Planning Applications for 27 January, 2010 1 MC/09/2545 River 3

Planning Applications for 27 January, 2010

1 MC/09/2545 River 3

Construction of a dynamic bus station, reconfiguration of existing Globe Lane car park entrance, change of use from open space to highway land, with associated engineering and landscaping works Land on Globe Lane and Riverside Gardens Chatham Kent

2 MC/09/1099 Rochester East 41

Construction of a three storey block comprising five 2-bedroomed self- contained flats with landscaped courtyard amenity area (resubmission) Land rear of 'What The Dickinns' PH, 1 Ross Street Rochester Medway ME1 2DF

3 MC/09/1373 Rainham Central 53

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of eleven new affordable homes with private gardens, formation of estate road and provision of residents and visitors parking The Marlborough Centre, 41A Maidstone Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0DQ

4 MC/09/0688 Chatham Central 66

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 2.5/3 storey apartment building containing 15 residential units with associated car parking, access and landscaping 1 Park Crescent, Chatham, Kent ME4 6NR

5 MC/09/1832 Rainham South 80

Change of use from agricultural land to residential vehicle parking area with access from Otterham Quay Lane for use of No 3 Moor Street. Land to rear of No. 1 and 3 Moor Street (opposite 1 Otterham Quay Lane), Rainham, Gillingham, Kent

6 MC/09/2120 Peninsula 90

Construction of 5 detached dwellings with associated parking Land adjacent 181 Bells Lane Hoo St Werburgh Rochester Kent ME3 9JA

7 MC/09/1406 Strood Rural 101

Variation of condition 4 under planning permission MC2008/0793 to allow the occupation of caravans during the months of December and April Newlands Farm, Station Road, Cliffe, ME3 7RU

Page 1

Background Papers

The relevant background papers relating to the individual applications comprise: the applications and all supporting documentation submitted therewith; and items identified in any Relevant History and Information section and Representations section with a report.

Any information referred to is available for inspection in the Planning Offices of the Council at Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham.

Page 2

1 MC/09/2545

Date Received: 4 December, 2009

Location: Land on Globe Lane and Riverside Gardens Chatham Kent

Proposal: Construction of a dynamic bus station, reconfiguration of existing Globe Lane car park entrance, change of use from open space to highway land, with associated engineering and landscaping works

Applicant: On Behalf Of Medway Council

Agent: Mr Ellingham Alliance Planning Halifax House Frederick Road Edgbaston Birmingham B15 1JD

Ward River

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 27 January, 2010.

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by additional plans received on 14 December 2009)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally for buildings, shelters and canopies and any means of enclosure shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority at least one month before it is intended to use that material on site in the proposed manner. The relevant works shall not commence on site until the use of the materials have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and without prejudice to conditions of visual amenity in the locality, in accordance with Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Page 3 3 Information on the construction details through the bus station and the information pavilion canopies above ground level, to include eaves, supporting structure and glazed screens, should be submitted at a minimum scale of 1:20 to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before that element of the development is commenced. The relevant works shall not commence on site until these plans have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained.

4 Notwithstanding the approved plans, full details of each element of the hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority at least one month before it is intended to use that detail on site in the proposed manner. The relevant works shall not commence on site until the details have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details for the respective elements shall include proposed finished levels of contours; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. interpretation boards and signage, external furniture, bollards, refuse or other storage units, pedestrian deterrent structures etc). Soft landscape works shall include details of planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; tree pit details, tree species, root treatment, planting pit details, means of tree support and implementation programme. All hard and soft landscape and street furniture works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and prior to occupation of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Pursuant to condition 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy BNE1 and BNE6 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

5 The development shall not be brought into use until a schedule of landscape maintenance and management including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Landscape maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule and maintained thereafter.

Page 4 6 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a construction code of practice that describes measures to control noise and dust impacts arising from the construction phase of the development shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the developer does not prejudice conditions of amenity, in accordance with policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

7 No external lighting outside the areas to be used as highway, shall be installed for the bus station hereby permitted unless it has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and should be designed to accord with recommendations of the submitted Bat Survey November 2009 received on 4 December 2009.

Reason: To safeguard the biodiversity in the area, in accordance with policy BNE37 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

8 In this Condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs a) and b) below shall have effect until the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work).

b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the health, stability and retention of the trees, in accordance with policy BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

9 Notwithstanding the approved plans, full details of an Arboricultural method statement (AMS) and tree protection plan (TPP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works associated with the construction of the development hereby permitted. The AMS and TPP are to be in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005. The AMS shall provide details of methodologies for the implementation of any aspect of the development that has the potential to result in loss of or damage to a tree shown for retention. The TPP shall show the finalised layout proposals, and the tree protection measures detailed within the AMS that can be shown graphically. The approved details shall be installed prior to the commencement of development or the bringing onto site of any plant, materials or other

Page 5 equipment in connection with the development, and shall be maintained until development is complete and all plant, materials and other equipment have been removed from the site.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the health, stability and retention of the trees, in accordance with policy BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

10 Notwithstanding the approved plans, sections and location plans showing the design of the ramps and steps for the area to the north west of The Paddock shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of any works associated with the construction of the ramps and steps hereby permitted. The ramp and steps shall then be provided in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the health, stability and retention of the trees, in particular T28 and T30, in accordance with policy BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003

11 Prior to the commencement of development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the proposed site compound/storage area. The compound/storage area shall then be provided and used in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the construction period unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the health, stability and retention of the trees, in accordance with policy BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

12 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 14 to 17 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority until condition 17 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of safety in accordance with Policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

13 An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, including risks to groundwater, whether or not it originates on the site. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent

Page 6 persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

• human health • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes. • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archaeological sites and ancient monuments;

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of safety in accordance with Policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

14 A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of safety in accordance with Policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

15 The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of any development (other than development required to enable the remediation process to be implemented) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given not less than two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Page 7 Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the bringing into use of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of safety in accordance with Policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

16 In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 14, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 15, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in condition 15 are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 16.

Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of safety in accordance with Policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

17 No tree felling or vegetation clearance in connection with this development shall be undertaken within the bird-breeding season of March to August (inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should tree felling or vegetation clearance be agreed within the bird breeding period, a check (by a qualified person/group agreed in writing in advance by the local planning authority) for the presence of breeding birds shall be carried out no more than 24 hours prior to the felling or clearance, and felling or clearance shall not be undertaken if breeding birds are found to be present.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and biodiversity, in accordance with policy BNE37 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

18 Prior to the commencement of the development, details of on site wheel cleaning/washing facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved facilities shall be provided on site prior to the commencement of development and retained on site, and used, for the duration of the construction period, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 8

Reason: To prevent mud and debris being taken onto the highway, in accordance with policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

19 Prior to the commencement of the construction of the roof of the development details of the Sedum roof system to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include the species, method for laying, timescale for laying and ongoing maintenance programme. The approved details shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved implementation programme and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with policy BNE22 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

20 No development except those relating to the service diversion works shall take place until details of foundation designs and any other proposals involving below ground excavation have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the archaeological interest in the site, in accordance with policy BNE21 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

21 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 reasonable 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 safeguard the archaeological interest in the site, in accordance with policy BNE21 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

22 No development shall take place until the applicant, has secured the implementation of a programme of building recording in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the archaeological interest in the site, in accordance with policy BNE21 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Page 9 For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.

Site Description

The Application Site falls within the administrative boundary of Medway Council. The Site is situated within Chatham Town Centre with good vehicle and rail access to London, Maidstone, Rochester, Gillingham and other major destinations. The train station is located approximately 500m to the south west of the Site and is an estimated 10 minute walk. The River Medway is located to the east of the Site and the Site falls within Flood Zone 3a.

The Site is 1.16 hectares in size and is bounded to the north-west by Globe Lane and to the south-east by Military Road, which forms the south-eastern extent of the site. The north-eastern extent of the site is bounded by The Brook and Dock Road. The site extends a short distance north-west of Globe Lane, encompassing an area occupied by part of the Globe Lane car park along with two 19th century detached buildings set amongst trees and designated open space. The south-western extent of the site is defined by a short strip of road linking Military Road to a junction between Globe Lane, Medway Street and Sir John Hawkins Way. The site also includes part of an area of land known as The Paddock which is a rectangular area of parkland of approx 130m by 30m (0.39ha), most of which lies to the east of the site. The Paddock has a number of mature trees located on it amongst an area of soft landscaping with a series of paths dissecting it. To the east of the site is The Pentagon Shopping Centre and the main retail core of Chatham. To the north is the Grade II listed building of the Brook Theatre. The western part of the site falls within the proposed buffer zone of the Chatham Maritime World Heritage Site Boundary.

Two buildings are located on the site – The White House and Riverside Rooms. The White House is located to the north of the site and is a two-storey office building formerly used as officers’ accommodation relating to the use of the site as an ordnance facility. The upper floor is soon to be vacated by Relate and Marriage Care and some of the ground floor rooms are already vacant. The Riverside Rooms are a single storey community building to the west of the site and are occupied by Age Concern who are also re-locating.

The Brompton Lines Conservation Area abuts the western boundary of the site with the Fort Amerhurst Scheduled Ancient Monument located approx. 200m to the north west of the site.

Proposal

The application seeks consent for the construction of a dynamic bus station, reconfiguration of the existing Globe Lane car park entrance, change of use from open space to highway land, with associated engineering and landscaping works.

Page 10 The revised scheme minimises the footprint of the built structures through reducing the number of stands in the original scheme from 16 to 13. A further 6 stands and 1 layover stop are located on Waterfront Way - formerly the area under Sir John Hawkins Way, (these works fall outside the red line boundary) - together with 2 layover stands on Globe Lane. The 13 stands have been divided between 4 platforms. With two central platforms with 4 stands one each side and two perimeter platforms with 2 and 3 stands.

The canopies over the central platforms will be a minimum of 6 metres in height, which will allow the roof structure to over sail the bus bays. The overhanging roofs to the perimeter platforms will be a minimum of 3 metres in height. The 13 bus stands have been designed to maximise transparency and convenience. The facility is partially enclosed and entrances are located to maximise pedestrian flows and connectivity.

A dedicated information and ticket office is proposed to the southern end of the central island of the proposed dynamic bus facility (DBF). The ticket office will provide details of travel services and ticket sales for users at the bus station. It will also provide three public toilets (one dedicated for mobility impaired users), which will be open during normal opening hours. The scheme will also provide a serviced location for the future installation of an automatic public toilet to provide additional toilet facilities, which can be accessed outside of the opening hours of the information centre. These facilities do not form part of this planning application and it is intended that this would be installed under the Councils Permitted Development rights set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995. The layout of the proposed development will allow pedestrian/cycle movement through the creation of new pedestrian crossings at the northern and southern end of the bus facility, which will connect the western and eastern areas of the Town Centre. The proposed development also proposes to improve the route of National Cycle Route 1, so that it runs in parallel to the proposed bus stations western periphery of Riverside Gardens.

The proposed platform buildings and the information centre within the central island of the bus facility will comprise of elliptical roof forms and the two perimeter platforms will be a single roof. The underside of the roofs will be timber clad. The Information Centre and the canopies over the platforms will be fully clad in natural finished metal. The central platforms will have extensive sedum roofs, with naturally finished metal profile fascias. Clerestory glazing will separate the walls from the roofs of the Information Centre. Glazed weather protection beneath the platform canopies will have seating fixed to the glazing supports. The proposed development will create new a landscaped open space area, soft landscaping, tree planting and paving. In order to accommodate the proposed scheme the proposal introduces an extension to Riverside Gardens which will occupy the southern part of Globe Lane car park located to the west of the Site. The proposed soft landscaping will comprise of medium height shrub mix along the perimeter with short mown grass to the rear with tree planting. The White House will also benefit from new landscaping with low shrub and perennial planting mix.

The removal of 3 trees to the north of Paddock are required in order to accommodate the highway improvements works along the Brook (which form part of

Page 11 a separate scheme). One further tree will be removed from the western boundary of The Paddock to enable a new pedestrian link to the central island of the Dynamic Bus Facility. A total of 5 trees will be removed from the Paddock. The key design principle for landscaping, as part of the proposed development is the replacement of each existing tree lost on a 2:1 ratio. The proposed development will provide 38 new trees, which will form part of the overall landscape works. Five new trees are proposed to be planted on the northeastern (Brook) and western (Globe Lane) sides of The Paddock, a further five within the bus facility and the remaining 28 trees within Riverside Gardens and in the replacement soft landscaping area to the west. The proposed development also includes the demolition of Riverside Rooms and the retention and refurbishment of the White House as part of the overall proposed bus station. The existing White House, which is located within the Site, will be converted to create an administration building serving the proposed bus station. The building is two storeys, approximately 10 metres in height and is approximately 450 sq metres in size. Drivers’ facilities will be located on the ground floor of the building and will be available to all bus operators. The ground floor will be occupied by a locker room, kitchen, storage, and 3 toilet facilities one of which will be for disabled users. A lift and stairs will provide access to the first floor where all station management facilities will be located providing a view over the bus station facility. This will include a managers office, CCTV room, server room, staff room and plant room along with disabled toilet facilities. The existing pedestrian access into The White House will be modified in line with DDA Regulations. This will involve the introduction of a new door to the rear of the building and a new ramp access along the south west elevation of the building. In addition, an external services area will be provided to allow servicing to the White House.

CCTV cameras are proposed to be installed to monitor the operations and activities within the proposed bus station and the public open space. The CCTV will be located and monitored from The White House and linked to the Council’s CCTV control Room.

Relevant Planning History

Land at Globe Lane, Military Road and at The Paddock, Chatham Kent

MC2008/1460 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 - request for a screening opinion as to the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to accompany a planning application for the construction of a dynamic bus facility EIA not required 19 September 2008

MC/09/0460 Construction of dynamic bus station and new public space together with associated highways, drainage and landscaping works Withdrawn by the applicants

Page 12 MC/09/2477 Town and Country Planning [Environmental Impact Assessment] [England and Wales] Regulations 1999 - request for a screening opinion as to the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to accompany a planning application for the construction of a dynamic bus facility EIA not required 9 December 2009

The fundamental difference between the original (MC/09/0460) and revised scheme is the location of the proposed dynamic bus facility, which has now moved off the Paddock onto Globe Lane and also occupies part of the adjacent Globe Lane car park and Riverside Gardens. The revised scheme has been designed to respond to the concerns of the Development Control Committee (now Planning Committee) by the following:

• Retention of the Paddock; • Reduced tree loss; • Net gain in green space provision; • Overall reduction in the footprint of the bus facility from 16 to 13 bus stands; • Inclusion of public toilet facilities; • Creation of high quality public spaces.

Representations

The application has been advertised by three site notices a press notice and notification letters have been sent to: EDF Energy, English Heritage, Kent County Constabulary, Kent County Council Archaeologist, Kent Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Southern Gas Networks, Southern Water, The Open Spaces Society, Environment Agency, Richard Watts Charity, Fire Safety Service.

Neighbour notification letters have also been sent to:-

Ground floor Pentagon Centre: Co-op Bank, BSM, Supercuts, Samanthas, Peacocks, Post Office, The Works, Blue Inc, Select, Ann Summers, Early Learning Centre, New Look, Warren James, T-Mobile, Vodaphone, JD Sport, Carphone Warehouse, O2, Ernest Jones, Burtons/Dorothy Perkins, Shakin’ Shakes, Card Factory, Body Shop, 3 Store, Stead and Simpson, Bay Trading, W H Smith, Superdrug, Boots, Café Grill Room, Foot Locker, Orange, Birthdays, Claires, Game, Fragrance Shop, Wilkinson, Store Twenty One, Sainsburys, Etiquette Dry Cleaners, Subway, Bakers Oven, Azuri, Lenas Jewellery, Guardian Jewellery Co., BB’s Coffee and Muffin, No. 1 Gifts, Koolphones.com, Sky, Crystal Flower and Accessories, Miss NJIE Ltd, Cool Cones, Snack Shack, Latinos, JJB.

