments that the application has been put forward in response to the recent growth in the numbers; centre attracts up to 80 people; the premises can accommodate the number comfortably and conform with Health and Safety requirements; Kent Fire and Rescue state it would be acceptable if the main door is re-hung which understands has now been done; town centre location and level of usage is reasonable; adequate parking and sufficient public transport links are available; association will carry out transport survey; and Enforcement Officer has stated that he has not seen anything to suggest that this number has a significant adverse impact on the locality. (20) The letters of objection and the petition raise objections stating the existing condition were set in accordance with Councils own recommendation in 2001; users of facility should comply with existing conditions before any changes made; breaches are happening every day; understand that whole condition can be revised in which case needs to be changed to prevent use at unsocial hours; suggest only 10% increase in numbers; noise problems arise from large numbers of people congregating at the property; parking problems already exist; even if 80 people allowed more would attend and enforcement in Magistrates Courts would be difficult; trustees do not control numbers at the property; even if 80 allowed this would still need to be enforced and Council do not have the capability to supervise and enforce outside office hours; Council have failed in its duty to set conditions to protect local residents and they should be re-negotiated; how can the applicants apply to vary conditions when neighbours and the Council cannot; property is inadequate for their needs; numbers in excess of 50 would create a health, safety and fire hazard. (21) Additional comments have been received as a result of the traffic survey and neighbours comment that applicants claim noise has been reduced as car park has been resurfaced, this is not the case as only half has been resurfaced; still noise from stereos, doors slamming engines revving horns bleeping and conversations; applicants claim chain and lock is used when car park full which is not the case; survey of 1/07/05 shows 83 people attended which is in breach of their condition; numbers on 8/07/05 and 15/07/05 show 57 and 66 don't recall numbers ever being this low on a Friday; question validity of self survey; none mention parking in Summerhill Road but users regularly park there; visitors claim to travel by bus but buses don't cater for all prayer times; drivers claim to park in Sainsbury's car park but this is not open between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.; DBC web site shows parking should be 1 space for 5 Agenda Item 5 Page 32
members of congregation therefore for 50 people they require 10 spaces and for 80 they require 16. (22) A letter has been sent to Dr Stoate and has been copied to the Council to be treated as a further objection to the proposal. The letter outlines the numerous problems at the premises including the numbers of visitors to the premises exceeding that permitted by the planning conditions; hours of use of the premises; failure of the Council to act on the breaches of condition; level of parking required; research from other Councils with similar applications; offers solutions to rectify the situation including revoking the existing planning permission and encouraging purchase of premises away from residential properties; judicial review; complaints to the ombudsman; legal action against the council regarding breach of human rights; and the Council to make Council offices available for prayer meetings. (23) Details of three further letters were reported in the update to the August meeting. One advises that the letter will be dealt with when the objector returns from holiday. The second states that they do not wish to speak but supports anyone who speaks against the proposal; the cultural centre is used by more than 50 people at all hours of day and night; proposal should be to close the place down and revert to residential; should find purpose built property in a non residential area. The third letter is a copy of a letter sent to Dr Stoate regarding his support of the proposal. They comment that there are more than 80 people using the Mosque on a regular basis; they don't understand how he can support something which is in breach of rules; there is inadequate parking and unsuitable premises; the use of the building is impacting on health and they want peace and quiet at night. (24) The points raised relate more to the use of the building at night rather than the impact of the increase in numbers on Friday afternoons. These points have already been addressed in the report. RELEVANT POLICIES (25) Local Plan Policy H12 relates to residential amenity and states that proposals being incompatible with the residential function of existing housing areas or which adversely affect their amenity or which are otherwise un-neighbourly in planning terms will not be permitted. (26) Local Plan Policy T19 relates to traffic generation and states that proposals for development will not normally be permitted where they are not appropriately related to the highway network or they generate volumes of traffic in excess of the highway network. Policy T22 relates to the need for adequate on site parking to accommodate potential visitors to the site resulting from the change of use. (27) Local Plan Policy B1 gives criteria against which all new developments should be assessed so as not to have a detrimental effect on the local area. (28) Local Plan Policy CF3 gives encouragement and support to the provision of social, community educational and cultural facilities itemising various criteria against which proposals should be assessed. (29) The thrust of these policies is carried through in Policies H7, T7, DD11 and CF1 of the Local Plan Review. (30) Local Plan Review Policy TC7 supports development proposals for redevelopment or changes of use to use classes A2 and B1 whereby they 1) are of a scale and mass that is compatible with surrounding properties, 2) is in accordance with the Council's standards and 3) result in no adverse impact on surrounding uses. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS KEY ISSUES Page 33 Agenda Item 5
(31) The use of this property as a community centre was established by the grant of permission in 2001 as it was not considered that this religious prayer meeting room use inappropriate in this mixed area of residential and commercial use close to the Town Centre and public car parks and principal transport routes. Adopted Local Plan and Review Policies are supportive of community uses within such areas. (32) The neighbours have raised a number of issues regarding breaches of conditions, hours of use of the premises, noise and disturbance etc. Whilst these are all relevant to the property they are not necessarily all relevant to this application. (33) This application has come about as a result of enforcement action regarding the breach of condition concerning the number of people attending the premises on Friday's between 12:00 and 14:00. The proposal is to vary the condition to allow an increase in numbers from 50 to 80 on Fridays between 12:00 and 14:00 hours. (34) The key issues are therefore the impact of such an increase in numbers on the neighbouring residential properties; whether the premises is suitable for such an increase in use; and whether there is adequate parking for the additional use. Impact on neighbouring properties (35) The proposal seeks to increase the number of visitors to the premises by some 30 people during the hours of 12:00 to 14:00 on Fridays. A previous application (DA/00/00156/COU) for the change of use of the premises to a Muslim Cultural Centre was refused due to the number of potential visitors on a Friday which at that time was indicated to be 77. The reasons for refusal were the potential level of noise and disturbance generated by the number of visitors in a concentrated period of time. (36) This application seeks to accommodate more visitors than the refused application and therefore need to consider whether there has been a significant change in policy or circumstances which overcomes the original grounds of refusal. (37) The adjacent property is still in residential use and the owner has objected to this proposal based on the noise and disturbance that they currently experience and additionally due to the damage to their garage to the rear adjacent to the car park for No. 39. (38) The proposal would involve a large number of people congregating at the site before and after the meeting and as such it would in my opinion generate an unacceptable level of noise, disturbance and loss of privacy for the occupiers of the adjacent residential dwellings. (39) The Local Plan was adopted in 1995 and the second deposit draft of the review local plan is dated September 2002. Therefore the adopted plan was in place when the 2000 application was refused. There are no significant changes in the review local plan that might affect consideration of this application. (40) I therefore consider that there has not been any significant change in either policy or circumstances which overcomes the previous grounds for refusal. Suitability of premises (41) Kent Fire and Rescue Service have advised that the premises are acceptable for use by 80 people subject to certain provisos. (42) I am given to understand that the provision of a door opening away from the direction of escape has already been put into place. (43) I have contacted the Health and Safety Executive and have been advised verbally that they have no control over numbers of people attending a place of worship. Agenda Item 5 Page 34
(4 4) The Councils Environmental Health Services Manager raises objection to the proposal on the grounds of noise complaints though this appears to relate to night time use of the premises not for the Friday lunchtime use. (45) The provision of adequate toilet facilities at the premises is not something which can be controlled under planning legislation and would be for others to pursue should Members be minded to granted permission for the increased number of visitors. Parking (46) The Council takes advice on parking matters from Kent Highways Services and they feel that there are no highways grounds to refuse the application. (47) This is a Town Centre location where there are adequate car parks within walking distance of the premises with good transport links close by. I therefore consider that it is not unreasonable to assume that some of the additional visitors will use these facilities and not rely on parking at the site. Result of meeting (48) Representatives of The North West Kent Muslim Association (the applicants), three local residents, a Ward Mmeber and Officers met on 15 September 2005 to discuss the way forward. (49) Those attending agreed that it was useful to meet to try and achieve a workable compromise for the numbers and hours of use of this property. There was a lot of discussion regarding noise and disturbance late at night; parking problems; excessive numbers attending the premises at all times of the day and night. (50) The applicants and local residents were asked to consider what hours would be appropriate and to write in with details. (51) A representative of the North West Kent Muslim Association telephoned to say that they would be happy if they were restricted to 06:00 to 23:00 hours daily. He was requested to submit this in writing. (52) One of the local residents has undertaken a survey of neighbours and has advised that the general feeling would be for the centre to operate from 08:00 to 20:00 hours daily. They also pointed out that residents were in favour of double yellow lines along the eastern side of Summerhill Road and for residents parking only (although there was concern regarding the cost of residents parking permits and whether they would be available to residents in Highfield Road). Local businesses were not in favour of residents parking and were primarily concerned with parking on Fridays and would rather see the application refused. (53) Various other suggestions were put forward including raising the height of pavements; making Summerhill Road one way; shutting the school gates to prevent people parking in the school car park; shutting Miskin Road where it joins Summerhill Road to reduce through traffic and requesting the applicants to be more respectful of residents in the morning and night. (54) The applicants have not put anything in writing but a letter has been received from a firm of Solicitors who state that they are acting for the applicants. Unfortunately I have not received any confirmation from the applicants that the solicitors are acting on their behalf and this has been requested. (55) The Solicitors have advised that their clients would need the centre to be open from 05:30 to 23:00 hours daily from January to May and from September until December. For the remaining three months, June to August they would want the centre to be open from 05:30 to 23:30 hours daily. They would also want the numbers to increase to 80 for all times not just the Friday lunchtimes currently being considered. Page 35 Agenda Item 5
(56) This is a substantial alteration to the current proposal and as such the local residents would need to be re-consulted if the application were to be formally amended in this way. (57) As previously stated I am of the opinion that such a large number of people congregating at the premises at any one time would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential properties, in terms of noise and disturbance, to the detriment of their residential amenities. Given that the applicants are looking to increase this number on a permanent basis I do not consider that the small concession in terms of hours of use would outweigh the additional harm to neighbouring residential properties. (58) Members should be aware that the Council's Enforcement Officer has been monitoring the site on Friday lunchtimes to see the numbers attending between 12:00 and 14:00 hours. I can confirm that the numbers have exceeded the permitted limit on Friday 11 November 2005 (135) and 18 November 2005 (131) and indeed the number far exceeded what the applicants are applying for. (59) The Enforcement Officer is hoping to monitor the situation for the next two Fridays and the results of this will be reported in the update. (60) At this time I am waiting for confirmation that the Solicitors are acting for the applicants and whether they wish to vary the condition to allow 80 people at any time (not just on a Friday between 12:00 and 14:00 hours). HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (61) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (62) Whilst the parking survey could potentially identify a problem with regards to additional parking provision, based on the experience of Kent Highways Services I am satisfied that there are no significant reasons to refuse the application on highways grounds. (63) Given that the increase in numbers is now proposed to be at any time, I consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance to an unacceptable degree. It is clear that the applicant's requirements in terms of numbers and hours of operation are some way apart from the resident's aspirations. I think it would be difficult draw up planning conditions that satisfy all parties but also meet the necessary tests set out in Government advice. I therefore recommend that permission to vary the existing condition be refused. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal 01 The proposed increase in numbers from 50 to 80 people would lead to an increase in level of noise and disturbance which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of adjacent properties contrary to Policies H12, B1 and CF3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Polices DD11 and CF1 of the Dartford Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft. Agenda Item 5 Page 36
02 The level of activity generated by such a large body of people in seeking access to/egress from the site and the potential for congregating to the front and rear of the property will result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for those occupiers of residential properties adjacent to the application site contrary to Policies H12, B1 and CF3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Polices DD11 and CF1 of the Dartford Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft. Page 37 Agenda Item 5
Application No: : 05/00516/FUL Address : 39 Highfield Road Dartford Kent DA1 2JT Date: 28 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 38
This page is intentionally left blank Page 39 Agenda Item 6
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 04/01247/FUL Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: Land South Of Bob Dunn Way At The Roundabout Junction Opposite Joyce Green Lane Dartford Proposal: Construction of a new link road and access from University Way roundabout, south to the GlaxoSmithKline site plus provision for future access to Joyce Green Lane Applicant: GlaxoSmithKline Plc Agent: Turnberry Consulting Limited 41-43 Maddox Street London W1S 2PD Date Valid: 23/12/2004 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Joyce Green RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Economic Development Site (Policy E2). (2) Local Plan Review - Employment Development Site (Policies E1 and E2); Fastrack (Policy T1); Other Safeguarded Transport Schemes (Policy T3). SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The land subject to the application extends from the existing roundabout on Bob Dunn Way (formerly University Way) in a southerly direction towards the existing GlaxoSmithKline site. To the east exists residential development along Joyce Green Lane, and to the west lie private farmland and the Dartford Fresh Marshes. PROPOSAL (4) The proposed development involves the construction of a new link road from the Bob Dunn Way roundabout southwards to link with the GlaxoSmithKline site. Provision for a future link to Joyce Green Lane will also be made. Physical barriers will prevent any unofficial use of this link. (5) Along the link road, 100 metres separates the roundabout on Bob Dunn Way with a new roundabout to be installed at the 90 degree bend in Joyce Green Lane. The section of road between Bob Dunn Way and the new roundabout is to be adopted highway, and the roundabout will form a turning facility for traffic that has entered this length of road in error. To the east a bell mouth will be formed to allow for the proposed future link for Fastrack vehicles, Agenda Item 6 Page 40
which would then access 'The Bridge' development via the bridge over Bob Dunn Way. To the south a private road would serve the GlaxoSmithKline site. To the west is a minor access for the maintenance vehicles that require access to the riverbank. RELEVANT HISTORY (6) The concept of a northern access road to the GlaxoSmithKline site was first put forward more than a decade ago. The northern portion of the subject land was safeguarded under Policy T3 of the Local Plan Review for the construction of future access to the Dartford Fresh Marshes. In addition, a portion of the area between the GlaxoSmithKline site and Joyce Green Lane has been set aside as a potential site for future expansion of the Fastrack bus system under Policy T1 of the Local Plan Review. The initial idea of the proposal was to allow more appropriate vehicle access to the GlaxoSmithKline site with an emphasis on directing traffic away from Dartford town centre as well as providing vehicular access for future development of Dartford Fresh Marshes and a future access for the Fastrack public transport scheme. (7) The proposed road was first approved in two sections during 1993 under reference DA/093/00148/FUL and DA/93/00149/FUL. These proposals were renewed during 1998 under reference DA/98/00919/FUL and DA/98/00920/FUL. These two components formed an access road, which was initially situated slightly to the west of the current road layout. However, a number of factors, including design considerations and land ownership issues, has resulted in the amendment of the proposal and the lodgement of the current application. (8) It is also worth noting that outline permission was granted in 2002 for the development of the area immediately to the west of the proposed link road. Permission was granted for a development of B1, B2 and B8 uses under reference DA/96/00374/OUT. The approved development was for some 46,500m² of floorspace but restricted to a single pharmaceutical occupant. That permission has now lapsed but an application for renewal has been received, reference DA/05/00885/OUT. This is currently held in abeyance pending the submission of additional information by the applicant. (9) This application was deferred from the November Development Control Board meeting to allow a Members site meeting to take place. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (10) Kent Highway Services: No objections. (11) Thames Water: No objections. (12) Environmental Health Services Manager: suggests conditions relating to hours of construction and the prohibition of bonfires. (13) Kent County Council Area Public Rights of Way Officer: Public Right of Way Bridleway DB4 runs adjacent to the side of this property and may be affected by the application. No works can be undertaken on a Public Right of Way without the express consent of the Highways Authority. The Public Right of Way must not be stopped up, diverted or obstructed or the surface disturbed. (14) Environment Agency: Insufficient information has been supplied and therefore an objection is lodged until such time that additional details have been submitted. (15) Following discussions between the applicants and the Environment Agency, the objection was removed and a number of conditions suggested instead. These related to: surface water drainage, channel re-profiling, a water vole survey, cross sections of the new channel, vegetation of the new channel, and a reptile survey. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION Page 41 Agenda Item 6
(16) The application was initially advertised as providing a link road to Joyce Green Lane. Following concerns raised during neighbour notification and a preliminary assessment, the applicant was requested to make amendments. A reconsultation period then commenced clarifying the fact that the link between the new proposed roundabout and Joyce Green Lane was only for the possible future provision and would not form part of this submission. (17) During the initial consultation period 45 submissions were received from 43 authors (note that 2 people submitted more than one letter). One letter offered support for the application, with the remainder objecting to the scheme for the following reasons: - concern that the development will provide a short cut between the Town Centre and Bob Dunn Way; - signs will not prevent the use of the new roundabout and Joyce Green Lane by vehicles taking short cuts through to Temple Hill or the Town Centre; - significant increase in pollution, noise and disturbance caused by vehicles using the road; - increased traffic is likely to result in safety issues and increased damage to parked vehicles; - Joyce Green Lane is not wide enough for buses when cars are parked on the kerb; - concern over boundary fencing and the maintenance of pedestrian access; - potential impact of street lighting on nearby residential development; - loss of rural look and recreation opportunities; - the adjoining farmer uses an access onto Bob Dunn Way. The proposed link will make the use of this long-established access unsafe. The design of the access should be as previously approved. (18) Following a re-consultation period, a further 11 submissions were received. Many of these were from the authors of the original submissions and similar areas of concern were noted. RELEVANT POLICIES (19) In the Adopted Local Plan, Policy E2 states that the subject site is identified for development as an area predominantly for classes B2 and B8 and associated B1 uses. Amongst other things, proposals should incorporate appropriate access arrangements and demonstrate that before the development comes into use, adequate transport capacity will be available to serve the development land. Policy B1 applies to all development proposals. (20) In the Local Plan Review, Policy E1 states that 58,000 square metres of land at Dartford Fresh Marshes are reserved for business, general industrial, storage or distribution uses (use classes B1, B2 and B8). Policy E2 indicates that proposals will only be permitted if, amongst other things, they incorporate suitable access arrangements onto University Way (now Bob Dunn Way) in such a manner that it does not provide a through vehicular link with the town centre. Policy T3 states that development will not be permitted on this land if it would be likely to prejudice the implementation of an access to Dartford Fresh Marshes from Bob Dunn Way. Policy T1 safeguards land for the Fastrack transport scheme. Policy DD11 applies to all development proposals. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (21) The key considerations relate to the principle of the link road and whether the circumstances have changed since the last permission in 2000; the impact on neighbouring residential properties and the environment; the acceptability of the link between the new road and Joyce Green Lane and; the impact on the existing access from the Bob Dunn Way roundabout onto the adjoining farmland. Principle of the Link Road (22) The site has been the subject of a number of applications in the past for a link road from the Bob Dunn Way roundabout into the northern side of the GlaxoSmithKline site, and also, in Agenda Item 6 Page 42
the wider context, an access into the adjacent site to the west, which has been reserved, and is the subject of a pending submission for development. Policy T3 and E2 of the Local Plan Review 2002 are both supportive of highway improvements to include an access from the subject roundabout on Bob Dunn Way and the site under GlaxoSmithKline's ownership that is the subject of the pending submission for development. (23) The proposals therefore remain compliant in terms of the site-specific policies and also Policy T20 of the adopted Local Plan, which relates to the formation of new accesses onto primary distributor roads and from the standpoint of making adequate provision for pedestrians and the retention of the bridleway in accordance with Policies T27 and T31. The Capacity Analysis submitted with the application shows that the Bob Dunn Way roundabout has adequate capacity to cope with the expected number of vehicles that will be serving the new development at the Fresh Marshes. The Environmental Impact in Traffic Generation Terms (24) These proposals are, in my view, of great environmental benefit to the town as a whole. It is apparent that by constructing this link road a significant proportion of GlaxoSmithKline generated traffic from their existing site will be removed from the town centre. I am satisfied that the proposed road is designed to a standard and capacity to adequately cope with future traffic movement with ready access to Bob Dunn Way. (25) The scheme as proposed has been the result of pre-application discussions between the applicants, the Local Planning Authority and Kent Highway Services. The application should be viewed against the alternative and far less satisfactory continued use of Central Road by all GlaxoSmithKline traffic and the increasing adverse impacts on town centre roads. (26) There have been concerns expressed by local residents that the access through to Central Road could be used a short cut for all motorists. The previously approved permissions were conditioned so that prior to initial use of the private road, details were to be agreed of measures designed to exclude its use by traffic other than that generated by the applicant. I would intend to use such a condition in this circumstance, should Members be content with all other aspects of this application. (27) In terms of the footway and cycleway, this is to be retained, and in fact a far safer arrangement will be put in place, as streetlights are to be provided along the adopted section (between Bob Dunn Way and the new roundabout). It is also likely that streetlights will be provided along the private access, possibly encouraging further use of the existing Public Right of Way. The Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (28) A number of local residents have expressed their concern that the road with a possible access onto Joyce Green Lane will result in safety issues, damage to parked vehicles and a short cut through to Dartford Town Centre. This application is not for an open access onto Joyce Green Lane. For now, a 0.6m high bund is proposed and this can be retained at all times. The condition should also acknowledge the possibility of Fastrack utilising the access in the future, in which case, details should be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority that would show how a controlled barrier system could be installed to ensure that only Fastrack vehicles use the access from the new roundabout into Joyce Green Lane. (29) If Members considered that the 0.6m high bund suggested by the applicant is unacceptable and that a more obvious physical barrier should be installed then it is possible to include a condition requesting that such details be submitted and approved prior to the first use of the link road. (30) These Fastrack vehicles would then serve the new development at Dartford Fresh Marshes and possibly carry on via Central Road and Wellcome Avenue, again using a controlled barrier system to ensure that no unauthorised vehicles use the route. There appears to be no justification for this access to be opened up to all vehicles, and I fully Page 43 Agenda Item 6
support the view of neighbouring residents in that respect. The precise alignment of Fastrack in the vicinity is yet to be resolved, but I am satisfied that this proposal (the principle of which predates Fastrack) would not prejudice implementation of an acceptable Fastrack scheme. Impact of the Link Road on Existing Access to Adjacent Farmland (31) The owner of the adjacent farmland has objected to this application on grounds that it will increase the danger of using an existing established access onto Bob Dunn Way. The owner suggests that the access is constantly in use and that it is already dangerous, given the speed at which traffic arrives at the roundabout from the east. (32) Following initial concerns about the apparent closing up of this access, it was suggested that a new access to the farmland be considered from the new link road. This should also address any concerns the farmer had about the safety of his existing access. Unfortunately this has proved non-negotiable between the landowners and has now resulted in the site plan being revised to include the retention of the farmer's access immediately adjacent to the access for the new link road. (33) Kent Highway Services are content with this suggestion. If, as the objector suggests, his access is already dangerous, the provision of a much more obvious and busier access in the form of a link road should slow down any traffic entering the junction from the east. As part of the highway improvements, streetlights are to be provided along the adopted section. In addition to this, the approach lanes will be resurfaced with high PSV surfacing material. At the present time the existing farmer's access is a relatively concealed access, and I am of the strong view that the changes to the highway will increase its presence. Landscaping (34) The landscaping proposals included have been designed to reduce the visual impact of the road itself and of any future Fresh Marsh development. It has also been designed to improve the habitat diversity of the immediately adjoining marshland fringe by way of realignment and associated works to the adjacent drainage ditch. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (35) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSIONS (36) In my opinion, this link road is necessary for the development of the Dartford Fresh Marshes. Both sites have been reserved for such development for approximately 15 years. I do not believe that there have been any material changes in circumstances since 2000. (37) Through the use of suitable conditions it is possible to ensure that the link road is only used by vehicles accessing the GlaxoSmithKline site. Similarly, the same applies to the link between the new roundabout and Joyce Green Lane so that only Fastrack vehicles can travel between the two. Site-specific policies support this proposal, and I therefore recommend approval of this application. RECOMMENDATION: Approval Agenda Item 6 Page 44
01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The proposed road and footpaths shall be constructed in accordance with the specification of the County Highway Authority for the construction of new streets and, before the development hereby permitted is commenced, detailed plans and sections showing full engineering details including gradients and method of surface water disposal shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 02 To ensure the private road is constructed to a suitable standard. 03 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a satisfactory scheme detailing the channel reprofiling / re-alignment has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include cross sections demonstrating the shape of the new channel and remedial works that will benefit water voles and other wildlife associated with the ditch network. 03 To ensure that there is no net loss in channel length, that there is no increase in flood risk to the surrounding area, and that water vole habitat is appropriately mitigated in the design. 04 Full details of the landscaping proposals hereby approved together with details of additional planting of open land within the applicant company's ownership comprising the site of the former Temple Farm Cottages and to the east of the approved private link road shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on the site and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the completion of the development and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season. 04 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality. 05 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance. 05 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Page 45 Agenda Item 6
06 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 No materials shall be burnt on site during construction of the development. 07 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 08 Prior to initial use of the private road south of Joyce Green Lane details shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and implemented to its satisfaction of measures designed to exclude its use by traffic other than that solely generated by GlaxoSmithKline. 08 To accord with the expressed intention and in the interest of appropriate traffic management and amenity. 09 The construction of the private road shall be fully completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to its initial use for conveying traffic between Bob Dunn Way and GlaxoSmithKline's site. 09 To safeguard amenities and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1 of the Adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 The 0.6m high bund at the entrance to Joyce Green Lane shall remain in place at all times, unless Fastrack require the access, in which case, prior to the access being opened, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of a controlled barrier system that shall only allow access to Joyce Green Lane by Fastrack vehicles. Upon approval this shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 10 To safeguard the amenities of the locality and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 11 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the applicant shall conduct a full water vole survey between the months of April and October, and develop a mitigation strategy in accordance with details to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the details therein to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 11 In the interests of nature conservation and to ensure the appropriate protection of water vole habitats under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. INFORMATIVES Agenda Item 6 Page 46
01 The applicant's attention is drawn to the informative comments and recommendations contained in the Environment Agency's letter of 10 June 2005. 02 The applicant's attention is drawn to the informative comments and recommendations contained in Thames Water's letter of 7 April 2005. Page 47 Agenda Item 6
Application No: : 04/01247/FUL Address : Land South Of Bob Dunn Way At The Roundabout Junction Opposite Joyce Green Lane Dartford Date: 25 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank Page 49 Agenda Item 7
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00968/FUL Officer: Miss Emma Jefferys Location: Rear Garden Of 182 Heath Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2TN Proposal: Erection of a part two/part single storey detached 3 bedroom house with associated car parking and landscaping Applicant: Mr D Fry Agent: Ward Associates The Hoo Hook Green Wrotham Road Meopham Kent DA13 0HP Date Valid: 27/09/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Heath RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policy (2) Local Plan Review - No site specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) No. 182 Heath Lane is a two storey semi-detached property. The rear garden is 87 metres in length and is 870 sq. m. The area of the application site takes up approximately half of this garden. The surrounding area is characterised by a variety of styles and types of residential properties. (4) The private road to the application site is accessed from Vale Road. There are six houses that use this private access, two of which are currently under construction. At least four of these houses are infill developments, similar to the proposed dwelling. PROPOSAL (5) The proposed dwelling would front onto the private access from Vale Road. The front of the dwelling would have two storeys and the rear half would be single storey to account for the levels of the site, the private road being at a much lower level than Heath Lane. The height of the roof would be equal to the neighbouring property, Amelanchier. Agenda Item 7 Page 50
(6) The proposed dwelling would have 3 bedrooms, a study, utility room, an open plan lounge/kitchen/dining room, two bathrooms and two en-suites. There would also be three parking spaces provided to the front. The rear garden would be approximately 210 sq. m. RELEVANT HISTORY (7) This item was deferred from the last Development Control Board meeting for a site meeting on 3rd December 2005. (8) The planning approval for the two dwellings currently under construction adjacent to the application site is referenced DA/04/00434/FUL. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (9) Kent County Council Highways Services: No objections to this proposal. The access is private and will remain so. The size of the access is suitable for this level of development and there are adequate passing places. The one metre footpath would provide a safe area for pedestrians when considering the limited traffic generation which would be between approximately 60 to 100 vehicles a day. On site turning is adequate for cars and access for refuse vehicles is feasible. (10) Environmental Health Services Manager: No objections but recommend restricting the hours of construction and no waste to be burnt on site. (11) Thames Water: No objections. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (12) Eight letters of objection have been received from the residents of Nos. 25, 27, and 33 Coniston Close, Vidella, Amelanchier, Lyndhurst and Hemmick. The main areas of concern are: the impact on residential amenities in terms of overshadowing and overlooking; the overdevelopment of this area in relation to increased traffic on the private access; the impact on the structural stability of their properties once work is underway; the proposed development would devalue their property and; views would be blighted. These final 3 points are not material planning considerations. RELEVANT POLICIES (13) Policies B1 of the adopted Local Plan and DD11 of the Local Plan Review are applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. Policies H10 of the adopted Local Plan and H8 of the Local Plan Review relates to the layout and design of new housing. (14) Policies T22 of the Adopted Local Plan and T11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review seek to ensure that there is adequate parking provision. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (15) I consider the key issues to be the impact of the proposed dwelling on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, the impact on the visual amenities of the area, the adequacy of the design and layout of the proposed dwelling and the potential overdevelopment of the site in relation to the private access. Impact on Residential Amenities Page 51 Agenda Item 7
(16) The neighbouring properties likely to be the most affected by this proposal are Lyndhurst and Amelanchier. Both residents are concerned that they will lose light to their flank windows. However, all of the windows to the flank elevations of the neighbouring properties serve non- habitable rooms. Specifically, within Lyndhurst there are two bathroom windows and within Amelanchier there is a bathroom, utility room and kitchen window. I therefore consider that there would be little impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing. (17) A number of the residents in Coniston Close have commented that the proposed dwelling would overlook their properties. It is noted that the garden of the proposed dwelling would be at a higher ground level than the properties along Coniston Close. However, a condition can ensure that thick deciduous vegetation of at least 2 metres in height is planted along the west boundary of the site. I therefore feel that this would overcome any overlooking issues and there would be little impact on these neighbouring properties. (18) The proposed dwelling would have two windows at first floor level to the front of the property. The residents of Hemmick are concerned that these windows would overlook their property. However, the proposed dwelling would be some 24 metres from the rear elevation of Hemmick. I consider that this separating distance is sufficient to reduce any invasion of privacy. The windows within the flank elevations of the proposed dwelling would, apart from the very tops, be below fence height. I therefore consider that there would be no overlooking of the immediate neighbouring properties. Impact on Visual Amenities (19) The design of the proposed dwelling would, in my opinion, reflect that of Amelanchier and Vidella. Although it would be 2 storeys to the front, due to the levels of the site, it would not be any higher then the neighbouring dwelling, Amelanchier. Subject to appropriate materials of construction, I consider that it would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. Design and Layout (20) The garden area and parking provision would exceed Council standards. I therefore consider that the design and layout of this property is acceptable. My only reservation is the potential for the properties within Coniston Close, specifically No. 25, to overlook the rear garden of the proposed dwelling. However, thick deciduous vegetation of at least 2.5 metres in height along the west boundary will ensure that privacy is achieved. Overdevelopment/impact on private access (21) The adequacy of the private access in relation to serving the properties within this area is a consideration and to this end, I note the concerns of the residents in that visibility, turning and passing other vehicles along this trackway is often difficult. However, Kent Highways have no objections to this development. I do not feel that the addition of one extra dwelling would make the situation materially worse. Moreover, this is the last available plot of land with access from this private road and as such, it is unlikely that there would be a further increase in the number of dwellings in the immediate area. I do not therefore feel that the proposed dwelling would be an overdevelopment of this site. Other matters (22) The drawings show an inaccurate relationship between the proposed dwelling and Lyndhurst in that Lyndhurst has been extended to the side almost right up to the boundary. The plans also show the corner of the boundary of Hemmick being part of the private road when this section is actually included within the garden area of this property. However, I consider that neither of these minor inaccuracies are of significance to this application. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS Agenda Item 7 Page 52
(23) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (24) Having considered the relevant policies and the comments from the neighbouring residents, I feel that the introduction of one additional dwelling to this area would not have a material impact on the traffic conditions along the private access. I also feel that with adequate screening, there would be no overlooking between properties. Furthermore, I do not consider that the immediate neighbours would be unduly overshadowed as all of their windows, closest to the proposed dwelling, serve non-habitable rooms. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 No materials shall be burnt on site during construction. 03 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 The development shall be constructed at the level indicated on the approved drawing. 04 In the interests of amenity and privacy in accordance with Policies B1 and H8 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, deciduous 2.5 metre high trees or shrubs shall be planted along the west boundary of the rear garden, providing a privacy screen between properties and shall be permanently retained as such. Page 53 Agenda Item 7
