Public Document Pack

Regulatory Board

Members of the Regulatory Board of Gravesham Borough Council are summoned to attend a meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend, Kent on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be transacted.

S Kilkie Assistant Director (Communities)

Agenda

Part A Items likely to be considered in Public 1. Apologies for absence

2. To sign the Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 1 - 4)

3. To declare any interests members may have in the items contained on this agenda. When declaring an interest, members should state what their interest is.

4. To consider whether any items in Part A of the Agenda should be considered in private or the items in Part B (if any) in Public

5. Planning applications for determination by the Board The plans and originals of all representations are available for inspection in during normal office hours and in the committee room for a period of one hour before commencement of the meeting.

a) GR/2011/0553 - 1 Downs Road, Istead Rise, Northfleet, Kent - (Pages 5 - 12) report herewith. b) GR/20110320 - Northfleet Embankment East, Northfleet, Kent - (Pages 13 - 56) report herewith.

Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU 6. Planning applications determined under delegated powers by the Director (Business) A copy of the schedule has been placed in the democracy web library.

http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/democracy/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&c at=13418&path=480,12911

7. Any other business which by reason of special circumstances the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.

8. Exclusion To move, if required, that pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded from any items included in Part B of the agenda because it is likely in view of the nature of business to be transacted that if members of the public are present during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Part B Items likely to be considered in Private

None.

Members

Cllr Jane Cribbon (Chair) Cllr Valerie Ashenden (Vice-Chair)

Councillors: Susan Howes Peter Rayner Caroline Shelton Richard Smith Michael Snelling Robin Theobald David Turner Michael Wenban

Substitutes: Lesley Boycott John Burden Harold Craske Brian Francis Lyn Milner Alex Moore

Page 1 Agenda Item 2

Regulatory Board

Tuesday, 6 September 2011 7.00pm

Present:

Cllr Valerie Ashenden (Vice-Chair in the Chair)

Councillors: John Burden Susan Howes Lyn Milner Peter Rayner Richard Smith Michael Snelling Robin Theobald David Turner Michael Wenban

Note: Cllr Leslie Pearton was also in attendance

Clive Gilbert Service Manager (Development Control) Peter Price Principal Planner Allan Glasson Senior Environmental Health Officer Richard Hart Senior Planning Officer Carlie Plowman Committee & Scrutiny Assistant

33. Apologies

Apologies for absence were received from the Chair, Cllr Jane Cribbon and Cllr Caroline Shelton. Cllrs John Burden and Lyn Milner attended as their respective substitutes.

34. Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2011 were signed by the Chair.

35. Declarations of Interest

Cllr John Burden declared a non-prejudicial interest in application GR/2011/0553 - 1 Downs Road, Istead Rise, Northfleet, Kent as he lives near the application site.

36. GR/2011/0263 & GR/2011/0274 - Land at Clijon Farm, Whitehill Road, Meopham, Kent

Further to Minute 24 (27.07.2011), the Board considered applications (1) GR/2011/0263 – retention of raised patio area incorporating retaining walls; and (2) GR/2011/0274 – non- material amendment to permission GR/2010/0770 for infill panels and provision of planting area in front of the entrance.

1 Page 2 Regulatory Board 6.09.2011

Resolved that applications:-

(1) GR/2011/0263 be DELEGATED to the Service Manager (Development Control) for PERMISSION ; and

(2) GR/2011/0274 be APPROVED subject to conditions, reasons and informatives that will be detailed in the decision noticed issued by the Planning Department and available on the following link:- http://plan.gravesham.gov.uk/online-applications/ .

Note: (1) Tom Watson, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board.

37. GR/2011/0496 - Riverview Park Garage, Whinfell Way, Gravesend, Kent

This application was withdrawn.

38. GR/2011/0553 - 1 Downs Road, Istead Rise, Northfleet, Kent

The Board considered application GR/2011/0553 for the erection of a two storey side extension on south elevation and sub-division of resultant building to provide 2 no. four bedroom dwellings including the erection of a front porch and the excavation of part of front garden to form 2 no. car parking spaces.

Resolved that application GR/2011/0553 be DEFERRED for a Members' site inspection in order to assess the site and the impact that the proposal would have on the highway.

Note: (1) Cllr John Burden left the Chamber and took no part in the determination of this application.

(2) Objector Frank Midwinter addressed the Board.

39. GR/2011/0555 & GR/2011/0559 - Sainsbury's Store, Wingfield Bank, Springhead Road, Northfleet, Kent

The Board considered applications (1) GR/2011/0555 - variation of conditions 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 32, 35, 39, 40, 41 and 44 attached to planning permission reference number GR/2010/0898 to vary the wording to allow work on the relocated petrol filling station to begin before the details of other parts of the scheme have been approved and (2) GR/2011/0559 - minor material amendment of planning permission reference number 20100898 (Erection of extension to store to provide additional sales area; customer restaurant, customer toilets and back up storage area; extension within the service yard for 'Sainsbury's-To-You' online grocery service; relocation of petrol filling station; reconfiguration and extension of customer car park; realignment of Wingfield Bank access road and relocation of service yard access on Springhead Road) for

- Revised petrol filling station layout and amended elevations to match; - Revised service yard layout with relocated sprinkler tank and new retaining wall; - Customer toilets relocated from front of store to behind customer restaurant;

2 Page 3 Regulatory Board 6.09.2011

- ATM machines and art panel have been moved slightly along front elevation of store; and - Retaining wall and steps introduced for easier pedestrian access to bus stop.

Resolved that applications GR/2011/0555 and GR/2011/0559 be PERMITTED subject to receipt of an agreed deed of variation to the unilateral agreement pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and conditions, reasons and informatives that will be detailed in the decision noticed issued by the Planning Department and available on the following link:- http://plan.gravesham.gov.uk/online-applications/ .

40. GR/2011/0667 - 11 Hollytree Drive, Higham, Rochester, Kent

The Board considered application GR/2011/0667 for the conversion of detached outbuilding into a two bedroom dwelling.

Resolved that application GR/2011/0667 be PERMITTED subject to conditions, reasons and informatives that will be detailed in the decision noticed issued by the Planning Department and available on the following link:- http://plan.gravesham.gov.uk/online-applications/ .

Note: (1) Peter Cooper, agent for the applicant, addressed the Board.

(2) Objector Eileen West addressed the Board.

(3) Cllr Leslie Pearton spoke with leave of the Chair on this item.

41. Planning applications determined under delegated powers by the Director (Business)

A schedule showing applications determined by the Director (Business) under his delegated powers has been published on the website.

Close of meeting

The meeting ended at 8.33 pm.

3 Page 4

This page is intentionally left blank Page 5 Agenda Item 5a

Expiry Date Application No. Date of meeting Agenda Item

20.09.11 201 10553 05.05.11

1 Downs Road Istead Rise Northfleet

Erection of two storey side extension on south elevation and sub-division of resultant building to provide 2 no. four bedroom dwellings including erection of front porch; excavation of part of front garden to form 2 no. car parking spaces.

Mr J McCarthy

Recommendation:

Delegated to the Service Manager for decision, subject to receipt of cross sections and levels, and revised site boundary

1. Introduction

This application was originally reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 6 September 2011.

The application had been recommended by officers for permission subject to conditions.

The Board DEFERRED consideration for a Member site inspection in order to assess the site and the impact the proposal would have on the highway.

At the Board meeting objector Mr Midwinter addressed the Board.

Members are requested to bring to this meeting a copy of agenda item 5c of the meeting of 6 September 2011.

2. Site Inspection

The site inspection took place on Saturday 17 September 2011.

Present.

Cllr Jane Cribbon (Chair) Cllr Valerie Ashenden (Vice-Chair)

Cllr Peter Rayner Cllr Michael Snelling Cllr Robin Theobald Cllr David Turner (also Ward Councillor)

Page 6

Apologies:

Councillors John Burden, Susan Howes, Caroline Shelton, Richard Smith and Michael Wenban

In attendance:

Peter Price Principal Planner Rob Bright Senior Development Engineer Mr McCarthy Applicant John Clayton Applicant’s Agent

The Chair, Councillor Jane Cribbon, invited introductions and explained the purpose of the site inspection. She asked Mr Price to explain the proposals.

Mr Price advised that this is a planning application for a two storey side extension on the south elevation of the existing detached chalet bungalow and for the subdivision of the resultant building to provide 2 x 4 bedroom dwellings including the erection of a front porch and the excavation of part of the front garden to form 2 parking spaces.

He advised that the existing building is within the village envelope of Istead Rise and as the Board Members could see it is located on an elevated site. He pointed out that the land to the north and east of the plot is within the Green Belt.

He indicated that the existing dwelling is served by an angled access drive which leads to a double garage at the rear of the site and there is currently a retaining wall along the frontage.

He pointed out that there is a rectangular area of land to the north of the dwelling and beyond the current garden area at the side of the dwelling which has been annexed into the plot, permission for which was refused in 2006.

He advised that the planning history for the site shows that there have been previous permissions for an additional dwelling in the side garden of the dwelling in 1977 and 1980 which were not implemented. Equally there was a refusal for a dwelling in more recent years in 1998; those applications were nevertheless for detached dwellings.

He pointed out that the dwelling was extended at the side and at the rear following permission in 2004.

He advised that the proposed extension to the dwelling would be 4.1m wide and 7.2m long constructed of matching materials and with a dormer in the front roof slope. Mr Clayton showed where the extension would come to on the site.

Mr Price suggested that as an extension to the existing dwelling it is not considered that the proposals would raise any material planning concerns as the extension is satisfactorily designed and would not cause overriding harm to privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

Page 7

Conversely he suggested that the extension and its proposed subdivision to create two dwelling units within the plot raised different considerations, namely relating to the adequacy of the plots including the depth of gardens, access and parking issues and whether there is harm to the character of the area or impact on neighbours.

He advised that there were objections to the proposals from the neighbouring property at 3 Downs Road on the basis of insufficient parking spaces and dangers from reversing of cars causing hazards to highway safety, insufficient gardens for the dwellings and the size of the building being overbearing.

He indicated that the Council’s Senior Development Engineer considered the proposal was acceptable in highway terms although there were some shortcomings which could nevertheless be addressed relating to the provision of visibility splays to the parking area, improving sight lines to the north and paving over the highway verge.

Notwithstanding the neighbour objections and some of the highway concerns he advised that officers had recommended to the Board that permission be granted subject to conditions.

He advised that some revised plans have been received which show additional parking space, a visibility splay and indicate the relocation of the speed limit sign repositioned further north and the driveway shown more accurately.

Mr Price handed out copies of the revised drawing to Board Members.

Mr Bright advised that the highway aspects of the scheme involved major engineering operations in order to provide 2 parking spaces side by side for the existing dwelling. This would involve construction of a retaining wall. He pointed out that Downs Road, in this section, was not a classified highway but was a public road and a through route. He advised that the road was narrow in this location and it was important that there was sufficient road width to enable cars to turn in and out of the site. He pointed out that the highway verge opposite was used for parking. Although he considered that there were some concerns relating to access and visibility he felt that these were probably capable of being resolved.

Mr McCarthy pointed out that there was not a problem of accidents in this location.

Councillor David Turner pointed out that the neighbour had raised issues relating to inaccurate measurements on the plan. Mr Clayton advised that the drawings had been corrected. The issue was that the rear boundary slightly tapered.

Councillor Valerie Ashenden asked where the proposed drive for the dwellings was and was it intended to alter the existing drive. Mr Clayton showed Councillors the access arrangement with reference to the plans and from markings on the site.

Councillor David Turner noted that there did not appear to be a problem with turning a vehicle out of the drive. Mr Clayton advised that the scheme would improve visibility.