Pentagon Upper Floor: M and J Travel Accessories, Just Fabrics, Stars, Image Centre, Chatham Chinese Herbal Centre, La Villa Café, Kings Church Medway, Esquires, D & A Toys, Timpson, Arriva, NDa Clothing, Café Sinatra, Present Times.

Page 13 Military Road: Alton Ashby Solicitors, Fitness First, Robinson Michael and Jackson, Red Menswear, Adecco, William Hill, Greyfox, Your Move, Yorkshire Building Society, H Samuel, Halifax, Blueberry Park, Ward & Partners, Chatham Snooker Club, Money Shop, Connect Personnel Ltd, Mountbatten House.

Medway Street: William James Used Cars, Coombes of Medway, Times of Medway, Barton Car Sales, Mobile Music, BBC Radio Kent, Kent Cooling Direct, Weaverings, Piggys, The T-Shirt Shop, Print Buzz, Barneys of Chatham, Age Concern, Marriage Care, Relate Marriage Guidance.

The Brook: Army Careers, The Brook Theatre, Churchills Pub, Brook House, Job Centre. 8, 18 Hughes Drive, 9 Murray Road, 243, 246 City Way, 3 Sunnyhill Cottages, 11 Arthur Road, 59 Mill Road, 56 New Road, 42 Eva Road, 17 Castlemaine Avenue, 337 Walderslade Road, 3 Chattenden Terrace.

5 letters have been received raising concerns relating to:

• Impact on the Paddock that includes the loss of trees • The green area (which includes trees) opposite the Paddock will be lost • Loss of “assembly and leisure” area of approximately 164 square metres • Does not promote the integration of public transport – there is a considerable distance between the railway station and the planned bus station • No plans for separate storage and collection of recyclable waste • Not clear what will happen to Age Concern • There does not appear to be cycle lanes which are separated from the motorised transport • Increased pollution - due to travel from Medway Street along Globe Lane to Dock Road not possible, a long circular route to Dock Road will therefore be necessary • Loss of trees is wanton destruction and will cause environmental destruction • Riverside Park gives pleasure to people that use it, the bus station will reverse this process • A smaller bus station created on the site of the Globe Lane Car Park would be better placed • Blight Chatham's waterfront • Current bus station is satisfactory • Unrealistic option as shoppers will not want to walk that distance from the shopping centre to catch a bus • The riverside was supposed to be a focal point of Chatham in the new regeneration, this won’t be the case is this plan goes ahead • Contrary to the strategies and policies adopted by Medway Council. • Significant barrier between the Town Centre and Waterfront. This will be less pedestrian friendly than the current bus and traffic system and, as such, fails to achieve the main purpose for demolishing the John Hawkins Flyover and its ring road • The bus station will be partly built on the beautiful Waterfront Gardens, which are protected Open Space under the Medway Local Plan. Their loss will be a damaging blow to the centre of Chatham and will also affect views to and from Fort Amherst and the Great Lines

Page 14 • The planned bus station will be the cause of environmental degradation locally and more widely throughout the Medway Towns. • Having compared the plans for this bus station with the current Pentagon Bus Station - no confidence that this can work either in the short term and especially longer term. It is far too small and its facilities do not become an ambitious town seeking national recognition

Medway Urban Parks and Green Spaces Forum have written in with the following comment: The Forum notes with dismay the loss of public open space as a consequence of the plans for the new bus station Southern Gas Networks have written to advise that there is a Low/Medium/Intermediate Pressure gas main in the proximity of the site.

Southern Water Services has written to advise that there are services that could be affected by the proposals, which include a 300mm bonded asbestos water main and a waste water pumping station and rising main. Until such time that the proposals have been reviewed and the impact they could have on all the existing apparatus, Southern Water object to the current proposals.

Natural England has written to advise that they have no comments to make on this planning proposal.

Kent Police have written with the following comments:

I can confirm that we have no objection to the principle of the development and a number of pre-application meetings have taken place between Kent Police and representatives of Medway Renaissance and the architects/agents design team to potentially mitigate some of the factors raised in representations under the previous application. Additionally it has been indicated that as the proposal and design evolve dialogue will continue to take place and a commitment has been given that proposals are continuing to be formulated to ensure access routes serving the existing Pentagon Bus facility will be adequately restricted and secured once Bus operators vacate this location.

The incorporation of CCTV monitored primarily via the councils integrated town centre system both externally and internally (to Platforms/stands), design affording good surveillance both natural or formal, clearly defined routes, lighting to public spaces, highways and platform buildings, controlled access to Globe Lane car park from Globe Lane, audio and visual signage, reduced amounts of glazing and WCs positioned in the information centre are all beneficial.

The Design and access statement now includes some information on Safety and security measures.

Bus stand/Platform design – There will be expanses of glazing to these structures, although I understand glazing will not return fully to floor level and there will be no doors to close the individual buildings and no heating, but monitored CCTV will be present. This design may assist deter out of hours rough sleepers or congregation,

Page 15

particularly if seating is of a design that does not form benches that may allow sleeping or laying on. The use of laminated glass with structurally enhanced frames has also been suggested for consideration.

Similarly I note beneficial revisions to the design of buildings and the roofing structure, which will now not include metals returning to floor level at points, and in general the naturally finished metals (style that is to be decided) will not be easily accessible. Increasing commodity prices can see certain metals targeted for theft by criminals and it is suggested that use of various theft deterrent products and signage are applied to reduce the criminal attractiveness of any naturally finished metals (information has previously been supplied to applicants on products).

White House Building - it is recommended that a central station monitored alarm system is incorporated to this building, to give earliest notification of potential unauthorized access, criminal attempt or similar.

Northeast and Northwest elevations incorporate railings/brick work infill and these are indicated to be set back within the existing arched opening. It is recommended that recessed areas within these openings are avoided or limited to a maximum 600mm deep to reduce opportunity for congregation, damage or forced access. If the railings/brick work could be situated as close to the front build line as possible and not set back to far this may assist.

Suitably robust access control should be deployed within the building to ensure unauthorized persons cannot access internal spaces or secure areas, such as CCTV room or staff locker areas.

Information centre – it is recommended that a central station monitored alarm system and CCTV coverage are incorporated to this building, to give the earliest notification of potential unauthorized access, criminal attempt or similar. Panic alarm buttons are also suggested for the sales area.

The potential use of naturally finished metal to the rear of this building may beneficially be protected by the use of anti graffiti coatings, application of theft deterrent products, or creating a degree of set back so that persons do not have immediate access to the build line, this could be created by different textured surface treatments, defensive planting, landscaping or similar.

It is further suggested that consideration be given for part of this building to be designated for a shared Community Safety Partnership point, that may if necessary be available for use by Medway Councils Community Safety Officers or Medway Police Neighbourhood policing team (or other CSP partners that may benefit from using it) that operate in the locality.

If inclusion of this facility is not possible then as a minimum it is recommended that as part of the combined Community Safety Partnership working and to assist provide the public and users with relevant information on safety, local issues and reassurance the necessary infrastructure is incorporated and secured (potentially via

Page 16 S106 condition) to ensure the Community Safety TV/Instant messaging service can be relayed to the various visual screens providing passenger information within the Platforms, Stands and Information centre.

Vehicular Access – There are no significant observations or additions in respect of information provided within the documents or at previous meetings. However care will need to be exercised to ensure road markings, coloured surface treatments, surface and raised directional and prohibitive signage is clear and that the facility and its routes are consistently monitored to ensure only permitted vehicles or users access designated areas and where necessary, any appropriate highway enforcement measures are implemented. It will also be important to ensure that vehicles accessing/exiting the down sized Globe Lane car park are clearly directed to this via Medway Street rather than them reaching the secondary emergency entrance/exit with turning head at Globe Lane.

Landscaping – Any planting/landscaping should be designed in conjunction with the CCTV and lighting proposed and also the need to maximise surveillance opportunities both into and out of the bus station and reconfigured car park. It is suggested that shrubs and ground covering plants are maintained below a maximum growth height of 1metre, whilst trees, where possible, have canopies raised above 2.4metres to assist maintain a clear field of vision around the site and deter persons climbing via these onto other structures. Similarly trees should not shroud lighting sources and diminish lighting levels. Hard landscaping and street furnishing must be robust, securely fixed to prevent removal, vandalism or use as potential ammunition. A suitable management and maintenance programme will be required to ensure planting is well maintained and any repairs or remedial works are carried out promptly.

Kent Police Counter Terrorism Security advisor has raised the following observations:

From a counter terrorism point of view this design is an improvement on its predecessor as the amount of glazing has been significantly reduced.

The international terrorist threat to the UK is currently assessed by the Joint Terrorism Analysis (JTAC) to be “Substantial”. This is a high level of threat and means that an attack, which could occur without warning, is a strong possibility.

Crowded places remain attractive for international terrorists because they are (typically) a soft target that enables the terrorists to easily pursue their aim of high- impact, mass-casualty attacks.

Attacks by international terrorists are most likely to involve the use of improvised explosive devices, of which the three main types are – person borne (suicide devices on the person), vehicle borne (which may be suicide devices) or hand delivered (non-suicide devices initiated typically by timer or remote control).

As I stated in my last report, the majority of casualties from a terrorist explosion are caused by secondary fragmentation. This includes glazing, cladding and another loose or weak material that can be dislodged by the force of the pressure wave from

Page 17 an explosion. The use of laminated glazing with structurally enhanced frames will help to reduce these casualties by helping to contain the glass in the event of an explosion.

Other factors that would reduce the bus station’s vulnerability to a terrorist attack include-

• Reducing the number of places where a device could be concealed e.g. making sure that grit boxes are flush with the building line and secured or sealed with tamper evident labels. • Ensure that cycle racks/storage are positioned away from bus stands, waiting areas, entrances, platforms and large windows. • Make sure the keys to lockers are controlled by the operator so that they can be searched in the event of a bomb threat. • Board or seal up voids e.g. under vending machines • Ensuring all non public areas are access controlled • Toilet facilities should be designed to minimise the areas for concealment.

I hope that the applicant will be able to consider the aforementioned suggestions in light of my comments, and incorporate as many of the recommendations as possible. From a counter-terrorism protective security perspective these changes would lead to significant improvements; and would be a welcome addition to the work we are doing to protect the public.

That said, the methodology I have employed to evaluate the overall risk to this site involves assessing the vulnerability of the proposed development to a terrorist attack, considering the terrorist threat at this moment in time, and gauging the impact of any attack. Taking into account this overall view of the risk, I do not consider the changes I have suggested to be the highest priority.

Kent County Council Archaeological Officer has written with the following comments:

The general historical development of the application site remains largely the same as that in my letter of 20th May 2009 relating to the earlier scheme. I am therefore not repeating my earlier discussion of the history of the site, however in summary I suggest that the specific presently identified potential of the development site relates to:

1. Buried remains of the medieval Land Wall and earlier street deposits associated with the development of Globe Lane

2. Well preserved and waterlogged remains associated with the former mill-ponds, tidal and water management systems and potentially earlier unrecorded mill- buildings. The deliberately in-filled former mill-ponds may contain significant and interesting deposits.

3. Remains, especially in the northern part of the development site near The White House, relating to the early defences of Chatham dockyard. Such remains are potentially of national significance. A plan of the Ordnance Wharf area dated 1763

Page 18 shows a bastioned outwork flanking the road to the dockyard which appears to extend into the application site.

4. Buried remains of the former New Gun Wharf and neighbouring civilian areas, including former buildings, tramways and other walls and surfaces. As well as upstanding surviving buildings belonging to the former ordnance facility which survive at the site.

5. Deeply buried palaeoenvironmental deposits associated with the development of the River Medway and The Brook (Old Bourne).

As per the previous application I am generally limiting my comments to the implications of the scheme on buried archaeological remains and on the impacts of the scheme on the standing buildings which are proposed for demolition and/or conversion. However as you are aware there are a number of complex issues relating to the wider Historic Environment, including changes to the historic street pattern, the effects of the development on our ability to read and understand the physical development of Chatham, and the impacts on the setting of nearby Scheduled Ancient Monuments. English Heritage will take the lead on these aspects and I understand that Peter Kendall has already provided you with advice on their behalf. I would note however that we fully support the comments which English Heritage have made.

It is clear that the site has the potential to include important buried archaeological remains from a number of periods. I recommend that a number of conditions to secure evaluation, mitigation and recording of archaeological remains as well as recording of the standing buildings proposed for demolition and conversion would be appropriate.

English Heritage have written with the following comments:-

We discussed some of the background to this proposal at the pre-application stage. In the following response I have taken it as a given that the Globe Lane site is the only one now being considered for the new bus station. This should not be interpreted as meaning that English Heritage think this is the most appropriate site for a public transport interchange.

In providing advice on the historic environment issues raised by this proposal I intend to concentrate on its implications for

• undesignated visible historic features • the setting of the adjacent conservation area and scheduled monuments • the buffer zone of the proposed world heritage site • buried undesignated archaeological remains.

The revised proposal preserves much of the historic road network that originates in the military planning of Chatham after 1803 and which continues to shape the character of the town to this day. We are pleased to note that only modest change is now proposed to the space known as The Paddock and this is welcome. Significant change is proposed to the current alignment of Globe Lane and with this to the land

Page 19 immediately to its west forming part of the former New Gunwharf. Globe Lane has a long history and during this has changed in character and alignment. We recognise that it will remain a route way even though as part of the bus facility and this is helpful in permitting some representation of how this part of Chatham developed over time. Most of the evidence for New Gunwharf has been reduced to buried remains and we have previously indicated that archaeological recording is an appropriate response, including of the standing building that is to be lost. We welcome retention of the White House which dates to 1816. Taken as a whole we consider that the revised scheme is more sympathetic to the historic environment than the previous proposal.

There are elements of the proposal that we do not think have been given full consideration in the application. This includes the view of the proposed facility from within the Brompton Lines conservation area and from the vantage points that were deliberately created in the scheduled monument of Chatham Lines (Fort Amherst). These impacts on setting are a material consideration for planning permission and we recommend that you should satisfy yourselves that they are acceptable. For similar reasons some mention of the buffer zone of the proposed world heritage site is we think justified and you should be certain that the project is of a quality required if Chatham is to become such a site. The buffer zone is not however intended to be a place in which all significant change should be resisted.

The proposal has the potential to do harm to buried archaeological remains associated with the ordnance site and possibly for much older remains. This potential harm is to be clarified through further investigation but it is already clear that a programme of archaeological works condition is required and should be integrated with a requirement to record the undesignated historic buildings.

The proposed new bus facility is now smaller and of a different design. It has been shifted westwards so that the open space of The Paddock formed by the road network that came fully into being as a result of the early 19th century refortification of Chatham survives largely unaltered. The existing alignment of Globe Lane will be changed but this will remain a roadway serving the bus station. This is important given the longevity of this route, which stretches back to the late medieval period. The Paddock, Military Road and Globe Lane though undesignated are important components of the history of Chatham and the revised scheme mostly permits their retention. The majority of the proposed bus station is now located on the former site of the New Gunwharf which was itself a product of the same early 19th century expansion of the military facilities at Chatham that created the road network. New Gunwharf was largely cleared of its Ordnance Board buildings after 1945 and whilst this creates archaeological implications that are described below, there is no longer a strong military character such as buildings behind a high boundary wall that the bus station should respect. The west side of Globe Lane has been subject to major change and so a new bus station here does not do significant harm to an ability to understand New Gunwharf. There are ordnance related buildings that survive on the site. The smaller example known as Riverside Rooms is proposed for demolition. We do not object to this providing there is a programme of building recording before the building is lost. The more significant historic building on the site is known as the White House and is the residence built for a senior Ordnance Board officer in 1816. We are pleased that the intention is to keep this building and re-use it as part of the

Page 20 bus facility. The setting of this undesignated building will be substantially altered on its south east side. We have seen the condition survey of the house and think that it is clearly capable of repair and re-use. Additional building recording may be required for this building depending on the extent of the change that its repair and adaptation necessitates.