05 In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 The car parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 06 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions, alterations or other form of enlargement to the residential development hereby permitted, nor erection of porches, outbuildings, hardstandings, storage tanks, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosures, shall take place without the prior permission of or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. 07 To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider any further developmenton its merits, having regard to the amount of development already permitted on the site and in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 08 The dwelling hereby permitted shall have no habitable accommodation within the roof space. 08 To accord with the nature and character of the surrounding residential area and in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policies B1, T19 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the roof of the building without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 09 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of the amenity and privacy of adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 It appears that this development involves work close to a boundary, which may come under the terms of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. If it does, you will need to serve notice on your neighbour before undertaking any work. It would therefore be advisable for you to ensure that you meet any requirements of the Act before starting any work. Agenda Item 7 Page 54
Application No: : 05/00968/FUL Address : Rear Garden Of 182 Heath Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2TN Date: 23 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 55 Agenda Item 8
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00302/FUL Officer: Mr David Jeanes Location: Land Between Westgate Primary School & Former North West Kent College Miskin Road Dartford Proposal: Erection of 13 x 3, 5 x 2 & 3 x 1 bedroom houses and 34 x 2, 3 x 1 bedroom flats with associated access, parking & landscaping Applicant: Crest Nicholson (South East) Ltd Crest House 30 High Street Westerham Kent TN16 1Rg Date Valid: 31/03/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / West Hill RECOMMENDATION: Approval (subject to satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement within six months of the date of this resolution). SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan: No site-specific policy (2) Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft: No site-specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The site comprises an area of some 0.55 hectares and forms part of the curtilage of Westgate Primary School and the Rainbow Day Nursery. Additionally, part of the application site is occupied by the Dartford Technology College, although this area is detached from the main college site. The site currently accommodates, at least in part, two buildings. One of these is a single storey prefabricated building and the other a Horsa Hut, used by the college and nursery respectively. (4) To the south of the site lies the Dartford West educational campus. To the east, rear gardens of residential properties fronting Summerhill Road abut the site. Immediately to the north and west is a residential development currently under construction. Access to the site would be taken via this development and two existing accesses from Miskin Road. PROPOSAL (5) The application proposes a residential development of 13 x 3, 5 x 2 & 3 x 1 bedroom houses and 34 x 2, 3 x 1 bedroom flats with associated access, parking & landscaping. This development would represent an extension of the existing residential development currently under construction on the former North West Kent College site. Whilst this proposal is for 58 Agenda Item 8 Page 56
dwellings, 30 units have already been approved on part of the application site as part larger scheme currently under construction. Therefore, this proposal would result in a net gain of 28 dwellings. The proposed development includes an enlargement of the open space that formed part of the approved development of the larger site. RELEVANT HISTORY (6) Outline planning permission, Reference DA/02/00773, was granted for residential redevelopment of the former North West Kent College site. At the reserved matters stage, Reference DA/03/01184, approval for 160 residential units was granted. (7) There is extensive planning history in relation to the educational use of the site. Most recent and of most relevance are the following, for which Dartford Borough Council is a consultee: DA/05/00382/CPO - Consultation on an application for the demolition of existing canteen & erection of a 4 storey building comprising: ground & first floor for Westgate Primary School, 2nd & 3rd floors for shared facilities for Dartford West Girls Technology College & Adult Education with links at second floor level from existing building - Under consideration. DA/05/00437/CPO - Consultation on an application for the provision of temporary buildings to provide accommodation for Rainbow Day Nursery during demolition and construction of new permanent nursery - No objection - KCC approved 25.07.2005. DA/05/00446/CPO - Consultation on an application for the provision of a temporary access for construction vehicles - No objection - KCC approved 20.07.2005. DA/05/00462/CPO - Consultation on an application under Regulation 3 for the creation of a new permanent access - Under consideration. DA/05/00494/CPO - Consultation on an application for demolition of existing single storey Horsa hut and refurbishment of existing Westgate Primary School Early Years centre with provision of new single storey building extension to be used by a private nursery school - No objection - KCC approved 25.07.2005. (8) A decision on this proposal was deferred at the meeting of 10 November in order that Members might undertake a site visit following deferral on the 13 October in order that officers might provide additional information relating to traffic calming as required by condition no.19 of planning permission DA/ 02/00773/OUT. This is provided below. My recommendation remains one of approval subject to the completion of a S106 agreement. (9) To update Members, possible traffic calming schemes are currently under consideration. Kent Highway Services and the applicant advise that progress has been disappointingly slow due to the technicalities of achieving an appropriate scheme and the process that must be undertaken, including technical and safety audits. The current position is that the applicant's consultant has recently submitted a stage 2 design that is with Kent Highway Services consultant for audit. The necessary legal agreement required to undertake the work is being progressed in parallel. For Members information the applicants have provided a progress timeline and this is attached as Appendix A. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (10) Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions in respect of groundwater, water quality and contamination. (11) KCC Education/Mouchel Parkman: The development as proposed would create the demand for extra primary and secondary school places. The primary places can be accommodated locally, whereas the secondary places cannot. A contribution is sought to meet the cost of providing extra school places. A contribution toward libraries is also sought. Page 57 Agenda Item 8
(12) Kent Highways Services: In respect of the initial proposal made comments on technical issues. These have been resolved and no objection is raised. (13) Sport England: Objects on the basis that it is not clear what impact this would have upon the playing pitches. Also suggests that a contribution should be sought for sports facilities. (14) Housing Policy and Development Manager: Advises that the previously approved development had some 40% affordable housing. Even with this proposed enlargement affordable housing would remain above the 30% threshold within the local plan review. Therefore no additional affordable housing is sought. (15) Environmental Health Services Manager: Suggests that a contaminated land assessment is undertaken prior to determination in accordance with PPS23. Suggests conditions in respect of noise insulation, hours of construction and prohibition of bonfires and an informative advising that advice should be sought as to how to minimise the impact of construction work. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (16) Two letters of representation were received in respect of the original submission, including one from the Penney/Miskin Resident's Association. Objection was raised on the following, summarised grounds: - The area will be overpopulated with a lack of local infrastructure - Buildings should be restricted to 2 storeys - Extra traffic, over and above that from the previously approved development, would cause problems locally - Encroachment onto Westgate Primary School, with security implications - Overdevelopment - There is a public right of way between Miskin Road and Westgate - Other small schools use the playing fields and other facilities to the west of the Westgate playground. This development will prevent access. An existing right of way has already been fenced off and gated. (17) The Penney/Miskin Resident's Association submitted a further representation in respect of the revised plans raising the following objections: - The rebuilding of Westgate primary school will not be complete until 2008. The new housing should not commence until then as these are on the playground of the existing school - There remains no access from Miskin Road RELEVANT POLICIES Dartford Local Plan: (18) Policy B1 provides general environmental criteria for all development proposals with policy B3 relating to landscaping. Policy B12 relates to sites of archaeological significance. Policy B14 requires that provision is made for the disabled and less mobile. (19) Housing policy H7 states that proposals for housing development in the urban area will normally be permitted subject to no conflict with other policies in the plan. Policy H8 is applicable to density and dwelling mix of new housing developments. Policy H10 is relevant in terms of layout and design. (20) Policies T19, T21 and T22 relate to transport with regard to traffic volumes, highway improvements and car parking standards respectively. (21) Policy CF1 advises that development proposals will only be permitted where there is adequate service infrastructure or agreement to overcome deficiencies. CF13 states that proposals for development at redundant community facility sites will be considered on the Agenda Item 8 Page 58
basis of the suitability of the proposed use to the location and must comply with relevant policies of the plan. Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft: (22) Policy DD11 provides development and design general criteria and policy DD13 is relevant in respect of security. (23) Policy H4 considers windfall sites. Policies H8, H10 and H12 relate to the form of development in respect of layout, design and density, vehicles and flats respectively. Affordable housing provision is required by policy H16. (24) Transport policies T8, T11, T14 and T15 are applicable in terms of off-site transport measures, parking provision, parking layout and cycle parking respectively. (25) Policy CF3 relates to community facilities requirements as a result of new development. Policy CF5 relates to existing community facilities and the development of non-community uses. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (26) I am of the opinion that the key issues in this case are the principle of development, the form of development proposed, highways and parking, amenity issues and other matters. Principle of Development (27) The site currently forms part of the curtilage of educational facilities. Therefore this proposal is subject to policy CF13 of the adopted local plan and policy CF5 of the local plan review. Additionally, part of the larger education site, although not that subject to this current application, was previously covered by policy CF6 of the local plan review, which seeks to safeguard community facilities. The General Assembly of the Council resolved in January 2004 to delete this designation in the light of proposals by Kent County Council (KCC) for the site. The resolution did, however, require that a planning analysis be undertaken of the land take requirements for educational needs in this area. Such a planning analysis has been submitted. (28) The key question in this case is whether there are sufficient grounds to justify the release of this land for residential development. Members will no doubt be aware that KCC are seeking to undertake development to rationalise provision on this site to improve accommodation and facilities for all site users presently and in the future. It is asserted that the release of this land for residential development is necessary in order to enable these works. It is important that Members are aware of the developments to be undertaken by KCC prior to determining this application. Therefore, I outline these broadly below. (29) The Rainbow Day Nursery is currently accommodated in Horsa huts. The nursery would relocate to a new building. The Westgate Primary School would relocate to a shared new building. The Dartford Technology College would vacate their current accommodation and would relocate to the existing adult education building, which would be refurbished, with additional accommodation within the shared new building. The adult education provision would relocate to the existing Westgate Primary School. The youth centre would remain as existing. The various external areas would be addressed with the inclusion of car parking, playgrounds and sports pitches. The level of provision would generally remain at least consistent with that existing. Indeed in the case of the Technology College capacity would increase from 798 places to 850. There would, however, be a reduction in the capacity of the Westgate Primary School from 315 places to 210. Page 59 Agenda Item 8
(30) In assessing the land take requirements for educational needs KCC have identified current demand and future trends. In respect of nursery provision it is advised that KCC will not be seeking any expansion of the nursery provision, as this is not an area of deficit. (31) In terms of primary provision it is stated that within this part of Dartford capacity currently exceeds rolls by 265 and numbers are forecast to reduce by a further 200 over the next five years. This is set alongside a general trend in reduction in neighbouring catchment areas. It is therefore asserted that a reduction in current capacity is acceptable and in the longer term there is sufficient provision to accommodate any additional pupil demand from new developments. (32) As noted above, there is an increase in the capacity of the Technology College. This is set against a backdrop of declining rolls. Borough wide there are currently 8,912 places in the nine secondary schools compared with a total roll of 8,378. Rolls are currently forecast to remain steady for the next five years and decline by approximately 100 within 10 years. This takes into account the likely child yield from new housing developments. (33) In terms of forecasting Adult Education KCC advise that the service has a priority to address the Government Skills for Life Agenda. The local Learning & Skills Council for Kent and Medway has made the delivery of Skills for Life a priority for the service and that is where funding for provision is directed. The priority therefore is to increase provision in this key area with the aim that more adults should access and achieve national tests in literacy and numeracy. (34) Having regard to the analysis undertaken and the information submitted I am satisfied that the development and rationalisation proposed for the education site represents an enhancement of the existing facilities. Further, I conclude that the planning analysis sufficiently demonstrates that there will be no educational demands that cannot be accommodated in the short to medium term. I am of the opinion that the benefits associated with the improvements of the existing provision are sufficient such that the release of this land for residential development is acceptable in the context of the local plan policies outlined above. Form of Development (35) A development of 58 units is proposed. However, there would be the loss of some 30 from the previously approved scheme. The previously approved scheme was 160 units on a site of 2.67 hectares, equating to a density of 60 dwellings per hectare (dph). The extended site area is some 3.1 hectares with 188 dwellings proposed cumulatively. This represents a density of 60 dph. Given that the extended development is consistent with that previously approved in terms of density I would not raise objection in this respect and also bear in mind that local plan policy H8 and local plan review policy H8 require that regard be given to the prevailing character of the surrounding area. (36) The development comprises a mix of 1 and 2 bed flats and 1, 2 and 3 bed houses. The development embraces the design ethos adopted previously for the larger site and considered acceptable to Members. This includes a mix of building types and diversity in building footprint and degrees of setback from the access road. Design of the built form and finishing materials would be a continuation of the larger development. As with the previously approved development I am of the opinion that this proposal represents an appropriate form of development in this location. (37) The proposed houses would have provision of private and usable rear gardens and the flatted elements of the proposal would have amenity space that is directly accessible and usable. The 'bridge' flats that provide a visual link between the proposed houses would not benefit from direct access to amenity space. However, I would not raise objection in this respect as the bridged elements arguably add to the diversity of the development and quality therein and there is an area of open space within the site that would be available for these residents. This open space is an enlargement of that previously approved. Further to this, the Agenda Item 8 Page 60
previously approved development had units of a similar nature and therefore the acceptability of this type of unit has been established on this site. Amenity Issues (38) As proposed I consider the development acceptable in terms of block spacing and back- to-back distances to ensure an acceptable level of amenity for occupiers therein and of the occupiers of the previously approved development in terms of daylight, sunlight and privacy. (39) With regard to neighbouring properties consideration must be given to the properties fronting Summerhill Road, to the east of the site. In my opinion all other neighbouring properties are a sufficient distance such that the amenities of the occupiers therein would not be compromised in terms of light and privacy. The proposed development would introduce a three-storey building, units 94-99, some 7.4m from the boundary to properties fronting Summerhill Road. However, given this distance and the back-to-back distance of some 28m I do not consider that any loss of amenity in terms of overshadowing or loss of privacy would result. Additionally, having regard to the retained gap to the boundary, I do not consider that this element of the development would be overbearing or visually intrusive. Further to this, the previously approved scheme includes a flatted element less than 4m to boundary with Summerhill Road rear gardens, albeit that this is two storeys in height. A two-storey building is also proposed 5.8m from the western boundary of the site. However, this would have a minimum back-to-back relationship in excess of 25m and again I would raise no objection. Members will be aware that a rear garden length of 10m is advocated by policy H8 (Appendix 1b) of the local plan review. However, this criteria is applicable to gardens for houses not flatted developments and in any event should only be applied where a development fails the qualitative assessment required by the policy. (40) Clearly the proposal would introduce additional car movements with the potential to increase noise and disturbance. However, in my opinion an addition 28 dwellings would be likely to generate only limited numbers of movements, as outlined below and would not give rise to noise and disturbance such that permission could be reasonably withheld. This is a matter of judgement but in reaching this conclusion I am mindful of the fact that noise associated with a residential use in a residential area is not normally considered grounds for refusal where reasonable spatial separation is achieved. Notwithstanding, I do consider It appropriate to ensure that the rear garden environment of the properties fronting Summerhill Road benefit from adequate screening and I would recommended a condition to secure satisfactory boundary treatments were Members minded to grant planning permission. In such circumstances the appropriateness of the boundary treatments will be for future consideration. Highways and Parking (41) The proposed development would have car-parking provision that accords with current standards and I would not raise objection to the level of parking proposed. The layout of the parking spaces and access road are acceptable in terms of the standards set out in the local plan. Kent Highway Services advised initially that there were technical deficiencies with the proposal. These have been addressed by revisions to the layout and the fact that Kent Highway Services do not object to the proposal means that the layout is technically acceptable. (42) The proposal would of course result in an increase in traffic visiting the site. However, given that this proposal is for 28 additional units the level of additional movements would in my opinion be limited. Members were advised previously of anticipated peak movement levels for the larger development site compared to the previous college use of the site. It was concluded that peak movements would be lower than that associated with the college. Using the previously employed TRICS data on a pro-rata basis I conclude that the proposal would potentially result in an additional 18 movements during both the morning and evening peak hour periods. I do not consider that such an increase would adversely affect the functioning of the local highway network. Page 61 Agenda Item 8
S106 Agreement (43) The proposal could have implications for local schools and community facilities. A contribution for the provision of secondary education and for library facilities could reasonably be sought via a S106 agreement. The applicant has been made aware of the contribution that would be sought. (44) Included within the proposal is an enlargement of the previously approved open space. This enlarged space would require the provisions of the previous S106 agreement to be extended in terms of public access and maintenance. Sixteen pieces of play equipment are required by the previous legal agreement and no further equipment is necessary as a result of the additional units proposed having regard to the provisions of the local plan review. Other Matters (45) Objection to the proposal has been raised on the grounds that there is a public right of way through the site. I can confirm that there is no public right of way on this site. The representation received makes reference to a right of way from Miskin Road to Westgate Primary School. Members were advised previously that a right of access existed on this part of the site for the Dartford Technology College for maintenance of a detached building. This proposal would result in the removal of this building. Consequently, there are no rights that the applicant would need to preserve. In any event this would be a private right of way and Members will be aware that private rights of way are not normally a material planning consideration. It would appear that this access might have been used to gain access to Westgate Primary School. Again, should a right of way exist this would be private and not a material planning consideration. Notwithstanding, a pedestrian entrance from the proposed development into the current Westgate Primary School would be provided. Therefore access from Miskin Road to the education site would remain possible. (46) Sport England have raised objection to the proposal on the grounds of uncertainty over the impact upon the playing fields and suggest that a contribution toward the provision of sporting facilities should be sought. I am satisfied that this development would not adversely affect the playing fields. The area within the site that would be lost and which currently forms part of the playing field is a small area of hardstanding/playground. Moreover, the masterplan for the education site indicates that improvements in the overall sporting facilities will be undertaken as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. In my opinion the facilities to be provided would represent an improvement on the existing sporting provision. Regarding developer contributions for sports facilities, as noted above provision is made within the development for an area of open space in accordance with the local plan review. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to seek contributions of the nature outlined by Sport England, having regard to the fact that the proposed development provides for a net gain of 28 units and therefore falls below the threshold for the provision of open space even in the form of a local play area. Notwithstanding, the proposal provides for an area of open space and therefore to request further contributions would in my opinion be unreasonable. To seek contributions, a robust policy stance would need to be developed, based upon sound evidence of need. I am mindful that there is not an identified deficiency in terms of facilities in this part of the Borough. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (47) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSIONS (48) I consider this to be an appropriate from of development in this location, fully compliant with the aims and objectives of the local plan policies noted above. I am of the opinion that the proposal would not be harmful to the streetscene, character of the area or the amenities Agenda Item 8 Page 62
of neighbours. Accordingly, subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement, I recommend that planning permission be granted. APPENDIX A July 2003 Crest acquire site with benefit of outline planning permission including sealing of Section 106 Agreement. August 2003 Meeting with highways representatives from Dartford, KCC, Consulting Engineers and Crest to discuss and agree approach to traffic calming. Sept. - Nov. 2003 Crest highway consultants work up three separate design scenarios for traffic calming proposals to Miskin Road. December 2003 Crest comment on designs, observations incorporated in proposals by consultants. Three designs submitted to KCC for Stage 1 Safety Audits. Feb. - April 2004 Designs amended in line with comments made by KCC. Stage 1 Safety Audits completed. April 2004 Crest's highway consultants prepare draft public consultation brochure for approval. Crest approve document. May 2004 KCC and Dartford confirm approval to public consultation document - leaflet prepared and circulated to affected residents. June - July 2004 Responses from local residents collated by Crest's highways consultants. Draft report submitted to Crest for approval - scheme favoured by residents selected. August 2004 Favoured scheme submitted to KCC for further safety checks. Sept. - Oct. 2004 Leaflet prepared by Crest's highways consultants and circulated to local residents confirming which scheme had been selected. December 2004 Detailed designs of scheme begins. Feb. - March 2005 Detailed design sent to KCC for approval. Modifications incorporated as directed by KCC. March - April 2005 Additional land survey work undertaken for road improvements including details further from site. May - June 2005 Further modifications to design as directed by KCC including payment of management fee to KCC. July - Aug. 2005 Stage 2 Safety Audit carried out on design by Crest's highway consultants. Babtie appointed by KCC to undertake design checking. Formal submission of all up to date details to Babtie and KCC including designers response to Safety Audit. September 2005 Meeting held on site between Crest's highway consultant, KCC and Babtie to discuss changes / additions required to design drawings. October 2005 Road traffic order applied for regarding extension to yellow lining and application for road closure notice. Solicitors instructed to progress Section 278 Agreement. Outstanding Final technical approval to details from KCC anticipated within 1 month. Completion of Section 278 Agreement - anticipated within 3 months. Site works - between 3-5 months subject to other matters above being concluded. Page 63 Agenda Item 8
RECOMMENDATION: Approval (subject to satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement within six months of the date of this resolution). 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved. 03 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 04 (a) No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall commence until chestnut pale fencing of a height of not less than 1.2m (4ft) has been erected around each tree or tree group to be retained on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the development hereby permitted is first commenced (such details to include trenches, pipe runs for services and drains etc). Such fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development and no storage of plant or materials or erection of buildings shall take place within the fenced area. (b) The destruction by burning of materials shall not take place within 6m (19ft 8ins) of the canopy of any tree or tree group to be retained on the site or on land adjoining. 04 To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 05 The development shall not commence until details of all boundary walls and fences have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development. Agenda Item 8 Page 64
05 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 Before the commencement of development on site a scheme for noise attenuation measures shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall detail the calculated effects of the proposed attenuation measures and upon approval shall be implemented within 3 months and thereafter maintained. 06 To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties in accodance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (in accordance with the CLEA guidelines and methodology) and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. 1) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to investigations commencing on site (ref1). 2) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology (ref 2). 3) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any remediation commencing on site, approval shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority of any such remedial works required. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters. 4) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance (ref 3). If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 5) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. This shall include photographic evidence. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site. Ref 1 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 2, 3 & 4 (DoE) Ref 2 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 1 (DoE) Ref 3 : CIRIA Vols 1-12 Contaminated Land Series and CIRIA "Building on Derelict Land" If any infill material is to be brought onto the site, only naturally occurring rocks, sub-soils and soils (including those containing <20% organic matter) and recycled construction and/or demolition materials (but excluding those containing bricks and concrete >70mm, metal, plasterboard, asbestos cement or other contaminated materials) shall be used. This shall be from a certified source to ensure that it is not contaminated in terms of its Page 65 Agenda Item 8
intended end use. The relevant Certification Documents shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any development commencing on the site. No development shall commence until the LPA has given written approval of the documents. No sludges or slurrys may be used. Analytical evidence shall be provided to verify imported soils are suitable for the proposed end use. This will require characterisation of the source and target sites in accordance with BS ISO 15176:2002 and subsequent relevant soil analyses. The sampling protocols and soil guideline values to be used for assessment of suitability will be dependant on the source of the soil and the proposed use of the target site and this shall be agreed with the LPA prior to any development commencing on the site. As a minimum, for large volumes of homogenous natural soils for use in non-sensitive areas, such as commercial end uses, sampling frequency shall be at least one per thousand cubic metres (1:1000m3). Soils for use in sensitive areas, such as domestic gardens, and where imported soils are less homogenous, the sampling frequency shall be greater (i.e. up to one per hundred and fifty cubic metres (1:150m3)). A closure report shall be submitted once remediation works have been completed. This shall include results of all sampling undertaken and certification of imported soils. This condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. Ref 1. R&D Publication CLR8 (2002) 'Potential contaminants for the assessment of land' (DEFRA and the Environment Agency) Ref 2. BS ISO 15176:2002 'Soil quality - characterisation of excavated soil and other materials intended for re-use.' 07 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 08 Before development commences, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 08 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority. 09 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 10 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Agenda Item 8 Page 66
11 No development shall take place until a scheme for the suppression of dust during demolition of existing buildings and construction of the development has been submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented throughout the period of construction. 11 In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 12 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08.00 to 13.30 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 12 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 13 During construction there shall be no incineration of waste materials within the curtilage of the premises. 13 To prevent nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 14 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance. 14 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 15 The garage, car parking spaces, turning areas and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 15 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 16 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance. Page 67 Agenda Item 8
16 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 17 There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either ground water or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways. 17 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 18 Uncontaminated roof drainage shall drain directly to the mains surface water system (entering after any pollution prevention measures) or to shallow soakaways across the site. Soakaways must be as shallow as possible and no deeper than 1m below the ground level at this location. 18 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 19 Only clean uncontaminated water should drain to the mains surface water sewer. Appropriate pollution control methods (such as trapped gullies and interceptors) should be used for drainage from access roads and car parks to prevent hydrocarbons from entering the surface water system. 19 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 20 Foul drainage should drain directly to mains foul sewer. 20 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 21 Each block of flats hereby permitted shall be provided with individual letterboxes for the delivery of mail, accessible to the general public. Details of the arrangements for each block shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of any of the flats in that block and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 21 To ensure a satisfactory form of accommodation in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 There should be no discharge into land impacted by contamination or land previously identified as being contaminated. There must be no direct discharge to groundwater, a Agenda Item 8 Page 68
controlled water. There should be no discharge to made ground. 02 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. 03 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 he kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored. Page 69 Agenda Item 8
Application No: : 05/00302/FUL Address : Land Between Westgate Primary School & Former North West Kent College Miskin Road Dartford Date: 23 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 70
This page is intentionally left blank Page 71 Agenda Item 9
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00859/FUL Officer: Mr David Jeanes Location: 47 & 48 & Land Rear Of 36-48 Anne Of Cleves Road Dartford Kent DA1 2BG Proposal: Demolition of Nos 47 & 48 Anne of Cleves Road and erection of 2 blocks of terrace houses comprising 13 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom houses with dormer windows in front and rear elevations together with new access road and associated car parking and landscaping Applicant: T Crawley C/o Open Architecture & Surveying Agent: West & Partner Isambard House 60 Weston Street London SE1 3QN Date Valid: 26/08/2005 Parish / Ward: / Dartford Town RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval subject to satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement within six months of the date of this resolution SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan: No site-specific policy (2) Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft: No site-specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The site lies on the west side of Anne of Cleves Road and comprises an area of some 0.28 hectares. The site is currently occupied by nos 47 and 48, which form part of a terrace of 10 two-storey dwellings. The dwellings are vacant and in a state of disrepair. To the rear of these is an area that is currently unused. This is derelict and has been subject to flytipping. There are significant changes in levels across the site rising steeply toward the western boundary. This area has previously been quarried. (4) Immediately to the north of the site lies a public footpath with railway lines beyond. To the south are 25 garages and forecourt. To the east is a terrace of dwellings fronting Anne of Cleves Road and to the west residential properties fronting Priory Gardens. Due to the changes in ground levels the properties to the west fronting Priory Gardens are sited at a higher level than the greater part of the application site. PROPOSAL Agenda Item 9 Page 72
(5) Proposed is demolition of nos 47 and 48 Anne of Cleves Road. This would allow access to the area to the rear. A development of 14 dwellings is proposed arranged in two terraces and in a mews type development. The proposed dwellings are two storeys, with the provision of a mansard roof and dormer windows to further utilise the roof space. All of the dwellings would have private amenity space. 8 of the dwellings would have integral garages with a further 16 car parking spaces within the site, two of which are designated for disabled parking. RELEVANT HISTORY (6) A proposed development of 10 no. 3 bedroom terraced houses and 5 no. 2 bedroom flats was submitted in 2002, reference 02/00347/FUL. This encompassed a larger area than the current application site and included demolition of 19 of the garages to the south. The application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to determination following concerns raised by officers in respect of loss of the garages with subsequent parking pressures within Anne of Cleves Road and also the layout of the development proposed. (7) A further application was received in 2003, reference 03/00302/FUL. This proposed demolition of nos. 47 and 48 and also 18 garages and the erection of 4 no. 3 bed terraced houses, 6 no. 3 bed town houses with integral garage and 5 no. 2 bed flats. No decision has been made on this application and this remains pending. Officers were minded to recommend the grant of planning permission for the proposed development following the submission of additional information and negotiations. The application was held in abeyance pending receipt of a slope stability report to confirm that the proposed development would be structurally sound. However, no report has been received and the application remains to be determined. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (8) Kent Police: Do not raise objection to the proposal, but raise some enquiries. Following officer response and revisions to the proposal no further comments were received. Of particular note, windows were incorporated into the flank elevation of unit no.14 to provide overlooking of the car parking spaces and therefore improve security. (9) KCC Education/Mouchel Parkman: The development as proposed would create the demand for extra primary and secondary school places. A contribution is sought to meet the cost of providing extra school places. A contribution toward libraries and youth and community facilities is also sought. (10) Thames Water: Raises no objection in respect of sewage infrastructure and has no comments regarding water. (11) Environment Agency: Recommends that a desktop study in respect of potential site contamination is undertaken prior to determination. In the event that the study identifies potential contaminants appropriate conditions should be imposed. (12) Kent Highway Services: The development conforms to parking standards. Whilst the layout does not comply with the highway authority's adoptable standards a balance has to be drawn against what is being provided and what if any shortcomings there are. (13) Ramblers Association: No comment but trust that footpath DR7 adjacent to the site will not be compromised. (14) Environmental Health Services Manager: Suggests that a contaminated land assessment is undertaken prior to determination in accordance with PPS23. Recommends conditions in respect of hours of construction, prohibition of bonfires and rodent control and an informative regarding minimising disturbance during construction. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION Page 73 Agenda Item 9
(15) Seventeen letters of representation have been received. These raise objection to the proposal on the following, summarised, grounds: Demolition will affect the structure of properties in Anne of Cleves Road Loss of light Affect upon private right of way Lack of parking Highway safety Anne of Cleves Road cannot cope with additional traffic Disturbance during construction Damage to road surface during construction This is overdevelopment of the site Property values This is a greenfield site Lack of open space The development will be subject to moisture and damp air Out of character Flooding Mature trees should be planted Landslip Overlooking Contamination Water supply Vandalism Loss of views Lack of schools and doctors (16) Additionally queries are raised in respect of the findings of the noise assessment and television reception. RELEVANT POLICIES Dartford Local Plan: (17) Policy DL1 relates to derelict and despoiled land. Policy B1 provides general environmental criteria for all development proposals with policy B3 relating to landscaping. Policy B14 requires that provision is made for the disabled and less mobile. (18) Housing policy H7 states that proposals for housing development in the urban area will normally be permitted subject to no conflict with other policies in the plan. Policy H8 is applicable to density and dwelling mix of new housing developments. Policy H10 is relevant in terms of layout and design. (19) Policies T19, T21 and T22 relate to transport with regard to traffic volumes, highway improvements and car parking standards respectively. (20) Policy CF1 advises that development proposals will only be permitted where there is adequate service infrastructure or agreement to overcome deficiencies. Local Plan Review Amended Second Deposit Draft: (21) Policy DD1 is applicable in respect of public transport orientated development. Policy DD11 provides development and design general criteria and policy DD13 is relevant in respect of security. (22) Policy H4 considers windfall sites. Policies H8 and H10 relate to the form of development in respect of layout, design and density. (23) Transport policies T11, T14 and T15 are applicable in terms of parking provision, parking layout and cycle parking respectively. Agenda Item 9 Page 74