Page 8

Councillor Robin Theobald asked whether the parking spaces would be on a slope. Mr Clayton advised that it would be.

Councillor Jane Cribbon asked about the size of the parking bays. Mr Bright advised that the bay size was 6m by 6m which exceeded minimum requirements.

Councillor David Turner asked whether trees would be removed. Mr Clayton advised that there would be two trees removed in the verge but indicated that these are in the applicant’s ownership.

Councillor Peter Rayner asked about the size of the plots. Mr Price pointed out that although the garden depth was substandard this was the current situation already although the gardens meet the Councils standards in terms of area for 4 bedroom dwelling.

Board Members viewed the existing rear garden. It was noted that the majority of the garden at the rear was hard paved as a large patio. Mr McCarthy pointed out the land to the north which had been annexed into the dwelling. Mr Price referred to the history of this and that this had been refused permission. Mr McCarthy advised that a strip of land beyond the current fence and being part of the land that merged with the former agricultural land was actually within the applicant’s garden. This was shown on the revised plans and extended 4.9m from the flank wall of the dwelling.

Councillor Mike Snelling asked what action was being taken against the site being incorporated as garden land given the Council’s policy on this. Mr Price advised that this was being investigated by Planning Enforcement, and that they had written to the applicants.

The Board Members present then viewed the property from the roadway noting that the sloping verge was not enclosed and noting the current position of the speed limit road sign. Members still had some concerns at the lack of accuracy of the plans and the absence of any levels or sections.

Page 9

Planning Application 20110553

Recommendation:

Delegated to the Service Manager for decision, subject to receipt of cross sections and levels, and revised site boundary.

Page 10

This page is intentionally left blank Page 11

ROAD

DOWNS

1

1

1

15 23

1

3 7 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office c Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to ^ prosecution or civil proceedings. Gravesham Borough Council Licence No. 100019166/11 N

Application Ref : 20110553 Site Location : 1 Downs Road Istead Rise

Planning and Regeneration Services www.gravesham.gov.uk Tel : 01474 56 44 22 Board Date : 05 October 2011 Scale: 1:1,250 Page 12

This page is intentionally left blank Page 13 Agenda Item 5b

8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.

26.07.11 GR/20 110320 05.10 .11

Northfleet Embankment East, Northfleet, Kent.

Engineering operations comprising land raising and the creation of a development platform including demolition of five additional buildings on a phased basis and revised land raising design.

South East England Development Agency (SEEDA).

Recommendation:

To be set out in a supplementary report.

1. Site Description

The application site comprises the former AEI/GEC/Henley cable factory site in Crete Hall Road Northfleet to the west of the Gravesend Town Centre and is part of the site known as Northfleet Embankment East.

The application site extends to an area of approximately 18 hectares. The site includes part of the former Northfleet Power Station site which has been used more recently for timber storage and recycling. It excludes the existing Red Lion Public House site at the western end of the site, and the former Old Sun Inn at the north eastern end of the site, which is now used as offices.

The site is within a quarried chalk pit and during the 19 th century was the site of Rosherville Pleasure Gardens. Existing levels range from three metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD) to 7.5 metres AOD with some isolated areas (principally old foundations) at 2.5 metres AOD.

The site adjoins the river Thames to the north and there is a jetty (Henley Jetty) that serves the site midway along the river frontage of the site. The river flood defence wall runs along the northern edge of the site. The concrete walls are approximately 6.8 metres AOD. There is a gate that provides access to the jetty.

The site runs up to the cliff edge on the southern boundary. At the top of the cliff some 27 metres above the ground level of the site are mainly local authority housing (flats and houses) in Fountain Walk and a nursery school.

Within the southern boundary chalk cliff face there are a number of man made tunnels (The Henley Tunnels) which provided passages and rooms used as air raid shelters for factory workers during World War II and these are of some historic interest although they are not listed.

Page 14

The site adjoins the land used by Stema shipping for the storage and distribution of aggregates at Red Lion Wharf to the west. Beyond that is the Kimberly Clark paper manufacturing complex. Vacant land to the south west is the site of a permission to Lidl to construct a regional distribution centre.

To the east of the site is an established residential area centred on Landsdowne Square, Burch Road and Pier Road on a chalk spur which has remained un-quarried and extends north to the river.

To the north east of the site and located on the river frontage at The Shore is Old Sun Wharf, currently used for storage and distribution of aggregates by Fleetmix.

Most of the former industrial buildings on the cable factory site have been demolished over the past 18 months, and the site has been cleared and some re-grading carried out.

There are five buildings still remaining on the site, which can be regarded as undesignated heritage assets, and which include the former Fleetway Building at the north eastern end of the site, which was a printing works built in the 1900’s with various alterations from 1910-1870; the former Plastic Works building, a three/four storey brick building at the western end of the site, built approximately 1913/14 with alterations in 1932; a former cable works building, located in the centre of the site built approximately 1910 with alterations 1915-1930; the former power house building, also centrally located and of the same period (although the switch gear has now been removed); and the former research and development building built 1925 with extensions from 1926-1951 and which is located at the northern part of the site fronting the river. The river frontage of that latter building features a large glazed tile plaque bearing “Henley’s Cable Works Research Laboratories” although some of the tiling has been truncated and removed by the later insertion of windows.

In addition a sixth building, the Henley office building, an Art deco style building of three storeys with a central tower finished in white render with faience plaques is located at the north eastern end of the site and is to be retained. This part of the site is within the Landsdowne Square Conservation Area.

There are two Grade II listed structures adjoining but not within this application site, the Rosherville Quay walls, steps/draw dock and WW II mine watching post at The Shore and the cliff top entrance comprising platform, terrace walls, tunnel and stairs to the former Rosherville Gardens next to Fountain Walk

Crete Hall Road dissects the application site running west to east from Kimberly Clark before running north to The Shore and then linking with Clifton Marine Parade and the Imperial Business Estate. Crete Hall Road connects with Rosherville Way which links with Thames Way to the south via a short tunnel through the chalk spine under the A226 London Road.

A public right of way (NU5) runs parallel to the river along The Shore on the north side of the site but is then routed north-south from the river edge to join with Crete Hall Road.

Page 15

2. Planning History

Henley Telegraph and Cable Works were first established at this site in 1906 and extended south into the former Rosherville Gardens by the 1920’s.

There have been a significant number of planning applications relating to extensions and other development associated with the use of the site for the manufacture of cables since the 1950’s.

The factories included some 69 buildings, the uses of which varied between offices, cable manufacturing and coating treatments, workshops, plastic moulding shops and storages. The majority were demolished to slab level in 2010 with some additional demolition to remove concrete slabs and near surface underground structures between January and March 2011.

The former Northfleet Power Station located in the western part of the application site was first opened in 1963 but closed in 1991 and was demolished in 1994.

Planning permission was granted in March 2002 for a B8 warehouse on the site of the former Power station but that scheme was never implemented.

3. Proposal

Proposal in General and Reasons for Proposal

This application is for engineering operations comprising land raising and the creation of a development platform and has recently been amended to include the demolition of five additional buildings on a phased basis and revised land raising design.

The applicants advise that land raising is necessary for flood protection purposes and for the creation of a suitable platform for future development and is the first stage in the redevelopment of the land at Northfleet Embankment East which will be the subject of a later detailed Master Plan to guide future land use. They advise that the existing riverside embankment and concrete seawall is in a poor state of repair and there is a risk of breaching.

Extent of Land Raising and Source of Material

The land raising across the site would be up to a minimum finished level of 6.54 metres above Ordnance Datum. This would, according to the applicants, create a safe development platform for housing or other potentially vulnerable land uses.

The amount of excavated material to be brought to the application site to raise the land to the required levels for flood protection will be approximately 276,320 cubic metres. This represents an increase of 46,320 cubic metres over the estimated quantities as set out in the original submission which is the result of raising land in areas where buildings are now proposed to be demolished. The actual amount of fill will vary across the site but generally levels will be raised between one and three metres.

Page 16

The land raising will be carried out on a phased basis with phases 1 and 2 being to the south of Crete Hall Road, phase 3 being the land to the north of Crete Hall Road and up to the river frontage and phase 4 being the former Northfleet Power station site. A lorry parking area at the western end of the phase 1 site and a raised platform area are within the application site but are outside the area proposed for land raising.

Some variation to the design will be required at a later stage dependent on the precise layout of uses on the site. There may be a need to vary the platform land raise level to take account of the need to place sub-base materials beneath pavements and floor slabs and to place clean topsoil cover in areas of gardens and landscaped areas in any future development on the site.

There will be a site access across Crete Hall Road in the position of an original crossing between the sites to enable movement of material.

The retaining walls that currently exist on the site adjacent to Crete Hall Road will be retained and a bund formed either side at a height of approximately 7.0 metres sloping down towards the retaining walls thus about 3.5 metres above the height of the existing road level.

The land raising material will come from the Crossrail construction works in London and will comprise London Clay and sprayed concrete lining. The majority of material delivered to the site will be suitable for use within the development platform and only minimal pre-treatment will be required.

The rate of fill will be dependent on a number of factors including the rate of supply of material. However it is expected that it would be possible to place and compact the material at a rate of 1000-5000 m 3 per day with a timescale for the placement and compaction of the engineered fill of approximately 12-18 months. Masterplanning of the site will be pursued in parallel with the land raising work. There will also be a requirement to remove stored timber on the power station site at the western end of the application site.

The timescale for development coming forward is suggested as being up to five years.

Transportation of Material to the Site

It is indicated that the majority of the Crossrail material (85 per cent) will be delivered direct to the site by barge along the River Thames from Barking Wharf in East London. A smaller amount of materials (15 per cent) will be delivered by road, possibly from the adjacent Crossrail temporary Tunnelling Logistics Facility on the site of the former Lafarge Northfleet Cement Works. A further option for river transport of material to the site is the use of Red Lion Wharf currently operated by Stema shipping.

The proposed lorry route for transporting material from the Crossrail application site at the former Lafarge cement works is for vehicles to use The Shore and Granby Road and then Crete Hall Road, past the Kimberly Clark paper manufacturing site and not on roads passing through and beside residential developments.

Page 17

Demolition of Buildings

The proposals as revised involve the demolition of five of the six remaining buildings on the site although one of which, the Fleetway Building, is proposed to be retained and used temporarily but would be demolished as part of a later phase.

A sixth building, the Henley office building will be retained.

Footpath and Access Road

The public right of way (Public Footpath NU5) along The Shore may be temporarily diverted or closed during demolition works.

Crete Hall Road will remain in situ and will not be raised diverted or realigned. Future options for revised access arrangements will be considered in subsequent master planning. This is principally because of the location of services which underlie the road.

Screening Opinion

The proposals were the subject of a screening opinion to both this Council and Kent County Council and it was confirmed on 28 October 2010 by both authorities that the application proposals do not constitute development requiring the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Accompanying Documents

The application is nevertheless supported and accompanied by a number of technical documents including,

• Planning Design and Access Statement • Site Investigation Desk Study and Interpretive Reports • Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy • Controlled Waters Risk Assessment • Remediation Strategy and implementation Phase • Ecology Phase 1 Habitat Surveys by Keystone Environmental • Air Quality Impact Assessment • Noise Assessment • Baseline Built Heritage Assessment by CgMS • Outline Code of Construction Practice

4. Development Plan

The Development Plan comprises:-

• The Regional Spatial Strategy - South East Plan (2009) • The Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994) • Saved Policies of the Local Plan First Review (1994)

There are a number of other un-adopted planning documents (e.g. The Gravesham Local Plan Second Review) which are of some relevance and are a material consideration, together with national planning advice and guidance Page 18

(PPG’s/PPS’s) and the emerging policies in the Local Development Framework.

Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan should be the starting point, and other material considerations should be taken into account in reaching a decision. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date. The 2004 Act provides that if there is a conflict between policies, the most recent policy will take precedence. Local planning authorities need to decide what weight should be attached to a particular material consideration, e.g. the weight to be attached to policies in emerging Development Plan Documents depends upon the stage of preparation or review.

Pending abolition regional strategies remain part of the statutory development plan.

Regional Planning Guidance

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East of England (known as the South East Plan) sets out the long term spatial planning framework for the region over the years 2006-2026.

The following South East Plan policies are relevant:

Policy SP3: Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance Policy CC1: Sustainable Development Policy CC4: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy CC6: Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment Policy CC7: Infrastructure and Implementation Policy RE3: Employment and Land Provision Policy NRM1: Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality Policy NRM2: Water Quality Policy NRM4: Sustainable Flood Risk Management Policy NRM5: Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity Policy NRM9: Air Quality Policy NRM10: Noise Policy W2: Sustainable Design, Construction and Demolition Policy W5: Targets for Diversion from Landfill Policy W16: Waste Transport Infrastructure Policy C7: The River Thames Corridor Policy BE1: Management for an Urban Renaissance Policy BE6: Management of the Historic Environment Policy KTG1: Core Strategy Policy KTG2: Economic Growth and Employment Policy KTG3: Employment Locations Policy KTG6: Flood Risk

Local Planning Guidance

Gravesham Local Plan First Review

The Gravesham Local Plan First Review was adopted in November 1994.

Page 19

The Gravesham Local Plan still remains as the adopted local planning document and the written statement and proposals map will continue to have effect as the development plan pending the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF). A substantial number of policies of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review have been saved by a Direction dated 25 September 2007 of the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

In the Gravesham Local Plan First Review Proposals Map the majority of the site is shown as being within an existing industrial area and subject to policy E1 which gives priority to the needs of employment.

That part of the site which was part of the former Northfleet power station site is subject to Proposal PM12 which supports redevelopment to provide compatible employment uses and the continuation of wharfage facilities on the River Thames frontage.

The river frontage is subject to Policy R1 (Commercial River Frontage Policy) where there is a preference for development adjacent to the river which requires a riverside location and makes use of the river as a means of transport.

Other general policies relevant to the development are:

Policy PE1: Sites for New Employment Development (B2 or B8) Policy TC0: General Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy TC1: Design of New Developments Policy TC3: Development Affecting Conservation Areas Policy T1: Impact of Development on the Highway Network Policy T5: New Accesses onto Highway Network Policy M1: Restoration of Derelict Land Policy LT8: Recreational Use of Public Rights of Way Policy R2: The Commercial Riverside - Wharves

Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Draft Deposit Version 2000

The draft Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version 2000 (Draft Local Plan Second Review) has been adopted by the Borough Council for development control purposes but in view of the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the decision by the Borough Council to replace the Local Plan with the Local Development Framework it is not being progressed any further.

The policies in the plan are therefore of only limited weight but the weight which can be attached to its policies is greater where the policies are consistent with Government guidance and with policies of the adopted Local Plan First Review and the adopted South East Plan.

In the Local Plan Second Review the majority of the site is shown as being within an existing employment area and subject to policy E1.

The part of the site which was part of the former Northfleet power station is subject to Proposal MDS2 (Former Northfleet Power Station) where there is support for port related employment uses.

Page 20

Most of the application site is shown to be within a tidal flood risk area and subject to Policy NE23.

The north eastern end of the site is shown to be within a conservation area and subject to Policy BE4.

Other relevant general policies include:

Policy NE12: Development affecting statutory protected species Policy NE15: Contaminated Land and Landfill Sites Policy NE16: Air Quality Policy BE1: Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy BE3: Demolition in Conservation Areas Policy T1: Location of Development Policy T12: New Accesses on Highway and Public Transport Network Policy T15: Construction Traffic Policy TR3: Public Access to the Riverside Policy TR4: Thames Tidal Defences Policy LT11: Development Proposals affecting Public Rights of Way

Local Development Framework The Council has been in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework (LDF) for the Borough since 2005. A draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Regulation 25 document – Issues and Options) was considered by the Council’s Cabinet in December 2009 who approved the document for the purposes of public consultation. A six week consultation period was undertaken between January and March 2010. Additional interim regulation 25 consultation was agreed to be carried out during October-December 2011 following a report to the Council’s Cabinet on 12 September 2011 as a result of changes to the planning system including the assumed revocation of the South East Plan.

The aim is to gain formal adoption of the Core strategy by December 2012. The most relevant core strategy policies are,

Core Strategy Policy 1: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Core Strategy Policy 2: Urban Area Core Strategy Policy 5: Development and Design Principles Core Strategy Policy 10: Economy and Employment Core Strategy Policy 15: Transport Core Strategy Policy 16: Strategic Sites

The Strategic Site overview in Core Strategy Policy 16 indicates that Northfleet Embankment East should be redeveloped for a mixed use development of housing and employment uses with up to 1500 houses.

The most relevant development management policies include,

Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design Development Management Policy 14: Maintaining Employment Capacity Development Management Policy 15: New Employment Page 21

Development Management Policy 32: Transport Network and Accesses

Planning Policy Guidance and Statements.

The following national planning policy guidance (PPG’s) and statements (PPS’s) are relevant to the determination of this application.

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (January 2005) PPS: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS1 (December 2007) PPS3: Housing (July 2010) PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009) PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010) PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August 2005) PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (July 2005) PPG13: Transport (January 2011) - revised PPG14: Development on Unstable Land (April 1990) PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control (November 2004) PPG24: Planning and Noise (October 1994) PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (March 2010)

In addition the emerging National Planning Policy Framework (July 2011) which will replace the national planning policy guidance (PPG’s) and statements (PPS’s) is also a material consideration.

5. Reason for Report

The application is a major development proposal.

6. Consultations and Publicity

Consultations

Regulatory Services (Environmental Health), GBC

Noise

This Service notes the applicant has provided a noise report with the application and is proposing a code of construction practice for these works. This Service accepts that an agreed code of construction practice is the most appropriate way forward to deal with the noise/ vibration and dust effects of this work. This will need to be placed as a condition on any permission for this site. More details will be provided in a supplementary report.

Air Quality

The report covers the air quality impact associated with the land raising operations once the material arrives at the site and states that the air quality impacts associated with the transportation of the material to the site will be covered in a separate assessment. This assessment has therefore discounted nitrogen dioxide as the impact will be insignificant. This is a fair assumption dependent on how many earth moving vehicles are associated with the land raising works. The second impact assessment has not yet been submitted. It is important however that the second assessment in relation to the transportation of Page 22

the material to the site is submitted particularly as the site and transportation route are within the Northfleet Industrial Areas Air Quality Management Area.

The assessment includes the effect of likely wind direction using the councils wind direction monitoring data for the years 2005-2009. It is important to note however that wind patterns on the riverside are unpredictable and unusual due to the sites located between the cliff and the riverside. The monitoring data from Lawn Road Air Station confirms that fine particles (PM10) are deposited on the residential areas on top of the cliff. There is also past evidence that nuisance dust emissions have reached those residential areas too. The assessment states that one of the main potential for dust generation is from the process of breaking up of the ground slabs across the site. It is therefore important that adequate mitigation measures such as in the London Council’s Guidance be implemented so as to prevent the nearby properties such as the Red Lion Public House, Burch Road etc being adversely affected by nuisance dust or fine particles (PM10).

The list of mitigation measures in the assessment is comprehensive but not exhaustive. It is important that the site is managed in order to ensure no dust from the site passes over its boundary. Monitoring of nuisance dust/dust deposition and real-time PM10 levels as recommended in the assessment need to be agreed with Gravesham’s Regulatory Services and carried out for three to four months before work commences and throughout the duration the works to ascertain its impact and if mitigation measures need to be increased do deal with the impact. As referred to in the assessment it is also envisaged that a detailed methods statement will be prepared prior to the works commencing on site which will address potential emissions of dust.

The air quality impact assessment makes reference to the materials being transported to site by conveyor from the Crossrail site and the potential impact from the unloading of the conveyors. It states that this is likely to be adjacent to the Thames Estuary and as such will be at the furthest point of the site away from the residential buildings. However as conveyors from the Crossrail site are no longer to be used and instead boat, rail and trucks are to be used, this needs to be assessed as part of the second air quality impact assessment which will cover the impact of the transportation of the material to the site. It is essential that the numbers of trucks, boats and trains are calculated accurately so that the data fed into the air quality assessment is robust. The recommendation from this service is therefore that there is a condition put on any permission given to require the second air quality impact assessment in relation to how the material is transported to the site.

The conclusion of the assessment dated 31/01/11 is accepted. The residual impacts predicted as a result of the proposed works are considered to be minor to moderate adverse following mitigation, depending on the different phases of the proposed works. A number of mitigating measures have been recommended and it is considered that dust impacts can be effectively controlled at the site if such measures are effectively implemented. Air quality monitoring is also proposed both prior to the main land raising works commencing and during the construction phase to ensure mitigation measures are effectively targeted and deployed. Without adequate air quality and dust mitigation and good management the site is potentially a significant risk to the air quality in the locality and a potential source of complaints in relation to nuisance dust. The recommendation from this service is therefore that there be a condition put on any permission given that the recommendations of the air quality impact assessment dated 31/01/11 be implemented including the list of mitigation Page 23

measures in that report and the adherence to the London Council’s “The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition: Best Practice Guidance”.

Planning Policy Manager, GBC

The proposed revisions to the scheme involve demolition of a number of buildings it was intended to retain; the raising of ground levels on those parts of the site to further mitigate flood risk; and temporary land raising on the alignment of the riverside footpath (NU5) to resolve issues relating to residual flood risk in advance of the final design solution.

Previous comments on the principle of land raising on the original submission raised concerns on the lack of master planning at this stage and whether there was a need to consider future proofing against tidal flood risk based on more recent predicted sea level rises (in Thames estuary TE 2100). Comments were also made about other constraints relating to the continued presence of Stema on the site (which could affect the future distribution of uses), whether a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) was possible, the future alignment of Crete Hall Road and whether the land raising would frustrate the potential of riverside open space and a Thames walkway.

The proposed demolition of the additional buildings (although unlisted and outside the Lansdowne Square Conservation Area) will need to take into account their heritage value and the impact of their loss on the setting of buildings within the Conservation Area.

The following comments are made in respect of the supplementary statement:

2.3.3 The applicant argues that the retention of the façade to building 20 would ‘compromise the future urban design objectives for the key river frontage to the regeneration site’. It is difficulty to see how this argument can be made when there are no clear proposals for the site or the urban design approach to be adopted.

3.1.4 If Henley’s Jetty is being considered for the discharge of Crossrail materials, is it intended that this be refurbished and retained as part of the final scheme and will it be used after land raising has taken place and how has land raising been designed to facilitate such future use?

3.1.9 It is noted that it is intended to raise sections of footpath NU5 to provide flood protection bunds and mitigate residual risk should the flood gate fail during an extreme tidal event. Aside from making the use of the riverside footpath less commodious, consideration should be given to the implications of burying services that follow this route. It is understood that a sewer follows the line of the footpath so how would it be accessed should there be problems? Given the level of the footpath will be raised to 5.99m AOD, will this leave sufficient margin for a safe barrier to the river’s edge and will an additional railing be required?