The application site is not within the Brompton Lines conservation area that is designated to take in the garrison area of Chatham including its barracks, fortifications and Gunwharf. Similarly the proposal does not directly affect either of the two scheduled monuments that have been designated for the southern end of the Chatham Lines and Fort Amherst. The monument of the Barrier Ditch south of Dock Road is the closest to the application site. The closest listed building to the proposed bus facility is the grade II listed former Town Hall which forms a group with other undesignated but nevertheless historic buildings including the Royal Marine school of 1879. A material consideration for the planning application is thus the impact of the proposal on the setting of these designated historic assets but not on the designated sites themselves. We have not identified a need for scheduled monument consent but the proximity to the scheduled Barrier Ditch should be noted with care during any construction works.

The supporting statement with the planning application refers to a "key view" into the Brompton Lines conservation area from the south west corner of the Globe Lane car park. Whilst it is currently possible from here to gain an appreciation of the impressive range of military structures as they rise up the escarpment this is not a view that has specific historic significance and indeed it possibly did not exist at key stages in the past history of the site. More to the point we can find no consideration in the statement of views from the high vantage points within the fortifications looking to the application site. This appears to us to be a regrettable omission. The fortifications in particular were designed with both panoramic views over the town and river at Chatham and to have defined lines of sight or gunfire. In determining this application we think that you should satisfy yourselves about the views of it from historically significant places. Looking down on the roof from the heights is one key way that the bus station will be perceived. We note that sedum roofs are proposed which might help these to read as green alongside the retained open space of The Paddock but we are not clear what material is proposed for the edges of the roofs. We have not reviewed the design of the new bus related structures in detail as these are not in a conservation area and so the need not to do harm to or to enhance the historic character or appearance of the site is not the same as if they were.

Another thing that we have noted as missing from the planning statement is any reference to the proposed world heritage site at Chatham. We acknowledge that this is only a proposal and not a secured status and that even if secured such a designation would not introduce additional statutory controls. Nevertheless we think it should be made clear that the application site lies within the buffer zone of the proposed world heritage site. I want to be clear that this consideration is very definitely not a justification for resisting all change. The issue is I think one of your council being satisfied that the application is compatible with the aspiration for world heritage site status and in what could be a critical period for nomination and assessment to know that the result will be of sufficient quality for an area that aspires to this status. This requires a good standard of design and materials that are well

Page 21 integrated with their surrounds. I think the revised proposals are more likely to deliver this than the earlier scheme. How a new bus facility is integrated with the major programme for change established for the riverside, including flood protection measures will be critical to how this part of a possible buffer zone is perceived. The present green space of Riverside Gardens is of only relatively recent creation and different to the historic use of the site but is nevertheless an open character valued by many.

Our last consideration is the impact of construction upon undesignated buried archaeological remains. We have discussed this on several occasions and I can confirm that although I have made some comments on the Cultural Heritage Statement and Archaeological Impact Assessment (as prepared by Wessex Archaeology) I am content that these can be used by you as the basis for deciding archaeological issues. The proposal is for a programme of archaeological works condition to secure recording of archaeological evidence that would be lost as a result of this development. I am supporting Ben Found of Kent County Council's Heritage Conservation team to provide advice on this aspect to you. We are liaising with Wessex Archaeology towards a programme of works that would appropriately mitigate the harm that construction might do. This takes in the inclusion of archaeological concerns with the geo-technical ground investigations now proposed on the site. These will help us to respond to issues that at present relate to unconfirmed archaeological potential such as the deepest excavation required for the service diversion corridor or the single deep pit needed for the proposed buried pump in proximity to an area mapped as having been a military outwork. Archaeological recording will be required, both in relation to the standing buildings from the Ordnance Board use and the near certain presence of sub surface remains of similar buildings and possibly much older evidence of use or occupation so close to the river edge.

English Heritage does not wish to object to this application. We think that it raises issues for the historic environment that need some additional consideration, if only to be clear that these are not sufficiently serious to require further design changes. We have made some recommendations about matters that should be controlled through condition and subject to this being done and your council being satisfied about the issues we have raised we think this application could now be determined.

We expect to be involved in this project should it receive planning permission in order to assist you to resolve archaeological recording issues and we would also be content to look at any additional or amended information that might be provided in support of the current design.

Two letters of support has been received from Arriva Southern Counties and Nu- Venture Coaches Ltd making the following comments in support of the proposal:

Arriva have written with the following comments:

• Arriva support the application for a new bus station in the area proposed. We are sure that this will be a substantial improvement for our customers and your residents compared with the current outdated Pentagon arrangements • Welcome the fact that the White House will be available for uses related to the

Page 22 bus station, which will provide the opportunity for effective and efficient management of the operation • Good pedestrian accessibility is a key requirement and we hope there will be flexibility in acceptance of solutions that best meet the need • Concerns that the new station will be unable to meet the potential future demand for bus services. Believe that the proposed dynamic system will assist in the immediate term. However, concerns are for future years as regeneration schemes come to fruition. Developing space close to the rail station for use as further bus stops would also enable the capacity of the bus station to be increased as we will be able to extend some services there thus reducing the need for recovery time to be taken in the bus station • Support the allocation of the irregular and coach services to the Waterfront Way stops rather than the core bus station • Welcome the opportunity to provide a well-designed bus station with all services in close proximity to each other, with high quality facilities for users.

Nu-venture Coaches Ltd have written with the following comments:

• Current bus terminal arrangements in central Chatham are not co-ordinated, and far from passenger-friendly. The proposed new facility provides the opportunities to co-ordinate all regular bus services at a single location with attractive, modern and a safe waiting and information facilities, a true gateway to the “new” Chatham • The facility as now proposed has a limited capacity compared to previous plans, and will undoubtly need to be extended to cope with any future expansion plans, and will undoubtly need to be extended to cope with any future expansion of bus services in Medway, such as daily Park and Ride operations and new services which are an integral part of expected developments such as Rochester Riverside.

Development Plan Policies

The following Central Government guidance is relevant:

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres) PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) PPG13 (Transport) PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning) PPG17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPG23 (Planning and Pollution Control) PPG24 (Planning and Noise) PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk)

South East plan 2009

Policy T1 (Manage and Invest) Policy T2 (Mobility Management) Policy T5 (Travel Plans and Advice) Policy BE1 (Management for an Urban Renaissance)

Page 23 Policy BE6 (Management of the Historic Environment) Policy NRM4 (Sustainable Flood Risk Management) Policy NRM10 (Noise) Policy KTG1 (Core Strategy) Policy KTG6 (Flood Risk)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy S4 (Landscape and urban design) Policy S5 (Medway’s “City” Centre) Policy BNE1 (General principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise standards) Policy BNE5 (Lighting) Policy BNE6 (Landscape Design) Policy BNE7 (Access for all) Policy BNE12 (Conservations Areas) Policy BNE18 (Setting of Listed Buildings) Policy BNE20 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) Policy BNE21 (Archaeological sites) Policy BNE22 (Environmental Enhancement) Policy BNE23 (Contamination) Policy BNE24 (Air Quality) Policy BNE37 (Wildlife habitats) Policy BNE39 (Protected Species) Policy BNE43 (Trees and Development sites) Policy L3 (Protection of open space) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T5 (Bus Preference Measures) Policy T6 (Provision for Public Transport) Policy T18 (New Transport Infrastructure) Policy T22 (Provision for People with Disabilities) Policy CF13 (Tidal Flood Risk Areas)

Chatham Centre and Waterfront Development Brief (August 2008)

The site lies within the buffer zone of a candidate World Heritage Site (WHS) and proposed Great Lines Park.

Planning Appraisal

The determining issues in relation to this application relate to:

• History • Principle of Development • Layout • Architectural Form • Historic Environment

Page 24 • Archaeology • Ecology • Trees • Flood Risk • Air Quality • Contaminated Land • Noise • Amenity Considerations • Highways

History

In June 2004, Medway Council adopted the Chatham Centre and Waterfront Development Framework as supplementary planning guidance to the adopted Medway Local Plan. This document proposed a bus facility in the Sir John Hawkins Way area.

In May 2006 EDAW were appointed to work with the Council to co-ordinate the master planning of key sites to produce the Chatham Centre and Waterfront Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). During the public consultation exercise carried out on the SPD for Chatham there was significant support for improved bus facilities in Chatham including a replacement for the existing Bus Station. However many felt that the proposed site at Sir John Hawkins Way was not ideal. Many felt it was too far from the Pentagon Centre and in a location that would not encourage greater use in the evenings. The owners of the Pentagon Centre also expressed concerns that the relocation of the Bus Station was too far from the centre. An alternative location for the bus facility on The Paddock was proposed.

On 16 October 2007 Cabinet resolved to undertake a consultation exercise to gauge public opinion over the proposed location of a new bus facility on The Paddock with the results of this reported back to Cabinet in November 2007.

In December 2007 Cabinet agreed to the principle of the bus facility being located within a zone centred on Globe Lane and Sir John Hawkins Way. Officers considered a comprehensive range of options for the bus facility within this zone. These decisions were subsequently called into a meeting of the Regeneration and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 8 January 2008.

The options were as follows:

Option 1 Pentagon Centre – The existing bus station, included for the purposes of comparison with the proposed options. It is a “do nothing “ option.

Option 2 The Paddock – Comprising 4 platforms incorporating 4 bus stands each and 5 layover bays, designed to be fully dynamically operated.

Option 3 Half Paddock/Globe Lane – Based on the same basic design as option 2 but centred on the current alignment of Globe Lane.

Page 25 Option 4 Globe Land Island/Linear – Comprises a smaller station building, but due to its smaller size bus stands must also be incorporated along the roadside. Operating partially dynamically.

Option 5 Linear – No station building at all and instead provides the requited number of bus stands along the roadside. It cannot operate dynamically.

Option 6 Globe Lane Car Park/Riverside Gardens – Based on the same basic design as option 2. It can be varied to provide 2 platforms or 8 stands each instead of the 4 platforms of 4 stands shown in option 2.

Option 7 Sir John Hawkins Way site – The original proposal and was consulted upon in June 2007. Compromises a station building on the car park site, which is capable of operating partially dynamically, although some roadside stands are also required on Sir John Hawkins Way to provide the necessary capacity, which do not operate dynamically.

Several criteria were used to draw conclusions about the suitability of each option to include: facility operation, facility size/walk distances, provision of support facilities, vehicle/taxi/pedestrians/cycle routes, security/safety, passenger usability, public open space/green space, development opportunities, historical/heritage impact, response to existing and future context, response to “Vision for Chatham”, service diversions and cost/programming/phasing.

In summary no one option performed well against all of the criteria however it was concluded that option 4 best protected The Paddock, minimised loss of developable area, retained a good location close to the Pentagon and still gave an opportunity for a distinctive bus facility. It was subsequently recommended that Option 4 was progressed to detailed design and a planning application submitted.

The cabinet decision on the 19 February 2008 was to agree the principle of locating the bus facility on the site referred to in the options appraisal in the report as number 4 – Globe Land Island/Linear.

On 24 June 2008 a further report was presented to Cabinet under the title “Chatham Road Scheme” where it was reported that further detailed design work was undertaken on the bus facility. It was reported to Cabinet that this resulted in a minor realignment to the bus facility layout in order to avoid significant sewer diversion costs. Cabinet were advised that the proposed layout was still in the Globe Lane location as previously approved and was still designed in an “island” configuration with dynamic station operation but that the layout of the facility encroaches slightly onto a small area of The Paddock along the length of Globe Lane.

The plan (rev B 06 June 2008) showing the siting of the bus facility approved by Cabinet does not show details of the platform buildings which as set out on the previous application drawings cut further into The Paddock, Riverside Gardens and The Globe Lane Car park.

The cabinet decision on the 24 June 2008 was to approve the final layout for the bus station (refer to plan rev B 06 June 2008), subject to the Council, as landowners,

Page 26 advertising the appropriation of that part of the proposed site currently forming open space to bus facility and delegated authority to the Director of Regeneration Community and Culture, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders, to issue the relevant advertisement and consider any objections and determine whether or not to appropriate the land.

Following this sequence of events the application for a dynamic bus station was considered by the Development Control Committee on 12 August 2009 with a recommendation for approval. Amongst other things Members raised concerns about the extent of the proposal on existing mature trees and loss of amenity space on The Paddock. As such, the committee deferred the application to allow the Applicant to consider alternative solutions and revise the scheme to address these concerns. In response to the committee resolution the original proposals have been the subject of a significant design review to attempt to overcome the concerns expressed by Members and provide a solution that enables The Paddock to be retained in its current form.

A second scheme was presented to Cabinet on 24 November 2009, which is essentially the same as that which forms the basis of this planning application. This was approved, subject to the Council, as landowners, advertising in the local press in accordance with s123 (2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 and delegated authority to the Director of Regeneration Community and Culture, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders, to issue the relevant advertisement and consider any objections and determine whether or not to appropriate the land. The previous application (MC/09/0460) has now been withdrawn by the applicants.

Principle of development

The requirement to re-locate the bus facility out of the Pentagon Centre and to create a dynamic bus facility within Chatham Centre is set out in the adopted Chatham Waterfront brief and Development Framework and is included in the Councils LTP. It is also a Council and Government priority and £6m of HCA finance has been allocated for the proposed development.

The application site falls within land designated in the Medway Local Plan as protected open space and is covered by policy L3. The applicants have supported their application with an open space statement. A desk top study was undertaken within the site area and an assessment of the existing open space provision was also undertaken for River Ward, which the site falls within. A qualitative and quantitative assessment were undertaken to identify the potential impact of the proposed development in the existing open space provision within the site.

The applicants have used the Medway Open Space Strategy and 2001 Census in their assessments and advised that in the Medway Open Space Strategy there is a provision of 1,909,63 ha of open space within Medway of which 179 ha of green space (excluding domestic gardens) is found in the River Ward (as recorded in January 2005). The total population figure for River Ward was 8,147 people (June 2007). The Medway Open Space Strategy calculates the provision of open space in line with the National Playing Field Standards (NPFS) and therefore these standards have been adopted as part of the overall qualitative assessment.

Page 27

The Site comprises the following areas of soft and hard landscaping:

Location Landscaping Type Area Riverside Soft landscaping 2,023 sq m Gardens Hard Landscaping 1,152 sq m The Paddock Soft Landscaping 171 sq m Hard landscaping 156 sq m Globe Lane Hard landscaping 3,410 sq m Short Stay Car Park

Turning to the qualitative assessment, the site obtained reasonably high scores in regards to the quality and value audit. It was determined that there is sufficient car parking and disabled car parking located within close proximity to the Site at Globe Lane short stay car park and the Pentagon Shopping Centre. Accessibility and movement within the Site for disabled badge holders, cyclists and parents with buggies is considered suitable due to the site being relativity flat in nature and containing well maintained footpaths.