(24) Policy CF3 relates to community facilities requirements as a result of new development. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (25) I am of the opinion that the key issues in this case are the principle of development, the form of development proposed, highways and parking, amenity issues and other matters. Principle of Development (26) The site lies outside any designated area and is considered previously developed land in the context of PPG3 as land previously used for mineral extraction. Residential redevelopment is therefore acceptable in principle in such circumstances and having regard to the provisions of policy H4 of the Local Plan Review Amended Second Deposit Draft. Policy DL1 of the adopted local plan supports development on derelict and despoiled land. (27) As noted above the existing dwellings are in a poor state of repair and the area to the rear is derelict and has clearly been subject to flytipping. At present this site does not contribute in any respect to the local area or the wider borough. Indeed, given the site location in relation to the adjacent railway lines and public footpath this could portray Dartford in a poor light to those passing through and within the borough. In such context I would welcome redevelopment of the site in order that this would resolve current poor environment issues and such that this would contribute to local amenities and the wider borough. Form of Development (28) A development of 14 units is proposed on a site of some 0.28 hectares. This equates to a density of 50 dwellings per hectare. This is in accordance with the general principles of residential density as set out in the Local Plan Review Amended Second Deposit Draft. (29) The proposed dwellings are arranged in a mews style courtyard. In my opinion this represents an appropriate design solution to the site constraints. Each of the properties would have the benefit of external amenity space to the rear of the dwelling. For the properties to the west of the site conditions are such that the rear gardens would be arranged in a series of terraces. Again, I consider this to be an appropriate design solution to address the site constraints. Whilst it is perhaps preferable for rear gardens to be laid out over a single level, terracing does not mean that the garden is not usable and indeed can represent an attractive feature. Further, unless external spaces are wholly inappropriate current government guidance would advocate a more flexible approach to the application of standards in this respect and that the suitability of the space is to some degree a matter for the developer and occupier to consider. (30) I would not raise objection to the design and external appearance of the proposed dwellings and I consider this development would provide appropriate living accommodation for future occupiers and is of sufficient quality such that it would enhance the existing local environment. (31) A Slope Stability Report has been undertaken on behalf of the applicant in accordance with PPG14: Development on Unstable Ground. The report concludes that the current slope is just stable and the Factor of Safety is lower than that desirable for long-term safety and could be further reduced by the removal of vegetation. The report advises that where existing slopes are cut or remain at 25° or higher that retaining structures are incorporated. (32) I would draw Members attention to the guidance set out in PPG14. It is advised that the responsibility for determining whether land is suitable for a particular purpose rests primarily with the developer. In particular, the responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and/or the landowner. Nonetheless, slope stability is a material consideration and Members will want to ensure that Page 75 Agenda Item 9
the site is capable of being safely developed. The submitted report concludes that remedial works will be required and I would recommend a condition to ensue that the local planning authority is party to such details. PPG14 advises that a condition in this respect can be reasonably applied. Amenity Issues (33) Due to ground levels the proposed development would sit at a lower level than the existing properties to the west fronting Priory Gardens. As a consequence I do not consider the amenities of the occupiers therein would be compromised. (34) The main considerations in terms of adverse amenity implications are those properties to the east of the site fronting Anne of Cleves Road. Block 1 would be sited to the rear of these properties. The distance between the main rear wall of these properties and the flank elevation of the proposed block is some 15m. This is in excess of the 12m advised within the local plan review. I consider the degree of separation to be such that this would not, in my opinion, be an overbearing or a visually intrusive development and would not result in overshadowing or loss of light beyond acceptable planning limits. There are no windows proposed in this flank that would result in overlooking. At the closest point the gap between the rear elevation of no.46 Anne of Cleves Road and unit no.14 within Block 3 of the proposed development is some 21m. Again this is in excess of the dimension advised within the local plan review. I am also mindful that at the closest point views would be oblique such that the layout of the development does not lend itself to overlooking of adjacent properties. (35) The proposal would introduce additional activity to the rear of the existing properties. This could of course be perceptible to existing residential occupiers. However, having regard to the fact that the development proposed is residential I do not consider the likely level of activity and any subsequent noise to be such that this would compromise the amenities of existing occupiers. I am also of the opinion that the potential benefits in respect of amenity in terms of the cessation of existing problems associated with the site should be taken into consideration. (36) In conclusion, I do not consider that the proposed development would compromise the amenities of the occupiers of any other residential properties particularly those in Anne of Cleves Road. Highways and Parking (37) Kent Highway Services do not raise objection to the proposed development. The development conforms to the Council's parking standards. Strict interpretation of standards would require a parking provision of 22 spaces. 24 are proposed. Further, across a development a maximum ratio of 1.5 spaces per dwelling should be provided. The ratio of parking proposed is 1.7 spaces per dwelling. In normal circumstances a ratio above the maximum standard should be resisted. However, given the site location and comments raised within representations received I conclude that in this case provision slightly above the maximum standard can be accepted. I would, however, recommend a condition to ensure that each dwelling would have a minimum of one allocated space. (38) The layout of the development does not fully comply with the highway authority's adoptable standards. However, the proposal is technically acceptable and Kent Highway Services advise that the opinion of that authority is that a balance has to be drawn, against what is being provided and what if any shortcomings there are. In this context the provision of a purpose built turning facility is of benefit. Anne of Cleves Road is a cul-de-sac with no turning facility currently available. It is considered that the benefit of the gain of a turning head and the stopping of the necessity for long reverse manoeuvres particularly by large vehicles outweighs the shortfall of the exact design requirements for an adopted highway. This is considered to be of benefit to the existing residents in Anne of Cleves Road. To ensure such benefit transpires it will be necessary to secure continuous public access to the turning head via a legal agreement. Other Matters Agenda Item 9 Page 76
(39) A Preliminary Risk Assessment in respect of site contamination has been undertaken on behalf of the applicant and a report submitted. This has been forwarded to the relevant consultees for consideration. At the time of writing I have not received a response. Should additional information be available this will be made available to Members in the update. Additional conditions may be required subsequent to consultation responses. I propose a deferral for delegated approval in order to resolve this outstanding matter. S106 Agreement (40) The proposal would have implications for local schools and community facilities. A contribution for the provision of education and for library facilities could reasonably be sought via a S106 agreement having regard to the size of the development and the nature of the proposed dwellings. The applicant has been made aware of the contribution that would be sought and has agreed that this would be made. (41) The proposed development falls below the threshold for affordable housing and consequently no contribution in this respect is sought. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (42) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSIONS (43) I consider this to be an appropriate from of development in this location, fully compliant with the aims and objectives of the local plan policies noted above. I am of the opinion that the proposal would not be harmful to the character of the area, functioning of the highway or the amenities of neighbours. Accordingly, subject to conditions, resolution of outstanding matters and the completion of a S106 agreement, I recommend that planning permission be granted. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval subject to satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement within six months of the date of this resolution 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Page 77 Agenda Item 9
03 The development shall not commence until details of all boundary walls and fences have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development. 03 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 Before the commencement of development on site a scheme for noise attenuation measures shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall detail the calculated effects of the proposed attenuation measures and upon approval shall be implemented within 3 months and thereafter maintained. 04 To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties in accodance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance. 05 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved. 06 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 07 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 07 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 08 Before development commences details of remedial works to ensure the stability of the ground shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Such remedial measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Agenda Item 9 Page 78
08 In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 Before development commences, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 09 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 Before development commences a scheme for the control of rodents shall be submitted to and approved by the local authority. Such controls shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 10 In the interests of public health in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 11 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08.00 to 13.30 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 11 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 12 There shall be no incineration of waste materials within the curtilage of the premises. 12 To prevent nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 13 The garage, car parking spaces, turning areas and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 13 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 14 Each dwellinghouse hereby approved shall have a minimum of one allocated car parking space. 14 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Page 79 Agenda Item 9
Application No: : 05/00859/FUL Address : 47 & 48 & Land Rear Of 36-48 Anne Of Cleves Road Dartford Kent DA1 2BG Date: 23 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 80
This page is intentionally left blank Page 81 Agenda Item 10
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 04/01207/OUT Officer: Mr David Jeanes Location: 389 - 397 Princes Road Dartford Kent DA1 1JU Proposal: Outline application for the demolition of existing buildings & erection of 9 houses with associated parking Applicant: Brakenell Properties Ltd Agent: DHA Architecture Ltd The Old School Old School Road Hook Hants RG27 9NJ Date Valid: 14/12/2004 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Princes RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Outline Permission. SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan: No site specific policies (2) Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft: Tidal Flood Zone SITE DESCRIPTION (3) This is the site of an existing commercial development within the urban area. The site is adjacent to the north side of Princes Road some 135m from its junction with Lowfield Street. The site has an area of 0.21 hectares. Access to the site is taken via Cranford Road to the rear of the site and from Princes Road. To the north and west lie residential development; Central Park is to the east with commercial development to the south. PROPOSAL (4) Proposed is a development of 9 dwellings laid out in a terrace of 4 and 5 houses. Access would be taken via Cranford Road with the existing access from Princes Road stopped up. Parking would be laid out to the front of the proposed dwellings with additional garage and parking spaces available to the rear. This is an outline application with only means of access and siting to be considered. RELEVANT HISTORY Agenda Item 10 Page 82
(5) The site has an extensive planning history. The current use on site was granted permission in 1961. There have been a number of proposals for residential redevelopment of the site. The following are of note: 86/00141 - Erection Of A Terrace Of 4 No. Two Storey Houses - Refused. 91/00260 - Erection of one three storey block comprising 8 No. 1 bedroom and 10 No.2 bedroom flats with associated car parking provision and amenity space - Approved outline. 94/00680 - Development of site for the erection of 11 one bedroom flats, 14 two bedroom flats, 16 one bedroom houses and 20 three bedroom houses with associated parking and access roads - Withdrawn. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (6) Kent Highway Services: Initial concerns regarding layout of parking spaces and encroachment onto highways land. The revised proposals have overcome these concerns and no objection is raised. (7) Environment Agency: Initial objection on the basis of flood risk. Subsequent to the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) no objection is raised subject to the imposition of conditions. (8) Thames Water: Raises no objection in respect of waste and has no comments regarding water supply. (9) Landscape and Horticultural Officer: Concerned in respect of parking on Princes Road Frontage. Recommends a design that omits this and the submission of a landscaping scheme. (10) Environmental Health Services Manager: Advises that the site falls within NEC C and that planning permission should not normally be granted. In the event that planning permission is granted conditions in respect of noise mitigation measures are recommended. Recommends that planning permission be refused on the basis of air quality. (11) Dartford Borough Council: As neighbouring landowner raises no objection. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (12) No letters of representation received. RELEVANT POLICIES Dartford Local Plan: (13) Policy B1 provides general environmental criteria for all development proposals with policy B3 relating to landscaping. (14) Housing policy H7 states that proposals for housing development in the urban area will normally be permitted subject to no conflict with other policies in the plan. Policy H8 is applicable to density and dwelling mix of new housing developments. Policy H10 is relevant in terms of layout and design. (15) Policies T19 and T22 relate to transport with regard to traffic volumes and car parking standards respectively. Dartford Local Plan Review: Page 83 Agenda Item 10
(16) Policy DD1 is applicable in respect of public transport orientated development. Policy DD11 provides development and design general criteria and policy DD13 is relevant in respect of security. (17) Policy H4 considers windfall sites. Policies H8 and H10 relate to the form of development in respect of layout, design and density. (18) Transport policies T11 and T14 are applicable in terms of parking provision and parking layout respectively. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (19) I am of the opinion that the key issues in this case are the principle of development, the form of development proposed, highways and parking, amenity issues, noise exposure and air quality. Principle of Development (20) The site is not allocated within either the adopted local plan or local plan review. The loss of the existing commercial use and redevelopment for residential purposes is considered acceptable in principle. The site is previously developed land and therefore accords with local plan review policy H4 and the provisions of PPG3. (21) The removal of a potentially environmentally intrusive use adjacent to residential properties is considered to be of benefit in planning terms. Form of Development (22) A development of 9 units is proposed on a site of some 0.21 hectares. This equates to a density of 43 dwellings per hectare. This is in accordance with the general principles of residential density as set out in the Local Plan Review Amended Second Deposit Draft and is in keeping with the prevailing character of the existing residential development to the north and west of the site. (23) In respect of the site layout I consider that this would represent an acceptable living environment for future occupiers therein. The proposal incorporates suitable rear gardens for the dwellings. I note that planning permission has been granted for a development to serve the Glentworth Ex Serviceman's Club adjacent to this site, ref: 04/01131/FUL. In my view that would not give rise to any adverse amenity issues for future occupiers of the proposed development were both permissions to be implemented. I am satisfied that the conditions attached to that permission are sufficient to safeguard the amenities of future occupiers of this development. Conversely, I do not consider that this proposal would in any way compromise the development of the Glentworth club. (24) As this is an outline application with design and external appearance reserved for future consideration a full assessment of the impact upon the streetscene and character of the area cannot be undertaken at this time. However, I consider the site to be appropriately laid out such that the proposed built form would have an acceptable visual relationship to the existing residential building to the west of the site. I do not consider that the proposed built form would be visually intrusive to the Princes Road streetscene and am of the opinion that there would be a positive benefit from the removal of the existing visually intrusive commercial development. Notwithstanding, at the reserved matters stage consideration of detailed design is necessary as is an appropriate landscaping scheme particularly in respect of the Princes Road frontage. I do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse visual impact upon the Cranford Road streetscene. Amenity Issues Agenda Item 10 Page 84
(25) I consider the removal of the existing commercial use to be of benefit in terms of the existing residents living adjacent and in close proximity to the site. (26) The form of development proposed and the separation distances to neighbouring residential properties is such that I consider there would be no loss of amenity for the occupiers therein in respect of loss of light or overshadowing, loss of privacy or overlooking beyond acceptable planning limits. I do not consider that the proposed development would be visually intrusive in respect of any neighbouring residential property. Noise Exposure (27) The application site falls within NEC C and the Environmental Health Services Manager recommends that permission should be refused on that basis. Whilst I accept that noise exposure for future occupiers of the development would be preferable at a lower level I am mindful that the living conditions therein could be improved by noise mitigation measures as noted by the Environmental Health Services Manager. Further, having regard to the site location and the need to make more efficient use of land within urban areas and the benefits for occupiers of existing residential properties in respect of removal of the existing use I am of the opinion that planning permission should not be refused on this basis. Air Quality (28) The Environmental Health Services Manager recommends that permission should be refused on the grounds that a detailed assessment report carried out for DBC in April 2004 predicts that National Air Quality Strategy Objectives may be exceeded in this area. In response the applicants have commissioned their own study, which concludes this is not the case. The Environmental Health Services Manager acknowledges that both of these studies are based upon modelling and that the differing conclusions of the report represent a marginal disparity. Nonetheless it is maintained that permission should be refused. (29) Whilst I am fully aware of the concerns raised, I do not consider that this in itself represents grounds for refusal. I consider the proposal to be acceptable in all other respects. Consequently this would represent the sole reason for refusal. The potential harm in respect of future occupiers of the development must be weighed against all other relevant planning considerations and the perceived benefits of the proposed development. In this context, on balance, I consider that the positive aspects of the proposal should not be outweighed by the concern in respect of air quality and would not recommend that permission be refused on this basis. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (30) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSIONS (31) I consider this to be an appropriate from of development in this location. I am of the opinion that the proposal would not be harmful to the character of the area, functioning of the highway or the amenities of neighbours. Whilst I note the concerns raised by the Environmental Health Services Manager I consider that on balance planning permission should not be withheld on the grounds of air quality. Accordingly, subject to conditions, I recommend that planning permission be granted. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Outline Permission. Page 85 Agenda Item 10
01 Approval of details of the design and external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Application for approval of the reserved matter(s) shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 01 In pursuance of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 The development shall not commence until details of all boundary walls and fences have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development. 03 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 Before the commencement of development on site a scheme for noise attenuation measures shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall detail the calculated effects of the proposed attenuation measures and upon approval shall be implemented within 3 months and thereafter maintained. 04 To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties in accodance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (in accordance with the CLEA guidelines and methodology) and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. 1) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to investigations commencing on site (ref1). 2) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology (ref 2). 3) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any Agenda Item 10 Page 86
remediation commencing on site, approval shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority of any such remedial works required. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters. 4) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance (ref 3). If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 5) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. This shall include photographic evidence. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site. Ref 1 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 2, 3 & 4 (DoE) Ref 2 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 1 (DoE) Ref 3 : CIRIA Vols 1-12 Contaminated Land Series and CIRIA "Building on Derelict Land" If any infill material is to be brought onto the site, only naturally occurring rocks, sub-soils and soils (including those containing <20% organic matter) and recycled construction and/or demolition materials (but excluding those containing bricks and concrete >70mm, metal, plasterboard, asbestos cement or other contaminated materials) shall be used. This shall be from a certified source to ensure that it is not contaminated in terms of its intended end use. The relevant Certification Documents shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any development commencing on the site. No development shall commence until the LPA has given written approval of the documents. No sludges or slurrys may be used. Analytical evidence shall be provided to verify imported soils are suitable for the proposed end use. This will require characterisation of the source and target sites in accordance with BS ISO 15176:2002 and subsequent relevant soil analyses. The sampling protocols and soil guideline values to be used for assessment of suitability will be dependant on the source of the soil and the proposed use of the target site and this shall be agreed with the LPA prior to any development commencing on the site. As a minimum, for large volumes of homogenous natural soils for use in non-sensitive areas, such as commercial end uses, sampling frequency shall be at least one per thousand cubic metres (1:1000m3). Soils for use in sensitive areas, such as domestic gardens, and where imported soils are less homogenous, the sampling frequency shall be greater (i.e. up to one per hundred and fifty cubic metres (1:150m3)). A closure report shall be submitted once remediation works have been completed. This shall include results of all sampling undertaken and certification of imported soils. This condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. Ref 1. R&D Publication CLR8 (2002) 'Potential contaminants for the assessment of land' (DEFRA and the Environment Agency) Ref 2. BS ISO 15176:2002 'Soil quality - characterisation of excavated soil and other materials intended for re-use.' 05 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Page 87 Agenda Item 10
06 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved. 06 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 07 Details of the surface water drainage system for the development (including storage facilities where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied. 07 To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 08 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 08 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 Before development commences, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 09 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08.00 to 13.30 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 10 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 11 There shall be no incineration of waste materials within the curtilage of the premises. 11 To prevent nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 12 The development shall be constructed at the level indicated on the approved drawing. Agenda Item 10 Page 88
12 In the interests of amenity and privacy in accordance with Policies B1 and H8 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 13 The garage, car parking spaces, turning areas and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 13 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 14 All sleeping accommodation shall be at a minimum level of 7.3m above Ordnance Datum (Nelwyn). 14 To reduce the risk to life and the risk of damage to property in accordance with policy NR7 of the Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft. 15 Other than sleeping accommodation all other living accommodation shall be at a minimum level of 7.03m above Ordnance Datum (Nelwyn). 15 To reduce the risk to life and the risk of damage to property in accordance with policy NR7 of the Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft. 16 An unobstructed internal means of escape from any confined low level basement/ground floor area to a higher level shall be provided and thereafter maintained. 16 To reduce the risk to life in accordance with policy NR7 of the Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft. INFORMATIVES 01 In connection with the closure of the existing access, the Applicant is asked to contact the Council's Highways Management Unit in regard to removal of the dropped kerb and footway crossing and reinstatement of the public footway. Page 89 Agenda Item 10
Application No: : 04/01207/OUT Address : 389 - 397 Princes Road Dartford Kent DA1 1JU Date: 23 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 90
This page is intentionally left blank Page 91 Agenda Item 11
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00956/COU Officer: Mrs B Lidster Location: Manor Cottage Barn End Lane Wilmington Kent DA2 7PX Proposal: Change of use of cottage from residential to youth and community centre (sui generis) together with the erection of boundary fencing. Applicant: Wilmington Parish Council Oakfield Park Pavilion The Spires Wilmington Kent DA1 2TA Date Valid: 20/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Wilmington Parish Council / Wilmington RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policy. (2) Local Plan Review - No site specific policy. SITE DESCRIPTION (3) Manor Cottage is a detached house located at the entrance to Stanley Morgan House and The Mount Old Peoples Home. To the south and west of the property are open fields; to the east are residential houses and to the north Stanley Morgan House and The Mount. (4) The property sits on a plot of some 35m in width and approximately 29m in depth with a rear garden depth of 12m. PROPOSAL (5) The proposal is for the use of the premises during the day for community policing and then three evenings per week for youth club purposes. There are no details of the hours of use by the community police officers - the application merely states that this would be on an ad hoc basis. It is proposed that the youth club would operate Wednesday to Friday from 7 to 9:30 p.m. The proposal is for a temporary period only as the lease expires at the end of March 2007. (6) The application also seeks to provide a close boarded fence of 1.8m in height around the property along the northern and western boundaries. Agenda Item 11 Page 92
RELEVANT HISTORY (7) Planning permission for the house was granted in 1966 for a handyman/gardeners cottage linked to The Mount Old Peoples Home. I have been advised that the property has been empty for a number of years. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (8) Kent Highway Services - Needs to submit car parking details for staff, parent drop off/collection etc. Secure and weatherproof bicycle parking should be provided based on the number of people liable to be at the site at any one time and would expect 25 to 50% provision. (9) Environmental Health Services Manager - No objections. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (10) One letter of representation has been received, signed by most of the residents of Mayors Lane. They comment that the house and garden is small; under fire regulations maximum occupancy is 20; lack of storage facilities; outbuilding would be vandalised; how are numbers controlled; Stanley Morgan House is already target for joy riders and anti social behaviour; will create a permanent focal point on the outskirts of the village with crime rate and vandalism increasing; will not be secured or policed satisfactorily; will attract others from outside the area; community police should be in the centre of the village; increase in noise and disturbance; increase in rubbish; already a youth club in church hall; local children will be penalised and unable to venture to green for fear of being intimidated and set a bad example; in summary feel that the scheme is unsuitable, impractical, uneconomical and misguided detrimental to all local residents and the surrounding area and will deprive of continuing right to the peaceful enjoyment of homes. (11) Two individual letters have also been sent in by residents in Mayors Lane who comment that they consider the location to be totally unsuitable and reiterate the points set out in the residents petition; the planning application states no vehicles will visit during a normal working day, but there is no definition of a normal working day; if aim is to make Police Community Officers more accessible to community, this is better in centre rather than at perimeter. RELEVANT POLICIES (12) Dartford Local Plan - Policy B1 gives general development guidance for all proposals; Policy CF3 supports the provision of community facilities; Policy H12 seeks to ensure that proposals are compatible with the residential function of existing housing areas; Policy T23 seeks to ensure adequate parking provision. (13) Dartford Local Plan Review - The above Policies are replicated as Policies DD11, CF1, H6 and T11 respectively. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS KEY ISSUES (14) Key issues are the impact on neighbouring residential properties and whether this is a suitable site for this community facility. Impact on neighbouring residential properties (15) Manor Cottage is situated at the main entrance to the Stanley Morgan House and The Mount Old Peoples Home. The property is currently empty and as previously stated it has been for a number of years. Page 93 Agenda Item 11
(16) The property is located approximately 12m from the rear boundary of the houses in Mayors Lane and approximately 25m from the rear of the houses. (17) The Stanley Morgan site is a community facility with the house being located at the entrance to the site. The house is boarded up detracting from the visual amenity of the site and the wider area. Bringing the house back into use can only benefit the area in terms of the visual appearance and the potential for reduction in vandalism etc. (18) Given that the property would be used by the Community Police Officer during the day I do not consider that this would cause any undue noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the properties in Mayors Lane. Stanley Morgan House and The Mount have frequent visitors and I do not consider that this small additional use would cause any significant impact in terms of noise and disturbance. (19) I note that the hours of use by the Police would be on an ad hoc basis. Should Members be minded to grant permission for the change of use the start and finish times for use by the Community Police could be restricted by condition. (20) A further element of the proposal is for the use of the premises for a youth club on three evenings per week from 7 to 9:30 p.m. Whilst this does give rise to a greater potential for noise and disturbance the Council's Environmental Health Services Manager has not raised any objection to the proposal. (21) In my opinion the hours of use proposed are not unreasonable and whilst there maybe some disturbance when the garden is used in the summer months, I do not consider that this would be significant as to warrant a refusal of the application. Additionally noise nuisance would be a matter for Environmental Health to deal with as it is controlled under separate legislation. (22) When considering the proposal Members are reminded that the application is for a temporary period until end of March 2007. (23) Neighbours have identified that the property is frequently broken into and vandalised. Bringing the property back into use would, in my opinion, help in this regard as it is likely to be more secure with less opportunity to be broken into and vandalised. The provision of additional fencing around the property would help in terms of security at the site. Other matters (24) The neighbour's comments regarding existing youth club within the village; closure of the Police house; how the membership of the youth club is managed; fear and intimidation etc. are not material planning considerations. There may well be a youth club in the village but that does not mean that there should not be a further facility within the village. This proposal will make the facility available to the wider number of young members of the community. (25) In the supporting statement Kent Police has 'agreed that should the centre fail to assist with anti social problems etc the centre will be closed'. How this is determined is a matter for those running the club it is not possible to condition this as part of any planning permission. (26) Should the facility prove to be a nuisance in terms of noise and disturbance then this would be taken into account should any future application be submitted to extend any permission for the youth club. (27) Kent Highway Services have concerns regarding the parking and drop off facilities at the premises and further information has been requested from the applicant. (28) Subject to the parking details being acceptable I am of the opinion that this is a good use of the empty building, bringing it back into use for the benefit of the younger members of the community. Additionally this would benefit the area by making the premises more visually acceptable and presumably more secure. Agenda Item 11 Page 94
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (29) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (30) I am of the opinion that this is an acceptable use of this unused building on a site which is already used for community facilities. The building will be brought back into use which should reduce the problems at the premises with break-ins and vandalism. I accept that there maybe some noise and disturbance during the summer months. However given that the premises will only be used for three evenings per week from 7 to 9:30 p.m. I do not consider that the impacts are such as to warrant a refusal of the application. (31) Subject to the necessary parking/drop off arrangements being acceptable I recommend that the application be approved. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) 01 This permission shall be for a limited period of 15 months only, expiring on 31 March 2007 when the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 01 To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the circumstances under which this permission is granted in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 02 The fencing hereby approved shall be erected prior to occupation of the premises. 02 In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 The building shall not be use for Community Police purposes outside of the hours of 09:00 to 18:00 hours daily unless otherwise agreed in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. 03 To avoid unreasonable disturbance outside normal working hours to nearby residential properties contrary to Policies B1 and H12 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 The building shall not be used for youth club outside of the hours of 19:00 to 21:30 hours on Wednesday to Friday evenings unless otherwise agreed in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. 04 To safeguard the amenities of the area and occupiers of adjoining properties in accordance with Policies B1 and H12 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Page 95 Agenda Item 11
05 The car parking spaces, drop off areas, turning areas and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 05 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 The applicants are advised that the premises must not be used for any use other than for Community Policing or Youth Centre during the hours stated above. Agenda Item 11 Page 96
Application No: : 05/00956/COU Address : Manor Cottage Barn End Lane Wilmington Kent DA2 7PX Date: 28 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 97 Agenda Item 12
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 04/00522/REM Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters relating to landscaping pursuant to Conditions 1 and 12 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for the erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5) Applicant: The JTS Partnership 1st Floor 31 St Margarets Street Canterbury Kent CT1 2TG Date Valid: 24/05/2004 Parish / Ward: / Dartford Brent RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - None. (2) Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft - Policy DD5 existing open spaces contributing to the Green Grid. SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The application site is located within a larger site which has the benefit of planning permission for a total of nine dwellings. The various planning permissions are discussed in the Relevant History section below. (4) The entire site measures 0.56 hectares in area and is located to the north of Powder Mill Lane. Beyond the western boundary of the site is Brooklands House, a substantial two and a half storey house with a garden bordering on the River Darent. Beyond the northern boundary is Dryad, a two storey property. The land to the east of the site is heavily wooded while the land to the south-west, in proximity to Powder Mill Lane, is in use as a children's nursery. (5) The area under consideration for the purposes of this report covers Plots 1-5 only (about 40% of the total land), and is the northern section of the site. PROPOSAL Agenda Item 12 Page 98
(6) This report relates to five applications relating to the same site. Greenwood's planning history has become increasing complex in the wake of a number of amendments to the original scheme. For the benefit of clarity, it has been decided to deal first with the details and reserved matters relating to Plots 1 to 5. Reserved matters relating to siting, design, external appearance and parking for Plots 1 to 5 have all been previously approved under a submission in 2002 (see history below). (7) The applications under consideration now include the final reserved matter of landscaping, plus four sets of details pursuant to conditions attached to the original outline planning permission (DA/95/00743/OUT). These details include: cross-sectional profiles between Greenwood and Brooklands House, pursuant to condition 10; the access road, foul and surface water drainage, pursuant to conditions 6 and 14; samples and details of the external materials to be used pursuant to Condition 9; and, boundary walls and fences, pursuant to condition 11. The associated references are set out below in the Relevant History. RELEVANT HISTORY (8) The overall site benefits from planning permission for a total of nine detached houses. The existing live permissions are as follows: - DA/95/00743/OUT is an outline planning permission for 7 detached properties. Only development relating to plots 1 to 5 are being pursued, the rest of the site has been superseded by other planning permissions discussed below. An extension of time for commencement of works was agreed in 2001, and a further extension has been requested and is pending under reference DA/04/01172/FUL. This application is not needed if permission is granted for the final reserved matter (landscaping), which is covered in this committee report; - DA/03/00651/FUL is a full planning permission for two detached houses, now known as Plots 6 and 7. Revisions to Plot 7 have been submitted under reference DA/04/01187/FUL. (The consideration of this application is not covered in this report); - DA/02/01229/OUT is an outline planning permission for two detached houses, known as Plots 8 and 9. To date, no reserved matters have been submitted. (9) This report is only concerned with Plots 1 to 5. Matters relating to the other plots will be considered by the Local Planning Authority at a later date. One application for reserved matters has already been approved (in December 2002). This was DA/02/00126/REM and includes the reserved matters relating to siting, design, external appearance and parking/garaging, pursuant to Conditions 1 and 5 of the original outline planning permission (DA/95/00743/OUT). The following applications are all covered in this committee report: - DA/04/00522/REM includes the one outstanding reserved matter relating to the landscaping of the site, as required by Conditions 1 and 12 of planning permission DA/95/00743/OUT; - DA/04/01231/REM relates to cross-sectional profiles pursuant to Condition 10 of planning permission DA/95/00743/OUT; - DA/05/00082/REM contains details relating to the access road, foul and surface water drainage, pursuant to Conditions 6 and 14 of planning permission DA/95/00743/OUT; - DA/05/00826/REM covers boundary enclosures around and between the individual plots. This is pursuant to Condition 11 of planning permission DA/95/00743/OUT; - DA/05/01168/REM relates to external materials pursuant to Condition 9 of planning permission DA/95/00743/OUT. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS Page 99 Agenda Item 12