It is noted that the plans show a number of flapped outfalls entering the River Thames to the north of the site. Clarification should be given on what drains do these outfalls serve and whether checks have been made to ensure that land raising will not impede access to stop valves etc. preventing ingress of tidal flood water should the flap valves fail. Consideration should be given to stopping up any redundant outfalls that served the former AEI site to eliminate residual flood risk. Page 24

Kent County Council Planning

KCC has no objection to the application subject to the following:-

• the proposed development having no adverse direct or indirect effect on the main aggregate wharf area operated by Stema Shipping on land to the north of the phase 4 land raising area or the access to this area from Crete Hall Road (i.e. the area covered by planning permission GR/20010288 dated 30 November 2001 and identified in draft Policy CMS10 and Site K: Red Lion Wharf in Appendix C: Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation Facilities in the Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Minerals and Waste Core Strategy - Strategy and Policy Directions Consultation, May 2011);

• the proposed development not prejudicing the ability of Stema Shipping to use the area of land to the south of its main aggregate wharf within the phase 4 land raising area (i.e. the area covered by planning application GR/20110544) for the duration of the operational lease granted in favour of Stema Shipping;

• suitable controls being imposed as part of any permission that may be granted for the development proposed under planning application GR/20110320 in respect of the transportation of any waste to the site from the Crossrail Tunnelling Logistics Facility at the former Lafarge Cement Northfleet Works Site to the west (i.e. planning permission GR/10/1127 dated 15 April 2011);

• no transportation of waste materials from the Crossrail Tunnelling Logistics Facility to the site via The Shore, Granby Road and Crete Hall Road until approval for such has been obtained from KCC under the terms of condition 17 of planning permission GR/10/1127; and

• due regard being had to the terms and conditions of planning permission GR/10/533 (dated 13 December 2010) and the Section 106 Agreement associated with this permission (also dated 13 December 2010) relating to the temporary use of land for wood storage and comminution for recycling and recovery on land to the south of the Stema aggregate wharf within the phase 4 landraising area.

Subject to the above matters being satisfied and the proposals being acceptable in all other respects, KCC would strongly support the proposed development from the strategic planning perspective provided it enables the redevelopment of Northfleet Embankment East for commercial or residential development with reduced flood risk and / or the development of a wharf / rail freight interchange linked to the North Kent Line via the rail link and sidings associated with the permitted Bulk Aggregates Import Terminal (planning permission GR/09/286 dated 21 February 2011) and Crossrail Tunnelling Logistics Facility (planning permission GR/10/1127 dated 15 April 2011) at the former Lafarge Cement Northfleet Works Site.

For information, please note that condition 17 of planning permission GR/10/1127 states:

Page 25

17. Unless otherwise approved beforehand in writing by the County Planning Authority, or as provided for in the HGV Management Plan required by condition 16, all HGVs associated with the development hereby permitted shall enter and leave the site using the site access on Thames Way (A226).

Reason: In the interests of the environment and local amenity and to accord with the objectives of PPS1, PPG13 and PPS10, Kent Waste Local Plan Policies W3 and W22, Gravesham Local Plan First Review Policy T2 and Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Version Policies T1 and T14.

Please also note that KCC is satisfied that if any permission that may be granted for the development proposed under planning application GR/20110320 specifically provides for the importation of waste materials from the Crossrail Tunnelling Logistics Facility at Northfleet Works, no further approval would be required under the terms of condition 14 of planning permission GR/10/1127. Condition 14 states:

14. With the exception of any contaminated materials that may arrive at the site and need to be removed to a suitable disposal site by road or rail, all excavated materials shall be exported from the site by river from 42 Wharf unless otherwise approved beforehand in writing by the County Planning Authority or if express planning permission that provides for this is first secured and implemented.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable development, the environment and local amenity and to accord with the objectives of PPS1, PPG13 and PPS10, South East Plan Policy T11 and Kent Waste Local Plan Policies W3 and W22.

Kent Highways

This proposal, whilst being a temporary operation not involving the construction of new highways or the proposed alteration of the existing highway will nevertheless have an impact on the local highway network and the following observations are therefore made:

The applicant has included a broad statement relating to the delivery of materials including approximate percentage split of anticipated road and river borne deliveries and overall anticipated quantity of material by weight but there appears to be no specific detail of anticipated potential daily vehicle movements or, indeed of how movements will be controlled or limited and it is strongly recommended that this information be established in order to determine the impact on the highway network – particularly in light of the proposed lorry routing. The proposed lorry route, whilst avoiding more heavily trafficked classified roads incorporates roads which there are concerns about having to accommodate significant increases in HGV movements without their suitability first being assessed by KCC Highways & Transportation. Any such assessment would clearly involve the need to establish potential lorry numbers and limitations etc in order to consider the impact. Furthermore, the route incorporates a part of Crete Hall Road which is subject to a current planning permission and Section 106 Agreement (for the Lidl Distribution Depot site) including a significant highway improvement and widening scheme. The details of this scheme are still subject to detailed discussion but the lorry routing proposals must nevertheless be considered in light of these previously permitted proposals.

Page 26

With regard to the proposed land form, it is noted that the works will extend to the edge of the highway on the north and south side of Crete Hall Road but that no specific details appear to have been included of boundary treatments or of how the works will tie in to the existing highway. Furthermore, a significant level difference will be created between the site and the existing highway at the west end of the site. It is therefore recommended that boundary treatments and engineering details of the land raising proposals adjacent to the highway be submitted for assessment to ensure that this operation has no detrimental impact on the public highway and to ensure that any highway authority permissions, if required can be secured as necessary.

It is noted that the intention is to utilise existing vehicular accesses to the site to accommodate the lorry movements associated with the land raising operation which is acceptable in principle. However, no specific details appear to be included with regard to operatives’ on-site facilities and parking and access arrangements or, indeed of appropriate wheel washing facilities which will need to be in place at any location where lorries are proposed to exit onto the highway to ensure that material is not transferred onto the highway from the site.

Highways Agency

No objection

Kent Fire Brigade

The means of access is satisfactory.

Crossrail

The site of this planning application is identified outside the limits of land subject to consultation under the Safeguarding Direction.

The implications of the Crossrail proposals for the application have been considered and Crossrail Limited does not wish to make any comments on this application as submitted.

Environment Agency (EA) – original comments

Groundwater and Contaminated Land

The Interpretative Report on Ground Investigation proposes to remediate soils and the potential to remediate soils in areas of the site. Based on the vulnerability of the groundwater in this area and because the concentrations of hydrocarbons are considered to be sufficiently elevated, we would expect remediation of all of these areas to be undertaken. Any remediation will need to take into account the fluctuating groundwater levels.

In addition to any tidal influences, groundwater levels in this area are currently changing as a result of decreased abstraction rates. This should be taken into account when assessing whether fluctuating groundwater levels could caused contaminants within the soils to become mobilised.

The EA will expect all tanks and their associated structures to be removed from across the development site, with further validation samples taken from the ground beneath (if above ground tanks), or the sides and base of any Page 27

resultant excavation (if below ground). This is to ensure that no potential sources of contamination remain at this site following its redevelopment.

The desk study identified numerous potential sources of contamination, and made frequent references to staining, or leaking pipes. The EA will expect all such locations to have been fully investigated, for example any pipes removed and any service pits or trenches etc to be validated prior to their backfilling.

There has been little discussion on whether free phase product was present on the groundwater in the recent investigation, or any assessment of the concentrations of hydrocarbons in groundwater.

The report makes reference to setting remedial targets following discussions with the EA. However, in order for such discussions to begin, the EA would expect some proposals to be submitted which would then form the basis of any discussions. Although there are currently no abstractions used for potable supply in close proximity to the site, this does not preclude them from being present in the future. For example, there are other abstractions across the county which are currently being used for potable supply but were historically used for industrial purposes. The EA will therefore expect the remedial target concentrations to be fully protective of the chalk aquifer, and would not agree to remedial targets which suggest that there could be an off site impact.

The current concentrations in the groundwater are not considered to be protective of the aquifer and are therefore not acceptable. In addition to the proposals to treat the soils using bioremediation, the EA will therefore expect proposals to be submitted relating to remediation of the groundwater.

It is imperative that clearing areas, particularly removing hardcover, is done in a manner not likely to expose contaminants to flushing by incipient rainfall or surface water run-off on the site. Temporary surface water controls and management of any materials movement on site is therefore critical to ensure protection of the groundwater environment in the underlying chalk principal aquifer.

The EA look forward to receiving the detailed remediation strategy in due course, addressing the above points.

The reports make reference to potential piling and foundation techniques. The EA will expect a detailed piling/foundations risk assessment to be submitted to us for approval. This will need to address the potential impacts various methods would have on the chalk aquifer and its groundwater resources.

Controlled Waters Risk Assessment

The Controlled Waters Risk Assessment report and its findings are accepted in principle, and the EA look forward to receiving the referenced Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan containing full details of the proposed remediation for this site in due course.

The proposals outlined within the Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan, dated January 2011, are accepted in principle, and the EA look forward to receiving the validation report for the works in due course.

The report states that an average of the validation samples will be taken to Page 28

determine whether an excavation needs excavating further. The EA would be concerned that this could lead to elevated concentrations remaining in the ground, which otherwise would have required removal and treatment. The EA would therefore request that in addition to using the average values to determine whether the excavation as a whole requires further remediation, the samples are assessed individually to determine whether one side of the excavation, for example, requires further excavation.

Treatment of any materials, including arisings from de-watering, will require the deployment of a relevant mobile treatment permit.

Flood Risk

The EA is not opposed to the principle of land raising where it can be shown to have an overall benefit and improved sustainability in the long term. However, the current scheme proposes piecemeal land raising which will provide no benefit to other areas while potentially displacing a significant volume of floodwater if a failure of the flood defences occurs. Although the EA acknowledge that this is a residual risk, it would be increased by the proposal and this is contrary to part (c) of the PPS25 exception test.

The EA OBJECT to this application because it has failed to meet the requirements of part (c) of the flood risk Exception Test and recommend that planning permission be refused on this basis.

The area concerned benefits from a high standard of protection by flood defence infrastructure. However, if the defences fail or are exceeded by an extreme flood event, a finite volume of water will affect the landward side. Land raising behind the flood defence could have a detrimental effect on flood risk if the defences fail, by displacing water which would otherwise have been stored at that location. However, when carried out in the right way, land raising could have an overall benefit by eliminating the possibility of a breach along the section of the frontage where raising is taking place.

In order for this beneficial effect to be realised, the raised area would need to extend up to the line of defence and the development itself should form the new river frontage. This would also obviate the need to maintain and upgrade flood defence infrastructure along this section of frontage which would be a more sustainable solution for the long term.

The current proposal is set back from the flood defences so offers no reduction in the probability of a breach occurring. If a breach were to occur in this section under the proposed scheme the raised areas would channel the resulting flow of water towards the buildings retained at ground level and adjacent land to the east and west. By preventing the water from spreading out the land raising would worsen the risk to these areas by increasing the velocity and depth of floodwater.

The retention of Crete Hall Road at its existing height would also provide a flow route from the Old Sun Wharf area directly to the Red Lion Public House. Phase 4 is of particular concern because it provides no benefit to the wider area, and could potentially impound water in the STEMA site if a breach occurred along the STEMA frontage.

Page 29

Environment Agency – revised comments

The EA are now satisfied that the revisions to the proposal adequately address the residual risk of flooding in the areas neighbouring those to be raised.

Flood Risk

More detailed analysis of topographic levels revealed that the existing buildings outside of the applicant’s control are at lower risk in the present day 200 year flood event than previously thought. The EA are pleased that the proposal no longer includes the retention of existing buildings, at the existing level, within the raised areas. The provision of bunds east and west of the access gate to Henley’s jetty will provide a secondary defence at this location, where a breach of the main defences is most probable.

The EA acknowledge that it would be impractical to raise the area immediately behind the defences, the public footpath and Crete Hall Road at the current time because of existing services under these areas. However, it is understood that these areas will be raised prior to development of the site. It should be a condition of any future development of the site that this takes place to ensure that the potential flood risk benefits are fully realised.