It is considered that the position of Globe Lane and Military Road currently discourages pedestrian movement between the existing areas of open space as current volumes of traffic disrupt safe connectivity. The structural features of the open space such as boundaries and street furniture are considered to be of a fair quality/design. With reference to health and safety, the Site is currently served by lighting within the green spaces, particularly along the internal paths. In addition to the above, the audit also concluded that the Site has good recreational and play value for younger children. The Site also has value in regards to the contribution to historic, local amenity and ecological and biodiversity value. Overall, the areas of existing open space within the Site benefit from good planting conditions for trees and good pedestrian links to Chatham Centre and surrounding historical attractions. However it was determined that the surrounding highway network and current volumes of traffic on Globe Lane detract from these green spaces due to pollution from sources such as noise and car fumes.

With regard to the provision of open space, where existing facilities are to be lost to development, Policy L3 of the Adopted Local Plan places a requirement on the developer to provide alternative open space provision within the same catchment area to an acceptable standard in terms of amenity value.

The proposed development for a new bus facility will result in an addition of 169 sq. m of soft landscaping. This has been achieved through the rationalization of Globe Lane and the conversion of the southern end of Globe Lane car park to soft landscaping. The new landscaping area will form an extension to Riverside Gardens and it is considered help to compensate for the loss of the southern part of Riverside Gardens to accommodate the proposed development.

Overall the provision of hard and soft landscaping space for the proposed development is illustrated in the table below:-

Page 28 Nature of Open Existing Post Difference Space Provision Developme +/- Provision (square nt (square metres) metres) Green 2,194 sq m 2,363 + 169 Landscaping Hard 1,308 sq m 2,488 + 1180 Landscaping

The applicants consider that in terms of impact on the open space provision in River ward, there is an existing provision of 179 ha of open space, which equates to approximately 22 ha per 1,000 population which is in excess of the NPFA Standards. The proposed development will result in a further increase of soft landscaping and high quality hard landscaping therefore, the development will have a positive effect on the overall supply of open space at a local and ward level.

Riverside Gardens is currently highly accessible by all members of the community. The proposed development will seek to maintain the existing pedestrian network connecting Riverside Gardens and the Pentagon Shopping Centre, via the Paddock, by the creation of pedestrian/cycle crossings through the proposed bus facility.

Due to the proposed development encroaching into the southern area of Riverside Gardens, replacement provision will be provided through the change of use of on existing car parking area to soft landscaping. Additionally, in order to protect the visual amenity of the area the proposed development will seek to retain the majority of the existing trees on the site. However, where trees are planned for removal, they are proposed to be replaced on 2:1 ratio.

In summary the applicant’s open space statement concludes that the proposed development will not result in a net loss of open space and that there will be an overall increase in open space provision through the conversion of the southern end of Globe Lane car park to soft landscaping which will maintain the existing character of the area and the proposal is in accordance with policy L3 of the Medway Local Plan.

Layout

The size of the bus station, with thirteen stands, is dictated by operational needs. This produces a bus station that has large footprint relative to the size of the green space of New Gun Wharf. However, a substantial part of the bus station will be built over existing car parks, and its footprint is not substantially bigger than existing hard standing areas.

The hard landscaping is proposing to use high quality paving, with crossing points at each end of the proposed bus station, which has been designed in so far as is possible to allow easy pedestrian connections from Chatham centre through the bus station to the river. The removal of all but bus and taxi traffic will also assist this connection. Overall, in this respect, the layout allows better pedestrian connections to the river than are available at present.

Page 29 Due to the complexity of the scheme it is recommended that a five year time condition is applied to any consent.

Architectural form

The architectural form of the bus station complex has been carefully thought out. The revised scheme minimises the footprint of the built structures through reducing the number of stands. The basic design has larger platforms closest to the Pentagon with large canopies a minimum of 6m in height which allows the roof structures to over sail the bus bays, the roofs are proposed to contain sedum with the intention being to mitigate the impact of this complex on the open space of new Gun Wharf and on the settings of Fort Amherst and the Brook Theatre, particularly when seen from above. The 13 bus stands have been designed to maximise transparency and convenience. The facility is partially enclosed and entrances have been located to maximise pedestrian flows and connectivity.

There is no doubt that the architecture of the buildings will be an interesting and dramatic intervention upon the green space of The Paddock and Gun Wharf. Existing mature trees will reinforce the architectural concept and will contrast effectively with the architecture.

The drawings show barriers around the perimeter of the bus stands and along the edge of The Paddock where it abuts the bus station. Whilst this may be important for safety reasons it has the potential to undermine the architectural concept. It is important that the barriers are carefully designed. A specification of the barriers is recommended to be conditioned on any approval.

Careful detailing will be necessary to ensure that the roofs are as graceful and attractive as possible and that the bus stands appear elegant and that the detailing is correctly finished. It is therefore recommended construction details through the bus station canopies above ground level, to include eaves, supporting structure and glazed screens, should be submitted as a condition of planning permission.

Hard Landscape

In general the hard landscaping materials are plain but high quality. The landscape statement includes information on hard landscape finishes, street furniture and guard rails however no detailed specifications or samples have been provided. It is important that these details and materials are high quality and it is therefore recommended that a condition is added to any approval to ensure this is controlled.

Soft landscape

The general concept of the scheme is to achieve the impression of a continuous landscape; this will be achieved by the retention of the mature trees on both sides of the bus station, plus the addition of tree planting on Riverside Gardens and some tree planting in the middle of the bus station. This concept is strongly supported. A condition is therefore recommended to consider landscaping in more detail. No planting details/specification have been submitted for shrub planting areas it is therefore recommended that this is conditioned on any approval.

Page 30

A Beech hedge with gaps is proposed along the edge of the new aligned car park. This is an interesting concept and if carried out correctly could add to the character of the area. It is considered that this may require an internal steel wire fence to ensure successful establishment and protect from erosion and damage, it is therefore recommended that this is covered by the landscape condition.

Archaeology

The application site is centred on the roads of Globe Lane and Military Road and the area of open land, known as Riverside Gardens, which is the site of the former New Gun Wharf. These roads and open-spaces are important to the understanding of the development of the modern-day town of Chatham especially given their position at the interface between former military and civilian areas.

Globe Lane is the earliest of these components to develop, its alignment being clearly shown on an early map of the area dated 1633. Military Road is a far more recent creation, although is equally significant, as its name suggests, it was constructed as a defendable route by the military to connect Fort Amherst with Fort Pitt via the (now demolished) Gibraltar Tower.

The White House and the smaller building (proposed for demolition) both relate to the use of the site as an ordnance facility – the former being used for officer’s accommodation and the latter likely an office building.

The potential for buried archaeology on the development site relates to:

• Buried remains of the medieval Land Wall and earlier street deposits associated with the development of Globe Lane.

• Well preserved and waterlogged remains associated with the former mill-ponds, tidal and water management systems and potentially earlier unrecorded mill- buildings. The deliberately in-filled former mill-ponds may contain significant and interesting deposits.

• Remains, especially in the northern part of the development site near The White House, relating to the early defences of Chatham dockyard. Such remains are potentially of national significance. A plan of the Ordnance Wharf area dated 1763 shows a bastioned outwork flanking the road to the dockyard, which appears to extend into the application site.

• Buried remains of the former New Gun Wharf, including former buildings, tramways and other walls and surfaces. As well as upstanding surviving buildings belonging to the former ordnance facility.

• Deeply buried palaeoenvironmental deposits associated with the development of the River Medway and The Brook (Old Bourne).

It is clear that the site has the potential to include important buried archaeological remains from a number of periods. A report by WA Heritage on the potential impact

Page 31 of the proposed scheme on sub-surface remains associated with a pre-nineteenth century ravelin (shown on contemporary mapping and formed part of the landward defences of Chatham Dockyard) has been submitted. A map of 1763 shows that a substantial bastioned outwork formed part of the defences here and map analysis suggests that this would seem to have extended into the north-west corner of the present site. Should buried remains associated with this outwork survive at the site these would be of national importance and should be preserved in situ.

The WA Heritage report notes that the current nature and land-use of the site as well as the presence of services means that archaeological evaluation of this potential prior to determination of the application could not be readily achieved. Kent County Council’s Archaeological Officer has advised that providing the applicant can confirm that there is sufficient flexibility in the scheme to allow such important archaeological remains to be preserved in situ, the mitigation of the archaeological potential of the site can be secured through carefully worded conditions. As such, a number of conditions to secure evaluation, mitigation and recording of archaeological remains as well as recording of the undesignated buildings proposed for demolition and conversion are recommended.

Ecology

The major habitat on the site by area is roads, pavements and car parks. Parkland and scattered trees occupy most of the remainder of the site. The parkland consists of part of Riverside gardens. The Medway mudflats, approx. 80m to the north west of the site are a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. Within 500m of the site is the Great Lines Local Wildlife Site and approx. 1.6km to the north of the site is the nearest SSSI Tower Hill to Cookham Wood. No protected species of plants were recorded during the Ecological Assessment.

Birds observed on the site in The Paddock and in Riverside Gardens included Blackbird, Chaffinch, Great tit, Pied wagtail, Song thrush, Starling, Black Headed gull, Herring gull, Feral pigeon and Mute swan. No other fauna was observed. Owing to the potential presence of bats and the proposed removal of mature trees, the refurbishment of the White House, and demolition of the building occupied by Age Concern a Bat survey was carried out in September 2008, supplemented by further surveys in August and November 2009. Emergence surveys (dawn and dusk) were performed on the Age Concern building and a visual assessment and internal inspection of The White House were undertaken along with a visual assessment of the adjacent trees.

The report concluded that no signs of roosting bats were found in the Age Concern building during the emergence and dawn and dusk surveys. No signs of bat activity were found during the internal inspection of The White House.

Although the site appears to have some potential for bats to use for feeding, linear feature connections to more significant feeding areas appear to be poor. This makes the buildings less likely to be attractive to bats as roost sites.

Page 32

Recommendations that arose as a result of these surveys include:

• Bat boxes to be erected to replace potential roosting sites lost to the development • Lighting across the site should be designed with bats in mind.

The ecological report advised that all scrub and tree clearance should be kept to a minimum with clearance ideally undertaken outside the bird-breeding season. If scrub or trees are to be removed within the bird-breeding season, then breeding bird surveys are required and the necessary mitigation measures put in place.

Taking both the ecological and bat surveys into account it is recommended that a number of conditions are applied to any approval to ensure that the ecology on the site is preserved and/or enhanced. It is therefore considered that the development is in accordance with policies BNE37 and BNE39 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Trees

Trees growing within the site boundary contribute significantly to the visual amenities of the area and the application needs to be considered against policies BNE6 and BNE43 of the local plan. Criteria (iv) of local plan policy BNE6 states that major developments should have regard to retaining important existing landscape features, including trees where they are well related to open space features in the locality and policy BNE43 states that development should seek to retain trees that provide a valuable contribution to local character. This scheme differs from that previously considered through the retention of many of the trees. In total five trees will be lost on The Paddock (3 Red Chestnut, 1 Ash and 1 Fox glove) and a further thirteen trees will be removed from the Riverside Gardens (1 Red Chestnut, 3 Lawson Cypress, 1 Hawthorn, 3 Sycamore, 2 Cherry, 2 Norway Maple, and 1 Holly) and one tree on The Brook (1 Hawthorne). None of them are protected by TPO’s. Obviously the removal of these trees will have an impact on the visual amenities of the area, but to try and overcome this a total of thirty-eight new trees are proposed to be planted. The plans show that five of these trees will be planted on The Paddock (Gingko biloba), five in the centre of the Dynamic Bus Facility (species not determined) and twenty-eight on the open space associated with Riverside Gardens (Acer campestre, Carpinus betulus and Fraxinus excelsior). It is considered that the species proposed for The Paddock are suitable but that those on the Riverside Gardens need to be modified; it is therefore considered that a suitably worded condition should be added to any approval.

A new pedestrian access is proposed for the northern end of the Paddock to link The Paddock to the Dynamic Bus Facility and onto the Riverside Gardens. This construction necessitates the loss of tree T29 (as numbered on the submitted plans), but may also have an adverse affect on tree T28 (both Red Chestnut trees) that is identified for retention. It is considered that a suitably worded condition should be added to any approval to ensure that T28 is retained.

Page 33 While the applicant has provided a proposed outline planting plan some of the details of tree species have not been provided together with details of root treatment, planting pit details and means of tree support together with short to medium term maintenance, it is therefore recommended that a suitably worded condition is added to any approval to ensure.

Subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions the development is considered to be in accordance with policies BNE6 and BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Flood Risk

Chatham waterfront has been developed in an ad-hoc manner over a long period of time. Many natural creeks have been in-filled and streams and rivers culverted with piped drainage used to carry surface water out to the River Medway.

The Environment Agency’s indicative flood maps were updated on their website in December 2007 and show the site within Flood Zone 3a (high risk). It has been confirmed that there are no flood alleviation measures currently in place and the site is not shown to be within an area benefiting from flood defences.

The Medway Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) has identified that there are two main sources of flooding applicable to any development proposed for the Chatham Town Centre and Waterfront sites, these being tidal and surface water. The SFRA also states that it is anticipated that tidal flooding will be at a greater risk due to its proximity to the River Medway and low lying topographical characteristics.

The applicants Flood Risk Assessment looks at the impact the proposed Dynamic Bus Facility will have on groundwater flooding and on tidal flooding. It advises that it is unlikely that the proposed development will impact on groundwater flooding on the site due to the fact the disposal of surface water to soakaways is not being considered as an option for this development and the mechanism of groundwater flooding is governed by soil characteristics and groundwater levels. With regard to the impact on Tidal Flooding, the flood risk assessment states that the Environment Agency agree that due to the nature of the development and the nature of the principle flood risk to the site, flood compensation is not required.

The Flood Risk Assessment states that bus services by their very nature are flexible and if necessary can be re-routed. The proposed bus facility while an important part of Chatham’s public transport infrastructure cannot be considered as essential to the transport network as it will continue to operate without the facility. In the event of a flood rendering the facility inoperable, the wider highway network would likely continue to be used. Alternative arrangements would be possible for public transport operation without risk to life or property. As a result the proposed development can be classed as “Less Vulnerable”.

An information Centre is proposed as part of the scheme which will be manned during normal working hours. The issues of safe egress in the event of flooding have been considered in the Flood Risk Assessment. Given the nature of the development and the tidal flood risk, it has been reasoned that the local authority

Page 34 would be made aware if there was to be an extreme flood event that could result in flooding of the area and specifically the Dynamic Bus Facility. It is considered that this information would be conveyed to staff working in the Information Centre in good time for appropriate action to the taken. It is highly likely that the bus facility operation would be suspended during the peak high tide periods if a flood warning indicated water levels that could threaten the site.

The finished floor level of the Information centre is proposed to be 5.41m AOD and the construction of the building would be resilient to flooding. To meet the recommendations stated in “Flood Risks To People” it is considered necessary to ensure that the lowest level of the “safe route” from the Information Centre would be no more than 500mm below 5.41 AOD (500mm depth of water is based on the level of risk assessed with respect to the anticipated velocity of flow). The proposed route for safe egress is from the Information centre and along the south-eastern platform to the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the Whitehouse which leads onto the higher ground adjacent to Dock Road.