(10) Kent Highway Services: after amendments to the surface water drainage system, there are now no objections to any of the subject applications. The access road leading to Plots 1 to 5 will not be adopted. (11) Landscape & Horticultural Officer: proposed planting for Plots 1 to 5 is satisfactory. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (12) One letter from the occupants of Dryad, a detached dwelling to the north of the subject site, states that there is no objection in principle to development at Greenwood. However, the following issues are relevant: - With regards to the cross-sectional profiles, there is concern that the plans do not show the true 'existing' levels, and that the levels given are after backfill has occurred; - With regards to landscaping, there are questions relating to the replacement of mature trees, which have yet to be planted. (13) A number of the applications have had their descriptions revised and neighbouring properties have been notified of this. Details of any further points raised by neighbouring properties following this re-consultation will be reported in the update. RELEVANT POLICIES (14) In the adopted Local Plan, policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. Developments should respect and integrate with their surroundings. Policy B3 states that they should also incorporate appropriate hard and soft landscaping, and where possible, existing trees should be retained and integrated with the development proposals. Policies T27 and T31 encourages provision for pedestrians when considering development proposals or new highways. (15) Policies DD11 and T8 of the Local Plan Review replicate the above considerations, whilst Policy NR1 states that development proposals will only be permitted if they are served by adequate mains sewerage and surface water drainage. Policy DD5 states that development will not be permitted either in or within close proximity of Brooklands Lakes and land immediately to the east, which would be likely to have a detrimental impact upon: the amenity and recreational value; contribution to the visual qualities of the area; value in providing an attractive alternative to motorised travel; wildlife conservation value; or landscape value. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (16) As discussed above, this report covers the one remaining reserved matter of landscaping, and several details required by condition. Therefore, each issue shall be considered separately: (i) landscaping; (ii) cross-sectional profiles between Greenwood and Brooklands House; (iii) the access road; (iv) foul and surface water drainage; (v) boundary walls and fences; (vi) external materials. Landscaping (17) Conditions 1 and 12 of the original outline planning permission required the submission of a landscaping scheme as a reserved matter. All other reserved matters have already been approved. (18) The landscape scheme has the potential to further protect the amenities of the nearest neighbouring residential property, which is Brooklands House to the west. The location of the access road (discussed later in this report) means that suitable medium sized shrubs and trees can be planted between the western boundary and the road. The suggested species mean that, along this boundary up to the edge of Plot 1, the shrubs can be expected to grow Agenda Item 12 Page 100
to between (on average) 2 to 3 metres tall. This should sufficiently retain the privacy levels of the neighbouring property. (19) It is currently proposed that 56 trees will be planted. 14 are to be planted within plots 1 to 5 and include a variety of Ash, Birch, Hornbeam and Lime species, all considered appropriate for this site, and should help to retain the wooded feel to this site, which was the case before any development commenced. Cross-sectional Profiles between Greenwood and Brooklands House (20) Condition 10 of the original outline planning permission required the submission of plans detailing the land levels between the subject site and the adjoining residential property. The plans have been amended since originally submitted in order to accurately show the change in the land levels. These plans also show the retaining wall, which has been partially built. This is being considered under a separate application, and will be reported to Members at a later date. (21) The purpose of these details was to ensure that the amenities of the neighbouring property would not be compromised by the development at Greenwood. There have been concerns that the land levels stated as being existing on the submitted plans are not necessarily the land levels that existed before development commenced on site, as it has been said that a certain degree of backfill has already occurred without permission being granted for the levels. (22) In response to this I have assessed a site survey from December 1993 (before any development had occurred on this site). Having compared this site survey against the plans submitted, I am of the view that there are no contentious issues regarding the existing land levels. Although the measurements differ, the differences between the two plans are so slight that I do not consider it appropriate to bring into question the accuracy of the submitted plans. (23) The proposal involves the levelling of land on each of the plots. Each plot will be levelled at about an average height of the plot's land as it was before any development (including backfill) occurred on this site. For example, the land levels at Plot 5 ranged from +12.37m on the eastern side, down to +11.49m on the western side (the boundary shared with Brooklands House). The proposed land level for the entire plot is +12.00m. (24) I consider that the overall proposed land levels are satisfactory. A relatively equal proportion of backfilling and excavating will be required to provide these land levels. The result will not, in my view, be an overbearing development on Brooklands House to the west. I do not believe that the Local Planning Authority would be justified in requiring additional excavation to occur on this site. Members are reminded that the Board agreed the siting and design of Plots 1-5 in 2002. Access Road (25) The access road leading into the site from Powdermill Lane is likely to be adopted up to the access that will then lead into Plots 1 to 5. All that is under consideration at the moment is the access road into Plots 1 to 5, as required by Condition 6 of the original outline planning permission, and this is considered acceptable, particularly in this location. (26) It also provides for adequate landscaping to occur along the important western boundary between Greenwood and Brooklands House. Foul and Surface Water Drainage (27) The proposed drainage system has been altered slightly to take account of land levels. This has been done to the satisfaction of the Council's Drainage Engineer. I therefore believe that the details of the drainage system for Plots 1-5 should be approved. Boundary Walls and Fences Page 101 Agenda Item 12
(28) The two types of boundary enclosures include a 0.75m high rustic railing, which will extend along an unmade track that exists from Powdermill Lane up to an access serving the existing Greenwood property, Dryad and Brooklands House. The other type includes a 1.8m standard timber fence that will be sited so as to define the boundaries between Plots 1 to 5, and will also line the rear gardens. (29) These details are, in my view, satisfactory for this type of housing development. They are necessary to provide a suitable level of privacy and security, without harming the visual amenities of the area. (30) Members may wish to note that the details submitted also contained details of a 'Permacrib' type timber retaining wall for the northern boundary of the site. The applicants have been advised that a separate planning application will need to be submitted, and as such, this retaining wall is not under consideration at this time. There is also a pending submission for a retaining wall between Greenwood and Brooklands House that will be reported to Members in the near future. External Materials (31) Satisfactory samples of the external materials to be used to build plots 1 to 5 have been submitted for approval. These include a Redland Clay Rosemary plain roof tile and a Laybrook Cissbury Red multistock brick. These are the same samples as submitted for plots 6 and 7, and I am satisfied that they are adequate for this location and will restrict the visual impact of the development on the character of the area. HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS (32) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation is compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (33) The outstanding reserved matters and details pursuant to conditions attached to the planning permission for plots 1 to 5 have now been received, and after negotiation between the agents, internal consultees and neighbouring residents, the details are now, in my view, acceptable, and I therefore recommend approval of the details for the five submissions. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant is advised that the details approved under this submission relate only to Plots 1 to 5. Agenda Item 12 Page 102
Application No: : 04/00522/REM Address : Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 103 Agenda Item 13
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 04/01231/REM Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Proposal: Submission of details relating to cross-sectional profiles pursuant to condition 10 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5) Applicant: The JTS Partnership 1st Floor 31 St Margarets Street Canterbury Kent CT1 2TG Date Valid: 21/12/2004 Parish / Ward: / Dartford Brent RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details SITE SPECIFIC POLICY Reported jointly with DA/04/00522/REM. See Item No. 12 on this agenda for a report. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant is advised that the details approved under this submission relate only to Plots 1 to 5. Agenda Item 13 Page 104
Application No: : 04/01231/REM Address : Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Date: 30 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 105 Agenda Item 13
Page 106
This page is intentionally left blank Page 107 Agenda Item 14
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00082/REM Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Proposal: Submission of details relating to access road, layout of access road and foul and surface water drainage pursuant to Conditions 6 and 14 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for the erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5) Applicant: The JTS Partnership Chartered Valuation Surveyors 1st Floor 31 St. Margaret's St Canterbury Kent BT1 2TG Date Valid: 31/01/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Brent RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details SITE SPECIFIC POLICY Reported jointly with DA/04/00522/REM. See Item No. 12 on this agenda for a report. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant is advised that the details approved under this submission relate only to Plots 1 to 5. Agenda Item 14 Page 108
Application No: : 05/00082/REM Address : Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Date: 30 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 109 Agenda Item 15
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00826/REM Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Proposal: Submission of details relating to boundary walls & fencings pursuant to Condition 11 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5) Applicant: The JTS Partnership 1st Floor 31 St Margarets Street Canterbury Kent CT1 2TG Date Valid: 16/08/2005 Parish / Ward: / Dartford Brent RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details SITE SPECIFIC POLICY Reported jointly with DA/04/00522/REM. See Item No. 12 on this agenda for a report. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant is advised that the details approved under this submission relate only to Plots 1 to 5. Agenda Item 15 Page 110
Application No: : 05/00826/REM Address : Greenwood Brooklands Park Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Date: 30 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 111 Agenda Item 16
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01168/REM Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: Greenwood Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Proposal: Submission of details relating to external materials pursuant to Condition 9 of Planning Permission DA/95/00743/OUT for the erection of detached houses (Plots 1-5) Applicant: P J Mullan & Sons Ltd The Gatehouse Manford Industrial Estate Manor Road Erith Kent DA8 2AJ Date Valid: 18/11/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Brent RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details SITE SPECIFIC POLICY Reported jointly with DA/04/00522/REM. See Item No. 12 on this agenda for a report. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Details INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant is advised that the details approved under this submission relate only to Plots 1 to 5. Agenda Item 16 Page 112
Application No: : 05/01168/REM Address : Greenwood Darenth Road Dartford Kent DA1 1LY Date: 30 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 113 Agenda Item 17
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01042/FUL Officer: Miss Emma Jefferys Location: Land Adjacent 72 Oakfield Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2SY Proposal: Erection of a detached 4 bedroom house with integral garage and the formation of a vehicular access onto classified road C286 Applicant: Denken Builders Agent: P Foster 23 Axtane Hook Green Road Southfleet DA13 9NB Date Valid: 18/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Wilmington Parish Council / Dartford Princes RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Area of Special Residential Character (Policy H9) (2) Local Plan Review - Area of special Residential Character (Policy H23) SITE DESCRIPTION (3) No. 72 Oakfield Lane, or otherwise know as The Clockhouse, was formally the stable block/coach house for Oakfield Lodge, the grounds of which are now Oakfield Park. Oakfield House was demolished in the 1950s leaving the stable block redundant and it was around this time that The Cockhouse was converted into residential accommodation. This historic building is currently being renovated with much of the work being carried out internally. A local resident and the Council have contacted English Heritage in the hope that this building can be listed. (4) Due to the historic links with Oakfield Park, the frontage of The Clockhouse faces east rather than towards the road. There is an 11.5 metre wide gap between The Clockhouse and the boundary with no. 74 and this is where the proposed dwelling would be sited. The site slopes down to the south so that the rear of the site is approximately 3 metres below the ground level at the front of the site. PROPOSAL Agenda Item 17 Page 114
(5) The proposed dwelling would be 2 storeys with 4 bedrooms at first floor level and a kitchen/diner, lounge and attached garage on the ground floor. It would be set back from the footpath by 6 metres providing a turning area to the front. The rear garden would be approximately 100 sq. m. (6) The finishing materials of the front elevation have been amended in order to ensure that the proposed dwelling does not contrast with The Clockhouse but goes some way towards reflecting it. RELEVANT HISTORY (7) There is no relevant history for this site. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (8) The Wilmington Parish Council have no observations. (9) Kent County Council Highways Services: Two parking spaces with a turning area can be provided and this complies with council standards. A condition is necessary in order to ensure that vehicles only leave the site in forward gear. (10) Thames Water: No objections (11) Environmental Health Services Manager: Recommend restricting the hours of construction and that there should be no bonfires on site. The site is also in a Smoke Control Area and only authorised fuels and fireplaces exempted by Smoke Control Orders can be utilised. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (12) Five letters of objection have been received by local residents. The comments relate to: the impact of the proposed dwelling on visual amenities; the overdevelopment of the site; the detrimental impact on the character and appearance of The Clockhouse; the inadequacy of the parking provision for both properties; the impact on the residential amenities of the occupants of no. 74 and the future occupants of no. 72. Other comments relate to the reduced value of the neighbouring properties once the development is constructed. This is not a material planning consideration. RELEVANT POLICIES (13) Policies B1 and H10 are relevant. Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. Policy H10 seeks to ensure that new housing development is of an acceptable design and layout. (14) Policies DD11 and H8 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. Policy H4 relates to windfall sites and seeks to ensure that development has no detrimental impact on the surrounding area. (15) Policies T22 of the Adopted Local Plan and T11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review seek to ensure that there is adequate parking provision. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues Page 115 Agenda Item 17
(16) I consider the key issues to be the impact of the proposed dwelling on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, the impact on the visual amenities of the street scene, the impact on the character and appearance of The Clockhouse, and the adequacy of the residential accommodation and parking facilities for the future occupants of the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling. Impact on Residential Amenities (17) The proposed dwelling would not project beyond the rear elevation of The Clockhouse. There are also no habitable windows within the flank elevation of this property. I am therefore of the view that there would be little impact on the future occupants of The Clockhouse in terms of overshadowing or overbearing impact. The proposed dwelling would project 1.2 metres beyond the rear elevation of no. 74 Oakfield Lane at 4.8 metres away from the common boundary. No. 74 has no windows within its flank elevation. I am therefore of the view that the proposed dwelling would have little impact on the amenities of no. 74 in terms of overshadowing or overbearing impact. (18) There is an en suite bathroom window within the west flank elevation of the proposed dwelling which can be obscure glazed and fixed shut. The proposed ground floor windows would not overlook the neighbouring properties as there would be 2 metre high close boarded boundary fences. There are three windows within the east facing roof slope of the proposed dwelling. Only one of these windows would be in a position close enough to potentially be able to see into the rear garden of The Clockhouse. However, this is a high-level window which can be conditioned to be fixed shut. I therefore consider that there would be no overlooking of any neighbouring properties. Impact on visual amenities (19) The south side of this section of Oakfield Lane is characterised by a number of differently designed detached and semi-detached properties. The width of each plot averages at approximately 7 metres. Most of these properties are set back from the edge of the footpath by approximately 5 metres, apart from The Clockhouse and no. 70 which abut the footpath. The width of the proposed plot would be 10 metres and the width of the remaining plot would be 15 metres. The proposed dwelling would be set back from the footpath by 6 metres. I therefore feel that the proposed dwelling would conform with the character of the area in terms of its spacing and building line. (20) The height of the proposed dwelling would also be similar to the adjacent properties and to those within the wider area. Its design is different to The Clockhouse and the more recently constructed no. 74 Oakfield Lane. However, the properties within this street are all differently designed. I consider that the proposed dwelling would not appear out of character with the street scene and would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. Impact on character and appearance of The Clockhouse (21) Although The Clockhouse is not listed, I feel that it is appropriate to consider the impact of the proposed dwelling on its character and appearance owning to the fact that English Heritage are currently considering its historic and architectural merit. (22) The Clockhouse was built circa 1800 and its architectural features reflect this with white render and black timber finish. The proposed dwelling is obviously very different in appearance to The Clockhouse. However, I do not feel that a property designed to mimic or replicate the design of The Clockhouse would be appropriate in this instance and may even detract from its character to a greater extent. I feel that a property designed to reflect some of the features of The Clockhouse is more appropriate, and that is what has been proposed in this instance. The front elevation and the east flank elevation would be rendered and painted white to ensure that there is not so much of a contrast between the two properties. Red brick detail would still be visible on the front elevation so as to tie in with no. 74. The gable end to the front elevation and the pitch of the roof also picks up on the form of The Clockhouse. Agenda Item 17 Page 116
(23) The Clockhouse is already a historic building among a street of modern properties. I do not feel that the development of one additional modern dwelling adjacent to it would detract from its character. This is especially when taking into consideration the orientation of The Clockhouse. The elevation that would be obstructed from view by the proposed dwelling is, in my opinion, of lesser architectural merit than the east elevation which faces no. 70 Oakfield Road. Design, layout and parking provision (24) The internal layout and room sizes comply with Council standards. The area of private amenity space for the proposed dwelling would exceed Council standards by approximately 30 sq. m and the remaining amenity space for the existing property would exceed Council standards by approximately 120 sq. m. A garage, driveway and turning area are provided to the front of the property providing 2 spaces. The Clockhouse has an existing garage and space for an additional two cars. This complies with Council standards. A vehicular crossing would have to be installed to create access to the proposed dwelling. The Kent Highway Officer has made no objection to this. I therefore consider that the design and size of the proposed dwelling is suitable for the site and does not constitute an overdevelopment. Other matters (25) The Environmental Heath Services Manager has recommended limiting the hours of construction. However, this condition is not usually imposed on smaller developments in order to allow flexibility. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (26) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (27) Having considered the comments from the neighbours and consultees and the relevant local plan policies, I consider that the proposed dwelling is sufficiently designed so as to limit any impact on the neighbouring dwellings and would have no detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the street scene, or the character and appearance of this area of special residential character and/or The Clockhouse. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Page 117 Agenda Item 17
02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 No materials shall be burnt on site during construction. 03 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 Within 6 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted the site shall be adequately fenced on its east, south and west boundaries to a height of 2m in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved byof the Local Planning Authority before any work in accordance with this permission is first commenced, and thereafter such fencing shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 04 To ensure that the proposed development does not prejduice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties and the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed first floor window within the east flank elevation shall be obscure glazed, details of which shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority, and apart from any top hung fan lights incapable of being opened and shall subsequently be maintained as such. 05 To protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed window to the rear of the east facing roof shall be incapable of being opened and shall permanently remain as such unless otherwise agreed by in writing the Local Planning Authority. 06 To protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions, alterations or other form of enlargement to the residential development hereby permitted, nor erection of porches, outbuildings, hardstandings, storage tanks, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosures, shall take place without the prior permission of or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. 07 To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider any further developmenton its merits, having regard to the amount of development already permitted on the site and in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Agenda Item 17 Page 118
08 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order), no other windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the roof of the building without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 08 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of the amenity and privacy of adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 The garage, car parking spaces, turning areas and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 09 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 It appears that this development involves work close to a boundary, which may come under the terms of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. If it does, you will need to serve notice on your neighbour before undertaking any work. It would therefore be advisable for you to ensure that you meet any requirements of the Act before starting any work. 02 The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. Page 119 Agenda Item 17
Application No: : 05/01042/FUL Address : Land Adjacent 72 Oakfield Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2SY Date: 28 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 120
This page is intentionally left blank Page 121 Agenda Item 18
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00552/OUT Officer: Mr David Jeanes Location: 7 Woodland Close Longfield Kent Proposal: Outline application for demolition of existing dwelling & erection of one replacement dwelling and erection of one additional dwelling with garages Applicant: Mr D Wells Agent: Mr Graham Simpkin 2 The Parade Ash Road Hartley Kent DA3 8BG Date Valid: 06/06/2005 Parish / Ward: Longfield & New Barn P.C. / Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Outline Permission. SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Village Confines, Area of Special Residential Character (2) Local Plan Review - Village Confines, Area of Special Residential Character SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The site is situated at the northern end of Woodland Close and is occupied by a single storey bungalow. The existing bungalow is in need of repair. There is a given site area of some 0.29ha. (4) Surrounding sites have been developed for detached dwellings at a similar scale (i.e., single detached dwellings on large parcels of land). Woodland Close generally comprises a mix of bungalows and chalet style dwellings. The eastern boundary abuts No 2 Greenways whereas to the north the boundary is with dwellings in Deerhurst Close. (5) Access to the site is via a gravel vehicular access extending north from Fawkham Avenue. PROPOSAL (6) The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing dwelling situated on the property and the erection of two (2) detached dwellings and associated garages. (7) The applicant has submitted an indicative design of the dwellings, showing bungalow style dwellings. These plans are illustrative only and the applicant seeks to reserve matters of Agenda Item 18 Page 122
external appearance, the precise siting of the dwellings, landscaping and design. At this stage only access is for determination. RELEVANT HISTORY (8) A previous application was submitted during 2004 for the demolition of the existing residence and the erection of three (3) detached dwellings (Ref. DA/04/00986/OUT). This application was refused as a result of failure to achieve the design requirements of Council policy. Essentially, the proposed development was considered to be an over-intensive development of the site. (9) The applicant (through their agent) has submitted a revised scheme aimed at addressing the previous objections. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (10) Neighbour notification has been undertaken and seven (7) submissions have been received. These raise objections to the application on a number of grounds. Concerns raised include: The impact on amenity of the New Barn village and the increase in development generally in the area; Concerns over privacy given the location of the proposed dwellings to property boundaries; Impact of increased vehicles/parking requirements. Also concern over impact of construction traffic on Woodlands Close. It has also been commented that Woodlands Close is a private road, which is maintained by the residents - concern over future maintenance with increased dwellings; Impact on infrastructure including sewage; and Potential for overbearing impacts and loss of light to adjoining residences; COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (11) Thames Water - No objection. (12) Southern Water - No objection (13) Kent Highways Services - No objection. Recommended requirements for turning areas for vehicles and the need to provide a designated waste bin collection point near to Woodlands Close that does not impinge on traffic/parking in the locality. These matters can be dealt with through conditions. (14) Drainage Engineering Manager - No objection. RELEVANT POLICIES (15) Dartford Local Plan - Policies V1-V5 (Village Areas), Policy H9 Area of Special Residential Character, Policy H8 & H10 (Design & Density), Policy B1 & H12 (General Design Criteria and Protection of Amenity of Existing Residential Areas). (16) Dartford Local Plan Review - C18-21 (Village Areas), Policy H23 (Area of Special Residential Character), Policy H8 (Design & Density), DD11 (General Design Criteria), Policy H4 (Windfall Sites), Policy H17 (Affordable Housing). DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS KEY ISSUES Page 123 Agenda Item 18
(17) In my opinion the key issues with respect to the application include compliance with various Council policies relating to amenity, retention of village character, the potential impact on neighbours and affordable housing. Impact on Character of Area. (18) The subject site lies within the New Barn Village confines as identified under Policy V1 of the Dartford Local Plan and Policy C18 of the Local Plan Review (Amended Second Deposit Draft). (19) Policy V2 of the adopted Local Plan requires that development within the village should be "of a high standard of design, complimentary to the character of the village, and be appropriate in terms of built form, scale, layout and materials". Similarly, Policy C19 of the Local Plan Review provides similar design guidelines. (20) The application provides for an illustrative development that is similar in design and density to nearby residential properties. The modified proposal is consistent with the amenity of the locality and can, in my view, be accommodated on the plot without adverse impacts on the village character of the locality. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the eventual design of development on the plot accords with nearby development. (21) Policy H9 of the adopted Local Plan provides that development within Areas of Special Residential Character will be resisted where they are unsympathetic to the residential character of the locality. (22) Similarly, Policy H23 of the Local Plan Review (Second Deposit Draft) provides similar guidance and relies on Appendix 7 of the Plan Review to provide more detailed guidance with respect to development in village areas. (23) The proposed development, I consider, complies with the requirements of Appendix 7 of the Local Plan Review (Second Deposit Draft), and the general requirements for development in village areas. It maintains appropriate spatial standards and will result in curtilages that accord with and are comparable to other developments in the area. Design and Density (24) Policies H8 & H10 of the Dartford Local Plan and Policy H8 of the Local Plan Review (Second Deposit Draft) provide guidance with respect to the density, layout and design of new development. (25) The application demonstrates that the proposal will, in my opinion, be compatible with other developments in locality and sympathetic to character of area. The proposal will result in dwellings being situated on parcels of land with similar dimensions to those nearby. I would raise no objections in this respect. General Design Criteria (26) Policy H12 of the adopted Local Plan states that proposals that are incompatible with the existing housing in the area or which would adversely affect the amenity of nearby dwellings will not be permitted. (27) Similarly, Policy B1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review (Second Deposit Draft) provide general development criteria aimed at protecting the amenity and character of the area through a high standard of design. (28) The scale and massing of the proposed new units are similar to the existing form of development in this area. As such I consider it capable of being accommodated on the site without any adverse impact on the neighbouring residents. This should not create any Agenda Item 18 Page 124
overbearing impact or significant amenity issues for adjoining properties, and this can be controlled at the detail stage. (29) Relevant conditions are recommended requiring appropriate setback from flank boundaries as well as restricting the placement of windows in order to minimise any potential for undesirable amenity impacts. Windfall Sites (30) Development of sites for new dwellings is acceptable in principle provided that the design of the proposal is appropriate in terms of density, design and protection of the amenity of the locality. (31) Policy H4 of the Local Plan Review (Second Deposit Draft) provides guidance for development of sites for less than 5 dwellings. These policies aim to maintain the existing character/amenity of the locality. (32) In my view the proposed development complies with Council policy in terms of ensuring the protection of the character and amenity of the locality. Affordable Housing (33) Policy H17 of the Local Plan Review (Second Deposit Draft) requires that developments of 2 dwellings or more provide 50% affordable housing. (34) Strict interpretation of the policy would require that for any development of two residential units 50% affordable housing provision be sought. Notwithstanding, the fact that one of the dwellings is a 'replacement' for the existing must be a factor to take into account. I consider it reasonable that the replacement dwelling should be discounted from the equation and conclude that the policy should not apply in this particular instance. I am particularly mindful of the fact that the dwellings proposed are not of a significant size. The nature of the dwellings can be controlled by condition as outlined above. Impact on Neighbours (35) I consider the outline proposal is capable of being implemented without significant impact on neighbours. The amended design results in two dwellings (rather than the three initially proposed under DA/04/00986/OUT) and this reduced density permits greater setbacks from boundaries with increased landscaping, reduced car parking/hardstand etc. Relevant conditions are recommended restricting the development to single storey dwellings (or where chalet bungalows are proposed restricting the location of dormer windows) and ensuring a suitable setback from boundaries. This will result in adequate separation and privacy for the existing neighbours. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (36) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (37) I am of the opinion that the proposed development represents a suitable compromise for the development of the site. Whilst the initial proposal for three (3) dwellings resulted in design concerns, it appears that the current proposal can be accommodated on the site without undue impact on neighbours or the amenity of the area. The proposal complies with relevant design criteria set out in Council policy. Page 125 Agenda Item 18
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Outline Permission. 01 Approval of details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Application for approval of the reserved matter(s) shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 01 In pursuance of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 The development shall not commence until details of all boundary walls and fences have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development. 03 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved. 04 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 05 The details submitted pursuant to Condition No. 1 shall include provision for the parking and/or garaging of cars in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's adopted standards. Such parking/garaging shall include appropriate turning areas in order to permit forward vehicular entry/exit from the site. No development, whether permitted by the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicle access thereto. Agenda Item 18 Page 126
05 To ensure compliance with the adopted parking standards of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 The details submitted pursuant to Condition No. 1 shall ensure that there is an appropriate area set aside for waste bin collection at the property boundary with Woodlands Close. 06 To safeguard the amenities of the locality and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 At the time details of the reserved matters are submitted, the position of each building shall be pegged out on the site. 07 To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposedbuilding(s) on the vicinity in accordance with Policies H8 and H10 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 08 The dwellings hereby approved shall be single storey bungalow or chalet bungalow in design. Where a chalet bungalow design is utilised no dormer windows shall be positioned so as to face either the left or right flank boundaries. 08 To accord with the nature and character of the surrounding residential area in accordance with Policies B1 and H8 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 The dwellings hereby approved shall have a setback of not less than 3 metres from the left and right flank boundary and the rear boundary. 09 To accord with the nature and character of the surrounding residential area in accordance with Policies B1 and H8 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 The proposed development shall be carried out and completed in all respects in complete accordance with the proposals contained in the application and any plan or drawing submitted with the application or subsequently submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to any condition herein contained. 10 To ensure that the proposed development will be carried out in its entirety as permitted and so as to avoid any detriment to the amenities by any works remaining uncomplete to accord with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 11 There shall be no incineration of waste materials within the curtilage of the premises. 11 To prevent nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Page 127 Agenda Item 18
12 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 09.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 12 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 13 Details of the surface water drainage system for the development (including storage facilities where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied. 13 To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 14 Those parts of the site to be used for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles shall be adequately drained and surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and such drainage shall include the provision of oil interceptors. 14 To prevent the pollution of water courses and underground water supplies in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 15 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the roof of the building other than hereby approved purusant to condition 1 above without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 15 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of the amenity and privacy of adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 It appears that Woodlands Close is a private road maintained by the residents of the area. The applicant should make appropriate steps to ensure that relevant contributions are made for maintenance of the roadway as per relevant legal agreements with other nearby residents. Agenda Item 18 Page 128
Application No: : 05/00552/OUT Address : 7 Woodland Close Longfield Kent Date: 22 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 129 Agenda Item 19
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01000/FUL Officer: Miss Emma Jefferys Location: 36 Devonshire Avenue Dartford Kent DA1 3DW Proposal: Erection of a first floor side/rear extension Applicant: Mrs S Mann 87 Boundary Road Chatham Kent ME4 6UQ Date Valid: 13/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / West Hill RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policy (2) Local Plan Review - No site specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) No. 36 Devonshire Avenue is a semi-detached 2 storey dwelling. There is a detached garage to the rear and a shared driveway to the side of the property. The street is characterised by similarly designed semi-detached dwellings. PROPOSAL (4) The proposed first floor side/rear extension would project from the flank roof slope of the property and would project out over an existing ground floor rear projection. It would have a pitched roof. Internally, two additional bedrooms would be created. RELEVANT HISTORY (5) A planning application for the erection of a first floor side/rear extension was approved under reference: 90/00460/FUL but was never constructed. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (6) There have been no comments from consultees. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION Agenda Item 19 Page 130
(7) One letter of objection has been received from the residents of no. 38 Devonshire Avenue. They express concern that the proposed extension would overshadow the windows/door within their flank elevation and would restrict vehicular access to their garage. RELEVANT POLICIES (8) Policies B1 and H14 are relevant. Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. Policy H14 advises that house extensions should be designed so as not to overlook, overshadow, or overbear upon neighbouring properties. Policies DD11 and H13 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. (9) Policies T22 of the Adopted Local Plan and T11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review seek to ensure that there is adequate parking provision. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (10) I consider the key issues to be the impact of the proposed extension on the residential amenities of the neighbouring property and the impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. Impact on Residential Amenities (11) There are windows within the ground floor and first floor of the flank elevation of no. 38 Devonshire Avenue. These windows are small and obscure glazed. I do not consider them to be principal windows and am not therefore concerned that the proposed first floor side extension would have an undue impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents. (12) The proposed first floor rear extension would not project any further than the rear elevation of no. 38. I do not therefore feel that there would be any detrimental impact on no. 38 in terms of overshadowing or overbearing. (13) There are no windows within the proposed extension that would overlook the private amenity space of the neighbouring properties. The proposed bathroom window within the first floor of the flank elevation would be obscure glazed. Impact on visual amenities (14) There are a number of other properties within this street which have similarly designed extensions. I feel that subject to matching materials, the proposed extension would reflect that of the surrounding properties, specifically, the extension to no. 38. I therefore consider that there would be no detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Other issues (15) The residents of no. 38 have expressed concern that the proposed extension would overhang the shared drive, restricting vehicular access to their garage. The overhang of the proposed extension would start at 3 metres above ground level. I consider that this leaves ample room for a standard car to pass underneath. Moreover, if access to larger vehicles is restricted, there is enough space within the front gardens of these properties to park a large car/van. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (16) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. Page 131 Agenda Item 19