Southern Water

Has provided a plan of the Southern Water’s records showing the approximate position of public sewers and water mains crossing the site. The exact position of the public sewers and mains must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.

No development or new tree planting should be located within three metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer and all existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of construction works.

In order to protect public water supply and sewerage apparatus, Southern Water requests that if consent is granted, a condition is attached to the planning permission. For example “The developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers and water mains, prior to the commencement of the development.”

Additionally, private water supply and drainage apparatus will be present on site. The applicant should take measures to isolate and seal or remove the private apparatus, prior to commencement of the works.

Port of London Authority (PLA)

The PLA has no objection in principle to the proposed development.

It is presumed that heavy goods access to Red Lion Wharf and Old Sun Wharf will be maintained at all times during the land raising and on completion of the development. It would be beneficial to see how the land raising would affect Henley’s jetty to ensure that it does not become un-useable due to the change in levels.

Page 30

The PLA is pleased to see that approximately 85% of the land raising material will arrive at the site by river. The use of the river in this way is supported by planning policy from the National level downwards. The PLA would suggest that a condition is placed on any grant of planning permission to secure the use of the river.

The PLA would wish to be consulted on the master plan.

Given the proximity of the development to the River, full details of all external lighting should be provided by condition. This will ensure that it does not become a hazard to navigation.

The applicant should contact the PLA to discuss the River Works Licence relating to Henley’s Jetty. This could be added as an informative to any grant of planning permission (contact Phil Harris, River Works Liaison Officer on 01474 562226).

There are no comments on the revised proposals.

Economic Development Manager, GBC

No comments received

Gravesham Housing

Gravesham Housing is responsible for the tunnels mentioned in the report. Our concerns over access and drainage issues have been mentioned in the report but it is not clear if any long term solutions are planned. In addition to the tunnels GBC Housing are responsible for a significant part of the cliff face over the tunnels and beneath Fountain Walk and again we have concerns over access for maintenance .Currently GBC inspect the cliff face through a specialist engineer every 2 nd Year by abseiling the face. In the interim year works identified by the survey are carried out.

The current survey was carried on the 14 th September 2011 and the subsequent report is due soon. This report is expected to recommend a safety fence 2 m from the base of the Cliff and an access way/road next to that. GBC do carry out cliff stabilisation and defoliation works when recommended for which access is required. The fence 2m from the base of the cliff is to prevent persons and property entering the fall zone at the foot of the cliff. The concerns mentioned in the report about damage to the tunnel as a result of the proposed works apply equally to the stability of the cliff face.

The security of the tunnels has also become an issue since the removal of the factories in front of them, and as a result of adverse publicity from “Thrill Seekers” identifying the tunnels on social network sites we have had to seal them shut by welding.

It has been difficult to maintain the cliff and tunnels. GBC need to ensure that the proposed redevelopment of the area does not involve GBC in any abnormal expenditure as a result.

Thurrock Borough Council

No comments received Page 31

Kent County Council Archaeology (Heritage and Conservation) - Initial Comments

There has been extensive industrial activity and building on this site in the past, including major quarrying operations, and as such the potential for archaeology pre-dating the post medieval period is unlikely. The focus of archaeological interest is the Rosherville Gardens, remnants of post medieval industrial activity and the air raid shelters and tunnels.

This application is supported by a Baseline Built Heritage Assessment (CgMs 2007). Also of relevance for this application however is an Archaeological Desk Study and Impact Assessment (CgMs 2007). Both of these reports provide useful preliminary information on the heritage issues for this site.

However, neither report provides detailed information on the presence or absence of remains associated with the Rosherville Gardens. Recent evidence suggests that some of the features of the Rosherville Gardens may survive below the demolished industrial buildings, having survived within the centre of the large industrial units and earth movements.

The English Heritage listing description for the post medieval cliff top entrance to Rosherville Gardens suggests surviving remains of the garden structures and features could be considered to be of significance. If features such as the bear pit survive, these remains need to be preferably preserved in situ and protected from proposed land raising and future developments, especially if piling is proposed. It is further noted that included within this application for land raising is an initial phase of “removal of near surface structures and remediation works” (paragraph 1.1 of Outline Code of Construction Practice Hydrock March 2011). There is proposed compaction of the layers as the levels are raised. These activities could have a direct impact on any surviving archaeology.

There needs to be a phased programme of archaeological evaluation works which seeks to clarify the presence/absence of structures associated with the Rosherville Gardens as well as post medieval industrial remains. If remains are located there should be a further phase of detailed mitigation works, including considering options for preservation in situ.

The other main archaeological issue is the 20 th century air raid shelters and tunnels. These have also been recently highlighted in the County HER and the applicant clearly highlights this. Proposals have been put forward to protect the tunnel entrances and ensure future “access” is possible. However, these proposals may not be sufficient and further consideration is needed.

For example, it is proposed that the tunnel entrances will be kept clear from land raising by a grading back down to existing levels at the entrances. This will create a trough which could collect water – potentially flooding the tunnels. The trough could also become overgrown with brambles and self seeded vegetation. Over several years this could accumulate significantly hampering reasonable access.

A key element of the historic character of these entrances to the air raid shelters could be considered to be quick and easy access by lots of people. Page 32

Restricting access could be seen as having a direct impact on the historic setting, context and character of the tunnels. Specialist assessment of this aspect should be considered in order to inform the planning decisions on the extent of the raised ground. It may be considered, for example, that a wider, safe-guarding area should be left at existing ground levels in front of the tunnel entrances. This could also address drainage/flooding issues.

There also needs to be consideration of how vehicle movements and the process of raising the ground level will impact on the structure of the tunnels. Vibrations could shake the tunnels into an unstable condition. This would also be a major issue for future development of the site in terms of putting piling in.

More detailed consideration of the short term and long term management of the tunnels is required for this application. This may be most appropriately set out in a Management Agreement secured through a S106 Agreement.

The Outline Code of Construction Practice, Section 10, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage , cites “PPS16” as the most relevant policy guidance. They really should refer to the new PPS5, Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), which supersedes the former PPG 15 and PPG16. It is also noted that Outline Code of Construction Practice states that “The potential exists for features associated with the former pleasure gardens to be buried beneath the former cable works buildings”. This clearly needs further assessment.

In summary, it is possible that the works proposed as part of this application will have a direct impact on archaeological remains. As such the following condition should be placed on any forthcoming consent:

AR5 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of

i archaeological field evaluation works in accordance with a specification and written timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; and

ii following on from the evaluation, any safeguarding measures to ensure preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording in accordance with a specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To ensure appropriate assessment of the archaeological implications of any development proposals and the subsequent mitigation of adverse impacts through preservation in situ or by record.

It is further recommended that there is additional assessment of the possible impact of the works on the air raid tunnels and that their short term protection and long term management is secured in a Management Agreement covered by a S106 Agreement.

Page 33

Kent County Council Archaeology (Heritage and Conservation) - Additional Comments

Welcomes the commitment of SEEDA to the preservation and enhancement of a number of key heritage assets in the Northfleet Embankment area. Main concerns relate to the WW II air raid shelter tunnels and the buried remains of Rosherville Gardens and I will focus my comments on those elements.

Notes that it is SEEDA’s intention to protect the WWII tunnel entrances during land raising works and to direct surface water drainage away from the tunnels and that safeguards will be incorporated into an “outline Code of Construction Practice”. Welcomes this intention but would prefer to agree details at this stage. There needs to be clear safeguarding measures agreed which can be practically implemented and maintained during the land raising activities plus a programme of monitoring, and if necessary conservation works, whilst plans for future development are put in place. There is a need to ensure that the tunnels are not just protected but that their historic integrity is maintained; they remain easily accessible from the site in the future and their condition is not allowed to deteriorate. Controlled, safe access in the future should be a clear aim to ensure the tunnels are a viable historic resource for future generations.

Welcomes the opportunity to discuss what safeguarding measures are appropriate and to agree the relevant sections within the Code of Construction Practice. Still considers that a S106 Agreement could be worthwhile, especially to cover the period after land raising has finished and before the site is redeveloped or handed over to another development team. This would ensure there is continuity of care and consideration for the tunnels and clear, stated aims for the heritage of this site for the future.

With regard to Rosherville Gardens, this heritage asset is of recognised heritage importance as some of the currently identified upstanding remains have been considered to be of heritage importance. It is accepted that this site has seen substantial redevelopment for industrial activity and that there has been a programme of clearance of the industrial building remains. However, there are several reasons why it is considered that there is a possibility that remains of the gardens may survive.

From examination of early maps, the early 20 th century industrial buildings have generally been large and only their foundations may have disturbed remains of the gardens. The garden structures and features were placed within an old quarry with considerable variation in ground levels. In order to prepare the site for industrial buildings, some of the structures, especially their foundations, or sunken features, may have been buried in the levelling process. The recent programme of removing later industrial structures may not have removed surviving remnants of the Rosherville Gardens.

The Baseline Built Heritage Assessment by CgMs does not seem to address the issue of buried remains of Rosherville Gardens and it is understood that there have not been any intrusive archaeological site investigations. Therefore, it is suggested that we do not have clear evidence that remains of Rosherville Gardens do not survive anywhere on site.

Based on current information, it is considered there is a need to undertake some intrusive site investigations targeting the possible locations of key Rosherville Garden structures and features, based on some map regression Page 34

work. If remains of Rosherville Garden structures are located, appropriate mitigation, including the option of preservation in situ, can then be discussed further.

Council’s Conservation Officer

Original conservation advice offered in relation to this site was to assist in identifying those structures and buildings of heritage value, with a view to these being retained and incorporated into the wider new development. In addition to those buildings such as the Power House that had already been ear-marked for retention by SEEDA, retention of the north laboratory of Henley’s Cable Works was advocated, partly on the basis of it being a decent brick building, and partly due to the iconic nature of its prominent north façade, which is readily seen from the river. The proposed retentions occupied a very small proportion of Northfleet Embankment as a whole, in accordance with the need to allow for extensive new build on the site, whilst providing for the desired link with the area’s industrial past and wartime legacy.

It is therefore extremely disappointing to learn of the further demolitions now proposed. Furthermore, although the structures in question are unlisted, since March 2010 when PPS5 was issued, the Council has had a role in considering the contribution made by undesignated heritage assets, such as those being considered here.

It is appreciated that flood-prevention issues are of great relevance here, and from that point-of-view no opinion is offered as to whether retention of all, some or any of these buildings is feasible or viable. However, it would seem appropriate that the Local Planning Authority is in possession of impartial expert advice on this question before reaching any conclusion on the proposal to demolish.

Thames Defence Heritage

No comments either for or against the proposal as such. Pleased that the existence of the Second World War Henley underground air raid shelter tunnels has at least been noticed in the proposal.

1. We hope that the council and the developer will, in their handling of this, give due weight to the need to safeguard this heritage asset and to protect continuing access. The historical significance of the asset has been set out to Gravesham Borough Council on a couple of occasions as well as to Kent County Council, not least as part of their 20 th century Defence of Kent Project . Submissions have been made for statutory protection.

2. In the longer term the tunnels have potential as a heritage attraction for visitors. We would not wish for decisions taken now to be remembered in the future as making this impossible or difficult.

3. From the plans, the edge of the land raising seems rather too close to the cliff face. It needs to be a little further away to allow a realistic access route to the tunnels and an exit.

4. The edge of the land raising should be stabilised and not subject to slippage.

Page 35

5. Adequate measures need to be taken to avoid flooding of the tunnels from run-off from the raised ground level.

The land-raising proposal will, of course, reflect the convenience of the applicant and, ultimately, will be about making a profit. The importance of regeneration is of course recognised but suitable ameliorations need to be made around the edges to safeguard our heritage.