The conclusion of the findings of the Flood Risk Assessment are summarised as follows:

• The Environment Agency flood maps show that the site is located within Flood Zone 3a (high risk). • The most significant source of flood risk to the site is considered to be tidal flooding from the River Medway • Design Flood Levels have been agreed with the Environment Agency as 200 year annual probability; year 2060 = 5.41m AOD • Historic river flood records of four events in the last 60 years show that the site has not been flooded during this period • The Environment Agency has no records of groundwater flooding in the area and as such the risk of flooding from this source is considered to be low. The risk from flooding due to failure of infrastructure or artificial drainage is considered negligible • No flooding is noted in the 1 in 100 year, 15 minute storm (plus 20% for Climate Change) • The development will not cause flooding to adjacent properties • Due to the lack of flood defences along this stretch of the river it is considered likely that flooding of the site will occur at ground level during extreme flooding events. Due to the nature of the proposed development, however, flood mitigation measures are not considered necessary • Operational procedures will be incorporated to minimise or remove the risk to personnel employed and required to be located in the site during normal working hours. • Suitable arrangements for informing the general public in a flood event are assumed to be incorporated into the normal operating procedures of the participating bus companies • The site has been assessed in the Medway Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as giving a low flood hazard rating • Evidence for the Sequential Test has been undertaken in line with PPS25; this demonstrates that the development vulnerability of the site is appropriate to the

Page 35 Flood Zone and that there are no other reasonably available sites for this development which would satisfy the required parameters of the proposed development • Safe pedestrian access and egress have been considered and a safe route proposed

Taking the above into account it is considered that the proposed scheme is in accordance with policy CF13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Air Quality

An air quality assessment of the Dynamic Bus Facility and phase 2 highway improvements has been submitted in support of this application. The methodology, results and conclusions in the assessment are considered to be satisfactory. The affect on air quality is discussed below and has been split between the construction and operational phase for ease of reference.

Construction phase – the assessment has identified that the construction phase would generate temporary adverse dust impacts, although there are few sensitive receptors within 200m of the site of the Dynamic Bus Facility. The assessment suggests that a construction management plan that uses the methodology within current best practice guidance is adopted to reduce the risk of dust nuisance to these properties. A condition is therefore recommended to ensure that a construction code of practice that describes measures to control noise and dust impacts arising from the construction phase of the development is received.

Operational phase – A detailed dispersion model has been used to predict the impact of Phase 2 of the Chatham town centre highway improvement, which includes the operation of the dynamic bus facility. The Dynamic Bus Facility and highways improvements have also been qualitatively assessed. The Dynamic Bus Facility and the introduction of a bus/taxi/cycle only road on the previous Sir John Hawkins Way and Globe Lane are considered to have an overall beneficial effect on air quality. In addition to this, the Dynamic Bus Facility itself is very open in design, which will aid with pollutant dispersal.

The operational phase is predicted to result in substantial beneficial impacts on air quality on the northern end of The Brook, Rochester High Street, the northern end of Maidstone Road, on Railway Street in the air quality management area and on Chatham High Street. As the changes to the highway divert more traffic on to the A2, adverse impacts are predicted on the A2 and the southern end of The Brook. However, the assessment has shown that on balance, the whole of Phase 2 of the scheme can be considered as having a slight impact in terms of air quality on the study area.

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposed scheme is in accordance with policy BNE24 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Page 36 Contaminated Land

The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their planning application:

Phase 1 Contaminated Land Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment, Chatham Centre and Waterfront Regeneration, Dynamic Bus Facility undertaken by Mott MacDonald dated August 2009 (report reference: 219596-IN21-PH1- BNI01) and Addendum to the Phase 1 Contaminated Land Desk Study undertaken by Mott MacDonald dated November 2009 (report reference: 219596/BNI/IN92/01/A)

The desk top study includes a site history, site walkover, information on the geology and hydrogeology at the site. A conceptual site model has been developed for the site. The desk top study recommends that a site investigation be undertaken to support the conceptual site model. The addendum to the desk top study has been produced due to the location and layout of the bus station being altered, a condition is therefore recommended to ensure this work is undertaken.

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposed scheme is in accordance with policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Noise

A noise impact assessment of the Dynamic Bus Facility and phase 2 highway improvements has been submitted in support of this application. The methodology, results and conclusions in the assessment are considered to be satisfactory. The affect on noise is discussed below and has been split between the construction and operational phase for ease of reference.

Construction phase – Predictions have been made of the worst-case noise levels from various construction operations, which indicate that significant noise levels may be experienced at sensitive premises near to the dynamic bus facility. The assessment suggests that a construction management plan that uses the methodology within current best practice guidance is adopted to reduce the risk of noise nuisance to these properties. A condition is therefore recommended to ensure that a construction code of practice that describes measures to control noise and dust impacts arising from the construction phase of the development is received.

Operational phase – The operation of the Dynamic Bus Facility is unlikely to cause any noise problems, as there are no residential properties in close proximity to the site. The layout has been designed to minimise the need for buses to reverse and therefore the use of reversing bleepers is reduced. The reduction in changes in traffic flow and speed through the site will lead to a minor to moderate reduction in noise at adjacent facades.

Predictions of traffic noise impacts resulting from the overall scheme indicate that noise levels would increase on some links and reduce on others. There will be a minor to moderate adverse impact at some properties. This change in noise level would be clearly perceptible in the short and long term.

Page 37

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposed scheme is in accordance with policy BNE3 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Amenity Considerations

Due to the siting of the proposed bus station with regard to the habitable room windows of residential properties it is considered that there would be no negative impacts with regard to loss of outlook, daylight, sunlight or privacy. The application is therefore in accordance with policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Highways

The current bus station in the Pentagon Centre has 18 operational bays plus 2 spare bays and generates 1,300 pedestrian movements in the morning peak hour, rising to 3,750 movements during the busiest time of the day between 1200 and 1300. Whilst the proposed bus station provides fewer bus bays the underlying principle of a dynamic bus facility, whereby stopping places are allocated shortly before the bus arrives, means that the use of space within the facility is more efficient than a conventional arrangement and therefore less space is required for the bus station. Furthermore, an additional six stands will be provided on Waterfront Way, formerly known as Sir John Hawkins Way. The Dynamic Bus Facility is designed to accommodate all existing services (in excess of 130 movements per hour) and the dynamic element of the bus station will offer capacity for future growth. Taxis will be able to travel through the Dynamic Bus Facility, but not stop to pick-up, set-down or park. A new taxi facility accessed from the Brook will be provided, which will accommodate 22 vehicles. The stands on Waterfront Way have been designed to accommodate coaches if required.

It is intended that selected services, grouped by their geographic coverage area and destinations, will use the same cluster (or platform) of bus stands. The proposed Dynamic Bus Facility will be equipped with a high quality intelligent transport system that will provide for the dynamic allocation of buses to stands. Sensors on key approaches, at entry and exit points and at the platforms themselves will enable the allocation of buses to individual stands, with a linked real time passenger information system directing passengers to the appropriate platform for each bus. Stopping provision for coaches will be made on Waterfront Way, with adjacent pedestrian crossing points to the north and south providing direct access to the Pentagon Centre and High Street respectively. A detailed analysis of vehicle swept paths has been undertaken to ensure that the largest vehicles expected to use the Dynamic Bus Facility can manoeuvre safely. This, in turn, has determined the overall dimensions of the Dynamic Bus Facility: the vehicle tracking diagrams clearly demonstrate that, for the number of stands provided, the optimum layout has been achieved.

Traffic Impact & Access

The Phase 2 Highway Schemes will improve capacity for north/south traffic movement by widening of sections of The Brook and widening and realigning the Union Street/New Road/Best Street junction. This is predicted to accommodate the

Page 38 additional traffic resulting from the closure of Globe Lane and Sir John Hawkins Way. The removal of general traffic from Globe Lane will allow straight-ahead movement from Dock Road and The Brook to be prioritized. In terms of its impact upon public transport operations, the relocation of the bus station will require only very limited changes to existing bus routes. The provision of a more accessible, at-grade facility will improve the opportunity for through movements and result in a less circuitous route for buses: the relocation of the bus facility is predicted to reduce the overall distances buses currently travel by up to 100,000miles per annum. This will have both financial and environmental benefits, with the potential to reduce journey times and improve reliability and punctuality.

As part of the proposed development, the existing access to the Globe Lane car park will be relocated. Access and egress is provided on Medway Street, close to the junction with Globe Lane and on Globe Lane itself to the south of the Dynamic Bus Facility. It is anticipated that these access points will be lightly trafficked: the car park will be reduced from 210 spaces to 110 spaces, and the existing access serving the Medway Street car park, which also provides access to the Globe Lane car park, will be available for as long as the Council leases the land.

Traffic movements through Waterfront Way and the Dynamic Bus Facility will be controlled through the application of Traffic Regulation Orders. Gateway features, road signing and markings will guide traffic and enforce the 20mph speed limit.

Pedestrians and cyclists

Taking into consideration redevelopment proposals for the central Chatham area and the provision of a more attractive and accessible bus facility, it is anticipated that pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the Dynamic Bus Facility will increase over current levels. The retention of the walled Paddock area will provide more control over pedestrian movements through the Dynamic Bus Facility than the previous application. External dynamic signing placed alongside pedestrian desire lines to guide passengers to the correct stop will, to a large extent, minimise uncontrolled crossing movements: the ‘real time’ nature of the signs will provide passengers with information well in advance in order to reduce the need for hurried movements across the Dynamic Bus Facility.

A total of four designated crossing points, carefully designed to reflect pedestrian desire lines, are proposed at the northern and southern ends of the Dynamic Bus Facility, with appropriate deterrent measures to prevent pedestrian movements on Globe Lane in close proximity to the bus stands. Controlled crossings will be provided at the Globe Lane/Brook/Dock Road junction.

It is proposed to divert National Cycle Route 1 away from the pedestrianised areas of Military Road and Chatham High Street. A 3.5 metre wide footway/cycleway will be provided to the west of the Dynamic Bus Facility platform buildings to connect Medway Street with the Brook.

Page 39 Summary of Highways Issues

The development of a Dynamic Bus Facility will provide a high quality public transport facility that will promote sustainable travel and encourage modal shift, in accordance with local and national policy objectives. The necessary re-routing of traffic in the town centre will be addressed through the Phase 2 highway improvement works that increase capacity along the Brook and at the Union Street junction with the A2. Pedestrian and cycle facilities will also be improved as part of this scheme, and within the immediate vicinity of the Dynamic Bus Facility. On this basis the application is considered to accord with the transport policies of the Local Plan and no objection is raised.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

The proposal for a Dynamic Bus Station offers a modern bus facility, which will improve the pubic transport in Chatham. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of amenity, highway and all other material planning considerations. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policy S4, S5, BNE1, BNE2, BNE3, BNE5, BNE6, BNE7, BNE12, BNE18, BNE20, BNE21, BNE24, BNE37, BNE39, BNE43, L3, T1, T2, T5, T6, T18 T22 and CF13 of the adopted Local Plan and policies T1, T2, T5, BE1, BE6, NRM4, NRM10, KTG1 and KTG6 of the South East Plan 2009 the application is accordingly recommended for approval.

The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being referred for member consideration due to its significance and the number of representations contrary to Officer recommendation. ______

Page 40

2 MC/09/1099

Date Received: 6 July, 2009

Location: Land rear of 'What The Dickinns' PH, 1 Ross Street Rochester Medway ME1 2DF

Proposal: Construction of a three storey block comprising five 2- bedroomed self-contained flats with landscaped courtyard amenity area (resubmission)

Applicant: MR G Davey & Ms B Purkiss

Agent: MR Phillips Derek Phillips Architect 25 Kenilworth Gardens West End Southampton Hampshire. SO30 3RE

Ward Rochester East

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 27 January, 2010.

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 No development shall take place until details and samples of all materials (including facing bricks and colour of entrance doors) to be used externally have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 The stairwell windows on the north elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be fitted with obscure glass and, apart from any top-hung light shall be non-opening. This work shall be carried out and completed before the room is occupied and shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Page 41 Reason: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of amenity by reason of unneighbourly overlooking of adjoining property, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

4 Prior to the commencement of the Development a scheme detailing how the noise control measures listed within the submitted Design and Access Statement (page 3) hereby approved will be secured shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any part of the development (or within a time period agreed in advance in writing with the Local Planning Authority) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.

Reason: In the interests of neighbour amenity and in line with the provisions set out under Local Plan Policy BNE2.

5 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 6 to 9 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority until condition 9 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which acknowledges interests of amenity and safety.

6 An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, including risks to groundwater, whether or not it originates on the site. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

Page 42

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which acknowledges interests of amenity and safety.

7 A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which acknowledges interests of amenity and safety.

8 The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of any development (other than development required to enable the remediation process to be implemented) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given not less than two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the bringing into use of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which acknowledges interests of amenity and safety.

9 In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of 6, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of 7, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Page 43 Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in condition 7 are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 8.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which acknowledges interests of amenity and safety.

10 Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme to minimise the transmission of noise between the bedroom of flat 1 and the living room of flat 4, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works that form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities of prospective residents in accordance with Policy BNE2.

For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.

Site Description

The application relates to the pub garden of "What the Dickinns". The public house is located at the corner of Ross Street and St Peters Street, while the application site fronts St Peters Street. The public house is a distinctive and prominent building, with a curved frontage to the corner and large gables on both elevations. It is two-storeys high but appears larger due to the gable features and the fact that it is set above road level. The application site is also set above road level behind a retaining wall, and also features some terracing. There are large amounts of vegetation to boundaries, but not including any trees.

Ross Street, St Peters Street and many surrounding roads are typified by traditional narrow terraced housing, although immediately adjacent to the site is a single-storey workshop building, and Delce Road to the rear is of more mixed character including many commercial uses. Land levels slope steeply down from east to west, such that Delce Road to the rear is at a significantly higher level. On street parking is prevalent and congested. A large new-build block of flats is visible nearby at the corner of Foord Street and Delce Road.

Proposal

The application is a resubmission of planning application MC2008/1376, which was refused on 2 October 2008 and seeks full planning permission for the construction of a three storey 'L' shape block (of which one storey would be within the roof space) comprising five 2 bedroomed self-contained flats with landscaped courtyard amenity

Page 44 area. The development would occupy almost the whole plot frontage and be set directly onto the footpath.

The design of the building splits into two clear sections, with the frontage building featuring a large barn-hip roof with gable feature to front and rear (the top floor is mainly contained within the roof), while the rear wing has a more modern appearance featuring a flat roof and large square bay windows.

One complete flat would be contained on each of the first and second floors (flats 3 and 5), with flats 1 and 2 split between ground and first floor level and flat 4 between the first and second floor. Internal floor space ranges from 68.8 metres square to 111.6 metres square. Space for 5 cycles is proposed and a small landscaped courtyard is proposed to the rear, which can be accessed from the front of the development via a covered area.

Site Area/Density

Site Area: 0.03 ha (0.07 acres) Site Density: 166 dph (67.4 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

75/36/AT Two illuminated lantern boxes Approved 4 July 1975

80/848 Improvements to existing toilet facilities Approved 9 October 1980

MC2008/1376 Construction of part three, part four-storey block comprising 6 two bedroomed flats. Refused 2 October 2008

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and by the individual neighbour notification to the owner/occupiers of no's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 St Peters Street, 50, 52, 54 and 56 - 80 Delce Road and 1a, 2, 2a, 3, 5, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14 Ross Street, Rochester. The Health & Safety Executive and Environment Agency have also been consulted on the proposal.

11 letters and a petition signed by 29 people have been received in support of the proposal making the following points:

• The development would provide suitable property for first-time-buyers. • The appearance of the development is acceptable. • The development would be an asset to the local area. • The development is ideally located close to public transport, shops etc and visually it would be far more attractive than a pub garden wall. • Encourage more people to live in Rochester, including London commuters and University Students.