CONCLUSION (17) Having considered the comments from the neighbouring residents and the relevant local plan policies, I am of the view that the proposed extension would have little impact on the amenities of the residents of no. 38 and that due to the presence of similarly designed extensions along this street, there would be no undue impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed first floor window within the flank elevation shall be obscure glazed, details of which shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority, and apart from any top hung fan lights incapable of being opened and shall subsequently be maintained as such. 02 To protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 03 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 It appears that this development involves work close to a boundary, which may come under the terms of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. If it does, you will need to serve notice on your neighbour before undertaking any work. It would therefore be advisable for you to ensure that you meet any requirements of the Act before starting any work. Agenda Item 19 Page 132
Application No: : 05/01000/FUL Address : 36 Devonshire Avenue Dartford Kent DA1 3DW Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 133 Agenda Item 20
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00973/FUL Officer: Miss Emma Jefferys Location: 34 Heather Drive Dartford Kent DA1 3LE Proposal: Erection of a part two/part single storey side/rear extension Applicant: Mr Andrew Brown 34 Heather Drive Dartford Kent DA1 3LE Date Valid: 14/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Heath RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policy (2) Local Plan Review - No site specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) No. 34 Heather Drive is a 2 storey detached dwelling. It has a garage and space for 1 additional car to the front of the property. Heather Drive is characterised by detached properties of varying designs. PROPOSAL (4) The proposed single storey element of the extension would infill the side/rear of the property to square off the ground floor. The ground floor extension would project 3 metres along the boundary with no. 36 Heather Drive and would project 50cm further than the existing rear elevation of the property closest to the boundary with no. 32 Heather Drive. (5) The proposed first floor side extension would create an additional 3.5 metres along the boundary with no. 36 Heather Drive. The first floor extension would also project to the rear by 3 metres. (6) Internally, one additional bedroom would be created and the bathroom would be enlarged at first floor level. At ground floor the kitchen would be enlarged. RELEVANT HISTORY Agenda Item 20 Page 134
(7) A planning application for the erection of a two storey side/rear extension was submitted under reference: 05/00292/FUL and was subsequently withdrawn. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (8) Thames Water: no objections (9) Environment Agency: no objections but advises that the site lies on a minor aquifer and therefore precautions should be taken to prevent discharges and spillages to ground. They also recommend a drainage and contaminated land condition. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (10) One letter of objection has been received from the residents of no. 36 Heather Drive. Their concerns relate to the overdevelopment of the site and its impact on the surrounding area, the loss of light to their lounge/diner, the overbearing impact of the two storey extension and the loss of privacy to their garden. RELEVANT POLICIES (11) Policies B1 and H14 are relevant. Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. Policy H14 advises that house extensions should be designed so as not to overlook, overshadow, or overbear upon neighbouring properties. Policies DD11 and H13 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. (12) Policies T22 of the Adopted Local Plan and T11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review seek to ensure that there is adequate parking provision. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (13) I consider the key issues to be the impact of the proposed extensions on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and the impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. Impact on Residential Amenities (14) The previous planning application was withdrawn in order to amend the application so that the potential impact on the amenities of the residents at no. 36 Heather Drive could be reduced. The current scheme has removed part of the first floor element of the side extension so as to reduce the impact on the levels of light reaching the dining room/lounge window within the side elevation of the neighbouring property. I feel that this amendment has sufficiently reduced any undue impact on the flank window within no. 36 Heather Drive. There would be a distance of 2.2 metres between the proposed ground floor extension and the neighbouring dining room window. The first floor extension would also not be directly in front of this neighbouring window leaving a light well. The proposed first floor rear extension would be a further 2.1 metres from the neighbouring property and neither the ground floor nor first floor extensions would project past the rear elevation of no. 36 Heather Drive which has a ground floor rear extension. I therefore feel that there would be no detrimental impact on the neighbouring residents in terms of overshadowing or overbearing. (15) The proposed extension would project 3 metres past the rear elevation of no. 32 Heather Drive and would be approximately 2 metres from the rear elevation of this property. This complies with Council standards. (16) The residents of no. 36 have expressed concern that they would be overlooked from the proposed ground floor kitchen window. However, the 2 metre boundary fence between the two properties would ensure that there is no overlooking. The proposed window within the Page 135 Agenda Item 20
first floor of the side extension would be obscure glazed, again ensuring that there is no overlooking of the neighbouring property. Impact on visual amenities (17) The only part of the proposed extension that would be seen from any public vantage points would be the roof of the proposed first floor side extension. As Heather Drive has a variety of house types and design, I feel that subject to matching materials, the proposed extension would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. Other issues (18) The neighbours comment that the proposed extensions would constitute an overdevelopment of the site. However, the remaining amenity space would exceed Council standards by approximately 180 sq. m. There is also adequate parking available. I do not therefore feel that the residents of no. 34 Heather Drive, the immediate neighbouring residents or the wider surrounding area would be compromised as a consequence of this development. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (19) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (20) Having considered the relevant local plan policies and the comments from the neighbouring residents, I am of the view that the extension has been designed in such a way as to limit any undue impact on the residential amenities of both neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the street scene. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 02 To prevent pollution of the water environment. 03 No material shall be deposited at the site other than clean, uncontaminated naturally occurring excavated material, brick and concrete rubble. Agenda Item 20 Page 136
03 To prevent pollution of the water environment. 04 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed first floor window within the side extension shall be obscure glazed, details of which shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority, and apart from any top hung fan lights incapable of being opened and shall subsequently be maintained as such. 04 To protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other amending revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the first floor of the east flank elevation of the extension other than as hereby approved, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 05 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of amenity and privacy of the adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 06 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant's attention is drawn to the informative comments and recommendations contained in the Environment Agency's letter of 27 October 2004. Page 137 Agenda Item 20
Application No: : 05/00973/FUL Address : 34 Heather Drive Dartford Kent DA1 3LE Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 138
This page is intentionally left blank Page 139 Agenda Item 21
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01058/FUL Officer: Miss Emma Jefferys Location: 26 The Close Wilmington Kent DA2 7ES Proposal: Erection of a first floor side/rear extension and a two storey front extension Applicant: Mrs M Terry 26 The Close Wilmington Kent DA2 7ES Date Valid: 20/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Wilmington Parish Council / Wilmington RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Area of special Residential Character (Policy H9) (2) Local Plan Review - Area of special Residential Character (Policy H23) SITE DESCRIPTION (3) No. 26 The Close is a two storey detached dwelling. It has an attached garage to the side and space for 2 cars to the front of the property. The Close is characterised by large detached dwellings of a variety of designs with large front and rear gardens. PROPOSAL (4) The proposed side extension would be built over the existing attached garage and would be set away from the common boundary at first floor level by 70 cm. The first floor rear extension would project 3.5 metres from the rear elevation of the property. The proposed 2 storey front extension would project 1.4 metres from the front elevation of the property and would have a gable roof feature to mirror that on the proposed side extension. (5) Internally, three additional bedrooms would be added at first floor level with an en suite provided. RELEVANT HISTORY (6) A planning application for a ground floor rear extension was approved in 1974 under reference: DA/74/00043/FUL. Agenda Item 21 Page 140
COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (7) Wilmington Parish Council have no objections. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (8) One letter of objection has been received from the residents of no. 24 The Close. They object on the grounds that the proposed extension would overshadow the windows within their rear elevation and also their garden. RELEVANT POLICIES (9) Policies B1 and H14 are relevant. Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. Policy H14 advises that house extensions should be designed so as not to overlook, overshadow, or overbear upon neighbouring properties. Policies DD11 and H13 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. (10) Policies T22 of the Adopted Local Plan and T11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review seek to ensure that there is adequate parking provision. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (11) There is ample parking at the site. I therefore consider the key issues to be the impact of the proposed extension of the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and the impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Impact on Residential Amenities (12) The proposed first floor side/rear extension would project approximately 1 metre beyond the rear elevation of No. 24 The Close. This neighbouring property has a large garage to the flank/rear of the property and there is an approximately 3 metre high boundary wall. The area immediately to the rear of no. 24 is already in shade from these structures and as the garden faces north/northwest, there is little sun during the winter months. I do not consider that the proposed extension would decrease the levels of light to the rear of no. 24 over and above the existing impact to such an extent that the occupants of this property would be unduly affected. There are also no windows within the flank elevation of this neighbouring property. I therefore consider that the proposed extension would have little impact on the amenities of no. 24 in terms of overshadowing and overbearing. (13) No. 28 The Close has a large conservatory to the rear. The proposed extension would be approximately 2 metres from the flank elevation of this neighbouring property. I therefore feel that there would be no undue impact on no. 28 The Close. Impact on Visual Amenities (14) The proposed side extension would continue the roof line of the main dwelling. I feel that its size is proportionate to the existing dwelling. Subject to matching materials, I consider that it would have no detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. In my opinion, the proposed front extension is not overly large and would add an interesting feature to the front elevation of the property. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (15) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. Page 141 Agenda Item 21
CONCLUSION (16) Having considered the objections and relevant local plan policies I am of the view that due to the orientation of the proposed extension to no. 24 and the presence of the garage and high boundary wall, there would be no undue impact on levels of light over and above the existing impact. I also feel that the design of the proposed extensions is such that there would be no undue impact on the visual amenities of the area. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other amending revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the east and west flank elevation of the extension other than as hereby approved, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 03 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of amenity and privacy of the adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 It appears that this development involves work close to a boundary, which may come under the terms of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. If it does, you will need to serve notice on your neighbour before undertaking any work. It would therefore be advisable for you to ensure that you meet any requirements of the Act before starting any work. Agenda Item 21 Page 142
Application No: : 05/01058/FUL Address : 26 The Close Wilmington Kent DA2 7ES Date: 28 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 143 Agenda Item 22
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01072/FUL Officer: Miss Emma Jefferys Location: Old Rectory St Marys Road Stone Kent DA9 9AS Proposal: Erection of a two storey extension to existing office to provide additional 5 offices Applicant: Medway Design & Build Ltd Agent: Stewart Elcomb 18 Crook Log Bexleyheath Kent DA16 8BP Date Valid: 31/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Stone Parish Council / Stone RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policy (2) Local Plan Review - No site specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The Old Rectory is a large detached two storey office block sited within the centre of a large landscaped plot. Vehicular access is from St Mary's Road. The surrounding area is characterised by a range of uses with residential properties to the west, a children's nursery to the east and the Crossways Business Park to the north and east. (4) A railway line runs east-west to the south of the site and Stone Crossing Railway Station is approximately 150 metres from the site. PROPOSAL (5) The proposed extension would be 2 storeys and would be of a similar design to the existing building. Internally, five additional offices would be provided of various sizes. A disabled toilet would also be provided. (6) Five additional parking spaces would be provided in addition to the 21 existing spaces. A new vehicular crossing would be created and there would be some landscaping provided around the new parking area. Agenda Item 22 Page 144
RELEVANT HISTORY (7) A planning application for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse to replace what was a listed building which burnt down circa 1985 was approved under ref: 86/00588/FUL. (8) After the new dwelling stood vacant for a number of years, a planning application for the change of use of the property from residential to (Class B1) office use together with erection of external stairway, provision of new doorway and car parking area was approved under ref: 97/00358/COU. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (9) Stone Parish Council: no objections (10) Environment Agency: no objection but comment that the site is within a flood risk area and advise that the offices be connected to the flood warning system. They also advise that all surface water should pass through trapped gullies and that as the building is within 220 metres of two landfill site and that the relevant building regulations should be complied with. (11) Kent County Council Highways Service: The applicant needs to demonstrate the sight lines that can be achieved. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (12) There has been one letter of objection from the residents of Rose Cottage, St Mary's Road. Concerns relate to the inadequacy of the proposed parking provided. Other concerns were raised with regard to the construction stage of the development and in particular the use of the narrow road by lorries and construction vehicles. RELEVANT POLICIES (13) Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. Policies DD11 of the Local Plan Review replicates these considerations. (14) Policies T22 of the Adopted Local Plan and T11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review seek to ensure that there is adequate parking provision. (15) Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan relates to development outside of employment areas and policy E10 relates to extensions to existing employment premises and seeks to ensure that it does not conflict with other policies relating to amenity, environmental and transport matters. Policies E8 and E10 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (16) I consider the key issues to be the impact of the proposed extension on the visual amenities of the surrounding area, the adequacy of the parking provision and, the impact of removing a section of the front boundary wall. Impact on visual amenities (17) The proposed extension would continue the form of the existing building and would be of a scale and size that is, in my opinion, proportionate to the existing building. I do not feel that the proposed extension would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. (18) The creation of a hardsurfaced area to the west of the building would involve the reduction in the landscaped amenity space, which I feel provides a setting for the building. Page 145 Agenda Item 22
However, there is landscaping proposed around the parking area which would soften the hardsurfaced area and there would also be amenity space to the front and rear of the building which would, in my view, continue to provide a pleasant setting. Parking Provision (19) According to Council standards, 20 parking spaces are required for the existing and the proposed office space. Five parking spaces are proposed in addition to the existing 21 spaces available. The parking provision for this site therefore exceeds Council standards. (20) According to Council standards, the applicants should also be providing 2 disabled parking spaces. This can be a condition of the permission if granted. Other issues (21) The comments of objection relating to the construction stage of the development can be partially addressed through conditions such as wheel washing and limiting the hours of construction. However, disturbance and the perceived safety hazard caused by construction vehicles travelling along St Mary's Road are relatively short term impacts which cannot be readily addressed through the planning system. (22) In order for the required sight lines to be achieved, an existing red brick front boundary wall would have to be removed. This is unfortunate, however as this wall is not listed by virtue of the removal of the listed building, the owners of the land could demolish it at any stage. I also feel that it is not of such a significant architectural and/or historic merit to prohibit the formation of a new vehicular access at this point. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (23) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (24) Having considered the comments from the objectors and the relevant local plan policies, I am of the view that the design of the proposed extension is acceptable and that the parking provided complies with council standards. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Agenda Item 22 Page 146
02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance. 03 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 A gas impermeable membrane shall be incorporated within the structure along with a ventilated sub floor area in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site. Any services entering/leaving the structure shall be located above the gas impermeable membrane or adequate seals provided if the membrane is to be breached. 04 In the interests of safety in accordance with Policies DL 1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 Prior to the commencement of development, details of the provision of two disabled parking spaces shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details. 05 To make adequate provision for the needs of any disabled person using the premises in accordance with Policy B14 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 Visibility splays of 2m by 60m in each direction shall be provided before any other part of the development hereby permitted is commenced and thereafter there shall be no obstruction exceeding 600mm within the splays. 06 In the interests of road safety in accordance with Policy T20 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved. 07 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan Page 147 Agenda Item 22
08 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 08 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 The building shall not be occupied until the parking area, access, manoeuvring and loading/unloading space thereto have been surfaced and drained including the provision of petrol/oil interceptors. 09 To safeguard the amenities of the locality and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 The car parking spaces, turning areas and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 10 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 11 The development hereby approved shall be for Class B1 Office use only and for no other use whatsoever. 11 In order to ensure that the use of the building is regulated in the interests of amenity and highway safety. In the interests of amenities and highway safety in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant's attention is drawn to the informative comments and recommendations contained in the Environment Agency's letter of 8 November 2005. Agenda Item 22 Page 148
Application No: : 05/01072/FUL Address : Old Rectory St Marys Road Stone Kent DA9 9AS Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 149 Agenda Item 23
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00879/FUL Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: Darent Valley Hospital Darenth Wood Road Darenth Kent DA2 8DA Proposal: Erection of a single storey detached building to provide a childrens day nursery together with associated car parking and play areas Applicant: Just Learning Ltd Agent: Arran Design Services Stockton Business Centre 70 Brunswick Street Stockton-on-Tees TS18 1DW Date Valid: 30/08/2005 Parish / Ward: Darenth Parish Council / Bean & Darenth RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Metropolitan Green Belt: Policies GB1, GB2 (2) Local Plan Review - Metropolitan Green Belt: Policies GB1, GB2, GB4, GB5 SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The application relates to the Darent Valley Hospital site on Darenth Wood Road. The site was re-developed in the late 1990s to provide an acute general hospital together with a residential scheme to the south. (4) The site of the proposed development is to the west, adjacent to the Children's Resource Centre. It covers a site area of approximately 2,400 square metres. It is currently open land. PROPOSAL (5) The proposal concerns the erection of a single storey detached building to provide a nursery for 100 children. The actual footprint of the building will be approximately 575 square metres, measuring 36 metres long by 16 metres wide. The entrance to the building will be on the north elevation, as is the case at the adjacent Children's Resource Centre. The structure will have a pitched roof with a maximum height of 6m. (6) Parking for staff and parents of the children is in the form of 20 spaces provided at the front of the building. Access to this parking area is via the parking area reserved for the Agenda Item 23 Page 150
Children's Resource Centre. As a result, two parking spaces serving this neighbouring building will be lost. (7) The proposed plans also indicate that the building finish will be red contrast coloured facing bricks. The plan also shows associated landscaping, and boundary treatments. The nursery is to be built and operated under a lease with the NHS Trust. RELEVANT HISTORY (8) Outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the site for the erection of an acute general hospital together with a residential development and associated highways works was granted in November 1996 (DA/93/00917/OUT). Following this approval, several submissions were made in respect of reserved matters. (9) Permissions have also been granted for several extensions to the hospital. These have included: - A rear conservatory, approved in November 2000 (DA/00/00787/FUL); - The erection of a single storey extension to the A & E Department to form a Minor Injuries Unit, approved in July 2002 (DA/02/00451/FUL); - The erection of a single storey building to provide a classroom and medical equipment store, approved in December 2002 (DA/02/01104/FUL); - The erection of a two storey extension to provide a diagnostic and treatment centre with associated roof level plant room, approved October 2003 (DA/03/00771/FUL); - The erection of a single storey extension to the west block to provide a staff common room, approved January 2004 (DA/03/00911/FUL); - The erection of a single storey infill of an existing courtyard to create a suite of consulting and examination rooms (DA/03/01007/FUL); - The erection of a single storey building to provide an older adults assessment centre, a day care centre and a renal dialysis unit, approved February 2004 (DA/03/01162/FUL); - The erection of a single storey extension to the south of the building to provide a new cardiac centre, approved February 2005 (DA/04/01239/OUT). (10) There is also an existing permission for a 50 place children's nursery on the same site as this pending submission (DA/02/00534/FUL). This permission would be superseded if permission is granted for this fresh proposal. Overall, the footprint of the hospital has been extended by approximately 3,995 square metres. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (11) Darenth Parish Council: Noted. (12) Thames Water: No objection. (13) Kent Highway Services: given the current position of 50 children being permitted without any parking, the threshold originally requested can be raised, particularly given that the majority of children attending the nursery will be related to staff at the hospital, which has its own dedicated parking, it is believed that 100 children could be accommodated on site. (14) Environmental Health Services Manager: the applicant should submit a contaminated land assessment to include a desk study. Conditions relating to hours of construction and the prohibition of bonfires are suggested. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (15) Two letters of objection have been received following consultation with neighbouring properties. The objections relate to the following: - Loss of green open space; Page 151 Agenda Item 23
- The proposal would only exacerbate the car parking problems already present at the hospital; - There are already a number of nurseries in the area; - Loss of view; - The building will result in additional illegal parking, noise and nuisance. RELEVANT POLICIES (16) Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan gives guidance on all development proposals. Policy CF4 designated the site for the provision of new hospital facilities to the area. This was to be developed in accordance with Policy H2 which identifies the housing aspect of the site. Policy GB2 states a presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Policy T22 says that development proposals should include parking provision in accordance with the adopted standards. (17) Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review provides general advice on development and design. Policy GB1 defines the boundaries of the Green Belt, whilst Policy GB2 states that inappropriate development consisting of new buildings will not be permitted in such areas. Policy T11 reiterates the considerations relating to on site parking as stated in Policy T22 of the adopted plan. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (18) In considering the above, it is my opinion that the key issues in the assessment of this application are the appropriateness of the building in terms of the potential impact upon the Green Belt and the concerns received in respect of additional parking problems, and noise and nuisance. Impact of the Development on the Green Belt (19) In order to determine whether or not the proposal is appropriate development in the Green Belt, it is important to consider the previous and existing floor area of the hospital (including extensions) and associated residential development. (20) The initial planning permission for the hospital and houses as granted in 1996 covered 49,391 square metres. The original hospital had a total floor area of 55,314 square metres. There was therefore an allowance of 5,923 square metres to allow for the possible future expansion of the hospital. Paragraph 10 above confirms that the hospital has been extended by approximately 3,995 square metres, meaning that there remains an allowance of 1,928 square metres. This proposal will cover a footprint of 575 square metres. I therefore consider that this proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. (21) The impact of the building has been further limited by the fact that it is single storey. 1.8m high timber fencing was originally shown on the plans, but this was felt to be too visually obtrusive in this sensitive area and amended plans show that this has been changed to a 1.8m high chain link fence. Landscaping as proposed will also soften the impact. Members are also reminded that there is an extant permission relating to this site for a nursery for 50 children. It is accepted however that the footprint was less than what is now proposed so therefore would have had a lesser impact on the openness of the area. Parking Provision (22) The maximum parking standards for this use are 50% for staff and 25% for children. Therefore, with 100 children and 25 staff present at the nursery, 37 parking spaces would normally be required. (23) However, I believe there are special circumstances that exist on this occasion, and the applicants have supplied additional supporting information to prove that 20 parking spaces Agenda Item 23 Page 152
are sufficient to deal with the number of children and staff at the nursery. This has included parking surveys at other existing similar nurseries across the country. On top of this the applicants have confirmed that approximately 60 to 70 of the children at the nursery will be dropped off by members of staff at the hospital, meaning that the majority of parked cars will remain in the main hospital car park. (24) Although it is impossible to control by condition that this proportion of children will be dropped off by members of staff, the need for this facility at the hospital is a clear indication that this will be the case. It is, in any case, possible to limit the overall number of children at the nursery. (25) It is also necessary to consider the fact that a planning permission exists on this site for a nursery for 50 children. These approved plans did not include any on site parking at all. For these reasons, I consider the provision of 20 parking spaces is satisfactory. Noise and Disturbance (26) The nearest residential property is No.35 The Green, approximately 60 metres away from the perimeter of the subject site. As such, I do not believe that the use of the site will result in additional noise and disturbance for the residents of this or the other nearest residential properties. Although there are outside play areas for the children, the parking will be on the opposite side of the building away from the houses, and Members are again reminded of the extant permission for a nursery on this site. Suitable planning conditions as suggested in paragraph 14 can help to minimise the impact of the building on neighbouring properties during the period of construction. Other Issues (27) One of the objections to the proposal relates to the loss of view. Whilst I am of the opinion that this application will not result in a significant loss of view due to the single storey nature of the building, the fact that it will be built on a lower level compared with nearby dwellings, and the distance away from the nearest residential properties, this is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into consideration when determining this application. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (28) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (29) Essentially, it is my view that the bulk and appearance of this extension is acceptable and the addition will not compromise the openness of the Green Belt. Also, taking into account the previous approval for a nursery (which did not result in any objections) and the proximity of the site to the nearest dwellings, I am satisfied that local residents will not suffer from any adverse impacts. With regards to parking, by restricting the number of children to 100 and taking on board the point made by the applicants that most of the children will be related to staff at the adjacent hospital, I feel that this is an appropriate and necessary addition to the hospital. RECOMMENDATION: Approval Page 153 Agenda Item 23
01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (in accordance with the CLEA guidelines and methodology) and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. 1) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to investigations commencing on site (ref1). 2) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology (ref 2). 3) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any remediation commencing on site, approval shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority of any such remedial works required. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters. 4) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance (ref 3). If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 5) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. This shall include photographic evidence. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site. Ref 1 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 2, 3 & 4 (DoE) Ref 2 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 1 (DoE) Ref 3 : CIRIA Vols 1-12 Contaminated Land Series and CIRIA "Building on Derelict Land" If any infill material is to be brought onto the site, only naturally occurring rocks, sub-soils and soils (including those containing <20% organic matter) and recycled construction and/or demolition materials (but excluding those containing bricks and concrete >70mm, metal, plasterboard, asbestos cement or other contaminated materials) shall be used. This shall be from a certified source to ensure that it is not contaminated in terms of its intended end use. The relevant Certification Documents shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any development commencing on the site. No development shall commence until the LPA has given written approval of the documents. No sludges or slurrys may be used. Analytical evidence shall be provided to verify imported soils are suitable for the proposed end use. This will require characterisation of the source and target sites in accordance with BS ISO 15176:2002 and subsequent relevant soil analyses. The sampling Agenda Item 23 Page 154
protocols and soil guideline values to be used for assessment of suitability will be dependant on the source of the soil and the proposed use of the target site and this shall be agreed with the LPA prior to any development commencing on the site. As a minimum, for large volumes of homogenous natural soils for use in non-sensitive areas, such as commercial end uses, sampling frequency shall be at least one per thousand cubic metres (1:1000m3). Soils for use in sensitive areas, such as domestic gardens, and where imported soils are less homogenous, the sampling frequency shall be greater (i.e. up to one per hundred and fifty cubic metres (1:150m3)). A closure report shall be submitted once remediation works have been completed. This shall include results of all sampling undertaken and certification of imported soils. This condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. Ref 1. R&D Publication CLR8 (2002) 'Potential contaminants for the assessment of land' (DEFRA and the Environment Agency) Ref 2. BS ISO 15176:2002 'Soil quality - characterisation of excavated soil and other materials intended for re-use.' 02 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 03 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 No materials shall be burnt on site. 04 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 The building shall not be occupied until the approved parking spaces are demarcated by means of white lining or a similar method, which shall have been approved in writing beforehand by the Local Planning Authority. 05 To ensure that the approved parking spaces are provided for use by all vehicles visiting the premises in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 The car parking spaces, turning areas and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. Page 155 Agenda Item 23
06 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 The maximum number of children using the nursery shall be limited to 100 at any one time. 07 To prevent the over-intensification of use of the site, which may be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy B1 of the Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review. 08 All materials used externally shall accord with the approved plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 08 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 This permission shall be an alternative to the permission(s) granted on 17 July 2002 under reference DA/02/00534/FUL and shall not be exercised in addition thereto, or in combination therewith. 09 The exercise of more than one permission would result in an over intensive use of the land contrary to Policies B1, H8 and H12 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Agenda Item 23 Page 156
Application No: : 05/00879/FUL Address : Darent Valley Hospital Darenth Wood Road Darenth Kent DA2 8DA Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 157 Agenda Item 24
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01064/FUL Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: 19 Woodward Terrace Horns Cross Kent DA9 9DD Proposal: Erection of a two storey side extension Applicant: Mr & Mrs Willbye 19 Woodward Terrace Horns Cross Kent DA9 9DD Date Valid: 24/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Stone Parish Council / Stone RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policy (2) Local Plan Review - No site specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) Woodward Terrace consists of similar designed semi-detached properties set within similar sized plots. The surrounding area is entirely residential in nature. (4) The subject property, No.19, is on the eastern side of the road and is set back 4.8 metres from the highway. It has a rear garden with an average depth of 13 metres. PROPOSAL (5) This application involves the erection of a two storey side extension that will match the depth of the existing property. It will be built up close to the boundary shared with No.21 to the south. The extension, at 2 metres wide, will provide for a study, toilet and utility room at the ground floor level, and an enlarged bedroom and bathroom at the first floor level. A hipped end will retain the shape of the existing roof. There will be no windows in the side elevation. RELEVANT HISTORY (6) None relevant. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS Agenda Item 24 Page 158
(7) Environment Agency: No objection. (8) Thames Water: No objection. (9) Stone Parish Council: Agreed, subject to neighbours consent. (10) Kent Highway Services: the proposed parking layout is poor with the space parallel to the road being difficult to access. It would be far better to provide both spaces perpendicular to the road on a 5.4 metre wide drive. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (11) One letter of objection is anticipated from the occupants of No.21. They are likely to object on grounds of loss of daylight to the windows in the side elevation, and an overbearing effect caused by the blank side wall, which will be built up to the shared boundary between the properties. On street car parking will also be affected by the development. RELEVANT POLICIES (12) Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. (13) Policy H14 advises that extensions to existing dwellings should be designed so as not to overlook, cause serious loss of daylight or sunlight or have an overbearing visual impact. (14) Policies DD11 and H13 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (15) I consider the key issues to be the impact the extension will have on the neighbouring property to the east and the street scene as a whole, and also the effect on parking in the area. Impact upon Neighbouring Properties (16) As previously mentioned the proposed extension will match the depth of the existing property. The neighbouring property at No.21 currently has a car port, also matching the depth of the property. This consists of a clear Perspex roof and a 2 metre high block wall built on the shared boundary. (17) Despite the presence of this car port, which will help to alleviate the impact of the proposed extension at No.19, the occupants of No.21 have expressed their future desire to remove the car port. (18) Even if the car port is removed, a 2 metre gap remains between the flank of No.21 and the flank of the side extension at No.19 and any harmful effect of the extension would not be to the extent that I believe a refusal could be warranted, particularly bearing in mind that No. 19 is to the north of No. 21. Access into the rear garden is via a side door in the kitchen. This door also contains windows, but it is not the only source of light for the kitchen, as there is a large window in the rear elevation that will provide more light than the door due to its positioning on the eastern side of the house, as opposed to the northern side. There is also a first floor window in the side elevation, which serves a landing. As such, this is not a habitable room. (19) There are also other two storey side extensions within the vicinity, in particular at No.9. In this case, No.9 is to the south of No.7. Given the orientation of the two properties, No.7 is likely to have suffered a greater loss of daylight than No.21 would if the application at No.19 is Page 159 Agenda Item 24