Natural England

It is unclear as to whether the buildings on site will be removed or altered as a result of the application. These buildings have the potential to support bat roosts and as recommended in the submitted report further surveys should be conducted to establish this. In addition, it is noted in the submitted Design and Access Statement that a Phase 1 Ecological Assessment has been conducted recommending further surveys for Schedule 1 birds. Where further surveys are recommended these must be completed prior to determination of the application in line with Natural England’s standing advice on protected species.

Kent Wildlife Trust

No comments received

KCC Area Rights of Way Officer

Public Rights of Way Footpath NU5 may be affected by the application.

The granting of planning permission confers no other permission or consent on the developer. It is therefore important to advise the applicants that no works can be undertaken on a Public Right of Way without the express consent of the Highways Authority. In cases of doubt the applicant should be advised to contact this office before commencing any works that may affect the Public Right of Way. Should any temporary closures be required to ensure public safety then this office will deal on the basis that:

• The developer pays for the administration costs • The duration of the closure is kept to a minimum • Alternative routes will be provided for the duration of the closure. • A minimum of six weeks notice is required to process any applications for temporary closures.

This means that the Public Right of Way must not be stopped up, diverted, obstructed (this includes any building materials or waste generated during any of the construction phases) or the surface disturbed.

There must be no encroachment on the current width, at any time now or in future and no furniture or fixtures may be erected on or across Public Rights of Way without consent.

Dartford and Gravesham Ramblers Association

No comments received

Page 36

Northfleet Action Group

No comments received

Lafarge Cement Company

No comments received

Publicity

The proposal has been advertised on the site and in a local newspaper as a major development proposal, development affecting a public right of way, development affecting the setting of a listed building and development adjacent to a conservation area.

Individual letters have been sent to 143 adjoining dwellings/premises.

The following representations received:-

Conrad Broadley 80 Dover Road

1. To ensure usable access to the WW2 air raid shelters referred in the SEEDA Hydrock report ref R/09375/N/006 March 2011 as storage tunnels, this access needs to be usable from completion of the land raising even if just of a temporary nature because of the potentially long time between land raising and the final development scheme.

2. Utilising the land raising creatively to provide a graded access ramp to allow access to the base of the G2 Listed stairwell, this should be designed so that it comes from the West of the stairwell so as not to impact on one of the WW2 shelters access and vent. Once this access is created consideration can be given to this becoming part of a public access route in future development proposals

3. Ensure an archaeological dig that will confirm whether the recent find of a 6.4metre circular wall is the Rosherville Gardens Bear Pit or not, if confirmed can it be conditioned that this area is not covered over pending the master planning and detailed design https://sites.google.com/site/riverthamesheritageopportunity/rosherville- gardens-bear-pit This could be potentially quite an important heritage asset and could be a focal point of public art as part of a well designed public realm. Location details and photos of the wall are included in the attached link.

4. Limit the landfill to what is suggested in the report any greater and the use of the tunnels becomes problematical and the impact on the setting of the Grade 2 listed clifftop platform and stairwell would start to be adversely affected.

5. Consider safe access to and from the foreshore at this stage, there is a nice little shingle beach at this location that could make for a pleasant piece of public realm for the local residents.

6. Request at this stage that consideration starts to be given for the long term heritage strategy for the many historic structures and how these can compliment what could potentially be an award winning development Page 37

considering the amount of assets it has from riverside setting, historic buildings and a stunning cliff backdrop, not far off the Ingress Park setting.

Stema Shipping

Notes that there is no strategy in the plans for the containment or retention of the material going to into the land raising of the land or for the retention and drainage of water form the developed areas, both of which could cause disruption to their business at Red Lion Wharf which is a deep water port facility and safeguarded in the Kent Minerals Plan.

Victor Smith 65 Stonebridge Road

Additional comments to those made by the Thames Defence Heritage

1. There would need to be careful evaluation of the detailed design and access. 2. There appears to be a 'pinch' point NW of the Day Nursery. Perhaps this space could be enlarged in the final design so it is less of a pinch. 3. The top of the infilling would be 6.05m AOD but perhaps 1 m. higher on its edge. This would have the effect of placing the shelter entrances in a kind of sunken way. The edge of the bank up to the development platform may cover part of an area in which there was a blast wall in front of the entrances. It is not know if there is any archaeology of its lower part under present surfaces. 4. The route of access and the nature of the surfaces which are envisaged in front of the shelter entrances should be more explicit.

Additional publicity has been given to the revised land raising scheme both by statutory notice and by notification to individual properties.

No further representations have been received to date and the final expiry date is 14 October 2011.

7. Service Manager, Development Control Comments

Introduction

Northfleet Embankment East and in particular the former AEI/GEC/Henley cable factory site is a key strategic site within the Borough and pivotal in the delivery of the regeneration of the North Kent Thames Gateway as well as crucial to the delivery of the emerging Local Development Framework Core Strategy in terms of achieving mixed use development including housing provision.

Northfleet Embankment has been considered as a key site in delivering regeneration of the Thames Gateway for mixed use development since the mid 1990’s through the Kent Thameside vision statement, the subsequent Regional Planning Guidance (RPG9 and 9a), the now demised Kent and Medway Structure Plan and the South East Plan as well as the emerging Local Development Framework. The CLG strategic framework document “Thames Gateway Interim Plan: Development Prospectus” 2006 provided a detailed analysis for Northfleet Embankment and suggested outputs/capacities Page 38

of 1800 dwelling units and 25,000m 2 of commercial space for the site (AEI/Red Lion Wharf/Northfleet Power station site).

Pre-application discussions between SEEDA and the Borough Council on the submission of a planning application for the comprehensive redevelopment of Northfleet Embankment East commenced some six years ago in 2005 and some master planning work was undertaken by SEEDA as well as land assembly and acquisition. The comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of Northfleet Embankment East has however not progressed as some sites have not come forward within the original master planning such as the Stema site and the Lidl site on part of the former Northfleet Power station site. The emerging LDF Core Strategy work has recognised this meaning a re-evaluation of the capacity for development and the balance between different future uses.

Justification for the Proposals

The current application for land raising of the site by between one and three metres is to create a suitable platform for future development. The levels of the site are such that some parts are low lying, levels are not consistent across the site and there are some underground or basement areas within the site.

A flood risk assessment that has been carried out in accordance with the Government’s Planning Policy Statement: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) indicates that there is a current risk of flooding and the land raising is designed to take account of climate changes predicted over a design life of 100 years and designing for a 1:1000 year flood level.

The applicants indicate that the retention of some of the industrial buildings on the site in the form as originally proposed with piecemeal land raising elsewhere on the site could result in flooding that is more rapid and deeper than if no land raising had taken place at all.

A letter from the applicants to the Environment Agency setting out the reasons for the need to remove the remaining industrial buildings for flood risk reasons is appended to this report (Appendix 1).

Arguably the proposals by utilising waste materials from the Crossrail project which would remove the potential of such materials going to land fill sites does represent a sustainable use of resources. Moreover a significant proportion would utilise sustainable transport choices (river barge to the application site and rail transport to bring material to the Lafarge Crossrail logistics site). The applicants indicate that the Crossrail proposals have created ‘a window of opportunity’ to reuse excavated material in a sustainable and beneficial way.

Equally it could be said that the development is ‘opportunistic’ in taking advantage of the availability of materials to use on the site rather than driven by a need to create a development platform to suit a particular form of development or land use and that the land should only be raised to the minimum necessary to prevent flood risk rather than being raised to a height determined by the amount of waste available. In that sense it is disappointing that at this stage there is no clear indication of what the type of development or the level or distribution of uses will be and that the application is not supported by master planning. Any necessary land raising ought to take Page 39

account of the final urban design solution/end uses rather than just meeting Environment Agency criteria in terms of flood levels. Changes in levels, for instance, across the site could provide a better opportunity to develop a sense of place and open up more river views if the intention is to provide a future mixed use development of the site.

Conversely the applicants indicate that the future master planning of the site will involve a number of stages including public consultation and Environmental Impact Assessment and to delay the first stage land raising as proposed would jeopardise the opportunity to use the Crossrail material. They also recognise that the site will require some additional land raising or variations to the platform will be necessary as a result of the emerging land use and development.

There may be other potential solutions to providing flood protection to the site such as providing replacement defences to the current river defence in their existing location or a secondary means of defence within the site, the latter of which could potentially provide protection to remaining industrial buildings on the site and maintain ground levels around those buildings although this would have to be in addition to ground raising elsewhere.

On the other hand the approach being taken to overcoming flood risk by the creation of a development platform does offer a preferable and softer urban design solution than providing high and imposing wall defences. Moreover the scheme is now supported by the Environment Agency on the basis that it is not proposed to have piecemeal land raising.

In weighing the issues relating to the principle behind the development it is considered that on balance the creation of a development platform is necessary, supported and is not in conflict with the adopted or emerging development plan policies for this site.

Built Heritage Issues

The Board will note that the revised scheme of land raising scheme now involves the demolition of the remaining buildings on the site (other than the Henley office building) which when the application was originally submitted it was intended that they would all be retained and the design of the scheme for land raising was such that those buildings would effectively be “moated” with bunding surrounding them set away from the buildings by about three metres.

The application has been supported by a Baseline Built Heritage Assessment (February 2006 and amended July 2007) and a Historic Photographic record.

The Council’s Conservation Officer considered that the industrial buildings were heritage assets in accordance with PPS5 and encouraged their retention. Of particular note were the tiled façade to the building on the northern part of the site and the brick power house particularly due to the glazed tile interior and the switch gear. None of the buildings are listed and not within the nearby conservation area of Lansdowne Square which takes in the former Old Sun Inn (which is outside of the application site) and the W T Henley office building (with its Art Deco style frontage) which is within the application site but not proposed to be demolished or affected by the land raising works.

Page 40

It should be noted that planning permission would not be required for the demolition of the buildings outside of the conservation area as such although there are requirements to seek prior approval.

There are two listed structures nearby (which were of recent listed origins) namely the Grade II Rosherville Quay walls, steps/draw dock and WW II mine watching post at The Shore and the cliff top entrance comprising platform, terrace walls, tunnel and stairs to the former Rosherville Gardens next to Fountain Walk which are both outside of the application site and are not affected by the land raising works.

The practicalities of retaining the five industrial buildings in flood risk terms have been expressed in the preceding section of this report. The retention of the buildings would have limited the use of the buildings at ground floor level to less vulnerable uses such as car parking and this in turn could impact on the exterior of the buildings and their heritage value.

It could also be reasonably argued that there is no guarantee that suitable uses could have been found for the retained buildings overall, that it might not make economic sense to retain the buildings in terms of the land availability and how they could be serviced and it could also prejudice a more practical and economic development layout and juxtaposition of future land uses.

KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer had raised some concerns at the impact of the land raising on the buried remains of Rosherville Gardens (and which has also been raised in a local resident comment) and in relation to the WWII air raid shelter tunnels (again referred to in a local resident response and in comments from the Thames Defence Heritage).

The applicants responded to these comments and which are set out in correspondence to Kent County Council and are appended to this report (Appendix 2). An additional response was received from KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer and this is contained within the consultation section of this report. KCC still consider that a legal agreement would be appropriate to secure safeguarding measures to the tunnels and that there should still be some intrusive site investigations to target possible locations of key Rosherville Garden structures and features.