Page 45

11 letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:

• The development represents a gross over-intensification of a small pub garden site. • The proposal does not provide any off-street parking and will exacerbate the already extremely difficult parking situation in this area. There is no guarantee that future occupiers of the flats will not own cars. • The development is not in keeping with the terraced nature of other properties in the road. • There is concern regarding the impact site construction traffic will have on neighbours. The tight roads would not facilitate construction traffic. • Despite a reduced roof height and rooms now being provided within the roof space, there will still be privacy issues, especially into neighbouring gardens as a result of the development. • Noise and inconvenience during construction. • The development will result in loss of light/sunlight into neighbouring garden areas. • Health & safety issue will result following increase in traffic & cars and putting children is danger. • As the proposal involves the development of an existing pub garden, there will be less space for smokers to congregate, resulting in them using the streets and disposing of their cigarettes onto the floor. • Those using the small garden will cause harm, by way of noise, to neighbouring dwellings. • There is no need for further development, there are enough flats being built in the area a it is. • Loss of outlook for neighbouring dwellings. • The development would be completely out of character with the residential area consisting of two-storey houses in the main. • Increased strain on the services infrastructure (gas, sewerage etc). • The height of the proposed development will overshadow neighbouring homes. • The development does not follow the natural slope of the land and adjacent developments. • Access to the refuse bins will be difficult, especially for refuse collectors and their large lorries. • The neighbouring motor repair garage may suffer significant disruption to its business as a result of the development.

Health & Safety Executive advises that following assessment of the development in relation to the surrounding area there is the risk of harm to people at the proposed development and as such the HSE advises against the granting of planning permission.

Environment Agency has written advising of no objection

Page 46 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has written with the following comments;

• Concern with regard to the lack of off street parking facilities that may result in inappropriate and confrontational parking practices. • The potential impact of the public house on prospective residential amenity should be addressed through condition. • Other minor suggestions to assist with secure by design.

National Planning Guidance

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport Planning Policy Guidance 23: Planning & Pollution Control

Development Plan Policies

South East Plan, 2009

Policy SP3 (Urban Focus & Urban Renaissance) Policy CC4 (Sustainable Design & Construction) Policy H4 (Type & Size of New Housing) Policy H5 (Housing Design & Density) Policy T4 (Parking)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles of Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise) Policy BNE23 (Land Contamination) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H5 (High Density Housing) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Principle

The application site currently forms the garden of the Public House at 1 Ross Street, and is not allocated for any specific purpose in the Local Plan. It is within the main urban area and the principle of residential infilling is therefore accepted by Policy H4 of the Local Plan, subject to detailed consideration of its impacts and to the requirement within that policy that a clear improvement in the local environment should result.

Page 47 Density, Design and Character of the Area

The street scene in Ross Street and St Peters Street is typified by narrow two-storey terraced properties of traditional Victorian appearance, which have a strong vertical emphasis. The PH at 1 Ross Street is obviously different in design and the vertical emphasis is less pronounced, but it still relates well to the predominant character of the area, being of similar overall scale (particularly height) and with similarities in materials and detailing. Also, being sited on a corner it is appropriate for this building to be somewhat distinctive and its dual frontage design is to address this siting.

The proposed block of flats would be approx. 1m taller than the PH, but the same height as the neighbouring terraced housing. The roof design is much improved from the previously refused application, MC2008/1376, and the eaves and ridge height of the roof now match the adjacent terraces. As a whole the development reflects the vertical emphasis of the neighbouring terraces. The design of the proposed development is attractive, providing a combination of a traditional frontage building and contemporary rear wing which is considered interesting and not an inappropriate response to the site layout. It is considered that in this particular location the scale and design of the building relates well to the existing character of the area. The proposed materials, which include natural slate for the roof, lead sheeting to the roof space dormers, white stained timber windows and stone faced lintels and cills, are commonly used in the historic areas of Rochester and are a feature visible in the locality of the site, enabling the development to blend in well with the existing street scene. The layout of windows along the front (west) elevation reflect those of the adjacent public house, adding a sense of uniformity to the immediate street scene. The development would provide St Peter's Street with an almost continuous building line, filling in an otherwise unsightly gap and removing the existing wall, which provides no contribution to the attractiveness of the area.

The scale of the development is not out of place with others along St Peters Street. The density of development on site amounts to 166 dwellings per hectare, and whilst much higher than the recommended densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare, as set out within Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, Local Plan Policy H5 encourages high density housing within town centre locations, especially when close to good transport access points. Given the application site is close to the town centre and within an area of already high density developments, there is no objection to this development on density grounds and it is not considered that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the overall character of the area and of good quality design, as such it is considered to be in accordance with the provisions set out under Local Plan Policies BNE1, H4 and H5 and South East Plan Policies CC4, H4 and H5.

Amenity Considerations

The nearest residential properties at the site (other than the PH itself, which has accommodation above) are no's. 50-54 Delce Road to rear (east), no. 3 St Peters Street to the south, and no's. 3 Ross Street and 2 St Peters Street opposite to the west.

Page 48

No's. 50-54 Delce Road are set at a higher level and are offset from the position of the proposed building, and as such there would be minimal impact on them in terms of loss of outlook, sunlight or daylight. Window to window distance is approximately 18m, including living room and kitchen windows in the proposed flats. Taking into account the difference in land levels and the nature of the area with a tight-knit residential street pattern where such mutual overlooking is common, this is considered acceptable to prevent significant detriment in terms of loss of privacy for these neighbouring properties. The effect on no. 3 St Peter Street and beyond will also be minimal in terms of loss of outlook, sunlight or daylight, as these properties are to the south and will therefore experience no overshadowing, are separated from the site by the single-storey workshop at no. 1 St Peters Street and have no windows facing the site. In terms of privacy, there are three windows facing south, all of which are slit secondary windows, providing light into a stairwell area at first floor and second floor (roof space) level and kitchen/living area, which could be conditioned to be obscure glazed and non-opening, and as such no privacy issues arise. The accommodation above the PH would suffer some overshadowing, but the main windows are in other, unaffected elevations, and in terms of privacy the facing habitable room windows are offset from the flank elevation. The window proposed on the northern (flank) elevation of the proposed development is a kitchen window and can also be conditioned to be fitted with obscure glazing to prevent issues of privacy arising.

There will be some overlooking from front elevation windows to the gardens of 3 Ross Street (and to a lesser degree other Ross Street properties beyond) and the front elevation windows of 2 St Peters Street, but this is across the road at a distance of approx. 11m and again given the character of the residential area this distance is considered sufficient to prevent any significant detrimental loss of privacy.

In terms of amenity levels for the proposed flats, most of them have floor areas which provide a reasonable level of amenity and are in accordance with the Council’s informal guidelines on liveability (which suggest a minimum of 60m² for a two-bed, three person flat and 70m² for a two-bed, four-person flat). The development overall provides good levels of amenity, with good levels of light and outlook from all habitable rooms and external amenity space in the form of a paved courtyard area to rear. Noise and disturbance from the adjacent workshop has been taken into account in the design of the proposed flats and this is considered acceptable. However, there is potential for noise and disturbance from the relocated pub garden; the ground floor flats would be screened to some extent by boundary treatment but the first and second floor flats, which have habitable room windows facing this direction, would be affected and there is very limited potential for further physical mitigation. The license for the premises states that gardens could be used (for example by smokers) until 23:00 and for regulated entertainment until 21:00. The applicant has submitted details of how noise from the use of the garden area will be controlled which covers noise from people and from regulated entertainment.

There is a potential for noise disturbance to result because of the layout of living accommodation within the proposed development. For example the living room of flat 4 is located above the bedroom of flat 1 which could result in noise disturbance emanating from the living room area into the flat below causing harm to future

Page 49 occupiers amenity. It is usual to try and position bedrooms above bedrooms, kitchens above kitchens etc to try and mitigate against noise causing disturbance. In this regard the sound insulation between floors needs to be improved and an appropriate condition is recommended.

As the Public House is in the ownership of the applicants the following noise control measures can be controlled:

• If the garden gate remains this will be extended to minimise noise transference. • To reposition the cellar cold store cooling system into the pub garden area. • Prevent customers taking their drinks into the garden area after 11pm • When regulated entertainment is taking place, doors and windows will be kept shut. • Reproduced or live music to be set as a level so as not to be audible at the nearest residential property. • The designated premises supervisor or relevant person will assess noise levels on a regular basis to prevent excessive break out. • Regulated entertainment outdoors to be limited to four events a year, and cease no later than 9pm. • The garden to closed on all occasions no later than 11pm. • Staff to be trained to constantly monitor noisy customers and their behaviour.

The proposal in terms of its impact on the amenity of surrounding properties is considered acceptable and in most respects the amenity for future occupiers would also be to a good level. The development is considered acceptable under the provisions set out under Local Plan Policies BNE2 and BNE3.

Contaminated Land

Historic usage of the site adjacent to the application site as a builders yard could have given rise to contamination. The applicant has submitted a Desk Stop Study, which includes a site history, site walkover, information on the geology and hydrology of the site. A conceptual site model has also been developed for the site. The Desk Top Study recommends that a site investigation is undertaken to support the conceptual site model.

It is considered that this can satisfactorily be addressed through conditions and subject to this no objection is raised in relation to Policy BNE23 of the Local Plan.

Health and Safety Executive

The Health and Safety Executive is a statutory consultee for certain developments within the Consultation Distance of Major Hazard Sites/Pipelines. The assessment undertaken for this proposal indicates that the risk of harm to people at the proposed development is such that HSE's advice is that there are sufficient reasons, on safety grounds, for advising against granting planning permission in this case.

Located to the rear of the development site is a small 'works' site. Its previous use is unknown, and initial consultation with the HSE advises that the possibility remains,

Page 50 however small, that a major accident could occur at an installation and that this could have serious consequences for people within the vicinity. Nevertheless, the Council has advised the HSE that the application recommendation is contrary to their advice; following a visit to the site, the 'works' appears disused, and run down. Second to this, the area is already residential in nature, and land in close proximity to the application site has been developed for residential use recently. It is not considered that the former 'works' poses any health and safety risk to future residents of the development site, or indeed existing residents of the area.

Highways

The proposed flats would be provided without the benefit of off-road parking provision, unlike the previous MC2008/1376 proposal. Existing parking standards are maxima and as the property is in a highly accessible location with good access to public transport and local services, no objection is raised to the current proposal in terms of highway safety. However, parking is clearly an issue in surrounding streets, as evidenced by the high level of objection from local residents and the situation at the time of the officer's site visit (which was carried out during the daytime when the streets would not have been at their busiest in terms of parking). If the previously proposed garages formed part of this current proposal it is likely that access to the proposed garages would actually cause the loss of three on-street spaces and there would therefore be no net gain from the garage provision. The proposal for on-street parking is acceptable, however this would result in the increased potential for conflict amongst residents attempting to park and the increased likelihood that residents would have to park some distance from their property. Whilst this situation is considered to result in an unwelcome impact on amenity in a location where this is already a clear problem, on balance, on its own, this is not considered enough to warrant refusal of the proposal in its entirety. The proposal represents a balanced case in terms of impact on amenity due to on-street parking competition.

Overall, the development is considered acceptable under the provisions of Local Plan Policy T1, T2 and T13 and South East Plan Policy T4.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

The proposal represents a marked improvement to the previous MC2008/1376 proposal, and addresses the former reasons for refusal. The proposal now represents one reflective of the character of the area and street scene and sympathetic in design. The scale and density of development is in keeping with other developments in the area. In terms of amenity, the development will not result in detriment to neighbours by way of overlooking, privacy, sunlight and daylight, and in general the living accommodation provided is acceptable for future occupants of the development. Matters relating to land contamination and noise can be dealt with via condition, although in the main, the details provided comply with Development Plan Policy and National Guidance. Whilst there are no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds, the additional competition for on-street parking may result in harm to residential amenity. Nevertheless, on balance, and for the reasons discussed above, the proposal is considered acceptable and therefore recommended for approval.

Page 51 The determination of the application would normally fall under officers delegated powers, however the application has been called in to committee by the Ward Member and also as a result of the number of representations received.

This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 16 December 2009, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.] ______

Page 52

3 MC/09/1373

Date Received: 15 September, 2009

Location: The Marlborough Centre, 41A Maidstone Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0DQ

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of eleven new affordable homes with private gardens, formation of estate road and provision of residents and visitors parking

Applicant: Medway Housing Society

Agent: Mr A Greenhalgh Pellings LLP 24 Widmore Road Bromley BR1 1RY

Ward Rainham Central

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 27 January, 2010.

Recommendation - Approval subject to:

A) The applicants entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:

i) £1, 374.45 – contribution towards the metropolitan park facilities in Medway ii) £19,036 - contributions towards off site provision and improvement of outdoor equipped play areas and informal open space. iii) £643 - contribution towards Youth Provision.

And B) the following conditions:

(as amended by plans received on 8th December 2009)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are

Page 53 occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 No development shall take place until details and samples of all materials to be used externally have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the side flanks of any dwelling at first floor level of any building other than as hereby approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of amenity and privacy of adjoining property, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

5 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a method statement provided by a competent person detailing the extent of the contamination and the remedial measures to be taken to render the site fit for its intended purpose, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The Method Statement shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which acknowledges interests of amenity and safety.

6 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soak away system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hard standings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.

Reason: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of amenity

Page 54 7 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping (hard and soft) . All planting, seeding and turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be implemented as approved during the first planting season following occupation of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is the earlier. Any trees or plants which within 5 years of planting are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

8 Prior to the occupation of any building on the site, details of how the estate roads shall be lit shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be in implemented as approved prior to the occupation of any building on the site.

Reason: To safeguard conditions of amenity within the scheme of development permitted in accordance with Policy BNE5 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

9 The bathroom windows located at first floor level on the two properties either side of the estate road shall be fitted with obscure glass and, apart from any top-hung light shall be non-opening. This work shall be carried out and completed before the room is occupied and shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of amenity by reason of unneighbourly overlooking of adjoining property, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

10 No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied, until the area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space has been provided, surfaced and drained. Thereafter it shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space and garaging.

Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to hazardous on-street parking in conflict with Policies BNE2 and T1.

Page 55 11 The development hereby permitted shall be built to achieve a Level 3 under the Code for Sustainable Homes unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of a sustainable development in accordance with policy CC4 of the South East Plan 2009.

12 Prior to the commencement of development the recommendation outlined in the various supporting statements below shall be carried out unless agreed otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Ecological Scoping Report

Paragraph 8.6 Paragraph 8.10 Paragraph 8.12 Paragraph 8.14 Paragraph 7.7 Further Bat Survey

Reptile Mitigation Method Statement

Paragraph 7.16 - 7.18 Paragraph 7.19 - 7.26 Paragraph 7.27 - 7.31 Those details relating to a Management Receptor Site outlined in Appendix 5

Reptile Survey Report

Paragraph 8.3

Reason: To ensure issues effecting biodiversity are adequately addressed in accordance with policy BNE37 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.

Site Description

The application site is located within the urban boundary of Rainham. Maidstone Road slopes down to the north and has on street parking. Maidstone Road is dominated by residential dwellings however some commercial activities take place at the northern end of the road close to the junction with the A2. The residential properties in the street vary in terms of height, design and age and include bungalows and detached and semi-detached 2-storey dwellings.

The application site was formerly occupied by the Marlborough Centre and is now vacant. The Marlborough Centre was a pre-school nursery. The buildings on site are set back from the highway and are single storey. The site has become overgrown in

Page 56 recent years and the buildings are in a poor state of repair. Existing boundary treatment consists of 2 metre high fencing with a set of vehicle entrance gates fronting Maidstone Road that previously provided access to the rear of the site. To the east of the site are St Margaret’s Junior and Infant Schools.

Proposal

The proposal is for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of eleven new affordable homes with private gardens, formation of estate road and provision of residents and visitors parking.