approved. For these reasons, I believe that the application should not be refused for loss of daylight. (20) Although the car port may be removed, the occupants of this property will still, in my view, only experience a slight impact. I do not believe the extension will harm their enjoyment of the rear garden in any way, and substantially harm their living conditions to an extent that I believe an appeal would be dismissed. This view is further supported by the fact that the roof will have a hipped end and the depth will match that of the existing property. Impact Upon the Character of the Street Scene (21) With four other two storey side extensions in Woodward Terrace, a further one would not appear out of character in the street scene subject to the finer details of the design. In this circumstance, the proposed hipped end matches the roof style of the existing house. Matching materials, which can be ensured by way of attaching a suitable condition, can also help to prevent the extension looking out of character. The extension is well designed and adequately blends into the existing property. Off-street Parking (22) The proposed extension will not result in any additional bedrooms. Instead only one bedroom will become larger. Therefore, the off-street parking requirements are two spaces. Although a suggested layout for parking has been supplied, this is unacceptable. Kent Highway Services have instead suggested that a better layout could be provided. Amendments to the parking layout have been requested. Once these amendments have been made, I do not feel there should be any objection to the application on parking related grounds. OUTSTANDING ISSUES (23) A revised parking plan is anticipated. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (24) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (25) Although the proposed extension will result in some impact on the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring property at No.21, I do not believe that this will be to an extent that a refusal is appropriate and could successfully be defended on appeal. I therefore recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Agenda Item 24 Page 160
02 A gas impermeable membrane shall be incorporated within the structure along with a ventilated sub floor area in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site. Any services entering/leaving the structure shall be located above the gas impermeable membrane or adequate seals provided if the membrane is to be breached. 02 In the interests of safety in accordance with Policies DL 1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 The two car parking spaces and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 03 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other amending revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the side elevation of the extension other than as hereby approved, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 04 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of amenity and privacy of the adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 05 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant's attention is drawn to the informative comments and recommendations contained in the Environment Agency's letter of 3 November 2005. Page 161 Agenda Item 24
Application No: : 05/01064/FUL Address : 19 Woodward Terrace Horns Cross Kent DA9 9DD Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 162
This page is intentionally left blank Page 163 Agenda Item 25
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01029/FUL Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: 41 Larch Road Dartford Kent DA1 2LF Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey side extension Applicant: Mr Ajayi Oluwadare Agent: Felix Adejumo 24 Jutsums Lane Romford Essex RM7 9HH Date Valid: 13/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Princes RECOMMENDATION: Defer for Delegated Approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policy (2) Local Plan Review - No site specific policy SITE DESCRIPTION (3) Larch Road is residential in nature, mainly consisting of similarly designed semi-detached and terraced properties set within similar sized plots of land. (4) The subject property is a semi-detached dwelling on the north eastern side of Larch Road. It is set back 5.8m from the highway and has a 20 metre deep rear garden. The property appears to have had a single storey rear extension and an attached garage erected. The garage will be demolished should planning permission be forthcoming for this proposal. PROPOSAL (5) It is proposed to erect a two storey side extension in place of the attached garage. The depth of the extension will match the existing property. It will be within 0.1m of the shared boundary with No.43 to the south east. The roof will be hipped to match the existing. (6) There will be one first floor window in the side elevation, which will serve a bathroom. Two additional bedrooms will be formed at the first floor, whilst a family and shower room will be provided at the ground floor level. Agenda Item 25 Page 164
RELEVANT HISTORY (7) None relevant. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (8) Thames Water: No objection. (9) Kent Highway Services: Larch Road is narrow with waiting restrictions on one side. Therefore this proposal should have adequate off street parking. In this case this would involve the provision of three spaces (due to the property resulting in five bedrooms), which can be provided on the front garden and should be conditioned. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (10) One letter of representation has been received from the occupants of No.43. There are a number of concerns, with the key one being that the occupants of this neighbouring property have an intention to erect a two storey side extension themselves and they are concerned that allowing the extension at No.41 would preclude this from happening. (11) They ask that the bathroom window at the first floor be obscured in order to retain a suitable level of privacy, and also that no encroachment occurs. The neighbours also point out that their level of daylight will be affected by the extension. (12) There are other concerns expressed in the letter, but these are not material planning considerations. These include: a request that a gap of 1 metre is retained between the side of the extension and the shared boundary for maintenance purposes; that all drainage pipes be dug and bedded on their land; that the extension will result in a loss of view. RELEVANT POLICIES (13) Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. (14) Policy H14 advises that extensions to existing dwellings should be designed so as not to overlook, cause serious loss of daylight or sunlight or have an overbearing visual impact. (15) Policies DD11 and H13 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (16) I consider the key issues to be the impact the extension will have on the neighbouring property to the south east and the street scene as a whole, together with the impact on parking in the area. Impact upon No.43 (17) No.41 is set forward from No.43 by approximately 4 metres. This neighbouring property, like No.41, is almost 3 metres away from the shared boundary. There is currently a small shed abutting the boundary with No.41. (18) Despite this, my view is that due to the fact No.41 is set forward from No.43 means that this in itself helps to alleviate any unwarranted impact, in terms of loss of daylight or overbearing effect. Any adverse impact is further alleviated by the fact that the proposed roof will have a hipped end as opposed to a gable end. (19) The occupants of No.43 are also concerned about the potential for overlooking. The existing small side window at this address serves a landing. Because this does not serve a Page 165 Agenda Item 25
habitable room, and given the orientation of the two properties, I do not believe this should amount to a reason for refusing the application. In any case, I consider it appropriate to condition the window so that only obscured glazing is installed. (20) The objector's have also mentioned about their intention to build a similar extension. I have made the applicants of this application aware of this, as a similar proposal at No.43 may end up blocking light and ventilation to the first floor bathroom window at No.41. (21) It is unreasonable to require a neighbouring property to set their extension in from the boundary by 1 metre just to allow for future maintenance or construction of an extension at a neighbouring property. Should the occupants of No.43 be unhappy about allowing access to their land so that the extension at No.41 could be built, this is a private matter between the two parties involved, and their objections to this cannot be used a reason for refusing a planning application. Impact Upon the Character of the Street Scene (22) The design of the proposed two storey side extension will not, in my opinion, look out of character with the street scene. This view is supported by the fact that a matching hipped roof will be constructed that matches the design of the original dwelling and will not affect the symmetrical appearance of the pair of semi-detached properties. In many respects the design is similar to the two storey side extension at No.49 further to the south. Overall, I do not believe there should be any objection to the design of the extension. Off-street Parking (23) Once the two storey side extension has been erected, the property will consist of a total of five bedrooms. This requires three car parking spaces to be provided in the curtilage of the site. This is possible in the front garden and a plan has been requested showing the parking spaces. A condition can then require the parking spaces to be reserved for such purposes at all times. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal meets with the adopted parking standards. OUTSTANDING MATTERS (24) A parking plan for the front garden has been requested showing the layout of three parking spaces. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (25) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (26) In assessing this application against relevant policies and guidelines, while also considering the application on its own individual merits, I believe this is a valid application. I therefore recommend approval subject to the parking plan being provided. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for Delegated Approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Agenda Item 25 Page 166
01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed window in the first floor side elevation shall be obscure glazed, details of which shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority, and apart from any top hung fan lights incapable of being opened and shall subsequently be maintained as such. 02 To protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other amending revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the side elevation of the extension other than as hereby approved, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 03 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of amenity and privacy of the adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 The three car parking spaces and means of access shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto. 04 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car parking facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 05 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 05 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 It appears that this development involves work close to a boundary, which may come under the terms of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. If it does, you will need to serve notice on your neighbour before undertaking any work. It would therefore be advisable for you to ensure that you meet any requirements of the Act before starting any work. Page 167 Agenda Item 25
Application No: : 05/01029/FUL Address : 41 Larch Road Dartford Kent DA1 2LF Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 168
This page is intentionally left blank Page 169 Agenda Item 26
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01045/FUL Officer: Mr P Nicholls Location: 43 Longfield Avenue Longfield Kent DA3 7LA Proposal: Erection of a single storey side and front extension Applicant: Mr K Newman Agent: Edwin Broome Thrush Green Church Road Hartley Kent DA3 8DY Date Valid: 17/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Longfield & New Barn P.C. / Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - Area of Special Residential Character: Policy H9; and Village Confines: Policy V2. (2) Local Plan Review - Area of Special Residential Character: Policy H23; and Village Confines: Policy C19. SITE DESCRIPTION (3) No.43 Longfield Avenue is a semi-detached corner bungalow (south fronting) with its rear garden backing onto the southern side of No.2 Foxwood Way (which is west facing). The rear garden has a maximum depth of 8 metres. The property is set back from the highway by 17 metres. PROPOSAL (4) This application is for the erection of a single storey extension, extending out to the side of the property by 4 metres. The depth will match that of the existing dwelling. It is proposed to install two windows in the side elevation, plus one to the rear and one to the front. (5) Internally, a bedroom will be converted to a dining room, and two additional bedrooms will be provided in the extension, that will also have a roof with a gable end to match the existing one. There will also be a front porch extending out to the front by 3 metres. Agenda Item 26 Page 170
RELEVANT HISTORY (6) There is no planning related history associated with this property. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (7) Thames Water: No objections. (8) Longfield and New Barn Parish Council: No objections. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (9) Three letters of objection have been received following consultation with neighbouring properties, two of which are identical and have come from two of the occupants of one of the neighbouring dwellings. In summary, the objections relate to the following: - the removal of the two mature beech trees is unacceptable. They have been present for more than 40 years and will also result in a loss of wildlife; - it will affect sightlines for motorists reversing into Foxwood Way; - the proposed bedroom windows will result in a loss of privacy; - hours of construction should be limited to social hours only. (10) Other concerns are stated in relation to: a loss of view caused by the increased proximity of No.43 Longfield Avenue to Foxwood Way; local restrictions apply for residents in Foxwood Way concerning the height of hedges adjacent to the pavement; this will add to an ever decreasing amount of housing stock available for one or two person households; and, parking of contractors' vehicles and storage of materials should not impinge on neighbouring properties. These are not material planning considerations. RELEVANT POLICIES (11) Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of building design and impact upon amenities. (12) Policy H14 advises that extensions to existing dwellings should be designed so as not to overlook, cause serious loss of daylight or sunlight or have an overbearing visual impact. (13) Policy H9 requires new development to be of high standard in Areas of Special Residential Character. (14) Policies DD11, H13 and H23 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (15) Given the representations received and taking into account the location and the nature of the application, I consider the key issues to be the impact the extension is likely to have on neighbouring properties and the street scene as a whole, and also whether the removal of the two beech trees is acceptable. Impact on Neighbouring Properties (16) The proposed extension will extend out to the side by 4 metres, bringing the property within 3.5m of the pavement adjacent to Foxwood Way. It will also be 21 metres away from No.41, which is sited on the opposite side of Foxwood Way. The two bedroom windows in the side elevation will face a bedroom window and the main access to the dwelling at No.41. (17) In my view, a separating distance of 21 metres should be adequate to ensure that there will be no significant loss of privacy for the occupants of No.41. This distance is in Page 171 Agenda Item 26
accordance with the space standards referred to in Appendix 1b of the Local Plan Review. I therefore believe that there are no justifiable reasons to refuse this application on grounds of loss of privacy to this neighbouring property. (18) To the rear, the impact on No.2 Foxwood Way will be relatively limited due to the existence of a detached garage (under the ownership of the applicant), which extends out to the front of this neighbouring property by approximately 3 metres. Taking this into account and because of the single storey nature of the proposed extension, I strongly believe the extension will not be to the detriment of the amenities of this neighbouring dwelling. Impact on the Street Scene (19) Given the siting of the subject dwelling on the corner between Foxwood Way and Longfield Avenue, and the fact that the site is within a designated Area of Special Residential Character, I consider it extremely important to ensure that the design does not harm the visual amenities of the street scene. (20) In this circumstance, the proposed side extension is unlikely to be a dominant feature on this corner plot, due to the design of the roof matching that of the original dwelling. There are three other reasons why I believe the prominence of the building will be fairly limited. Firstly, there will still be a distance of 3.5 metres between the flank of the extension and the pavement on Foxwood Way. Secondly, the land levels decrease to the west, meaning the extension will be set on lower ground than the pavement on Foxwood Way. And thirdly, matching tiles are to be used for the roof, whilst the walls will be rendered, again to match the existing dwelling. Removal of the Beech Trees (21) The site currently contains two beech trees sited up close to the western boundary with Foxwood Way. Both appear to be have been restricted in terms of their growth as they are only approximately 5 metres high. They are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order. (22) I do not believe that the specimens are worthy of protection. Should this application not have been made, the trees could have been removed without any prior consultation with the Council. I therefore believe there should be no objection to the planning application on grounds that the two beech trees will be removed. Other Issues (23) One objector makes the point that the extension will obstruct sightlines, but I fail to see how this is possible when the extension will still be 3.5m away from the pavement on Foxwood Way and 17 metres away from Longfield Avenue. I therefore believe an objection on grounds relating to obstruction to sightlines is unjustified. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (24) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (25) The proposed extension has, in my view, been well designed and will adequately tie into the existing dwelling, without harming the amenities of neighbouring residents or visual qualities of the street scene. RECOMMENDATION: Agenda Item 26 Page 172
Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other amending revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the side elevation of the extension other than as hereby approved, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 02 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of amenity and privacy of the adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 All materials used externally shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture. 03 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Page 173 Agenda Item 26
Application No: : 05/01045/FUL Address : 43 Longfield Avenue Longfield Kent DA3 7LA Date: 29 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 174
This page is intentionally left blank Page 175 Agenda Item 27
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/01077/FUL Officer: Mr Graham Parkinson Location: Arjo Wiggins Dartford Paper Mill Priory Road North Dartford Kent Proposal: Construction of a replacement Effluent Treatment Plant comprising new sludge treatment building, balance, settlement, sludge, biofilter and secondary clarifier tanks and provision of replacement car parking area Applicant: Arjo Wiggins Ltd Agent: ARL Consulting Ltd 7 Hunters Walk Canal Street Chester CH1 4EB Date Valid: 28/10/2005 Parish / Ward: Un-Parished Area Of Dartford / Dartford Town RECOMMENDATION: Approval SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan - No site specific policies. (2) Review Local Plan - Lies within an area subject to tidal and fluvial flooding and therefore subject to policies NR6 and NR7 covering these matters. SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The application site lies within a large industrial complex comprising a paper production plant having long frontages onto Lawson Road and Priory Road and is occupied by numerous large buildings, plant and offices. Opposite the site in Priory Road there are houses with gardens fronting the road. (4) The application site currently comprises an area of hardstanding and car parking sited to the south east of much larger buildings and on the north east side the River Darent. To the south west of the site there is an old two storey building fronting Priory Road which used to be part of the main complex. It is now in separate use and is known as Mill House. It is used for a number of commercial, mainly office uses and associated car parking. (5)The existing effluent treatment plant comprises a complex of plant and buildings sited immediately to the east and north of existing terraced houses in Priory Road, Humber Road and Kenwyne Road. Agenda Item 27 Page 176
PROPOSAL (6) The proposal essentially involves the provision of a new effluent treatment facility to reduce pollution levels from the existing mill production processes (mainly odours while improving the quality of existing discharge into the River Darenth). It is also intended to deal with additional emissions arising from expansion of the site which the applicants contend underline the applicants long term commitment to Dartford which will also bring additional employment opportunities for local people. (7) The submitted details show a total of 6 circular tanks ranging in height from 7 metres to 4 metres in height with a maximum diameter of 28 metres reducing to just under 6 metres. There is also a pitched roof sludge treatment building having a height to eaves of 6 metres and ridge height of 9 metre attached to which at right angles is a smaller odour control building. There are other low level buildings housing cooling towers, what is referred to as a dosing system and micro filters. The complex will be contained within a rectangular site having a depth of 61.9 metres and a width of 54 metres just to the south east the Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP). (8) The application has been accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) covering the impacts of the proposed development in terms of, amongst other things, solid waste disposal, visual impact of the proposed plant and buildings, odours, noise mitigation measures, quality of discharge into the River Darent and effects on ecology. I have paraphrased the key points of the EIA below: (9) The papermaking processes being carried out in the existing plant is essentially a natural process using natural materials not resulting in significant toxic or chemical compounds. However the waste materials if not treated, when discharged into the River Darent, would result in decreased oxygen levels to the detriment of wildlife. (10) The effluent treatment process involves settlement of insoluble materials and biological reduction of the remaining material using oxygen. The process requires balance tanks in order to ensure that the purification process is not overloaded. (11) The existing plant, which will be decommissioned when the new plant comes on line, currently fails to provide secondary biological treatment such that the effluent into the River Darent no longer meets the required standards. Furthermore it has minimal odour containment capabilities resulting in emissions as part of the sludge dewatering process. The existing sludge dewatering process is also inefficient requiring more HGV movements to remove the solid residue from the site as a consequence. (12) Construction of the new plant is intended to resolve the above concerns with the intention to commence construction work in 2006. (13) Solid waste disposal has to deal with gross contaminants such as rags/plastic bags which have entered the effluent stream in error and primary solids being fine suspended particles that are allowed to settle and then combined with the secondary solids. (14) These latter residues are used as fertilisers - due to high water content they are dewatered - the resultant sludge cake through the more efficient process enables both primary and secondary solids to be combined - the overall amount of sludge cake will not decrease compared to the existing process as a consequence. (15) Number of HGV movements will therefore not change. The new car park could provide spaces for up to 50 cars - however the applicants will be assessing the actual amount of required parking to meet demand - also advise that they are also moving towards the implementation of a Green Travel Plan to reduce car trips to the site. (16) Regarding the visual impact, contend that as the new structures will be much lower in height than the adjacent building - the only clearly apparent public views of the proposal will be from the public footpath on the opposite side of the River Darent. Page 177 Agenda Item 27
(17) Odour emissions will be controlled and reduced by a number of measures specifically aimed at avoiding the creation of septic conditions. (18) Noise emissions will mainly comes from the blowers used as part of the oxygenation process and sludge tanker movements both within and off site. The siting of the blowers and acoustic measures generally will minimise noise break out as a consequence of the proposal. (19) As part of the EIA process the applicants have considered alternative methods of the treating the discharge and being (a) anaerobic i.e. without oxygen. The applicants reject this approach as the anaerobic reactor would be much higher than the aerobic reactor while anaerobic break down has the potential for noxious odours that could only be dealt with by additional equipment adding greatly to the cost and complexity of the project for no appreciable environmental benefit. (b) Off site removal by tanker to suitable waste disposal centres - rejected as this would result in excessive vehicle movements. (c ) Discharge into existing sewer - insufficient local capacity without increase in processing capacity of the Dartford treatment plant - as Thames Water have no plans to increase the size of the plant the only alternative is to deal with waste by other means. (d) Other aerobic technologies - used of activated sludge where all sludge is suspended in a mixing basin. Would result in an excessively large basin for the site while mixing and aeration equipment would increase noise and power requirements. (20) In terms of the effect upon wildlife in and around the Dartford Creek the improved quality of the discharge should benefit wildlife - as no demolition of existing building or felling of trees proposed trees should no have impact on nesting birds or result in loss of bat roosting places. (21) In response to concern that have been raised the applicants advise that they have no intention of using the currently unused access onto Priory Road - the site access point will continue to be that at the junction of Priory Road and Lawson Road. Furthermore in order to minimise the potential visual impact from houses in Priory Road it is intended to provide additional screening. RELEVANT HISTORY (22) This site has a long and complex planning history with planning permission granted amongst other things for additional plant and buildings and offices. The most recent planning permission was for the erection of a detached combined heat & power plant building together with 2 No. chimneys up to 35m in height under ref: DA/00/00132/FUL granted in May 2000. A condition was imposed requiring that the existing 45m high chimney be demolished and removed from site within 2 years of the start up of the combined heat and power plant approved. The chimney has not yet been demolished in accordance with the requirements of the planning permission and is currently being pursued. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (23) Environment Agency: Currently regulate the operations and support the proposal as it aims to reduce the release of pollutants from the site using the 'Best Available Techniques' while providing the opportunity to address noise and odour concerns. (24) The site is at risk from fluvial flooding from the River Darent in a 1 in 100 year storm event. Though modelling predict that flooding of the site would not occur from overtopping of the river walls adjacent to the site it would result from flood water overtopping the river walls further upstream in Dartford and then flowing overland towards this low point. The high flood walls would in effect prevent water returning to the watercourse and would build up behind the walls. Agenda Item 27 Page 178
(25) Nevertheless the proposal does not introduce further commercial premises in to the area and so there is no reason to object to this planning application on flood risk grounds. However, it is clear that in a flood situation, the quality of the effluent and the plant itself could be detrimentally affected if flood water was to enter in to the process and therefore, the plant should be designed so that water is prevented from entering the system by either ensuring the plant is watertight or the top of the tanks are above the predicted flood water level. (26) The site also lies over a major aquifer and at the Source Protection Zone I for the GSK and Dartford Paper Mill abstractions. Therefore supplies could be at risk from activities at this site and all precautions should be taken to prevent discharges and spillages to ground. (27) Thames Water: They have submitted a lengthy response based on the assumption that the new plant will connect into their waste water system which is not the case. Their comments do not therefore apply to the scheme under consideration. As all waste water as part of the paper making process will be treated on site before being discharged into the River Darent and so long as no surface water from any hardstanding/plant or buildings finds its way into the waste water system then this would appear to satisfy their concerns. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION: (28) Four letters of objection were received; the concerns raised are paraphrased as follows: - Impact on the health of local residents - Concerned about toxic chemicals, bacteria and malodour - Though the applicants advise that the proposal has the support of the Environment Agency would feel more reassured if they could make their own assessment public - Concerned about safety/contingency plans (29) Two letters request further information on the processes and operations involved. Another letter does not object but requests that any planning permission should be appropriately regulated. Another letter notes that they are reasonably assured that odours and emissions should be reduced but seeks assurance that there will be appropriate safeguards in place. RELEVANT POLICIES (30) Dartford Local Plan: Policy B1 sets out criteria for new development proposals, E14 employment related proposals will be assessed against control over emissions, whether hazardous development and hours of operation, T22 provision of parking, S5 Protection and Enhancement of Nature Conservation Resources, (31) Dartford Borough Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft 2002: Policies DD11 (Development and Design Criteria); E10 employment related proposals will be assessed against control over emissions, whether hazardous development and hours of operation, T11 vehicle parking requirements, T17 Travel plans, NR1 Sewerage and drainage, NR6 Development within the fluvial flood plain, NR11 Air Quality Impact Assessments, NR12 Development likely to affect air quality, NR15 Noise Impact, C16 Other areas of Nature Conservation Value. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (32) These are considered to be (a) taking into account the current visual and environmental consequences of the existing effluent treatment plant whether what is being proposed will result in a material improvement to the local water, air and aural environment in line with current requirements; (b) whether there will by any adverse visual amenity or aural impacts arising from the new plant and processes including the proposed car park (c) traffic generation and parking considerations (d) flooding and (e) effects on wildlife. Page 179 Agenda Item 27
General Impact (33)This is a longstanding commercial site that is occupied by a number of buildings of an industrial scale and appearance. It is one that has also been the subject of complaints relating to noise, odour and smoke emissions arising from operations being carried out. There is little doubt that the current effluent treatment plant abutting terraced houses in Priory Road, Humber Road and Kenwyn Road is unsightly, while giving rise to both noise and odour emissions. There is also the concern that discharge into the River Darent fails to meet the appropriate purity standards. (34) The applicants advise that once the proposed effluent treatment plant comes on line the existing plant will be decommissioned. Though the area of land accommodating the existing effluent treatment plant will become available for redevelopment as surplus to their requirements no firm proposals have been submitted. However I would expect the existing building to be demolished on commissioning of the replacement facility which should bring about immediate visual improvements while eradicating noise and odour emissions to the benefit of residents overlooking and abutting the site. Detailed design and siting considerations (35) Taking into account the industrial character of the site and the bulk and overall scale of the adjoining combined heat and power plant building, I am satisfied that the visual impact of the tanks and building will not appear out of scale or character in this location. In addition, though some of the tanks have large diameters, having a maximum height of only 7 metres, they are relatively low-level structures. Given their siting, the distance to the first floor windows of houses overlooking the site in Priory Road and the screening afforded by Mill House and proposed boundary planting, I do not think that the outlook of houses in the vicinity will be materially affected. As a further safeguard, I would suggest that a condition be imposed requiring details of the colour of the proposed tanks to be agreed. (36) Regarding the size and positioning of the proposed car park, I am satisfied that due to its siting to the east of Mill House along with proposed boundary planting, that its visual impact outside the site will be limited. In order to further safeguard the amenity of houses opposite the site in Priory Road, a condition should be imposed requiring details of lighting intended both for the plant, buildings and car park to ensure that the night time outlook of these houses is not adversely affected from excessive and improperly directed light sources. Odour and Noise Considerations (37) Subject to the confirmation of the Environmental Health Services Manager, I am satisfied that the proposed treatment works should bring about a reduction in odour emissions, resulting in a material improvement to the amenity of local residents. However, in order to ensure that sufficient oxygen is available to enable the aerobic break down to begin blowers are required. These will be noise sources in their own right. (38) The applicants advise that the blowers will be housed in acoustic enclosures reducing any noise to 83dBA immediately to the enclosures. They contend that noise from this source should not be a source of potential nuisance. Subject to the confirmation of the Environmental Health Services Manager and imposition of conditions to ensure that that noise at any noise sensitive boundaries does not exceed the stated levels, I am satisfied that the proposal should give rise to material improvement in the aural environment of the site to the benefit of nearby residents. (39) The applicants have also referred to noise arising from tanker and other vehicle movements within the site. Taking into account that there will be no overall increase in tanker movements compared to those generated by the existing plant and given the routing of these through the site to the main entrance, I am satisfied that this should not give rise to any material alteration to the noise environment that can be attributed to this source. Agenda Item 27 Page 180
(40) Concern has been raised regarding hours and days of construction which can be controlled by condition. The acoustic survey has also been challenged as being unrepresentative. Undertaking an acoustic survey in Summer represents a worst case scenario when local residents are more likely to have windows open and therefore be more aware of any noise. Subject to the confirmation of the Environmental Health Services Manager, I am therefore satisfied that the acoustic appraisal that has been submitted is valid in assessing the aural impact of the proposal. Health and safety considerations (41) Objectors have asked specific questions on how spillages are to be contained. The whole complex is to be surrounded by a containment wall and any spillages would remain within the compound while the operators considered the appropriate response to any clean up and disposal required. Regarding concerns over aerial contamination and type of bacteria used in effluent breakdown, such matters fall within the remit of the Health & Safety Executive and do not fall to be considered as part of this planning application. Highway and parking considerations (42) Concerns have been raised that plant expansion will increase traffic to the detriment of the locality. However it is understood that any increased capacity will take place due to the more intensive use of existing equipment which is not something that the Council can control. As the proposal will not, in itself, result in increased HGV traffic I am satisfied that there is no reason to object on these grounds. (43) Concerns have been raised that gate 3, giving alternative access onto Priory Road might be used as an alternative site access on a day to day basis. However the applicants have confirmed that this will not be the case. (44) Moving onto the parking aspects of the proposal, the site of the proposed effluent treatment plant is to be partly sited on an area of existing employees car parking that it is intended to replace. Though no parking layout has been submitted I am satisfied that it is of more than sufficient size and shape to make good parking being displaced by the proposal. The applicants advise that the proposed parking area will provide parking in excess of that being displaced. (45) The expectation is that parking provision should not be made above that which can be reasonably justified in order to minimise unsustainable car movements. Therefore while no objection is raised to the replacement parking, in the absence of any reasoned justification to support the excess parking provision, a condition should be imposed that car parking provision should only replace that lost. I consider that it is also appropriate at this stage to require the applicants submit a Travel Plan aimed at seeking to reduce car use in favour of more sustainable means of transport. Flooding (46) The site lies within the fluvial flood plain of the River Darent. However, in the absence of objection from the Environment Agency I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable from this perspective. Wildlife Implications (47) Given the improvements in the quality of discharge into the River Darent and subject to confirmation from the Kent Wildlife Trust I am satisfied that the impacts on wildlife should prove beneficial and that there is no objection to the proposal on these grounds. Other matters (48) Concerns have been raised by reference to future expansion plans. In response the applicants advise that this refers to production being relocated from Fort William to the Page 181 Agenda Item 27
Dartford site resulting in greater utilisation of the facilities at Dartford. The existing site at Dartford is capable of increased throughput without requiring additional plant or building. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (49) I have considered the application in light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation is compatible with the Act. CONCLUSION (50) I am satisfied that there are strong amenity and environmental arguments in favour of providing a modern effluent treatment plant that will bring about improvements in air and water quality and the aural environment of the locality. Furthermore, I consider that the appearance and siting of the complex represents an appropriate balance in achieving these aims while safeguarding the character and appearance of the locality. (51) Regarding the replacement car park, I feel that this is acceptable subject to conditions on the number of parking spaces, provision of cycle parking spaces and controls over lighting. (52) I am therefore satisfied that the overall package of proposals are acceptable in their impact and are worthy of support and I recommend that planning permission be granted accordingly. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally including the colour scheme of the proposed tanks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 02 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme showing provision of a tree belt running along the whole south western perimeter of the proposed car park, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with trees of similar species and size to that approved. Agenda Item 27 Page 182
03 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 04 The proposed parking area shown on the approved plans shall be constructed laid out and ready for use prior to the work commencing in connection with the proposed replacement effluent treatment plant and shall be retained as such at all times thereafter without any impediment to its intended use. 04 To ensure that there is sufficient on site parking at all times in the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic to accord with the provisions of policy T22 of the Dartford Local Plan and T11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review. 05 Details of the layout of the car park, including provision for disabled and cycle parking, shall be submitted for prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car park shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to first use and retained as such at all times thereafter. Furthermore the number of parking spaces provided in the proposed car parking area shall only be sufficient to meet the identified demand for replacement parking. 05 In the interest of the free flow of traffic and highway safety, to meet the needs of the disabled and to seek to restrict the number of carsq attracted to the site to accord with the provisions of policy T22 of the Dartford Local Plan and T11 and DD12 of the Dartford Local Plan Review. 06 Within 3 months of the date of this permission a business travel plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning for prior approval in writing setting out measures to reduce the number of cars attracted to the site in favour of more sustainable transport modes such as walking, cycling and the use of public transport. The plan shall include the means to continually review and update the measures identified in order to ensure that an optimum balance in reducing car use is maintained at all times. 06 To reduce the number of cars attracted to the site in favour of more sustainable transport modes to accord with the provisions of policy T17 of the Dartford Local Plan Review. 07 No lighting shall be shall be installed within the car park or on any of the buildings or plant hereby approved without first obtaining the written consent in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The submission of details shall be accompanied by the design, height and siting of any lamp columns along with the details of the design, siting and output of any luminaires and means of directing or shielding them. Lighting shall only be provided in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such at all times thereafter unless prior approval is obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority for a variation. 07 To safeguard the nigh-time environment of houses overlooking and abutting the site in the interests of visual amenity to accord with the provisions of policy B1 of the Dartford Local Plan and DD11of the Dartford Local Plan Review. Page 183 Agenda Item 27
08 The use of the existing effluent treatment plant shall cease immediately the replacement plant hereby approved is available and ready for use. Within 6 months of the date of first use of the effluent treatment planet hereby approved the existing plant shall be demolished and the resultant material removed from the site which shall thereafter be left in a secure condition, details of which shall have previously been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 08 In the interests of visual amenity and public safety to accord with the provisions of policy DD11 of the Dartford Local Plan Review. 09 Before the commencement of development on site a scheme for noise attenuation measures shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall detail the calculated effects of the proposed attenuation measures and upon approval shall be implemented within 3 months and thereafter maintained. 09 To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties in accodance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 10 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 11 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (in accordance with the CLEA guidelines and methodology) and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. 1) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to investigations commencing on site (ref1). 2) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology (ref 2). 3) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any remediation commencing on site, approval shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority of any such remedial works required. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters. 4) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance (ref 3). If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 5) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in Agenda Item 27 Page 184