The applicants have responded to this as follows: We spoke to KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer (Wendy Rogers) on 13th September, and explained that the land raising contractor will be responsible for ensuring that access to the tunnel entrances will be maintained at the end of the works and that the development platform is designed in such a way to direct run off away from the tunnel entrances. We discussed the principal of a bund being constructed around the perimeter of the development platform to prevent runoff to surrounding areas which KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer seemed content with. We also discussed installing access ramps to provide access to the tunnel entrances and again KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer seemed happy with these arrangements.

We have agreed that we will send KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer some wording from the contract specification to reassure her that these matters have been considered in some detail and will be addressed as part of the land raising operations. We will look to do this in advance over the next week. Page 41

KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer has also referred to ownership of the tunnels. As far as we are aware the tunnels, including their entrances, are outside of SEEDA ownership, but this is being checked.

We have explained that, given the recent demolition works that have taken place to the south of Crete Hall Road (CHR), there is very little chance of any Rosherville Garden structures remaining. We have also explained that trial trenching investigations would be problematic given that everything would have to be re-placed to meet the earthworks specification and may involve heavy earthwork plant. As a starting point we have suggested that we go back to the site investigation and determine the depth of made ground to the south of CHR. If this is less than 2.5metres below ground level, and we have removed structures to this depth we consider it most unlikely that anything remains.

KCC’s Senior Archaeological Officer has subsequently advised officers that she is still waiting for the additional information regarding the contract specification and extent of groundworks and has reiterated that there are still concerns over the tunnels and their long term protection and management but it seems that SEEDA will put forward acceptable proposals for their protection during the land raising. Longer term access and conservation still need consideration but this may not necessarily be relevant for the land raising application.

There are concerns over the Rosherville Gardens structures, and she would prefer to have more evidence of the depth of disturbance undertaken recently and more information on the make up of the current ground and surface before reaching a final decision on whether archaeological trial trenching is reasonable or not. She advises that once land levels are raised, any remaining structures of the Rosherville Gardens will become even more inaccessible. A solution could be that we assume that some Rosherville Garden structures survive and preservation in situ is needed for any future development. This would mean any future piling proposals would have to avoid possible areas of large Rosherville Garden structures, such as the fountains and bear pit, based on the early OS maps. It is considered that if permission is granted for the works then these heritage assets should be safeguarded from the land raising works at least through planning conditions.

In respect of the demolition of the remaining industrial buildings the practicalities of retaining these buildings and the previous objection at the Environment Agency on flood risk grounds survey the balance lies in supporting reluctantly their demolition whilst recognising that they are a loss to the heritage and history of this industrial site. There ought nevertheless to be some consideration given by the applicants in seeking to preserve some remnants of the structures for incorporation/interpretation into the future redevelopment of the site, perhaps including the glazed tiled plaque.

Environmental Impacts

The development will result in some environmental disturbance for the duration of the works. The effects of the development have been assessed in the accompanying technical reports on Air Quality and Noise and Vibration. The assessments indicate that the development is not predicted to give rise to significant emissions in terms of air quality and mitigation measures are proposed in the Code of Construction Practice.

Page 42

Similarly the operation is not predicted to give rise to any significant noise or vibration. The main delivery operations will be located close to the river utilising the Henley jetty and the main material stockpiling location will be in the centre of the site or closer to the jetty some distance from residential properties and the chalk cliffs provide an acoustic barrier. Construction activities will be controlled through measures in the Code of Construction Practice.

The Council’s Environmental Health officers consider and accept that environmental impacts of the land raising can be addressed through planning conditions.

The ecological assessment accompanying the application has identified a number of recommendations to be implemented as part of the application proposals. It is considered that these can also be met by panning conditions.

Highway Impacts

The application identifies that the majority of material delivered to the site in connection with the land raising will be by way of river transport. A proportion of material will however require transfer from the nearby Crossrail temporary tunnelling logistics facility on the site of the former Lafarge Northfleet Cement Works. It was originally considered that this would be achieved by a conveyor system but this will now be undertaken by road with a lorry route utilising Crete Hall Road via Kimberly Clark.

Although this route avoids roads near to residential dwellings Kent Highways consider that this will have an impact on the local highway network and advise that there is no information on vehicle movements (which would be important if through planning conditions the modal split was to be limited). They also have indicated that there is no information on the impact on the highway as a result of the proposed bunding to Crete Hall Road and no information about access arrangements, parking and on site facilities all of which could impact on the highway. It is however acknowledged that some of these matters could be dealt with subsequently pursuant to planning conditions.

Neither Kent Highways nor the Highways Agency has indicated an overriding highway objection to the proposals.

Conclusions

This is a critically important future development site within the Borough and a key site in the re-generation of the North Kent Thames Gateway. It will be a important component of the Local Development Core Strategy. A significant amount of work has already been undertaken by SEEDA in assembling and identifying potential future land uses as well as carrying out demolition and clearance of the site. The future development of the site is dependent on the site being properly protected from the risk of flooding. The proposals do provide a solution to removing the risk of flooding during the lifetime of any future development of the site by raising land and creating a suitable development platform.

The use of the Crossrail material from the London tunnelling works does provide a sustainable opportunity to recycle material that would otherwise be used elsewhere or potentially be taken to landfill sites. Page 43

There is support to the application from KCC Planning and there is no planning policy objection to the application although there is clear preference that the development platform ought to relate to the likely future distribution of uses on the site and that some master planning ought to have been undertaken at this stage as well as consideration given to the future approach to Crete Hall Road.

Taking all the issues into account it is considered that the scheme can be supported albeit that there are still some outstanding issues relating to highway aspects and the impact on heritage issues which need to be addressed.

Page 44

Planning Application GR/2011/0320

RECOMMENDATION

To be set out in a supplementary report.

Gravesend Reach River Thames Gravesend Reach

nd

U

d d Bd y

War

Me an H ig h W ate r

Bolla rd s

Navigation Light

(Two Fixed Red) Bollard Dolphin s

Jetty MH W

Bollard s

Me a n Low Wa te r Bol lard s

MH W

Bollar d s

Navigation Light

(Two Fixed Red)

Bollards Bollards Dolphin Bollards

MLW Henley's Jetty Navigation Post MP Craine (two fixed red) Navigation Light MP Travelling Cranes Bollard (Two Fixed Red) Navigation Bollards Light Dolphin MP (Two Fixed Red) Capstans

Shingle

MH W Mud and Shingle Bollard MH W Bollard Mud and Shingle Boulders Shin gle gl e Outfall Riv e r Th a mes Mud and S hi n Me an H i Old Sun Wharf MH W Bollard g h W at er Boulders Dolphin Wharf Me an H ig h W ater Bollard Henley's Jetty Mud and Shingle Bollard River Thames T HE S HO RE MHW The White 4.6 m THE S H ORE House LB 6.6m 5.7m 10.2m El Sub Sta GVC

1 to 5 1 to 8 The War r en H asti n g s Old Sun Cou rt 1

2 3

3 G

Works 4 52

Works 5 6 TCBs

ouse 7 8

4

rt 6 LANSDOWNE SQUARE u Tanks

4.6m

3

rtwe ll Co

8

a Ch

F1 Tank

Works 58

AD Page 45

LL RO

40 Imperial Business Park

53

CRETE HA

32

2

D

4 6

Church 3.9m

58 E2

2 E1

C 7 5.1m li

f Tks f

3

1

5.4m 7.6m 70 El Sub Sta

CR E S ta

TE HALL El Sub 22

C5 Application Ref : 20110320

P

ROAD R IE he on T ) ROSHERVILLE El Li PH WE ST ( 3 Sub Sta

6 O

Red 3.8m A

D

M IL

24 76

L

65 17

OAD

R 66

RCH B9 Site Location : AEI/Henley

BU

B 6

C

l

i

3.1m f

f

12 Northfleet

1

7

6

8

83

3 67 to B1

1

l

6 1

l

t 2

Ha

l

12 B Cour 5

ri Embankment

War d Bd y y

C A

ROA D 9 6 10 S OS st

CR Ne

11 The 84

A C 5

HES

FOU 95 LB

TNUT

NT

A

82

8 I 5

N N

WA 88

ROS H

LK

16

7 A

ER 1

7 0 t 0

81 8 o C V LO

IL S E A4

LE 1

W

89 A 9 6 to 58

Y El S u b S ta

93 8 8 05 October 2011 Fn Board Date :

10 AM

to 2 TH

49 to 49 16

140 96

5

Day Nursery 7 3

3 Ap ex Ho use 107 38 o

t St Marks Scale :

to K 1

4 PH 28

L Church 1:5,000

3 1 12 109 t 48 4 to Centre 106

to 11 4 7 WA 11 9 34 128 CR t to Vicarage 1 to 9

7 124 OV ERCLI 2 2 4 127

to Rosh er Ho u se Tunnel 22.3m 22

Tunnel 6

1

FOUNTAIN 22.7m

2 1 to 1

o 26.5m t

3 DO N RO AD 24.5m

1 LON 136 103

105 139 Shelter 36 27.7m

85

25.7m 80

78 Shelter 24.4m 75

24.5m 77 74 f

LB lif

25.1m 73 C

56

6

25.8m 5

1 CB s 54 T F

D 53

4 6 3

RO A 9 El

5 6 1

Tun n el LONDO N 1 W 4 8 2

6 el 0 Sub Tun n Shelter PO Sta Superstore

28.8m Tun n el

41 S 4 7

T

27.3m 39 40

46 a MARK'S M

1 29

38 4 WAY 2

22

31.1m 26 PH 28

b 29.4m e

lu This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material

8 u t 6 C

1 it Garage NU AVE s

ES Inst

M

an d 0

20 t E our 1 gn C St M ark' with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the

Ensi THA

2

1 7

1 7

Cheviot a 89

l le 2 Ro she rvi 8

14 E to 9 7 8

1 1

3 House Ch ur ch o f E ng lan d DRIV e OAD Plac

on tro l led ) 1 St. J ames's ar y C 1 Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown

(Vo lun t

6 R to S c h oo l Y

Pr ima ry 14 A

B

1 N 33 3

to

18 D 10

MARI ef

to 32 to

1 1

1 2

1 to 17 83 9 URNA Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes copyright

B El Sub Sta

9

to 9 to 1

Honeycombe c Bus Depot 0

Cl

1

15

if 25 Lodge 17

f

0d 20

26 1 and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

79 18

3 2 16

7 o

69 2 t 1 17 6

1

10

7 19

7 26

2 2

18 to 33 21

17

65 4 4 Gravesham Borough Council Licence No. 100019166/11

23

9 Compass Court 3

0 1 3 30

32 20 34

36

56 72 Sh elter

37 38 Bus Depot 2

33 lter

e

3

1 4 Sh

59 14 2 33

8

5 24

8 25 6 0 1 4

56 3

6 31 46 31 AN'S M EW S

58 33 34 66 E 0 43

T 6 3

53 6 C 9

1 R 7 Co ll i ng t E

50 o n IGHTERM Ho u se M

L 68 IM E GA O 88 T R

NE RO

10 1 1 2

47

7 9

o to

7 8

MARI 7 3 t 1 78 7 o 6

4 t 50 o

6 2 7

47

35 1 3 AD 8

5

16 8

4 7 7 1 ROAD 80

7 24 7

47 14 2 2

C

liff W

ORD

1 a F OSE d r 13

26 28 1 E CO LL CL ES ING T L y Bd ON CL O SE L AL 82

R 12

6 4 4

8 59 BE 2

AD AUXHA 55 63 V 59

1 RAL V

FF 15

8 1 9 E 7 5 2

5 RU KEN 17 U

O N RO

N 2 E 1

C 58

9 25 O D

3 11

S AV 63 K' F ES V A

GORD R LL 15

T M A ARD G 102 I

E

S 7

6

Playground 104 3 76 L 1

2 49 D

6

2 34 THAM ES WAY 8

WS 11 4 54 8 128 11 0 06 ENS 11 6 1 2 73 11 8 112 ^

264 TCB 1 19 Planning and Regeneration Services

33 4 ST M A RK 2 6 LLE ON M E 'S A 6 35 VE N 10 3 UE

GA 2 87

8 10 47

37 1

3 88

MA 43

NUE RI TIM E G

ATE 5 www.gravesham.gov.uk Tel : 01474 56 44 22 4 1

123 N 3 39

11

AV E 9 1 2

3 1

2 RUR 8 1 5 1 99 37 to 4 5 1 A 46 to 5 1 ANE 4 Page 46

This page is intentionally left blank Page 47

20110320 – Former AEI/Henleys, Northfleet Embankment Page 48

20110320 – Former AEI/Henleys, Northfleet Embankment Page 49

Hydrock Ref. C08018/036

15 th August 2011

Niall Connolly Planning Liaison Officer Environment Agency Orchard House Endeavour Park London Road Addington Kent ME19 5SH

Dear Niall,

Environment Agency Concerns regarding Land Raising at Northfleet Embankment, Kent

Related Documents: Planning Application 1446481 Flood Risk Assessment FRA/09375/N/001rev.1 Dated March 2011

I write in response to concerns raised by the Environment Agency regarding retention of existing buildings, Land Raising and Flood Risk at Northfleet Embankment, Kent. This is in relation to the Planning Application 1446481 made to Gravesham Borough Council on 26 th April 2011.