The frontage onto Maidstone Road would consist of a terrace of 4 dwellings and a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Due to the angle of Maidstone Road the set back distance from the pavement would vary. The terrace would be located adjacent to number 41 Maidstone Road and be set back between approximately 6 – 10 metres. To the south of the terrace would be the access road providing access to the dwellings at the rear (east) of the site and south of this would be the pair of semi- detached dwellings. These properties would be set back between approximately 4.5 – 7 metres from the pavement edge. To the south of the pair of semi-detached dwellings is an electricity substation that would be retained as part of the development. The frontages onto Maidstone Road will be a mix of planting and parking and all properties will have rear gardens. All of these properties would appear 2-storey from the front measuring 9 metres to the ridge and 5.5 metres to the eaves. Front canopy style features are also proposed between the ground and first floor accommodation on every dwelling. The roof of the terrace will have a hipped roof to its northern end and a gabled roof to its southern end. The semi detached properties will be gabled to the side. The rear elevations of these frontage dwellings shows accommodation in the roof space served by one dormer window in the rear roof slope of each dwelling resulting in the provision of 3 bedrooms apart from the northernmost one that would have 2 bedrooms.

The remaining 5 dwellings would be located to the rear (east of the site) in a terrace where the rear gardens would back onto the school playing fields to the east. This terrace would essentially have a bungalow at either end with 2-storey units in the middle. The bungalows would measure approximately 2.5 metres to the eaves and 5.5 metres to the ridge. The 2-storey element would measure approximately 5 metres to the eaves and at its highest point 8 metres to the ridge. All of these properties would have parking spaces to the front and private rear gardens. These units would be either 2 or 3 bedroom.

Some areas of landscaping are also proposed. The parking provision across the site would be 18 spaces for 11 houses.

Site Area/Density

Site Area: 0.25 ha (0.62 acres) Density: 44 dph (17.7 dpa)

Page 57 Relevant Planning History

MC2006/2053 Demolition of existing buildings and construction of C3 residential unit comprising of 4 three-bedroomed chalet bungalows, 1 two-bedroomed bungalow, 3 two-bedroomed and 2 three-bedroomed houses with associated parking and access road. Refused 16 July 2007

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and in the press and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners / occupiers of 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 52, 54 and 56 Maidstone Road and St Margaret’s Junior and Infant Schools. Kent Police Architectural Liason Officer, KCC Ecology, EDF Energy and Southern Gas Networks have also been consulted.

17 letters of representation (from 15 addresses) have been received in objection to the application and raising the following concerns:

• Existing parking pressure will be made worse by the development • Height of buildings is excessive resulting in loss of light and outlook to 54 Maidstone Road • Number of properties is contrary to covenants on site • Too many dwelling will lead to mini ghetto or slum • Increased traffic and on street parking making access to existing properties difficult • Loss of view from nearby properties • Objecting to rental family housing • Loss of light and outlook to number 41 • Lack of natural light for residents would mean more usage of electricity • Inadequate on site parking • Loss of privacy to 41 Maidstone Road through the introduction of 2-storey properties on the rear terrace • Density is too high • Loss of light and privacy to number 43 Maidstone Road • Would prefer bungalows on site • Loss of property value • Out of keeping with the street scene • Loss of light to number 48 Maidstone Road • Location of access road would result in car headlights beaming into 48 Maidstone Road • Children crossing the road could be compromised in terms of safety • Queries regarding the materials

Page 58 Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer have commented on the application from a crime prevention perspective and have made the following comments:

• No significant objections are raised to the development • A robust and efficient lighting scheme is required • Recessed doorways of greater than 600mm should be avoided • Advise discussions with the council’s highway team regarding hard standing accessed from Maidstone Road.

Environment Agency has no objections subject to conditions

Southern Gas Networks has no objections however comments made regarding proximity of development to gas mains

Development Plan Policies

South East Plan 2009

Policy BE1 (Management for an Urban Renaissance) Policy H5 (Housing density and design) Policy CC4 (Sustainable Design & Construction) Policy T4 (Parking)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise) Policy BNE5 (Lighting) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated Land) Policy BNE37 (Wildlife Habitats) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy CF1 (Community Facilities) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

The determining issues in relation to this application relate to:

• Principle and density; • Street scene and design; • Neighbour amenities; • Highway matters; • Contaminated land; • Ecology; and • Infrastructure contributions

Page 59 Principle and density

The site is located within the urban boundary on previously developed land in a residential area. Both national guidance and local policy support the introduction of residential developments on locations such as these in favour of countryside sites. The site is within walking distance of Rainham Town Centre and many shops and services and so is considered to be sustainable location. The density of the development would equate to 44 dwellings per hectare. Government guidance encourages densities of between 30-50 dwellings per hectare within urban sustainable locations and as such the development would be in accordance with this range.

The site has been vacant for a number of years with the pre-school nursery closing down. Other school and educational sites are located close to the application site including those adjoining the site to the east. As such no objection is raised to the loss of the community facility.

Accordingly the proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with policy H5 of the South East Plan 2009 and policies H4 and CF1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Street scene and design

The street scene in Maidstone Road is varied with the built form historically developing overtime and resulting in a mix of building lines and 2-storey dwellings and bungalows both detached and semi-detached. The existing buildings on site are single storey and visually appear as an anomaly due to their institutional style. The proposal would result in essentially two lines of dwellings, one fronting Maidstone Road and the other backing onto the playing fields to the east.

The frontage onto Maidstone Road shows a terrace and one pair of semi-detached 2-storey dwellings. The roofspace would be used to provide bedrooms and so the roof pitch is fairly high. Originally the submitted plans showed dormers to the front elevation but these have been deleted to simplify the front elevation. The dwellings would be a similar height to 43 Maidstone Road and so visually this would be in keeping. Number 41 Maidstone Road is a bungalow and so the proposed development would be notably higher than this dwelling however the introduction of a hipped end roof adjacent to number 41 would minimise this impact. Due to the presence of the access road and electricity substation the frontage would not be continuous resulting in gaps however due to the mix in building line and spacing between properties on the rest of Maidstone Road no concern is raised in this regard. A landscaping condition is recommended to ensure an attractive setting for the development with the potential of planting to be introduced in front of the sub station and thus minimising its impact on Maidstone Road.

Page 60 The rear terrace of dwellings proposes bungalows at either end with 2-storey properties in the middle. The terrace would be partially visible by views down the access road and from rear gardens of existing and proposed nearby dwellings. This terrace appears balanced and of appropriate height and width to have good scale and proportion. A condition relating to lighting is recommended to ensure this part of the development is an attractive, well-lit and safe environment.

The proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with policy BE1 of the South East Plan 2009 and policies BNE1 and BNE5 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Amenity Considerations

Due to the presence of the electricity sub station there would be a separation distance of nearly 8 metres between the side flank of the dwelling to the south, 43 Maidstone Road and the closest dwelling in the proposed development. It is considered that this separation distance would result in the development having no detrimental impact in terms of outlook or daylight. One window is proposed in the side flank of the property directly north of number 43 however this would be at ground floor level and as such the presence of the sub station and adequate boundary treatment would maintain levels of privacy. Overlooking of rear gardens would be possible from first floor windows however this is part of the existing character of the area with two storey properties and would not raise an issue of overlooking that does not already exist. The other dwelling located close to the boundary with number 43 would be a bungalow located in the rear terrace. Due to the height of the building and distance from number 43 it is considered this would not lead to a detrimental loss of residential amenity.

The dwelling located immediately to the north of the site is 41 Maidstone Road. The northern most dwelling on the terrace fronting Maidstone Road would project approximately 2 metres further than the front elevation of number 41 with number 41 projecting past the proposed development at the rear. The windows located in the side flank of number 41 to face the application site either serve non-habitable rooms or are secondary windows and as such no objection is raised with regards to the impact of the development on number 41 in terms of outlook or privacy. Two windows are proposed in the side of the closest dwelling to face number 41 however both are located at ground floor level and so boundary treatment of a sufficient height would ensure privacy levels. Again, the other proposed unit close to the northern boundary of the site is a bungalow and due to the distance between the bungalow and number 41 it is considered it would not suffer a detrimental impact in terms of residential amenity.

Consideration should also be given to the level of amenity created for future occupiers of the dwellings. Primary windows are located in the front and rear elevations of the dwellings and these would provide sufficient levels of outlook and daylight. In terms of the relationship between the 2 terraces the minimum separation distance would be 22 metres and it is considered this is sufficient distance to provide adequate levels of privacy for occupiers of the dwellings. The terrace and the pair of semi-detached dwellings are staggered however windows are proposed in the properties either side of the access road. The distances between these dwellings would be approximately 4.5 metres and as such a condition is recommended to

Page 61 obscure glazed existing windows and control the insertion of further windows on these elevations. Private amenity spaces would be of an appropriate size to cater for family dwellings. These areas would be generally overlooked by first floor windows in neighbouring dwellings however, as previously advised, this is part of the character of the area with two storey properties and no objection is raised.

The application proposes to locate a dwelling next to an electricity substation. However, the layout has been designed so that a 1.8m close-boarded fence is provided to the side of the property closest to the sub station and there are no windows to the elevation facing the sub station. As such it is considered that any potential noise from the sub station has been adequately mitigated.

The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of amenity considerations and is in accord with policies BNE2 and BNE3 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Highways

Access to the proposed development would be by means of a dropped kerb pavement crossing from Maidstone Road, to the north-east of the existing access. There is an adequate level of visibility from the proposed access along Maidstone Road, and sufficient space to each side for pedestrians to be seen by emerging vehicles. The access itself is proposed to be 4.8m, narrowing to 3.7m for a short distance in order to encourage low vehicle speeds. The applicants have also provided drawings to illustrate that a refuse vehicle could adequately access and turn on site.

Eighteen parking spaces are proposed to serve the 11 houses, four of which would be for visitor/communal use resulting in a parking ratio of 1.6 spaces per dwelling which is marginally above the Council's maximum standard. However, eighteen spaces are considered to represent a sensible provision for the dwelling types proposed that would minimise overspill parking on Maidstone Road. In addition the site is also easily accessible by public transport with bus routes on Maidstone Road and the Railway Station within walking distance.

The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the impacts on the highway and is in accord with policy T4 of the South East Plan 2009 and policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Contaminated Land

The ground investigation report, which has been submitted by the applicant, makes reference to a desktop study, which has been undertaken previously. This report has been submitted previously in respect to planning application MC2006/2053. The desktop study includes a site history, site walkover, information on the geology and hydrogeology at the site. A conceptual site model has also been developed for the site. The conceptual site model indicates that the risks to human health are relatively low at the site. The report does not recommend that a site investigation be undertaken at the site. The report states that ‘it would be considered prudent to have a suitable qualified person undertake a visual inspection of the stripped formations. Should significant quantities of made ground be encountered it may be

Page 62 necessary to sample and test these materials and perform an appropriate level of assessment ensuring that the sites redevelopment does not result in a risk to potentially sensitive receptors’.

The ground investigation report, which has been submitted by the applicant, details the intrusive investigation, which has been undertaken at the site. The intrusive investigation has involved the excavation of 8 window sampler boreholes across the site. This report is a geotechnical report, which has been undertaken to inform the foundation design at the site.

The letter from Bureau Veritas dated 6 August 2008 details the findings of the intrusive investigation in respect to potential contamination at the site. Soil samples were taken and tested for an appropriate suite of contaminants. No contaminants were detected which exceeded the relevant soil guideline values or generic assessment criteria for the site. The report concludes that ‘based on the findings of this assessment it is considered that the soil underlying the site of the Marlborough Centre are unlikely to pose a significant risk to human health, controlled waters and buried services’.

The reports, which have been submitted by the applicant, are acceptable subject to implementation and appropriately worded conditions are recommended.

The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the contaminated land issues and is in accord with policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Ecological Issues

An ecological scoping report has been submitted with the application outlining various ecological issues on site. This documentation confirms that internal (where accessible) and external examinations were carried out and the buildings were assessed as having low to moderate potential of containing bats. The survey has recommended that further surveys should be taken place however these have not as yet been carried out. The site is located within the urban boundary and in its current state could be demolished under permitted development. As such it is considered that subject to a condition requiring the survey to be carried out prior to the commencement of development and appropriate measures undertaken following the conclusions of the survey no objection is raised.

With regards to other species issues on site, the survey submitted with the application has highlighted that the site may have the potential to contain hedgehog or common toad. The recommendations detailed in paragraphs 8.9 – 8.12 must be carried out to ensure that the development does not impact any hedgehogs or toads. The survey has also highlighted that there was a fox den on site. The recommendation discussed in paragraph 7.7 must be carried out to ensure no foxes are injured or killed as a result of the development. The recommendation detailed in paragraph 8.6 must also be carried out to ensure the development works do not impact on breeding birds. An appropriately worded condition is recommended to ensure these measures are carried out.

Page 63 The key principles of PPS9 are not only to avoid, mitigate or compensate for harm to biodiversity but also to incorporate ways to enhance and restore it. The recommendations in paragraph 8.14 must be considered and incorporated in to the development to ensure that the site is enhanced for biodiversity. The scoping survey highlighted that there was potential habitat for reptiles present on site. As a result a reptile survey was carried out concluding that there is an exceptional population of slow worms on site. A receptor site has been identified and surveyed and it already contains a low population of reptiles. As described in paragraph 6.20 the low population is due to the current management and lack of suitable hibernacula. The carrying capacity will increase due to enhancements and a change in management. The translocation of the reptiles must be carried out as described in paragraph 7.19 – 2.26. No work on the development site must be carried out until all reptiles have been translocated off the site. Prior to translocation the enhancement works for the receptor site as described in paragraph 7.16 – 7.18 must be carried out. Once the translocation has been carried out at the development site, work can begin the precautionary approach as described in paragraph 7.27 – 7.31 and must be carried out. The management of the receptor site as described in appendix 5 must be carried out to ensure the translocation does not result in a negative impact on any translocated species. An appropriately worded condition is recommended to ensure these measures take place.

The comments made by the Environment Agency are noted and in part relevant conditions are recommended. However the desire for a landscape management plan involving the addition of an on site pond could not be delivered on site due to the lack of communal space and as such this is not considered reasonable.

Taking the above matters into consideration, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions, no objection is raised with regards to issues of ecology and the provisions of policy BNE37 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Infrastructure Contributions

The application is for more than 10 units and therefore, in accordance with the Council’s Guide to Developer Contributions the Council would be seeking developer contributions. As a result of the relevant consultations the following have been requested: -

• Metropolitan Park - £1, 374.45 – The contribution would go towards the shortfall of metropolitan park facilities in Medway • Greenspaces - £19,036 - The contributions would be towards off site provision and improvement of outdoor equipped play areas and informal open space. • Youth Provision - £643 - To contribution would go towards meeting the targets of ‘Every Child Matters’ objectives.

The applicant has confirmed they consider the financial requests acceptable and as such if the application were deemed acceptable it would be subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to secure the provision of financial contributions. Accordingly no objection is raised to the proposal under Policy S6 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Page 64 Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

The proposed development would be located within the urban boundary in a predominantly residential area. The properties fronting Maidstone Road would provide an attractive street frontage and the site layout, massing and design of the properties is acceptable in visual terms. The development is also acceptable with regard to residential amenity, highways, contamination and ecological issues. The development, subject to the completion of a Section 106 and imposition of a series of conditions would be in accordance with policies BE1, H5, CC4 and T4 of the South East Plan 2009 and policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE3, BNE5, BNE23, BNE37, H4, CF1, T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

This application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers, but is being reported for Members’ consideration due to the number of letters of representation received expressing a view contrary to the officers recommendation. ______

Page 65

4 MC/09/0688

Date Received: 20 May, 2009

Location: 1 Park Crescent, Chatham, Kent ME4 6NR

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 2.5/3 storey apartment building containing 15 residential units with associated car parking, access and landscaping

Applicant: Mulbury Developments Ltd

Agent: Mr D Jarman Hobbs Parker Romney House Monument Way Orbital Park Ashford. Kent TN24 0HB

Ward Chatham Central

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 27 January, 2010.