accordance with the approved methodology. This shall include photographic evidence. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site. Ref 1 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 2, 3 & 4 (DoE) Ref 2 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 1 (DoE) Ref 3 : CIRIA Vols 1-12 Contaminated Land Series and CIRIA "Building on Derelict Land" If any infill material is to be brought onto the site, only naturally occurring rocks, sub-soils and soils (including those containing <20% organic matter) and recycled construction and/or demolition materials (but excluding those containing bricks and concrete >70mm, metal, plasterboard, asbestos cement or other contaminated materials) shall be used. This shall be from a certified source to ensure that it is not contaminated in terms of its intended end use. The relevant Certification Documents shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any development commencing on the site. No development shall commence until the LPA has given written approval of the documents. No sludges or slurrys may be used. Analytical evidence shall be provided to verify imported soils are suitable for the proposed end use. This will require characterisation of the source and target sites in accordance with BS ISO 15176:2002 and subsequent relevant soil analyses. The sampling protocols and soil guideline values to be used for assessment of suitability will be dependant on the source of the soil and the proposed use of the target site and this shall be agreed with the LPA prior to any development commencing on the site. As a minimum, for large volumes of homogenous natural soils for use in non-sensitive areas, such as commercial end uses, sampling frequency shall be at least one per thousand cubic metres (1:1000m3). Soils for use in sensitive areas, such as domestic gardens, and where imported soils are less homogenous, the sampling frequency shall be greater (i.e. up to one per hundred and fifty cubic metres (1:150m3)). A closure report shall be submitted once remediation works have been completed. This shall include results of all sampling undertaken and certification of imported soils. This condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. Ref 1. R&D Publication CLR8 (2002) 'Potential contaminants for the assessment of land' (DEFRA and the Environment Agency) Ref 2. BS ISO 15176:2002 'Soil quality - characterisation of excavated soil and other materials intended for re-use.' 11 In the interests of safety and amenity and the interests of pollution and to safeguard water supplies in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 01 You are advised that in implementing this planning permission that you will need to pay full regard to the requirements of the Environment Agency set out in their letter dated the 22nd November 2005 (copy attached). Page 185 Agenda Item 27
Application No: : 05/01077/FUL Address : Arjo Wiggins Dartford Paper Mill Priory Road North Dartford Kent Date: 30 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 186
This page is intentionally left blank Page 187 Agenda Item 28
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 December 2005 Reference: 05/00370/FUL Officer: Mr David Jeanes Location: St Marys Church London Road Greenhithe Kent Proposal: Excavation works to land east of church to provide new car park, car park entrance from Mounts Road, drop off lay by & pedestrian front path & a detached garage Applicant: PCC Of St Marys Church Agent: Andrew Boakes Associates 8 Tonbridge Chambers Pembury Road Tonbridge Kent TN9 2HZ Date Valid: 21/04/2005 Parish / Ward: Swanscombe & Greenhithe T.C. / Greenhithe RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) Dartford Local Plan: No site-specific policies (2) Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft: No site-specific policies SITE DESCRIPTION (3) The site covers an area of some 0.49 hectares and is located on the south side of London Road some 35m to the west of its junction with St Clements Way. A Grade II listed church, rectory and church hall occupy the site. There are significant changes in ground levels across the site some 12m from the southeastern to northwestern corner. (4) Access to the site is taken from Mounts Road. Presently car parking on site is limited to that which can be provided within the hardstanding area adjacent to the Rectory. (5) A McDonalds Restaurant lies to the west with open space to the east. Residential properties lie to the south and to the north on the opposite side of London Road. PROPOSAL (6) The application proposes excavation works to remove the existing chalk bank, predominantly to the northeastern corner of the site. This would allow for the development of Agenda Item 28 Page 188
a car parking area and orbital access road around the church. The proposal incorporates a new access from Mounts Road and would result in the extension of the existing footpath on London Road. Also included within the proposal are a lay-by within Mounts Road to provide a drop-off and pick-up point and a detached garage for use in connection with the rectory. These are the substantial elements of the proposal. Additional elements of a more minor nature are required to accommodate these. (7) The applicant advises that this is phase 1 of a wider redevelopment of the overall site intended to be of benefit to current users of the church and facilities and the wider community. Phase 2 would result in refurbishment of the church and phase 3 the development of a new church hall to replace the existing. RELEVANT HISTORY (8) No relevant planning history. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (9) KCC Environment and Economy: Advises that possible significant archaeological remains could be affected by the proposed development and recommends a condition to secure a programme of archaeological work. (10) Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council: No observations in respect of original submission. Following the submission of revised plans advise that Members would like to see plans for the whole redevelopment of the church site as they find it difficult to assess the applications in part. (11) Kent Highway Services: No objections to the layout. Request condition to ensure that the retaining walls adjacent to the highway are adequate. Advise that the applicant should contact Kent Highway Services regarding adoption of the proposed footpath and traffic management during construction. (12) DBC Conservation Architect: No objections, subject to provision of satisfactory screening between the church and the rectory. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (13) One letter of representation has been received raising objection on the grounds of loss of privacy and disturbance from groups occupying the car park late at night. RELEVANT POLICIES Dartford Local Plan: (14) Policy B1 provides general environmental criteria for all development proposals with policy B6 applicable to development proposals for the alteration of a listed building. Policy T19 relates to traffic volumes and relationship to the highway network and policy T20 is applicable to new accesses. Local Plan Review Amended Second Deposit Draft: (15) Policies DD11, BE5, T7 and T9 effectively replicate those of the adopted local plan. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS Key Issues (16) I am of the opinion that the key issues in this case are the form of development proposed, affect upon the listed building, amenity issues, highways and parking. There are no local plan policies that would preclude development of this nature in principle. Page 189 Agenda Item 28
Members will be aware that works within the curtilage of a listed building normally necessitate listed building consent. However, ecclesiastical buildings, whilst subject to planning control, are exempt from listed building controls. Thus, in this case no application for listed building consent has been submitted and Members are considering only whether planning permission should be granted. Form of Development (17) The applicant advises that this is phase 1 of a wider redevelopment of the existing facilities. I would not raise objection to the provision of additional car parking or the additional works to be undertaken. Indeed I am of the opinion that the proposal would be of benefit to current users of the church and other facilities on site and also potentially the wider community. The extension of the existing footpath to London Road and Mounts Road would again in my opinion be a desirable element of the proposal of benefit to the local community. (18) Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council have commented that they would wish to see all phases of the development considered as a single application. However, the local planning authority is charged with determining the application as submitted. I cannot see that there would any reasonable grounds upon which it could be requested that the possible future proposals should form part of the current application. In any event, I am of the view that consideration of this and future elements can be undertaken independently. Affect Upon the Listed Building (19) The proposal involves significant works within the curtilage of the listed building that will be highly visible and that would discernibly alter the appearance of the listed building. The Council has a duty to ensure that listed buildings are protected from unsympathetic development and consequently careful consideration must be given to whether the proposal is acceptable in respect of the resulting appearance of the listed building. Policy B1 of the adopted local plan and policy BE5 of the local pan review are applicable in this context. (20) The excavation works would result in more widespread views of the church from additional vantage points. The works would give the church greater prominence and I consider this to be of benefit. However, Members will need to be satisfied that the car parking area and other works proposed would not have an adverse visual impact upon the listed building and its setting. I am satisfied that the car parking area can be satisfactorily screened such that this would not have a harmful visual impact. The proposed orbital road would result in movement of vehicles in arguably the most prominent part of the site. Minimal movement would in my opinion not be of significant consequence but I would recommend a condition to ensure that the road cannot be used for the parking of vehicles as I consider this would be acutely harmful to the appearance of the listed building. (21) I am satisfied that the methods to be employed to provide retaining elements to the London Road, Mounts Road and the western boundary are achievable and would not detract from the appearance of the listed building. This can be ensured through the use of appropriate materials and landscaping. Suitable landscaping and materials can be secured by appropriate conditions. Similarly, I am satisfied that the proposed garage can be screened such that this would not be visually harmful. The one element of the proposal that remains an area of concern is that in relation to the retaining wall and landscaping adjacent to the rectory building. I consider it essential that the rectory should be screened as far as practically possible. Whilst the rectory is not in itself a particularly unsightly building it would hold a prominent position in relation to the church as a result of the excavation works. If this building cannot be satisfactorily screened it would in my opinion seriously detract from the appearance of the listed building. As currently proposed the natural screening is not achievable and additionally would give rise to safety implications as the proposed trees would be unstable. I consider it necessary to ensure this matter is resolved prior to the grant of permission and in the event that Members are satisfied with the proposal in all other respects would recommend that delegated authority be granted to resolve this matter. The architect is currently seeking to address these issues. Agenda Item 28 Page 190
Amenity Issues (22) The residential property to the south, Serendib, would in my opinion be unaffected by the proposed development and the amenities of the occupiers would not be compromised in any respect. (23) One letter of representation has been received from the occupier of the property to the north of the site, on the opposite side of London Road. This property sits perpendicular to London Road and the occupier is concerned that the excavation works would result in overlooking and loss of privacy. I do not consider that the amenities of the occupiers of this or other properties to the north of London Road would be harmed. The properties to the north of London Road are sited at a higher level than London Road. The proposed car parking area would be sited a lower level than these properties and consequently would not give rise to overlooking. At higher level, adjacent to the rectory there is a distance of some 35m to the boundaries of the residential properties to the north. Additionally, landscaping would be introduced within the application site and there is existing screening to the residential properties such that I do not consider that the proposal would result in overlooking. (24) The representation received raises concern in respect of the possibility that groups would congregate in the car park late at night. There is of course a possibility that this could occur. However, I do not consider that this in itself would be harmful to the amenities of surrounding residents. Moreover, the presence on site of the rectory would in my opinion act as a deterrent in this respect. The site is currently open to continual public access. Consequently, I do not consider that this would represent grounds for refusal. Highways and parking (25) Kent Highway services advise that the proposal is acceptable from a traffic generation perspective. The site layout would potentially lead to difficulties and conflict in respect of the proposed orbital road. However, this is internal to the site and would not affect the highway and I am advised would be a management issue for the applicants to consider. Kent Highways Services request a condition to ensure that the details of the retaining walls adjacent to the highway are submitted. I consider it reasonable to attach such a condition were Members minded to grant permission in order that the highway authority is satisfied the public highway would not be adversely affected. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (26) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSIONS (27) Subject to resolution of the outstanding matters in relation to the retaining wall and screening of the rectory I consider this to be an appropriate from of development in this location, fully compliant with the aims and objectives of the local plan policies noted above. I am of the opinion that the proposal would be of benefit to the local community and would not adversely affect the appearance of character of the listed building. I recommend that the proposal be deferred for delegated approval subject to addressing outstanding matters. RECOMMENDATION: Defer for delegated approval (subject to outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved) Page 191 Agenda Item 28
01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured and had implemented a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. 02 To ensure that due regard is had to the preservation in situ of important archaeological remains in accordance with Policy B12 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 03 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 03 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 04 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved. 04 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 05 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance. 05 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 06 Prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved a programme for the suppression of dust during the remodelling of the chalk bund shall be submitted for approval to the local planning authority. No works shall commence until the local planning authority has given such approval. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of the project unless the local planning authority has approved any variation. Agenda Item 28 Page 192
06 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance will policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 07 Before development commences, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 07 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings and the character of the listed building in accordance with Policies B1 and B6 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 08 Prior to the commencement of development structural details of the retaining walls to the northern and eastern boundaries shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Such walls shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 08 In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 09 The proposed vehicular access and sight lines shall be provided and constructed as shown on the application drawings and thereafter maintained and the area in advance of the sight lines shall be kept permanently clear of all obstructions. 09 In order to ensure that the development should not prejudice the free flow of traffic and condition of safety on the highway nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Policy T20 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 10 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 10 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 11 There shall be no incineration of waste materials within the curtilage of the premises. 11 To prevent nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 12 No parking of vehicles shall occur in the area enclosed by collapsible bollards other than in the disabled parking spaces shown on drawing no. 169/02 Revision B. 12 To protect the character of the listed building in accordance with Policy B6 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. Page 193 Agenda Item 28
INFORMATIVES 01 The applicant is advised to contact Kent Highway Services regarding adoption of the hereby approved footpath and traffic management during construction. Agenda Item 28 Page 194
Application No: : 05/00370/FUL Address : St Marys Church London Road Greenhithe Kent Date: 22 November 2005 Scale: 1:1250 Page 195 Agenda Item 29
AB
DELEGATED LIST OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Date Report Compiled: 25-Nov-2005 Period for Report: 02/11/2005 to 25/11/2005
Plan 05/00932/FUL Date Issued 10/11/2005 Applicant Darenth Parish Council Darenth Hill Ladywood Road Darenth DA2 7LL Location Reeds Meadow Darenth Hill Darenth Kent Proposal Application for continued use of 1 No. metal storage container on allotment site Ward Bean & Darenth Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert
Plan 05/00935/TPO Date Issued 10/11/2005 Applicant Clive Harris George Wimpey East London Kings House 101-135 Kings Road Brentwood Essex CM14 4EE Location Darenth Village Park Darenth Kent Proposal Application to carry out various works to a number of trees on Darenth Village Park subject to Tree Preservation Order No. 1 1995 as set out in Tree Survey dated 8th September 2005. Ward Bean & Darenth Decision Consent TPO Officer Mr P Nicholls Plan 05/01005/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Warren Ward/Royal Mail 50 West Hill Dartford DA1 1AA Location Royal Mail Pouch Box Land At Junction Of Darenth Park Avenue And Redding Close Darenth Kent Proposal Siting of a Royal Mail Pouch Box Ward Bean & Darenth Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster
Page 1 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 196
Plan 05/01069/REM Date Issued 09/11/2005 Applicant Mr R Burgess 22 Ladywood Road Darenth Kent DA2 7LL Location 22 Ladywood Road Darenth Kent DA2 7LL Proposal Submission of details relating to surface water drainage pursuant to Condition 2 of Planning Permission DA/05/00461/FUL for erection of a single storey side/rear extension Ward Bean & Darenth Decision Application formally discharged Officer Mrs B Lidster
Plan 04/01115/REM Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Copthorn Homes Ltd & Land Securities Trading Ltd C/O Agent Location Waterstone Park Phase II London Road Greenhithe Kent DA9 9JQ Proposal Submission of details relating to surface water drainage and soakaways pursuant to Condition 30 of Planning Permission DA/02/00999/OUT for residential Ward Castle Decision Application formally discharged Officer Mr Graham Parkinson
Plan 05/00976/FUL Date Issued 25/11/2005 Applicant S Wade 54 Steele Avenue Greenhithe Kent DA9 9PH Location 54 Steele Avenue Greenhithe Kent DA9 9PH Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension together with single storey front extension to existing garage and front porch Ward Castle Decision Application Permitted Officer Miss Emma Jefferys
Plan 05/00633/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Mr Kenneth Maude/Kayley Ltd 68 Summerhouse Drive Bexley Kent DA5 2EE Location 196 London Road Stone Kent DA9 9JF Proposal Retention of a garage in rear garden Ward Castle Decision Application Permitted Officer Mr P Nicholls
Page 2 of 16 Page 197 Agenda Item 29
Plan 05/01087/CPO Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Fleetdown Infant School & KCC Education C/o Agent Location Fleetdown Infants School Lunedale Road Darenth Kent DA2 6JX Proposal Consultation on an application for the erection of an open sided aluminium shelter within enclosed playground Ward Dartford Brent Decision No Objection Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00943/FUL Date Issued 09/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs Kempton 8 Hesketh Avenue Dartford Kent DA2 6NP Location 8 Hesketh Avenue Dartford Kent DA2 6NP Proposal Erection of a part two/part single storey side/rear extension Ward Dartford Brent Decision Application Permitted Officer Miss Emma Jefferys Plan 05/00958/REM Date Issued 09/11/2005 Applicant Paul Bates 116 Park Road Dartford Kent DA1 1SZ Location 116 Park Road Dartford Kent DA1 1SZ Proposal Submission of details relating to watching brief pursuant to Condition 3 of Planning Permission DA/05/00083/FUL for erection of a part two/part first floor side extension with canopy along front elevation Ward Dartford Brent Decision Application formally discharged Officer Mr David Jeanes
Plan 05/00963/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs Woodman 79 East Hill Dartford Kent DA1 1SN Location 79 East Hill Dartford Kent DA1 1SN Proposal Provision of 2 No. dormer windows in front elevation in connection with providing additional rooms in the roof space Ward Dartford Brent Decision Application refused, Over dominant feature Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert
Page 3 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 198
Plan 05/00521/COU Date Issued 16/11/2005 Applicant TRACS Brickfield Farm Main Road Longfield DA3 7PJ Location The Bungalow Hesketh Park Park Road Dartford Kent DA1 1ST Proposal Change of use & refurbishment of building to provide training/resource centre and tea/coffee bar together with 2m high security railings & gates around part of boundary of building Ward Dartford Brent Decision Application Withdrawn Officer Mrs B Lidster
Plan 05/00992/ADV Date Issued 25/11/2005 Applicant Primesight Advertising Ltd 3 Waterhouse Square 138-142 Holborn London EC1N 2NY Location Outside 38 Shepherds Lane Dartford Kent Proposal Display of 1 No. double sided free standing internally illuminated advertisement display unit Ward Dartford Heath Decision Application refused, Out of character in residential area Officer Miss Emma Jefferys
Plan 05/00964/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mr P Russell 173 Chastilian Road Dartford Kent DA1 3LW Location 173 Chastilian Road Dartford Kent DA1 3LW Proposal Erection of a 2 storey side extension with front porch together with a rear conservatory Ward Dartford Heath Decision Application Permitted Officer Miss Emma Jefferys
Plan 05/00970/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs N Cambridge 246 Shepherds Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2PW Location 246 Shepherds Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2PW Proposal Erection of a part two/part single storey rear/side extension Ward Dartford Heath Decision Application Permitted Officer Mr P Nicholls
Page 4 of 16 Page 199 Agenda Item 29
Plan 05/00993/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Warren Ward/Royal Mail 50 West Hill Dartford DA1 1AA Location Royal Mail Pouch Box Outside 17 Sharp Way Dartford Kent Proposal Siting of a Royal Mail Pouch box Ward Dartford Joyce Green Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00936/ADV Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Sure Start Dartford Childrens Centres Enterprise House 8 Essex Road Dartford Kent DA1 2AU Location Dartford YMCA Out Of Mischief Nursery School Marsh Street Dartford Kent DA1 5QB Proposal Display of a non-illuminated free standing sign at entrance gates to Nursery Ward Dartford Joyce Green Decision Consent for Advert. Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00947/LDC Date Issued 02/11/2005 Applicant Mr Hassett 131 Colney Road Dartford Kent DA1 1TG Location 131 Colney Road Dartford Kent DA1 1TG Proposal Application under Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (Lawful Development Certificate) for the provision of a dormer window in rear elevation in connection with providing addition room in the roof space Ward Dartford New Town Decision Planning Permission not Required LDC Officer Mr P Nicholls
Plan 05/01010/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mr C Venus 1 Invicta Road Dartford Kent DA2 6AY Location 1 Invicta Road Dartford Kent DA2 6AY Proposal Demolition of existing single storey rear extension and erection of a single storey rear extension (Amendments to Planning Permission DA/05/00056/FUL to increase length of extension) Ward Dartford New Town Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster
Page 5 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 200
Plan 05/01009/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mrs G French 2 Dewlands Avenue Dartford Kent DA2 6AJ Location 2 Dewlands Avenue Dartford Kent DA2 6AJ Proposal Erection of a single storey side extension to existing conservatory Ward Dartford New Town Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00967/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Mr K Mepham 1 Brent Close Dartford Kent DA2 6DD Location 1 Brent Close Dartford Kent DA2 6DD Proposal Erection of a first floor side/rear extension Ward Dartford New Town Decision Application Refused - Overdevelopment of site, overbearing impact and detracts from symmetry Officer Mrs B Lidster
Plan 05/01050/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr Kenneth Orafor 49 Rosedale Close Dartford Kent DA2 6AL Location 49 Rosedale Close Dartford Kent DA2 6AL Proposal Application for the Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DA/93/0106 in respect of conversion of existing garage into habitable room together with alterations to front elevation Ward Dartford New Town Decision Application Permitted Officer Mr P Nicholls Plan 03/00764/REM Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Bovis Lend Lease Tanshire House Shackleford Road Elstead, Surrey GUB 6LB Location Buildings 81, 82, 84 & Car Park T Glaxo Wellcome Plc Millpond Road Dartford Kent DA1 5AH Proposal Submission of details relating to archaeological impact assessment pursuant to Condition 5 of Planning Permission DA/03/00377/FUL for erection of a three storey manufacturing building Ward Dartford Town Decision Approval of details (or revised details) Officer Mr P Nicholls
Page 6 of 16 Page 201 Agenda Item 29
Plan 05/00981/REM Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Building Design & Surveying Consultancy Melrose Farm Reigate Road Hookwood, Horley Surrey RH6 0AP Location 27 - 29 West Hill Dartford Kent DA1 5HZ Proposal Submission of details relating to noise attenuation measures pursuant to Condition 5 of Planning Permission DA/05/00458/LBC for the erection of single storey rear extensions and provision of dormer windows in front elevations Ward Dartford Town Decision Approval of details (or revised details) Officer Mr David Jeanes
Plan 05/00971/COU Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Tumaru Properties Limited C/o Chaianbow Management Services Hope House 45 Great Peter Street London SW1P 3LT Location Managers Suite Priory Centre Dartford Kent DA1 2HS Proposal Change of use of Management Suite to Public and Staff Toilets (Sui Generis Use) Ward Dartford Town Decision Application Permitted Officer Miss Emma Jefferys
Plan 05/00948/FUL Date Issued 11/11/2005 Applicant McConnells C/o Agent Location 75 Lowfield Street Dartford Kent DA1 1HP Proposal Retention of a rear porch Ward Dartford Town Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert
Plan 05/00813/FUL Date Issued 02/11/2005 Applicant O2 (UK) Property Ltd 261 Bath Road Slough SL1 4DX Location 9 High Street Dartford Kent DA1 1DT Proposal Provision of a new shop front together with alterations to side elevation Ward Dartford Town Decision Application Refused - Unsatisfactory design Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert
Page 7 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 202
Plan 05/00962/COU Date Issued 09/11/2005 Applicant Mr S Singh C/o 142 Kenton Lane Kenton Middlesex HA3 8UG Location Cobham House Highfield Road North Dartford Kent DA1 2DD Proposal Continued retention of use of property as 7 x 1 bedroom self contained units Ward Dartford Town Decision Application Permitted Officer Miss Emma Jefferys Plan 05/00978/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Laurel Pub Co. Ltd C/o SFI House 165 Church Street East Woking Surrey GU21 6HJ Location The Litten Tree Public House 36 - 42 Spital Street Dartford Kent DA1 2DT Proposal Application for the Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission DA/99/00713/FUL in respect of extending opening hours on Thursday to Saturday to 1.30am Ward Dartford Town Decision Approval of Variation of Condition Officer Mrs B Lidster
Plan 05/00894/CPO Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Babtie C/o Agent Location Between Dartford & Greenhithe Railway Stations Via Home Gardens, Darenth Road, Princes Road, Darent Valley Hospital, Bluewater & St Clements Way Proposal Consultation on an application for the submission of details relating to finish of pedestrian guard rails pursuant to Condition R2A of Planning Permission DA/01/00926/CPO for a dedicated public transport route Ward Dartford Town Decision No Objection Officer Mrs Sonia Bunn
Page 8 of 16 Page 203 Agenda Item 29
Plan 05/00980/REM Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Bowman Riley Architects Wellington House Otley Street Skipton North Yorkshire BD23 1EL Location Greenhithe Service Station London Road Greenhithe Kent DA9 9EJ Proposal Submission of details relating to external materials and floodlighting pursuant to Conditions 2 and 14 of Planning Permission DA/05/00216/FUL for the redevelopment of site for petrol filling station and a single storey building for sales area, food area with public and staff facilities Ward Greenhithe Decision Approval of details (or revised details) Officer Mr David Jeanes Plan 05/00931/FUL Date Issued 09/11/2005 Applicant Yipul Patel 11 College Place Greenhithe Kent DA9 9GF Location 11 College Place Greenhithe Kent DA9 9GF Proposal Retention of a satellite dish on front elevation Ward Greenhithe Decision Application Refused - Obtrusive and undesirable feature Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/01007/REM Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Judd Architecture & Surveying Ltd Ash House Ash Road New Ash Green Kent DA3 8JD Location 33 Bean Road Greenhithe Kent DA9 9JB Proposal Submission of details relating to external materials pursuant to Condition 2 of Planning Permission DA/03/01001/FUL (Granted on Appeal) for the erection of a detached building to provide 14 x 2 bedroom flats with associated car parking Ward Greenhithe Decision Application formally discharged Officer Mr Graham Parkinson
Plan 05/00982/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs Savvides 108 Birchwood Road Wilmington Kent DA2 7HG Location 108 Birchwood Road Wilmington Kent DA2 7HG Proposal Erection of a single storey front extension with alterations to the roof line and a first floor rear extension Ward Joydens Wood Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert
Page 9 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 204
Plan 05/00893/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant David Cooper 7 Coopers Drive Dartford DA2 7HS Location 7 Coopers Drive Dartford Kent DA2 7WS Proposal Erection of a 1.8m high fence/wall between 7 Coopers Drive & footpath Ward Joydens Wood Decision Application Refused - Obtrusive and undesirable feature. Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00915/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant David Cooper 7 Coopers Drive Dartford Kent DA2 7WS Location 7 Coopers Drive Dartford Kent DA2 7WS Proposal Erection of a 1m high fence along side boundary Ward Joydens Wood Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00960/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Mr S Hughes 105 Summerhouse Drive Bexley Kent DA5 2ER Location 105 Summerhouse Drive Bexley Kent DA5 2ER Proposal Provision of a monopitch roof over existing front porch together with canopy over front of existing garage Ward Joydens Wood Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert Plan 05/01003/REM Date Issued 07/11/2005 Applicant M.A MC Mahan Building & Decorating Services 33 Blackburn Road Herne Bay Kent CT6 7RQ Location 8 Red Lodge Crescent Bexley Kent DA5 2JR Proposal Submission of details relating to obscure glazing pursuant to Condition 2 of Planning Permission DA/04/0/847/FUL for erection of a single storey side extension Ward Joydens Wood Decision Approval of details (or revised details) Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert
Page 10 of 16 Page 205 Agenda Item 29
Plan 05/01014/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr A McGee 29 Cavell Crescent Dartford Kent DA1 5NS Location 29 Cavell Crescent Dartford Kent DA1 5NS Proposal Erection of a detached garage in rear garden Ward Littlebrook Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00983/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Warren Ward/Royal Mail 50 West Hill Dartford Kent DA1 1AA Location Royal Mail Pouch Box Bridges Drive, Opposite Eliot Road Dartford Kent Proposal Siting of a Royal Mail Pouch Box Ward Littlebrook Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00984/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Warren Ward/Royal Mail 50 West Hill Dartford DA1 1AA Location Royal Mail Pouch Box Land North Of Kingsley Avenue, Littlebrook Manorway Opposite Farnol Road Dartford Kent Proposal Siting of a Royal Mail Pouch Box Ward Littlebrook Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00995/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mrs Susan Rebecca Mary Cobb 17 Fairlight Cross New Barn Longfield Kent DA3 7JD Location 17 Fairlight Cross Longfield Kent DA3 7JD Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension Ward Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster
Page 11 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 206
Plan 05/00977/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mrs M Motton Pantiles The Drive Longfield Kent DA3 7LX Location Pantiles The Drive Longfield Kent DA3 7LX Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension Ward Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00952/FUL Date Issued 17/11/2005 Applicant Sherwen Engineering Co Ltd Mile End Green Green Street Green Road Longfield Kent DA2 8EB Location Sherwen Engineering Co Mile End Green Green Street Green Road Longfield Kent DA2 8EB Proposal Retention of a detached outbuilding for a temporary period of twelve months Ward Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet Decision Application Permitted Officer Mr P Nicholls Plan 05/00959/FUL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs Reed 3 Deerhurst Close New Barn Longfield Kent DA3 7LL Location 3 Deerhurst Close New Barn Longfield Kent DA3 7LL Proposal Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear and side extensions Ward Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs Jennifer Herbert Plan 05/01053/REM Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs R Gagg Rats Castle Green Street Green Road Dartford Longfield Kent DA2 8DX Location Rats Castle Green Street Green Road Longfield Kent DA2 8DX Proposal Submission of details relating to external materials subject to Condition 2 of Planning Permission DA/05/00774/FUL & DA/05/00775/LBC for erection of 1.5m high brick wall with 1.8m high brick piers along front and side boundary's together with 1.2m high dwarf wall and iron railings along part of front boundary Ward Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet Decision Application formally discharged Officer Miss Emma Jefferys
Page 12 of 16 Page 207 Agenda Item 29
Plan 05/00966/ADV Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant T S Horlock & Son Ltd 11 Station Road Longfield Kent DA3 7QD Location 11 Station Road Longfield Kent DA3 7QD Proposal Display of an internally illuminated fascia sign on front elevation Ward Longfield, New Barn & Southfleet Decision Consent for Advert. Officer Mr P Nicholls Plan 05/01097/OBB Date Issued 25/11/2005 Applicant Groundwork South East London C/o Agent Location Dartford Creek Ness Road Erith Proposal Consultation on an application for installation of timber seating, planting of native hedging, 2 x subsoil ramps and steps to access flood elevation bund within London Borough of Bexley Ward Outside Borough Boundary Decision No Objection Officer Mrs B Lidster
Plan 05/01027/OBB Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Fairview New Homes Ltd C/o Agent Location Horton Kirby Paper Mill Horton Road Darenth Kent Proposal Consultation on an application for mixed use development of 236 x 1 and 2 residential units (conversion and new build); 4 live/work units; provision of commercial floorspace (part conversion including Listed Building and new build); alterations to existing access off Horton Road and associated highway works; removal of existing culvert and re-instatement of open river channel and associated works; retention and works to 2 Listed Buildings; provision of 360 car parking spaces, areas of public and private amenity space and landscaping works Ward Outside Borough Boundary Decision No Objection Officer Mr David Jeanes
Page 13 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 208
Plan 05/01108/OBB Date Issued 25/11/2005 Applicant Groundwork South East London C/o Agent Location Land Adjacent Footpath Between Crayford Marsh And River Thames Maypole Crescent Proposal Consultation on an application for display of 1 No. non illuminated freestanding information sign within London Borough of Bexley Ward Outside Borough Boundary Decision No Objection Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/01109/OBB Date Issued 25/11/2005 Applicant Groundwork South East London C/o Agent Location Land Adjacent To And Part Of Crayford Creek Crayford Proposal Consultation on an application for display of 1 No. non illuminated freestanding information sign within London Borough of Bexley Ward Outside Borough Boundary Decision No Objection Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00949/OUT Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs A Peeling 8 Clarendon Gardens Dartford Kent DA2 6EZ Location 8 Clarendon Gardens Dartford Kent DA2 6EZ Proposal Outline application for the erection of a detached house Ward Stone Decision Application Refused - Inadequate and inappropriate site. Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/00946/FUL Date Issued 04/11/2005 Applicant Mr P Welton 94 Morgan Drive Greenhithe Kent DA9 9DT Location 94 Morgan Drive Horns Cross Greenhithe Kent DA9 9DT Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension Ward Stone Decision Application Permitted Officer Mr David Jeanes
Page 14 of 16 Page 209 Agenda Item 29
Plan 05/00996/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr M Berry 38 Water Mill Way Sutton-At-Hone South Darenth Kent DA4 9BE Location 38 Water Mill Way Sutton-At-Hone South Darenth Kent DA4 9BE Proposal Application for the Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission TH/5/66/302A in respect of converting existing garage into habitable room together with alterations to front elevation and the provision of 2 car parking Ward Sutton At Hone Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster
Plan 05/00854/CTRL Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Rail Link Engineering 2 Ossulston Street London NW1 1HT FAO Nigel Phelps Location Channel Tunnel Rail Link Ebbsfleet Kent Proposal Bringing into use of CTRL Section 2 (Borough of Dartford) under Paragraph 17 of Schedule 6 of the CTRL Act Ward Swanscombe Decision Application Permitted Officer Mr P Nicholls
Plan 05/01037/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs G Jessup 5 Raeburn Avenue Dartford Kent DA1 3BQ Location 5 Raeburn Avenue Dartford Kent DA1 3BQ Proposal Erection of a first floor side extension Ward West Hill Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster
Plan 05/00888/COU Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr S Photay 46 West Hill Dartford Kent DA1 1EU Location 23 Highfield Road Dartford Kent DA1 2JS Proposal Change of use of ground floor of property from offices to Dental Surgery with associated offices at first floor level Ward West Hill Decision Application Permitted Officer Miss Emma Jefferys
Page 15 of 16 Agenda Item 29 Page 210
Plan 05/01019/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Mr & Mrs P Smith 4 Shepherds Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2NU Location 4 Shepherds Lane Dartford Kent DA1 2NU Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension Ward West Hill Decision Application Permitted Officer Mr P Nicholls Plan 05/00772/REM Date Issued 22/11/2005 Applicant JS Designs Suite 3 West Hill House West Hill Dartford DA1 2EU Location West Hill House West Hill Dartford Kent DA1 2EU Proposal Submission of details relating to a programme of archaeological work pursuant to Condition 3 of Planning Permission DA/04/01166/FUL for the redevelopment of Ward West Hill Decision Approval of details (or revised details) Officer Mr A Legg Plan 05/01039/FUL Date Issued 21/11/2005 Applicant Leocote Building Company 45 The Driveway Istead Rise Gravesend Location The Coach House Stock Lane Wilmington Kent DA2 7BY Proposal Erection of a rear conservatory Ward Wilmington Decision Application Permitted Officer Mrs B Lidster Plan 05/01068/REM Date Issued 18/11/2005 Applicant Mr J Burton 22 High Road Wilmington Kent DA2 7BN Location 22 High Road Wilmington Kent DA2 7BN Proposal Submission of details relating to obscure glazing pursuant to Condition 2 of Planning Permission DA/05/00453/FUL for erection of a two storey side extension Ward Wilmington Decision Approval of details (or revised details) Officer Mrs B Lidster
Page 16 of 16 Page 211 Agenda Item 30
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PERFORMANCE QUARTERLY REPORT Borough Wide 1. Summary In the quarter ending 30 September 2005, the number of incoming applications decreased. Performance on major and other applications was below the national average, with turnaround on minor applications above average. Eight out of nine appeals were dismissed, well ahead of target. Complaints about unauthorised development again increased. Improving performance on major applications will be a key objective in coming months. 2. RECOMMENDATION That Members note the report. 3. Background and Discussion 3.1. This report presents an overview of development control performance up to September 2005. Most of the statistical information is contained in Appendices, with the text concentrating on key work areas. 3.2. Planning Applications The number of incoming applications decreased from the previous quarter; the number of decision made kept roughly level with the number of applications received. Eight week performance was 72%, compared to a national average of 78% to June 2005. In the quarter, 43% of major applications were decided in 13 weeks, against a Government target of 60%. Eight week turnaround for minor applications in the quarter was 67%, against a Government target of 65%. The equivalent figure for other applications was 75%, against a Government target of 80%. 3.3. Appeals A total of 8 planning appeals were submitted during the quarter. Nine appeals were decided, eight of which were dismissed. Details of the decisions are in Appendix B. 3.4. Enforcement The number of incoming complaints increased for the third successive quarter, with 96 enquiries or complaints concerning planning control. Further details of current investigations are set out in Appendix C.