Concerns Raised Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) requires the Exception Test to be applied in the circumstances shown in tables D.1and D.3. Paragraph D9 of PPS25 makes clear that all three elements of the Test must be passed for development to be permitted.

Part (c) of the Test requires the applicant to demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible will reduce flood risk overall. Paragraph D13 requires that compliance with each part of the Exception Test is openly demonstrated. The application site lies in a within Flood Zone 3a defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a high probability of flooding. Development is only appropriate in this zone where the Exception Test has been applied in full and has Rbeen passed. In this instance the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) fails to;

1. Consider the impact of the development following a breach of the flood defences. 2. Demonstrate that the proposal will not result in an increase in flood risk in the surrounding area. 3. Address the opportunities presented by this development for reducing flood risk.

Page 50

Supporting Notes: The area concerned benefits from a high standard of protection by flood defence infrastructure. However, if the defences fail or are exceeded by an extreme flood event, a finite volume of water will affect the landward side. Land raising behind the flood defence could have a detrimental effect on flood risk if the defences fail, by displacing water which would otherwise have been stored at that location. However, when carried out in the right way, land raising could have an overall benefit by eliminating the possibility of a breach along the section of the frontage where raising is taking place.

In order for this beneficial effect to be realised, the raised area would need to extend up to the line of defence and the development itself should form the new river frontage. This would also obviate the need to maintain and upgrade flood defence infrastructure along this section of frontage which would be a more sustainable solution for the long term. The current proposal is set back from the flood defences so offers no reduction in the reach were to occur in this section under the proposed scheme the raised areas would channel the resulting flow of water towards the buildings retained at ground level and adjacent land to the east and west. By preventing the water from spreading out the land raising would worsen the risk to these areas by increasing the velocity and depth of floodwater. The retention of Crete Hall Road at its existing height would also provide a flow route from the Old Sun Wharf area directly to the Red Lion Public House. Phase 4 is of particular concern because it provides no benefit to the wider area, and could potentially impound water in the STEMA site if a breach occurred along the STEMA frontage.

Response The Environment Agency response has identified that in the event of a failure of the flood defences, there is considered to be an increase in risk resulting from the piecemeal land raising proposed in this application. The Environment Agency do recognise that this is only a residual risk (the areas is well defended, to a standard in excess of the 1 in 1000 year event) and also confirm that the defences in the area are considered to be of a high standard.

We conclude in our assessment that the defences would not be overtopped during the 1 in 1000year tidal event and that risk to the area would only be through a breach of existing defences (most likely at the access to Henleys Jetty).

There are a number of key reasons as to why land raising has not been undertaken throughout the site – driven primarily by practical considerations. These are now addressed in turn, and solutions to address the Environment Agency concerns provided.

(1) Retaining some original buildings on the site Initially it was considered that, where possible, some of the existing buildings were to be retained. Retention of certain buildings imposed restrictions on land raising – given need to mitigate against any negative impacts on building foundations and structural integrity. Land raising was therefore appropriately set back from buildings to be retained. In addition, it was not proposed to utilise the existing ground floors of these buildings and safe access to areas of higher ground would have been provided.

It is recognised that leaving certain buildings in place and raising land around them would result, in the event of any failure of the defences, in an increase in the level of residual risk. This is because such inflows (if directed towards these buildings) could result in flooding that is more rapid and Page 51

potentially, deeper than if no land raising had taken place. Following discussions with the Environment Agency, it is recognised that from a flood risk perspective, the retention of certain buildings, is undesirable. Following a review of the proposals, we now propose that all buildings be demolished and land raising be undertaken across the site. The impact of the residual risk of flooding to buildings is therefore removed.

(2) The need to maintain existing services and consider the structural integrity of the existing sea defences . There are a number of live essential services running under Crete Hall Road, the public footpath, and immediately behind the sea wall defences along The Shore.

Given that this proposal is only to develop a safe platform for future development and that no proposals are available for the layout of any future development on the site, it would not be appropriate to divert and provide new services across the site. Such works would be undertaken during the development of the site which will take place a later date.

Furthermore, both from a loading perspective (potential for differential settlement) and maintenance perspective (access), leaving the services in place and raising ground over them is not considered feasible.

As a result, the proposal is to maintain existing levels over all key services. As for the retained buildings, it is recognised that there is the potential in the event of a failure of the defences to therefore concentrate inflow along The Shore, and into Crete Hall Road and along the public footpath which would present an increased residual risk to the road and surrounding buildings namely the Old Sun Inn to the north east of the site.

Following discussions with the Environment Agency, it has been agreed that the key residual risk lies with a potential failure at the existing tidal gate to Henleys Jetty. It is therefore proposed to address the impact of such a failure through the provision of raised sections along The Shore either side of this gate. Raised ground is considered the preferred option to provide such defence as it is maintenance free.

In recognition that this is only a temporary condition to address the residual risk of failure of the gate, it is proposed to provide protection to the 1 in 1000 year event over a 40 year design life (it is considered a reasonable assumption that the site will be developed during this timeframe and that Crete Hall Road, The Shore, and the footpath will have been raised to safe levels with all services diverted as necessary through the completion of future development over this time frame). This gives a crest level of 5.99mAOD .

The bunds have been designed to allow disabled access (maximum gradient 1 in 20) and to allow vehicle movement to be maintained to and from Henleys Jetty. Details of the proposed bunds are provided in the attached Drawing (Figure 5).

It is recognised that there is a need to consider the potential detrimental impacts of any land raising on the structural integrity of the existing flood defences and it is also for this reason that the Page 52

proposed residual risk protection bunds have been proposed to be set at 5.99mAOD, rather than the proposed 6.54mAOD for the whole site. A review of the original ‘as built’ drawings suggests that the proposed bund loadings will remain within the tolerances of the original design loadings. However, as a precaution it is recommended that any heavy vehicle access to the Jetty be made via the lifted site (directly to the south of the Jetty) and only light vehicles and vans use The Shore to access the Jetty, to ensure that active loading to the structure remains with design tolerances.

Residual risk of inflow from a failure at the tidal gate to Henleys Jetty has been mitigated by the provision of bunds either side of the gate. These have been designed to allow access to be maintained, whilst providing protection to the remainder of The Shore, Crete Hall Road and the footpath for all events up to the 1 in 1000 year event over a design life considered sufficient to see the full development of the overall site, the diversion of existing services and the lifting of Crete Hall Road. This eliminates the residual risk concerns.

I trust that this additional information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. David Lloyd Technical Director (Flood Risk) Hydrock Consulting

Enc. cc. Peter Price, Lee Wood, Matthew Brown, Julian Perry, Colin Finlayson Page 53

Page 54

This page is intentionally left blank Page 55

Hydrock Ref: C09375/27

17 th August 2011

Wendy Rogers Senior Archaeological Officer Kent County Council Heritage Conservation Group Invicta House County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XX [email protected]

Northfleet Planning Application 1446481 R Kent County Council Consultation Response

Dear Ms. Rogers,

Following a recent meeting with Clive Gilbert and Peter Price at Gravesham Borough Council, I am taking the opportunity, on behalf of South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), to respond to your letter of 26 May 2011 which forms the Kent County Council Heritage and Archaeology consultation response to the above application.

At the recent meeting with GBC officers we discussed the consultation responses on the application (which have also been posted on the GBC website), and we agreed it might be helpful to reply to some of the matters you have raised (also taking account of the matters raised in the letter of 23rd June from Alan Byrne at English Heritage). To keep GBC informed I am copying this email to Peter Price and Gerry Shaw at GBC.

SEEDA is committed to the preservation and enhancement of a number of key heritage assets in the Northfleet Embankment area. As we have recognised in the Planning, Design and Access Statement, and other documents submitted with the application, the key Heritage issue is the Lansdowne Square Conservation Area. The WT Henley building is within the Red Line Boundary of this application, but is not directly affected. Proposals to retain and enhance this building will be covered when the site wide development proposals are put forward. In addition there are a number of heritage assets in the vicinity of the site (but outside of the land raise proposals) including the surviving remains of the cliff top entrance to Rosherville Gardens and the Rosherville quay walls, steps, drawdock and World War Two mine watching post. These listed features are associated with the former Pleasure Grounds but are outside the application site. The relationship with the listed features and the Conservation Area is relevant to this application, but realistically the more meaningful assessment is when the development proposals for the site are brought forward.

The tunnels at the bottom of the chalk cliffs, which were used as air raid shelters during the Second World War, are a Heritage Asset, but are also outside the application site area, although obviously the entrances can only be accessed from the site. We note your concerns about keeping the tunnel entrances clear by grading the land raising profiles. In fact the fill material in the vicinity of the tunnel entrances will be more limited that some other parts of the site and it is SEEDA's intention that the entrances will be protected whilst the land raising works proceed and also to ensure that Page 56

surface water drainage is directed away from the tunnels. Safeguards will be incorporated in the outline Code of Construction Practice, but the longer term arrangements for maintaining access to the tunnels (with possible interpretative information and controlled access arrangements) would be more properly dealt with when the development proposals for the site come forward, and no doubt you could advise us in more detail at that time.

So far as the potential for other remnants of Rosherville Gardens is concerned, including Crete Hall, we consider this is most unlikely given the extent and spread of the industrial uses on the site (particularly from the 1930s onwards) and the depth of foundations for the buildings and features such as the deep cable wells and pits. The demolition contractors have cleared sub surface structures to a depth of at least 2.5 metres and only the foundations and other structures associated with the 20th century industrial buildings were encountered.

Consequently, we do consider that your recommended general archaeological condition (AR5 R as set out in your letter of 26th May) is excessive and potentially costly when you acknowledge yourself that the potential for archaeology pre Rdating the post medieval period is unlikely given industrial activity on the site.

There was no evidence of the former Rosherville Gardens bear pit during the demolition and site clearance works, but if you consider the investigation of this is worth pursuing, could we agree to a specific excavation on this part of the site?

We trust this covers the points raised in your consultation response, but please advise if you want to discuss further

Yours sincerely,

Lee Wood Senior Project Manager Hydrock Consultants [email protected] cc. Peter Price R GBC Gerry Shaw – GBC Colin Finlayson – Planning Consultant Matthew Brown – SEEDA Julian Perry R SEEDA

.