RD1 D:\apps\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\3\0\AI00002030\Quarterly11050.doc Agenda Item 30 Page 212
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 3.5. Service Complaints There were five service complaints received and dealt with during the quarter. The first two cases related to the same matter. The complainants were not notified of a second planning application at a nearby property, having expressed interest in a previous application that was withdrawn. 3.5.1 The complainants were advised that correct procedures were followed in terms of neighbour notification and no explanation could be given as to why these particular letters had not been received; other letters in connection with the development had been received. However, the report to the Development Control Board did refer to the objections submitted in connection with the previous application and to the comments of the Town Council, which raised similar concerns. Whilst the complainants were unable to speak at the Board meeting, it was clear that Members had considered the concerns raised by them. 3.5.2 The third complaint was about a decision not to issue a remedial notice under the High Hedges legislation. 3.5.3 Officers took the view that there was a good prospect of the matter being resolved without the need for formal action. They sought to strike a balance, by avoiding the need for formal action against the complainant’s neighbour and also saving the complainant the expense of the fee for making a complaint. A deadline was set for remedial work to be undertaken and works were completed to the complainant’s satisfaction. There was therefore no need to reinstate the complaint and consider whether or not a remedial notice was merited. 3.5.4 The fourth complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of a planning application next door and felt that insufficient consideration had been given to his objections. 3.5.5 The investigation showed that the matter had been carefully assessed by the case officer, who had discussed it with the complainant. The report to Development Control Board covered all the relevant issues and it was considered that there were no sustainable grounds for refusal. 3.5.6 The final complaint was that Council officers failed to provide adequate and timely information in connection with an enforcement matter and showed a lack of professionalism and planning
RD2 Page 213 Agenda Item 30
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 knowledge. In particular, they failed to respond to some detailed questions raised in an E-mail. 3.5.7 It was accepted that officers could have updated residents more frequently and an apology was given. It was not accepted that officers had shown a lack of professionalism or planning knowledge. The case was complicated and in the light of that, Counsel’s advice was sought as to the appropriate course of action. 3.6 Ombudsman Investigations There was one Ombudsman complaint concluded this quarter. The complaint was that the Council had failed to take enforcement action against an alleged breach of planning control. The Ombudsman agreed that the current use of the site in question had been authorised and therefore found no fault with the Council for not taking enforcement action. On the matter of an extension to a building which did require permission, the Ombudsman found no fault with the way in which the Council decided not to take action, which had been in consultation with Ward Councillors. Consequently, the Ombudsman decided to close the complaint. 4.0 Significant Work Areas . 4.1 The proposed developments at Eastern Quarry, Swanscombe Peninsula West, The Bridge and the town centre continue to take up a significant amount of senior officer time. 4.2 Now that the Section is fully staffed, performance is recovering as the out of time applications that had accumulated clear the system. It is anticipated that there is still scope to further improve performance in the coming months. 4.3 In recent years the complexity of responses provided by Environmental Health Services has increased due to the pressure of protecting the environment while at the same time ensuring the regeneration of the area. In particular there has been a significant number of major planning applications that have involved more input from Environmental Health Services. This includes input pre and post approval (submissions re conditions, etc) of applications. There has also been a 400% increase in the number of referrals to Environmental Health Services since 1997/98. Also, there has been substantial growth in residential and commercial buildings within the Borough in recent years resulting in greater (and more complex) enforcement responsibilities for Environmental Health. However, there has not been a corresponding growth in Environmental Health
RD3 Agenda Item 30 Page 214
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 resources to deal with these increases. During the forthcoming quarter, the turn around time for responses from Environmental Health Services is likely to increase due to staff vacancies and this is likely to have a detrimental effect on determination targets. The Development Control Manager and Environmental Health Services Manager have discussed the use of Planning Delivery Grant money to fund a temporary EHO to assist with the increased workload and Cabinet have resolved to allocate funding to this. Also, Environmental Health Services staff will in future be passing all outstanding work relating to conditions and application information to Development Control staff to follow up. 5. Major applications Eight major applications were submitted in the quarter, which is a significant increase over the previous quarter when only 2 were submitted. Details of these new applications, along with progress on current schemes, are contained in Appendix D. In the quarter, 43% of major applications were decided in 13 weeks, against a Government target of 60%. Recent performance on this indicator has generally been below the Government target and as a result, it is likely that the Council will be set a standard of 60% to achieve in 2006-07. This will require a refocusing of effort on major applications and measures are currently under consideration. 6. Other Best Value Performance Indicators 6.1 Eight week turnaround for minor applications in the quarter was 67%, against a Government target of 65%. The equivalent figure for other applications was 75%, against a Government target of 80%. 6.2 The Government has introduced a new indicator this year, relating to the number of planning appeals allowed. There is no national target for this set by Government; performance for the quarter was 11% against a local target of 35%. 7. Section 106 Agreements There are currently six outstanding legal agreements awaiting completion. Details are contained in Appendix E. 8. Relationship to the Corporate Plan Not applicable 9. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments
RD4 Page 215 Agenda Item 30
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints arise as a result of this report. Appendices Appendix A Performance Indicators April - June 2005 Appendix B Appeals Summary Appendix C Enforcement Cases Appendix D Major Planning Applications Appendix E Outstanding S106 Agreements BACKGROUND PAPERS Documents Date File Ref Report Section and Exempt consulted Author Directorate Information Category Individual Sept A Lauder Regeneration N/A Planning and 2005 Ext. 3239 Enforcement Files
RD5 Page 216
This page is intentionally left blank Page 217 Agenda Item 30
APPENDIX A PERFORMANCE INDICATORS JULY – SEPTEMBER 2005 Agenda Item30
Figure 1 - Planning Applications Processed
350 320 307 306 300 291 293 279 281 279 278 274 271 269 272268 265 262 257 249 251 249251 253 241 240 250 235 235 226 218 208 208 209 209 203 202 Page 218 200 Received Decided
150
100
50
0 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 Jun-04 Sep-04 Dec-04 Mar-05 Jun-05 Sep-05
Figure 2 - Planning Application Decision Times (%) National Average 78% (2nd Quarter 2005)
90
82 78 78 79 80 76 76 77 77 74 Under 8 Weeks 72 71 72
68 69 8 to 13 weeks 70 66 66 Over 13 Weeks 61 60 Page 219 50
40
30 25 26 25 21 20 18 19 19 20 16 17 13 14 14 14 13 13 13 13
12 12 12 Agenda Item30 10 10 10 10 9 8 9 8 8 9 9 10 6 3
0 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 Jun-04 Sep-04 Dec-04 Mar-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Agenda Item30
Figure 3 - Major Planning Applications Decided
16
15
14 14
12 12 12 Page 220 10 10
8 8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2 2
0 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Mar-05 Mar-04 Mar-03 Mar-02 Mar-01 Mar-00 Mar-99 Sep-05 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-00 Dec-00 Sep-99 Dec-99 Dec-98
Figure 4 - Major Applications Decided in 13 weeks (%) BVPI Target for 2005-06 - 60% National Average 66% (2nd quarter 2005)
120
100 100
88 86
80 Page 221
67 60 57 50 50 50 43 43 40 33 29 Agenda Item30 20 20 20 17
0 0 0 0 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Mar-05 Mar-04 Mar-03 Mar-02 Sep-05 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-01 Dec-01 Agenda Item30
Figure 5 - Minor Applications Decided in 8 weeks (%) BVPI Target for 2005-06 - 65% National Average 73% (2nd Quarter 2005)
80
75 75 73 70 71 71 67 67 63 63 60 58 58
55 Page 222 53 54 50 50 51
43 40
30
20
10
0 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Mar-05 Mar-04 Mar-03 Mar-02 Sep-05 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-01 Dec-01 Figure 6 - Other Applications Decided in 8 weeks (%) BVPI Target for 2005-06 - 80% National Average 86% (2nd Quarter 2005)
100
90 87 85 86
82 83 80 80 80 80 80 78 78 78 76 74 74 75 70 71
60 Page 223
50
40
30
20 Agenda Item30 10
0 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Agenda Item30
Figure 7 - Householder Applications Decided in 8 Weeks (%)
95
90 90
88
86 86 85 85 84 83 83 Page 224
81 81 80 80 80 79
77 77 76 75 75
70
65 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Figure 8 - Outstanding Planning Applications
300
271 265 258 250 239
225 223 219 212 209 200 200 197 183 179 176 170 Page 225 150 153
133
100
50 Agenda Item30
0 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 Jun-04 Sep-04 Dec-04 Mar-05 Jun-05 Sep-05
Agenda Item30
Figure 9 - Applications Decided under delegated powers (%)
90
88 88 88
86 86 86 85 85 85 84 84 84 83 83 83 83 82 82 Page 226
80 80 79 78 77 76
74
72
70 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Figure 10 - Applications Registered in 5 Days (%)
120
100 99 99 100 99 99 99 100 98 97 97 95 95 91 91
88 83 80
72
60 Page 227
40
20 Agenda Item30
0 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Agenda Item30
Figure 11 - Percentage of Cases where Consultees Views Fully Reflected in Decision
120
100 97 94 91 92 92 91 91 92 90 90 89 90 90 83 80 78 76
71 Page 228
60
40
20
0 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Figure 12 - Percentage of Applications Amended to "Add Value"
35
33
30
26 26 26 25 24 23 23 22 21 20 20 20 20
19 Page 229
17 16 16 15 15
10
5 Agenda Item30
0 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Agenda Item30
Figure 13 - Percentage of amended applications which would have been refused if not amended
100
94 90 91 87 86 86 83 84 80 80 80 77 76 71 71 70 69 66 63 62 Page 230 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Mar-05 Mar-04 Mar-03 Mar-02 Sep-05 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-01 Dec-01 Figure 14 - Percentage of Cases where Local Plan Policies met in full
120
100 98 98 99 98 96 96 96 96 96 94 93 93 92 91 92 87 82 80 Page 231 60
40
20 Agenda Item30
0 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Agenda Item30
Figure 15 - Planning Appeals Submitted
20
18 18
16
14 14 Page 232
12 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 5
4 4 3 2
0 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Mar-05 Mar-04 Mar-03 Mar-02 Sep-05 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-01 Dec-01
Figure 16 - Percentage of Planning Appeals Allowed
70
60 60 60
55 Page 233
50 50 50 50
43 40 38 38
30
22 20 20
17 Agenda Item30
12 10 11 8
0 0 0 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Mar-05 Mar-04 Mar-03 Mar-02 Sep-05 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-01 Dec-01 Agenda Item30
Figure 17 - Number of Enforcement Complaints
120
104 100 98 95 96
80 81 79 78 Page 234 76 75 73 71 71 69 67 64 60 59 58 53
40
20
0 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Sep-01 Dec-01 Sep-02 Dec-02 Sep-03 Dec-03 Sep-04 Dec-04 Sep-05 Page 235 Agenda Item 30
APPENDIX B APPEALS SUMMARY Nine planning appeals were determined during the quarter, eight of which were dismissed. There were no enforcement appeal decisions. Address: Rear of 25 – 31 Broad Lane, Wilmington Proposal: Erection of a detached bungalow Level of DBC Decision: Delegated Decision: Dismissed The Inspector decided that the creation of an additional plot would be out of character in the area. This would give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy for the future occupiers and for existing residents. He did not feel that the problems with the access could be overcome by appropriate conditions. Address: The Old House, Hawley Manor, Hawley Proposal: Two detached dwellings Level of DBC Decision: Delegated Decision: Dismissed The Inspector concluded that the development would adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt and the setting of the listed building and that there were no special circumstances to warrant a departure from well established policy. Address: 15 Sycamore Road, Dartford Proposal: Two storey side extension Level of DBC Decision: Delegated Decision: Allowed The Inspector decided that the extended property would have a satisfactory relationship with adjoining properties and that adequate amenity space would remain for future occupiers. Agenda Item 30 Page 236
Address: 75 Shepherds Lane, Dartford Proposal: Two storey side extension Level of DBC Decision: Delegated Decision: Dismissed The Inspector took the view that the roof design would be unduly prominent, particularly bearing in mind the corner location in an Area of Special Residential Character. Address: Mabledon Hospital, Green Street Green Road, Darenth Proposal: Development of land to provide residential development and a crematorium together with associated new access roundabout, open space & landscaping (Appeal A) Outline application for the development of land to provide a crematorium & residential development of up to 288 units (Appeal B) Level of DBC Decision: DC Board Decision: Dismissed This decision was issued by the First Secretary of State, following a report from the Inspector. The Secretary of State agreed that all of the options proposed for development would contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt. All of the options put forward would have a greater impact on the perceived openness of the Green Belt, when compared with the relatively compact former hospital buildings. They would therefore comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would require the demonstration of very special circumstances to outweigh the harm caused. Such circumstances were not demonstrated. There was no need for the residential elements in terms of contributing to the Borough’s housing requirements and the fact that the site is previously developed land is not sufficient reason on it’s own to allow the appeal. The site would be unattractive to households without access to a car and there is a fundamental difference between this site and those Kent Thameside sites north of the A2. Because of the development’s small size and the general absence of a mix of uses, it would amount to an unsustainable form of development. Allowing the appeal would be inconsistent with the sequential approach in PPG3 and would run counter to the objective of focussing development in the Gateway area of the Borough. Page 237 Agenda Item 30
The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that traffic impact was not a sufficient reason to withhold permission and that appropriate provision could be made for nature conservation by means of conditions. There was no reason to refuse permission on noise or air quality grounds. There is firm evidence pointing to institutional uses as suggested in the Local Plan being viable. The Secretary of State considered granting permission for the crematorium in isolation but felt that because of the way the applications were made, the housing and crematorium elements were not separable. Both parties made applications for costs. The appellant’s application failed. However, the Secretary of State agreed that the appellant introduced the issue of viability of institutional uses very late in the day, so much so that this amounted to unreasonable behaviour. A partial award of costs was therefore made in favour of the Council. Address: FTH Plant Hire, Victoria Road, Dartford Proposal: Open storage and car sales Level of DBC Decision: Delegated Decision: Dismissed The Inspector decided that the uses would be out of character with the adjacent listed wall and would be contrary to the Council’s aspirations for the wider area. Address: 1b Faesten Way, Joydens Wood Proposal: Erection of a chalet bungalow Level of DBC Decision: Delegated Decision: Dismissed The Inspector thought that the new building would have an overbearing impact on the adjoining property and that an existing tree would probably have to be removed, to the detriment of the character of the area. Address: Highfield Farm, Betsham Road, Southfleet Proposal: Change of use from a farm building to a bungalow Level of DBC Decision: Delegated Decision: Dismissed Agenda Item 30 Page 238
The Inspector decided that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that there were no very special circumstances that outweighed this. It would be an unacceptable development in the countryside, in an unsustainable location, contrary to PPG3. He did not consider that there were any highway objections to the proposal. Page 239 Agenda Item 30
APPENDIX C ENFORCEMENT CASES ENF 803 - FTH Plant and Tool Hire, Victoria Road, Dartford Retrospective application for car sales under reference DA/00/00415 refused 6.9.00 and subsequent appeal dismissed 4.6.01. Enforcement Notice re material change of use of land to storage and sale of commercial motor vehicles issued 21.11.01, allowing one month to comply (21.12.01). Appeal dismissed 17.07.02. After the successful prosecution on 8.07.05 the illegal use continues. Further prosecution needed to include land owners Network Rail. Will be a joint prosecution with a further Enforcement Notice - see ENF 870. ENF 846 - Station Yard, Station Road, Southfleet. (1) Material change of use from disused railway yard to storage of materials, plant and machinery in connection with a plant hire business. Enforcement notice issued 19.07.02. Appeal dismissed 26.03.03. Compliance period increased to 6 months - compliance date 26.09.03. Use has ceased as of site visit on 24.12.03, Compliance obtained, but monitoring continues. No further breach of Notice witnessed to date. ENF 864 - Lane End Garage, Darenth. Unauthorised mixed use including car sales and unauthorised siting of a portacabin building. Ownership and uses have changed since previous investigation. Investigation re-started with operator given until end November to cease unlawful use or face formal action. ENF 870 - Car Park & Priory Wall South of Victoria Road, Dartford. Tool and Plant hire business is authorised, but use has diversified and intensified to include scaffolding business, waste transfer station, skip hire business, storage of building materials, the stationing and residential occupation of static and touring caravans and the storage, breaking and disposal of cars and parts arising from that activity. Enforcement Notice served 20.05.04 requiring uses to cease by 21.07.04. An appeal was lodged but was not received by the planning inspectorate by the due date and was refused. Since the successful prosecution on 8.07.05 some of the activities are continuing. Further prosecution needed to include landowners, Network Rail. ENF 878 - Conways, Rochester Way, Dartford. Unauthorised lighting columns. Enforcement Notice served 30.06.04. Appeal lodged 29.07.04. Appeal decision dated 5.01.05 upheld Notice with minor variation increasing compliance period to 9 months. Deadline of 5.10.05 has passed and columns remain in situ unchanged. Prosecution commenced. ENF 879 - 213 Shepherds Lane, Dartford. Ridge height increased over and above the approved increase. Retrospective application for new height refused 23.07.04. Enforcement Notice served Agenda Item 30 Page 240
13.12.04 requiring reduction of the ridge height and re-positioning of the dormers, six months given for compliance. Planning and Enforcement Appeals heard together through written representations. Planning appeal dismissed and Enforcement Notice upheld in decision dated 3.10.05, compliance date 3.04.06. ENF 888 - 5 The Boulevard, Ingress Park, Greenhithe. Breach of Condition relating to the unauthorised installation of a satellite dish. Breach of Condition Notice served 5.11.04 giving 28 days for removal of the satellite dish. Dish remains in situ, warning letter sent advising owner of the possibility of prosecution for failing to comply with the Notice. Prosecution commenced. ENF 889 - 2 Chandlers Mews, Ingress Park, Greenhithe. Breach of Condition relating to the unauthorised installation of a satellite dish. Breach of Condition Notice served 1.03.05 giving 28 for removal of the satellite dish. Satellite dish still in situ. Prosecution commenced in connection with ENF 888 above. ENF 891 - Rosemary, The Drive, Longfield. Unauthorised erection of a car port fronting the road. Negotiations with the owner have been unable to resolve the issue. Deadline of 18.11.05 given for removal or Enforcement Notice will be served. ENF 893 - 1 Meriel Walk, Ingress Park, Greenhithe. Breach of Condition relating to the unauthorised installation of a satellite dish. Breach of Condition Notice served 19.01.05 giving 28 days for removal of the dish. Dish remains in situ. Prosecution commenced in connection with ENF 888 & 889. ENF 895 - Land East of Reservoir North of Nurstead Lane, Longfield Hill, Longfield. Unauthorised change of use to residential including the siting of a mobile home. Deficient planning application received 3.02.05, but subsequently processed. Enforcement Notices and Stop Notice served 10.02.05 requiring the residential use to cease by 16.02.05 and the site to be restored to its former state by 14.04.05. Appeals lodged against Enforcement Notices. Planning application 05/00139/COU refused in Decision dated 26.04.04. Appeal lodged and combined with Enforcement Appeals. Appeals heard by Public Inquiry on 18.10.05. Decision issued 10.11.05, dismissing appeals but period fr compliance extend to one year (10.11.2006). ENF 896 - 39 Highfield Road, Dartford. Breach of Condition relating to excessive numbers attending premises during the Friday lunchtime prayer meeting. Breach of Condition Notice served on 16.5.05 giving one calendar month for compliance on limiting attendee numbers to a maximum of 50. Planning application 05/00516/FUL lodged on 25.05.05 to vary Condition to allow maximum of 80. Application deferred by Page 241 Agenda Item 30
DC Board on 18.08.05 to enable further discussion to take place. Reported elsewhere on this agenda. ENF 897 - 14 Broomhills, Betsham. Over-height boundary wall adjacent to the highway. Planning applications refused and negotiations have failed to achieve a reduction in height. Enforcement Notice served 23.06.05 requiring reduction. Appeal lodged 11.08.05 to be dealt with under the written representation procedure. ENF 898 - 4 Birch Place, Horns Cross. Planning permission was granted for a rear conservatory. The extension built was larger than that approved. A revised application to retain the extension as built was received and subsequently refused. All attempts to contact the owner to get the extension altered to the approved dimensions have failed. Enforcement Notice served 29.06.05. Appeal lodged 1.09.05, being dealt with via written representation. ENF 901 - Land Rear of 49-59 Tile Kiln Lane, Bexley. Breach of Conditions 5 & 6 of planning permission DA/04/00210/FUL for erection of 8 houses. Conditions being breached relate to the hours of operation on the site and materials being burnt onsite. Breach of Condition Notice served on 13.04.05 giving 28 days for compliance with the stated conditions. No evidence regarding any further breaches of these conditions. ENF 903 - Sauleskalns, Ship Lane, Sutton-at-Hone. Breach of Conditions 2, 5 and 7 of Appeal decision DA/02/00708/COU for private gypsy caravan site. The conditions relate to the number of caravans onsite, the submission of landscaping details and works to existing trees onsite. Breach of Condition Notice served 5.08.05 giving 28 days for compliance. Number of caravans already reduced to the maximum allowance of 6. Owner chased about outstanding details and gave an undertaking to get submitted by 28.10.05. ENF 904 - North End Farm, Park Corner Road, Betsham. Breach of Conditions 2, 3 and 6 of planning permission DA/05/00063/COU relating to implementing one-way system, submitting details of screening and hours of operation. Breach of Condition Notice served 11.07.05 giving 28 days for compliance. Appeal lodged on 8.07.05 against these and other conditions. One-way system not marked and screening details not submitted, but after one witnessed breach of hours restriction. Officer monitoring indicates the hours of operation are now being adhered to. ENF 905 - Land East of Reservoir North of Nurstead Lane, Longfield Hill, Longfield. Now Nurstead Stables. Breach of Conditions 2 & 3 of planning permission DA/04/00249/FUL relating to means of disposal of surface runoff and manure/bedding. Breach of Condition Notice prepared ready for service. ENF 906 – Stanham Farm, Burnham Road, Dartford. Agenda Item 30 Page 242
Unauthorised residential use of an agricultural outbuilding and extensions to this and another building. Enforcement Notices issued. ENF 907 - Dartford Marshes North of Bob Dunn Way. Following the service of the Temporary Stop Notice prohibiting the deposit of waste material, the spreading of waste material, the compacting of waste material and the construction of a roadway over the land; an Enforcement Notice was served on 17.10.05 against the use of the land for parking/storage of vehicles. The Notice also requires the removal of the material deposited for the creation of the hardstanding/roadway. Use to cease by 17.12.05 and material removed by 17.01.06. ENF 909 – Old Service Station, Watling Street, Bean. Unauthorised use of service station for provision of a hand car wash. Planning application DA/04/00417/COU for hand car wash and tyre sales refused on 8.02.05. No appeal submitted within the time allowed and the car wash use continued. Enforcement Notice served on 17.10.05 requiring the car wash use to cease by 17.12.05. ENF 910 – 23 The Brent, Dartford. Unauthorised single storey rear extension. Planning permission was granted in 2003 under reference DA/03/00902/COU for an extension in connection with converting the property into two self contained flats. This permission required the extension to match the existing building in colour and texture. The extension as built is larger than that approved and the materials do not match the existing building. Enforcement Notice issued 17.10.05 requiring the demolition of the extension by 17.02.06 and resultant materials removed by 17.03.06. Page 243 Agenda Item 30
APPENDIX D Major planning applications This paper sets out brief details of some of the major proposals currently under consideration by the Development Control Section. Papers on all the proposals are available at the Civic Centre or on the Council’s website. You can contact the case officer whose name appears in brackets for further information. Major schemes at the planning/development stage – November 2005 Ingress Abbey – Development on the site continues; application recently approved for further development on the Waterfront Phase 3. (Sonia Bunn 01322 343620 or [email protected] ) Ebbsfleet – up to 7.9m. sq.ft. of mixed development approved in principle by Dartford and Gravesham Councils. Work on further master planning under way and Master Plan for Springhead in Gravesham Borough under consideration. Site wide Transport Strategy recently approved in principle; other Strategy documents under consideration/approved. (Sonia Bunn 01322 343620 or [email protected] ) North Dartford (The Bridge) – application for employment (185,800 sq. m. approx.), residential (1500 units), leisure & recreational uses, primary school, local centre, open space, with public transport route, stations & bridges over University Way submitted May 2002. Site includes former Joyce Green Hospital and Littlebrook Lakes. Approved by Development Control Board in April 2003; legal agreement completed and outline planning permission issued. Details of early phases recently submitted; distribution centre for Sainsbury’s approved. (Adrian Legg 01322 343291 or [email protected] ) Land adj. Littlebrook Power Station - outline application for general industry and storage and distribution uses with associated highway works and landscaping. Permission granted October 2005. Further information awaited; discussions ongoing. (Adrian Legg 01322 343291 or [email protected] ) Eastern Quarry – Application submitted in January 2003 for a mixed development comprising up to 7250 dwellings and up to 267,250 sq metres of built floorspace for: business premises; education; community & social facilities; hotels; theatre; & supporting retail & leisure facilities; and associated works to provide the development. Application also submitted for part of site (DA/03/01134/OUT) for up to 6,250 dwellings and up to 231,000 sq metres of built floorspace for mixed uses as above. This excludes land in south east corner, for which a separate application now received (DA/05/00308/OUT). This proposes up to 1500 dwellings & up to 24,500 sq m of non-residential floorspace for mixed uses. Approval given for earthmoving operations within site. Resolved to grant outline planning permission in June 2005 to DA/03/01134/OUT subject to prior completion of a Section 106 agreement, approval of various strategies, referral to the First Secretary of State and a satisfactory response from the Highways Agency in relation to the road traffic impacts of the development. Further information available on the website – www.dartford.gov.uk (Sonia Bunn 01322 343620 or [email protected] ) Channel Tunnel Rail Link – Work is under way on Section 2 of the CTRL along the Ebbsfleet Valley and Swanscombe Peninsula, as well as the link road to the STDR4 and the associated improvements to the junction with the A2. Details of the station at Ebbsfleet approved in June 2003. (Sonia Bunn 01322 343620 or [email protected] ) Agenda Item 30 Page 244
Stone Castle, London Road – phase 1 (known as Waterstone Park) under construction. Application for second phase of up to 450 units, including Stone Castle site, approved in May 2003, subject to completion of a legal agreement, which was concluded in March 2004. Details of early parts of Phase 2 now approved. (Graham Parkinson 01322 343051 or [email protected] ) West Hill Hospital – Permission for ASDA retail store and residential scheme refused in June 2003. Site recently acquired by Barratts; application submitted for 247 dwellings. (Graham Parkinson 01322 343051 or [email protected] ) Bexley Hospital – Phase 1 (Rydon Homes) is complete. Phase 2 (Laings, David Wilson and Persimmon) is now almost complete. Phase 3 (Barratts) is well underway. The conversion of the Mansion House to apartments is complete and the Chapel has been converted to a gymnasium/performing arts centre. (Sonia Bunn 01322 343620 or [email protected] ) Tyler’s, Brent Way – An outline planning application for residential was submitted by Kent County Council. This is currently held in abeyance whilst KCC consider their position with regard to the Air Quality Management Area that has been designated here. Alternative uses are being considered. (Sonia Bunn 01322 343620 or [email protected] ) Glaxo Smith Kline North site – additional manufacturing floorspace approved following completion of a legal agreement with the applicants for the provision of infrastructure. (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) Stone Lodge – Application for hotel on former Fantaseas site being held in abeyance. Application for Dartford Judokwai approved and development under way. Application for the rest of the site for leisure and recreation uses pending. (Alec Lauder 01322 343239 or [email protected] ) Everards, The Wharf, Station Road, Greenhithe – Appeal dismissed for development of 219 apartments; further application submitted for 211 units in March 2005. (Graham Parkinson 01322 343051 or [email protected] ) Korsnas, Galley Hill Road, Swanscombe – outline permission for up to 450 dwellings issued following completion of a legal agreement. Details recently approved; construction under way. (Graham Parkinson 01322 343051 or [email protected] ) East side of Lowfield Street and Central Park, Dartford – application pending for a mixed use development comprising retail, residential (490 units); medical/community service centre & associated access, parking & service facilities; construction of new road through Central Park & associated infrastructure improvement including off site highways works. Approved in principle by Development Control Board on 26 August 2004 subject to completion of a legal agreement. Application called in by Secretary of State; public inquiry commenced 25 October 2005. Further information available on the website – www.dartford.gov.uk (Adrian Legg 01322 343291 or [email protected] ) Swanscombe Peninsula West – planning brief now adopted. Further information available on the website – www.dartford.gov.uk . Planning application submitted for mixed development of up to 1750 dwellings, commercial floorspace, community facilities and associated infrastructure. Separate application submitted for 110 dwellings south of Craylands Lane. (Sonia Bunn 01322 343620 or [email protected] ) Mabledon Hospital – appeals recently dismissed for a crematorium & residential development of up to 288 residential units submitted. (Adrian Legg 01322 343291 or [email protected] ) Bellegrove Ceramics, Salisbury Road, Dartford – Permission refused for 2 blocks of flats March 2005. Appeal lodged; public inquiry May 2006. (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) Page 245 Agenda Item 30
Pit 8 St James Pit, St James Lane, Horns Cross – Application pending for up to 1000 dwellings plus ancillary and support facilities. (Graham Parkinson 01322 343051 or [email protected] ) Princes Golf and Leisure Club, Darenth Road, Dartford – Permission granted for construction of turf football pitch with associated covered terraces, club house, community pitch, car parking, public plaza & gardens, subject to no objection from the Highways Agency. (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) Sports Ground Rear Of 25-63 Knockhall Road, Greenhithe – residential development; permission refused November 2005. (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) Major planning applications submitted July – September 2005 Details of all the applications below are available on the Planning section of the Council’s website – www.dartford.gov.uk DA/05/00655/OUT – 24 flats at Finn Fitness, opposite 2 to 8, Burnham Road, Dartford (Georgina Quinn 01322 343640 [email protected] ) DA/05/00657/FUL – Engineering operations which involve the removal of 2 earth bunds from south western boundary to be deposited along north eastern boundary between perimeter fence and flood wall at Thames Europort, Clipper Boulevard, Dartford. Permission granted August 2005. (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) DA/05/00669/FUL – Erection of 11 No. 2 bedroom and 3 No. 1 bedroom houses with associated car parking and highway works adj. 1 Mildred Close, Dartford. Permission granted August 2005. (Emma Jefferys 01322 343606 [email protected] ) DA/05/00672/FUL – Temporary building at Thames Europort, Clipper Boulevard, Dartford. Permission granted August 2005. (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) DA/05/00706/FUL – Erection of a part two/part 3 storey block of 9 x 2 bedroom flats and a part single/part two/part 3 storey block of 5 x 2 bedroom flats together with associated refuse storage, cycle and car parking and landscaping, Land at Alamein Gardens, bounded by London Road and Tollgate Road, Stone. Withdrawn August 2005. (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) DA/05/00857/FUL – Demolition of existing building (retaining rear two storey warehouse) and erection of a single storey shopping arcade containing 9 units together with a four storey block containing offices on 1st floor with 10 x 1 bed and 4 x 2 bedroom flats on 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors on front elevation and change of use of the rear warehouse to restaurant at ground and part of first floor and cinema at part first floor level at Courts Furniture, 22 - 26 Spital Street, Dartford (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) DA/05/00883/FUL – Outline application for the change of use of No.7 Suffolk Road to single dwelling house together with demolition of existing building and erection of a 3 storey detached building to provide 2 No. retail units on ground floor and 11 x 1 bed flats on first , second and third floors with associated amenity space at 1-7 Suffolk Road, Dartford (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) Agenda Item 30 Page 246
DA/05/00885/FUL – Application for the renewal of Planning Permission DA/96/00374/OUT for the development of 22 hectares of land comprising a total 46,500 sq metres of floorspace for Class B2 and B8 Use including associated Class B1 Use and landscaping at Dartford Marshes, Dartford (David Jeanes 01322 343208 [email protected] ) APPENDIX E OUTSTANDING S106 AGREEMENTS November 2005 Address Proposed Date of Heads of terms Progress Development resolutio
n 125-129 Dartford Road, Demolition of existing 18.01.2001 A contribution of £17,930 towards Extension to time period to complete s106 agreed by DC Dartford buildings and erection education facilities. Board 15 September 2005. Dispute as to who needs to be of 3 No 2 bed houses, party to agreement now resolved. 3 No. 3 bed houses, 4 Provision of affordable housing.
No. 2 bed flats and 9 Page 247 No. 1 bed flats. East Hill House Residential 22.07.2004 30% affordable housing Lawyers instructed; discussions ongoing with potential redevelopment of site. purchaser of site. Resolution to extend period for conclusion Education contribution of agreement agreed at meeting on 3 March 2005. Transfer of land to the Ellenor Foundation Agenda Item30 Agenda Item30 Address Proposed Date of Heads of terms Progress Development resolutio n 77 – 83 Hythe Street, Demolition of existing 22.07.2004 Contribution to education costs for Lawyers instructed; evidence of title awaited. Resolution to Dartford shops/flats & erection the two, 2 bedroom flats extend period for conclusion of agreement agreed at meeting of a part 4/part 3 on 28 April 2005. storey building to Contribution to library facilities. provide 10 x 1 bed & 2 x 2 bed flats with 2 shop units at ground floor level Page 248 Lowfield Street A mixed use 26.08.2004 Securing the continued use of the Draft agreement produced, completion pending outcome of development Park frontage units in agreed uses public inquiry in October 2005. comprising retail within classes A1 & A3 Provision of CCTV facilities (14,595m2); residential; Car Park Management medical/community Strategy/arrangements for car park service centre & use associated access, parking & service Training and local facilities; the part workforce/employment agreement pedestrianisation of Market Street & Provision of affordable housing Lowfield Street; creation of new Market Provision of all agreed works to the Square & bus pick public realm areas including up/set down area; Central Park and promenade construction of new road through Central Provision of public transport Park; extension & improvements and potential enhancement of subsidies Address Proposed Date of Heads of terms Progress Development resolutio n Central Park including replacement play area Provision of on site and off site & associated highways works and infrastructure improvements, including residents improvement, parking and financing including off site accommodation works highways works necessitated by the development Provision of financial contributions to KCC for education facilities Provision and maintenance of archaeological display facilities Page 249 Agreed construction programme Agenda Item30 Agenda Item30 Address Proposed Date of Heads of terms Progress Development resolutio n Eastern Quarry A mixed development 13.07.2005 Strategies to cover transport, Some draft strategies produced, as well as draft clauses for comprising up to 6,250 education, social and community, the agreement. Discussion/drafting ongoing. dwellings and up to design affordable housing, 231,000 sq metres of landscaping, open space, design built floorspace for: and other issues business premises; education; community & social facilities; hotels; theatre; supporting retail &
leisure facilities & Page 250 associated works to provide the development
Former Clockhouse Demolition of existing 21.07.2005 A contribution of £134,000 in lieu of Lawyers instructed; discussions ongoing. Stables, Green Street stables and erection of on site provision of affordable Green Road, Darenth a two storey building to housing. provide eleven 2
bedroom flats for the over 55's with associated parking and erection of a community facility. Address Proposed Date of Heads of terms Progress Development resolutio n Site Of Douglas Bros, Up to 110 mixed 15.09.2005 Education contribution of £6,576.92 Lawyers instructed; discussions ongoing. Craylands Lane, residential units per dwelling. Swanscombe Library contribution per dwelling of £149.50; Adult Education contribution per dwelling of £125.50; Youth and Community contribution per dwelling of £498.00 30% affordable housing on site. (10% social rented and 20% intermediate (i.e. shared ownership, submarket rent, discounted rent) Page 251 Highways contributions towards real-time information panels at local bus stops (estimated cost £15,000) and the London Road/St Clements Way junction improvement scheme. Finn Fitness, Burnham Demolition of existing 13.10.2005 Payment of education and library Lawyers instructed; discussions ongoing. Road, Dartford building and contributions and the provision of redevelopment of site 30% affordable housing.
to provide 24 flats. Agenda Item30
Page 252
This page is intentionally left blank Page 253 Agenda Item 31
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 SECTION 106 AGREEMENT AT 77-83 HYTHE STREET, DARTFORD Ward: Town 1. Summary 1.1 The point has now been reached where the S106 agreement is now on the verge of completion. Notwithstanding the imminence of completion, as more than 6 months has elapsed since Members last approved an extension of time in which to allow completion of the legal agreement. Member approval is required for a further period. 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. That a further period of 6 months be allowed to enable completion of the S106 Agreement authorised on the 28 April 2005 in connection with application DA/04/00091/FUL. 2.2. That the matter be the subject of a further report to the Board if the Agreement is not completed within that period. 3. Background and Discussion 3.1. In July 2004 Members considered a full application (DA/04/00091/FUL) for demolition of the existing shops/flats and erection of a part 4/part 3 storey building to provide 10 x 1 bed & 2 x 2 bed flats with 2 shop units at ground floor level, at 77 – 83 Hythe Street, Dartford. 3.2. Members resolved to grant outline permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure contributions in respect of education and community facilities. 3.3. There have been delays in progressing the agreement as a result of matters in respect of evidence of title. All parties to the S106 Agreement are confident that it will be completed shortly. Nevertheless as the time to conclude the Agreement has now gone beyond the period already agreed by Members it is necessary to seek approval for a further extension of time.
RD1 D:\apps\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\1\5\AI00002510\Section106REPORT000917783HytheStreet10.doc Agenda Item 31 Page 254
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 3.4. In the circumstances it is proposed that the completion period be extended by a further 6 months. 4. Relationship to the Corporate Plan Not applicable. 5. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints 6. Appendices None. BACKGROUND PAPERS Documents Date File Report Section and Exempt consulted Ref Author Directorate Information Category Application File 21.11.0 David Jeanes Development N/A 5 01322 343208 Control Regeneration
RD2 Page 255 Agenda Item 32
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO.1 2005 – 4 THE BEECHES, NEW BARN WARD: LONGFIELD, NEW BARN & SOUTHFLEET 1. Summary 1.1 To seek authority to confirm Tree Preservation Order No.1 2005. 1.2 The Order concerns 1 Ash tree in the rear garden of no.4 The Beeches which was protected by a condition until October of this year. Having reviewed the matter, the tree merits continued protection by virtue of its contribution to the visual amenities of the locality. An Emergency Tree Preservation Order was served on the owners of the property and adjoining landowners on 10 October. This has attracted 2 letters of objection and therefore Member’s approval is required to confirm the Order. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 That Members confirm Tree Preservation Order No.1 2005. 2. Background and Discussion 2.1 The Beeches comprises a development of 5 detached bungalows that were granted planning permission in 1999 under reference DA/99/00359/FUL. The approval required the submission of landscaping details and this was duly received and approved on 30.10.00 under reference 00/00682/REM. Part of the condition required that the landscaping be maintained for a period of 5 years. 2.2 In October this year, consideration was given to the fact that the restrictions imposed by the landscaping condition were about to come to an end. As such, an initial assessment determined that an Ash tree in the rear garden of 4 The Beeches made a valuable contribution to the visual amenities of the locality and was therefore worthy of a Tree Preservation Order. In view of the restrictions imposed by the condition coming to an end, an emergency Tree Preservation Order was served on the owner of the property. Details of the notice were also sent to adjoining property owners.
RD1 D:\apps\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\9\5\AI00002592\4TheBeechesTPOREPORT0.doc Agenda Item 32 Page 256
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 2.3 The decision to issue an emergency Tree Preservation Order has resulted in the receipt of two letters of objection, one from the owner of 4 The Beeches and the other from the adjacent householder at 3 The Beeches. 2.4 The points raised by the owner of 4 The Beeches are summarized below: • The correspondence did not include the explanatory guidance from the Department of the Environment; • The tree cannot be seen from any street in the surrounding area and is only visible from a limited number of adjacent properties; • The tree was not considered to be of any exceptional ‘amenity’ value in the previous planning approvals as no preservation order was considered at that time. How did the Council come to the conclusion that a Tree Preservation Order is now necessary? • The tree has not been examined closely by a Council Officer. A visit would demonstrate how the rear gardens of nos.3 and 4 The Beeches are blighted by the Ash tree. It restricts daylight and prevents growth in the garden beneath its canopy. • The tree has grown substantially since the approval granted in 1999 and the canopy now extends well over the house. There is a real danger of significant personal damage. A branch has already fallen and broken the safety glass of the patio door to the living room. • The size of the tree relative to the garden size is now such that almost half the garden is unusable. • The tree has grown to such an extent that it has become virtually unmanageable and the pruning now required would result in its character being altered beyond recognition. • There is some open ground in front of 4 The Beeches and nos.2 and 4 Studley Crescent that is in the ownership of 4The Beeches. There is an opportunity to supplement the existing planting provision and in this respect, this may compensate for the Ash tree being removed rather than retained with a TPO. 2.5 The points raised by the owner of 3 The Beeches include the following:
RD2 Page 257 Agenda Item 32
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 • When purchasing the property, advice was given to the effect that no TPOs were in place but rather there was a condition that would be valid for 5 years. This would mean that any trees could be reviewed at such time; • The tree has not been properly inspected in terms of the impact upon the dwellings; • Considerable money has been spent on landscaping the rear garden but the work carried out has been blighted by the presence of the tree as it constantly deprives the area of moisture and sunlight. It also casts a shadow on the property, even in the summer months; • Why was a TPO not put in place when the permission for the development was granted? • Someone will be hurt by the falling branches. 2.6 Since the above comments were submitted, a further inspection of the tree has been conducted. The Council’s Landscape and Horticultural Officer notes that this multi-stem Ash tree is a good example of its type and it does not show any unusual faults for an Ash. Having said that, there is a large amount of dead wood in it which has accumulated over many years which needs removal for the safety of the garden users, although there is no serious risk at present. Additionally, as the tree is now quite low over the property it could, benefit from being pruned in the future. 2.7 In view of the above assessment, the objections put forward do not raise any issues that would alter the initial decision to impose a Tree Preservation Order. If the necessary works are completed, the long term health of tree can be secured and this will also resolve the issues raised in respect of safety in the gardens. 2.8 The objections also include reference to the fact that residents feel that the tree ‘blights’ their gardens. However, the tree was in place when the properties were erected and therefore the individuals’ decision to purchase the dwellings was made on this basis. The fact that the original condition lasted for 5 years did not mean that matters would not be reviewed at the end of that period. 2.9 In terms of the comments put forward in respect of visual amenity, the Ash tree makes a valuable contribution to the street scene of The Beeches and the locality. Additionally, this is also an Area of Special Residential Character and as such is particularly sensitive. The loss of this tree would result in a loss of character in the area. 3. Relationship to the Corporate Plan Not applicable.
RD3 Agenda Item 32 Page 258
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 8 DECEMBER 2005 4. Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Staffing Implications None Administrative Implications None Risk Assessment No uncertainties and/or constraints 5. Appendices None. BACKGROUND PAPERS Documents Date File Ref Report Section and Exempt consulted Author Directorate Information Category Application 23.11.0 DA/99/35 Georgina Quinn Development N/A File 5 9/FUL 01322 343640 Control Regeneration
RD4