Recommendation - Refusal

1 The proposed building is bulkier, higher and wider than the semi-detached dwellings within the street and fails to respect the scale of the neighbouring buildings. The proposal is for high-density flats, with little amenity space including the loss of significant areas of mature planting, in an area of low density semi-detached and detached dwellings in generous plots with generous gardens and as such the proposal is considered to be out of character with this low density suburban area. The design of the building includes a prominent three storey 'corner feature' at the junction of Park Road and Letchworth Avenue and is designed as dual frontage and comes closer to the street than surrounding buildings. This is out of place in the street scene of an established suburban area of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings where the buildings are well spaced and set back from the street edge with trees and shrubs creating a peaceful, leafy environment. The combination of these factors demonstrates an overdevelopment of the site and is contrary to policy SP3 of the South East Plan 2009, policies BNE1, H4 and H5 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Planning Policy Guidance 3 (Housing).

2 The proposed development fails to provide adequate amenity space for future occupiers of the flats as the area indicated as amenity space is of a small scale and located under a mature tree. A loss of privacy will occur to properties to the South in Park Crescent due to over looking from bedroom windows in units 5, 10 and 15. From the rear gardens of 1a and 2a Park

Page 66 Crescent the proposed building, which projects significantly past the rear of these dwellings and is of a large scale, will appear as an unacceptable imposing and overtly dominant building. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy SP3 of the South East Plan 2009, Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Planning Policy Guidance 3 (Housing).

Site Description

1 Park Crescent is a 1930s style, two-storey detached dwelling located in a residential area. The dwelling is set in a large plot of about 0.15 hectares and has boundaries to three surrounding streets – Park Crescent to the west, Letchworth Avenue to the north and Palmerston Road to the east.

The dwellings in Park Crescent and Letchworth Avenue are characteristically two storey, detached and semi-detached dwellings situated in generous plots with much established tree and shrub planting in evidence. The rear gardens of Park Crescent dwellings form the boundary with Palmerston Road and for the most part there is a long 1.8m high continuous boundary fenceline along the back edge of the western footpath of Palmerston Road, with many established trees and shrubs inside the fence. (There are some breaks in the fenceline where gates have been installed but these are 1.8m high close-boarded gates and so blend with the fence.) This 1.8m fence continues around the corner of the application site at the junction of Palmerston Road with Letchworth Avenue and reduces to about 1m high around the junction of the site of Park Crescent with Letchworth Avenue and continues at this height along the front boundary with Park Crescent. Parking at the site is in the form of two garages to the southern side of the dwelling with a semi-circular drive allowing separate ingress and egress.

In the surrounding area there is the site of Chatham Grammar School for Boys and Chatham South School on opposite (western) side of Park Crescent. To the rear on the eastern side of Palmerston Road is the redevelopment site of Churchlands Nursing Home – which is currently under construction as a 112-bed three storey facility. Dwellings on Palmerston Road are somewhat more mixed with two large nursing homes, some semi-detached dwellings and terraced dwellings.

Proposal

This application proposes the demolition of the dwelling on the site and the construction of a single building to provide 15no. two bedroomed flats with a new vehicle access created off Palmerston Road to the rear and a parking area in the current rear garden area for 15 cars. Accommodation is proposed across three levels - utilising the roof space.

The 15 flats each have two double bedrooms and vary in overall floor area between 61.9m2 (Unit 12) and 83.5m2 (Unit 9). Each flat has an open plan kitchen/living/dining room, inbuilt cupboard, a bathroom and ensuite bathroom.

Page 67 The proposed building is described as ‘part 2.5 storey and part 3 storey’ and has been designed with many different facets and on varying planes. In terms of height the ‘2.5 storey’ elements have eaves heights ranging from between about 5.2 m high and 6.4m high and a ridge height of about 10.5m. The ‘3 storey’ elements are gabled with eaves height (valley height) of about 9.5m and ridge height of about 11.7m high. The building also incorporates areas of flat roof behind the roof planes of the main elevations (to allow for the depth of the building) and as such the southern flank has an eaves level of about 8m high.

The building has been designed with two frontage elevations to adjacent streets - Park Crescent and Letchworth Avenue.

To Park Crescent the building is set back from the street by between about 5.2m to 6.5m and is inset from the shared boundary with 1a Park Crescent by about 3m. The elevation is about 25.5m wide and appears as two storey (with gabled fully glazed dormers inset into the front roof plane) to the southern end and increasing in height to a three storey gable (slightly projecting with much glazing ‘wrapping around’ the northern corner) to the western side of the centre and the flank of a three storey gable (facing Letchworth Avenue) to the far northern end. The elevation also includes detailing such as projecting full height glazed bays, chimneys and hanging tiles with the main building materials being brick and clay roof tiles.

To Letchworth Avenue the elevation is about 21.25m wide and is set back from the street by between 1.8m and 3.2m. At the western end of the elevation (at the junction of Park Crescent and Letchworth Avenue) are 2no. three storey gables with large areas of floor to ceiling glazing. The building then reduces in height to appear as 2.5 storey (with fully glazed gables in the roof planes) to the eastern end.

The rear elevation is all of a 2.5 storey height and incorporates two gables.

The ground floor rear flats numbered Units 1, 5 and 4 have individual gardens and Unit 2 has a small enclosed area (1.8m wide). There is access from the rear parking area, to the main circulation corridor serving all flats, along the northern side of Unit 1. A small area, marked as ‘Communal Amenity Area’, is show to the northern side of the car park area under a retained tree. The amenity area measures about 6.5m wide (max.) by 11.5m length. A bin store (for 4 general waste Eurobins and 2 recycling Eurobins) is proposed positioned to the western side of the communal amenity area and has access from both inside the site and directly off Letchworth Avenue.

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.15ha (0.371acres) Site density: 99.99 dph (40.43 dpa)

Representations

The application has been advertised on site (in Palmerston Road and Park Crescent) and in the press and by neighbour notification letters to Chatham South School, and the owner /occupiers of 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41 Letchworth Avenue, 1a,

Page 68 2a, 2, 3, 4 Park Crescent, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165, 167, ‘Churchlands’ Palmerston Road.

93 letters have been received (around 40 of which are multiple letters from properties) raising the following objections:

• Block of flats inappropriate in area consisting of relatively large family dwellings; • Will alter character of area; • Be detrimental ‘in every respect to the current residents’; • Increase of traffic will add to traffic and parking issues associated with expansion of Chatham Grammar School; • Out of character with Park Crescent which is a pleasant residential road; • Sets a precedent for other surrounding roads; • Lack of parking proposed on site and lack of overflow parking on street; • Bad traffic problems during school start/finish times and during day teachers students parking on streets cause lack of on-street parking; • Logistics, rubbish, security…’; • The area is very bad with parking issues at present … ‘development of this nature of this development will cause an accident blackspot’; • The current building should not be allowed to be taken down; • Loss of family housing stock in favour of smaller units that are available throughout Medway; • Flats will create a noisy atmosphere in what is a quiet backwater; • Size and height of development is excessive on the plot currently occupied by a single house; • Detrimental to the character and appearance of the local area; • Increase noise and disturbance for neighbouring properties; • Loss of privacy; • Loss of light to neighbours due to close proximity of building; • Bin store encourage rats and foxes; • Loss of habitat for wildlife – birds, foxes, hedgehogs etc. • Overdevelopment of the site; • ‘The development…will generate social and environmental problems which the area is not designed to cope with’; • Will be forward of building line in Park Crescent; • Too close and too high against 1a Park Crescent; • Outlook changed from 1a Park Crescent now overlooking car park and large building; • Car parking proposed not sufficient for 15 units; • No parking provided for visitors; • The density of the proposal (in terms of occupancy) is unacceptable; • Increased noise and overshadowing of neighbours’ property; • Site on a corner plot and proposal out of character with houses in both Park Crescent and Letchworth Avenue; • Loss of outlook from garden of other dwellings in Park Crescent due to large scale of building projecting past rear of neighbouring dwellings;

Page 69 • Loss of trees detrimental to pleasant character of area and outlook from neighbouring properties; • For many residents of the proposed flats there is no direct access to the car park at the rear and the main entrance is to Park Crescent and therefore residents of flats likely to park in Letchworth Avenue and Park Crescent; • Additional on-street parking will add to on-street parking as a result of the nursing home being built on Palmerston Road; • Medway has a limited supply of semi-detached and detached houses in the suburbs and the proposal will cause the loss of such a property; • Loss of mature trees; • Building too close to street in Letchworth Avenue whilst properties on the north side of Letchworth Avenue set back by approx. 25 feet; • Possible consequences to utilities in area (gas, electric, water, drains, etc); • Three storey close proximity to street intrusive to properties opposite in Letchworth Avenue; • Impact of water runoff off car park exacerbate flooding; • Residents will have a clear view of adjacent playing fields; • Large parking area causing significant water runoff; • Proposal of no benefit to the local community; • From experience youths congregate around flats and exterior never maintained; • Large rubbish containers next to and with access to Letchworth Avenue does not seem satisfactory; • Additional pollution from cars affect children’s health; • Building protrudes well beyond the rear building line of dwellings in Park Crescent and has a considerably larger footprint than the existing house; • The proposal is contrary to Policy H6 of MLP 2003 (Conversion of large dwellings to flats); • The difference between the proposed density and the current density in Park Crescent/Letchworth Avenue is too great; • There are no cycle lanes between the development and Chatham Town Centre; • Lack of archaeological survey; • Lack of survey to consider erection of satellite dishes; • Where will children living at the development play? • What is there for children to do?

Cllr Clarke and Cllr Griffin raise objection on the following grounds: • The development is ‘over-intensive’; • Out of character with its surroundings in terms of scale, mass, bulk and detailing; • It would have an adverse impact on the street scene; • It would impact on traffic issues linked to the ‘two secondary schools opposite’. • Create a precedent for similar developments.

Cllrs Paul Godwin, Julie Shaw and Vince Maple raise objection on the following grounds:

Page 70 • The development will add to problems of limited parking in the area and high traffic volume as the site is close to local schools; • Insufficient parking is proposed on the site; • The proposed building will ‘stick out like a sore thumb’ as the area is of two storey detached and semi-detached houses and the style/architectural design of the proposed building will not be in keeping.

Jonathan Shaw MP objects to the proposal for reasons of the development is not suitable for Park Crescent with the number of flats, parking and traffic would affect the character of the area.

Non planning matters are also raised by neighbours including decrease in property prices; will lead to profusion of estates agents ‘letting’ boards; the state of the housing market with regard to an overprovision of flats; construction noise; comments on covenant matters.

Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer comments: parking provision at 1:1 for two bedroom units may be inadequate leading to parking on the street where cars are less secure and may result in inappropriate or confrontational parking practices or may adversely effect highway safety. Suggests additional parking. Due to busy parking during school drop off and collection periods surface markings are needed to demark entrances, no waiting, no parking areas. Suggests use of mechanically operated metal gates. Height of boundary fencing should be increased where lower to 1.8m high to reduce opportunity for climbing or intrusion. Utility meters should be external so less callers need to access building. Communal access control should incorporate both audio and visual remote release link.

Southern Water comments: there is inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewerage disposal to service the development and the land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service comments: Without confirmation of the exact parking point some of the upper floor appears to exceed the travel distance of 45m.

Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal but gives direction/ suggest conditions regarding drainage, contamination matters and fuel/chemical storage.

Development Plan Policies

National Policy:

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing

South East Plan 2009

Policy SP3 (Urban focus and urban renaissance) Policy T4 (Parking)

Page 71

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H5 (High Density Housing) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards) Policy BNE23 (Contamination) Policy T4 (Cycle parking) Policy BNE43 (Trees)

Planning Appraisal

The main issues for consideration arising from this proposal are:

• Principle of Development • Density • Impact on the street scene/character of the area • Residential amenities; • Contamination; • Highways Impact and Parking

Principle and Density

The site is located within an urban area and within a residential area with no specific designations.

Policy SP3 of the South East Plan seeks to ensure that ‘developments in and around urban areas, including urban infill/intensification and new urban extensions, are well designed and consistent with the principles of urban renaissance’.

Policy H4 of the Local Plan says that the redevelopment of residential plots in existing residential areas is acceptable provided that a clear improvement in the local environment will result. The pre-amble to policy H4 also advises that the council will seek to ensure that the amenity of local neighbourhoods is respected and will seek to avoid ‘town cramming’. It goes on to say the development of urban areas will be achieved by resisting the loss of open space and by taking into account the density of surrounding development when deciding the density for individual sites. Policy H5 of the Local Plan says low-density will not be permitted in or close to town centres, near existing or proposed public transport points or along routes capable of being well served by public transport and which are close to local facilities.

The proposed redevelopment of the site at a density of 99.99 dwellings per hectare is of a high-density that policy would allow in principle if the site were close to a town centre and/or close to good transport routes or local facilities. In this case the site is more suburban and not close to the town centre and it is not located close to local facilities. The submitted Planning Statement states that the site allows “convenient

Page 72 access to a number of bus routes, in particular those on the A230 Maidstone Road which provides convenient access to Chatham Railway Station and the town centre which is approximately 1.2miles from the site”. (Policy H5 of the Local plan guides that to be ‘close’ to transport links the development has to be within 5 minutes walk.) The access to good transport link is accepted under the above guidance, however, there is still the requirement that the proposed density of the new development ‘take into account the density of surrounding development when deciding the density for individual sites’ (and avoid ‘town cramming’); provides a clear improvement in the local environment and ensures that the amenity of local neighbourhoods is respected. [Local Plan Policy H4] This will be developed in the following paragraphs and sections.

The matter of neighbours’ amenities will be considered in detail under the section of this report entitled ‘Impact on residential amenities’ but in terms of the proposed density taking, account of the surrounding development, the proposed density is far greater than that which forms the character of the area. The site is located within a suburban area with semi-detached and detached dwellings in generous plots, with dwellings located at the fronts of plots, fronting Park Crescent. The housing density for the adjacent area of Park Crescent (semi-detached dwellings) is in the region of 20dph.

It is appreciated that there is a higher density of dwellings in Palmerston Road (excluding two large nursing homes) to the rear of the site however the development site relates more to Letchworth Avenue and Park Crescent. In the submitted Planning Statement the applicant identifies the ongoing development of the 112-bed nursing home on the eastern side of Palmerston Road and states that this is evidence that ‘The urban fabric area is not of a type that would be highly sensitive to redevelopment’. However it is considered that the proposed flat block does not directly relate to buildings and the street scene of Palmerston Road. Existing dwellings in Park Crescent and Letchworth Avenue are situated at the front of their plots fronting the street (in this case Park Crescent) and is not therefore easily read within or related to built form in Palmerston Road. In the same way the proposed flat block is located within the plot at the front of the site onto Park Crescent and is read within the character area and street scenes of Park Crescent and Letchworth Avenue and not to Palmerston Road.

In summary of this section although it is acceptable in principle to redevelop existing residential sites the new development must take into account the density of the area in which it is located, access to good transport routes and the densities required by current planning policy. In this case the density of proposed development at 99.99 d.p.h is considerably greater than that of other development in the suburban area in which it is located. In terms of density alone the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy H4 of the Local Plan.

Page 73 Design, Impact on Character and Street Scene

Consideration has to be given to Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. This policy seeks to ensure that the design of the development is appropriate in relation to the character, appearance and functioning of the built and natural environment by reason of its use, scale, mass, proportion, details, materials, layout and siting. Furthermore, the Council has to be satisfied that the development respects the scale, appearance and location of buildings, spaces and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

Policy H5 of the Local Plan (High Density Housing) (preamble) states that “New housing development will generally be expected to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood”…”high-density development must meet a high standard of both design and quality if it is to make a positive contribution to the appearance of the area.”

The applicant contends that the proposed building ‘will pick up on the form and proportions of the surrounding development and will fit in well within the existing development’. In terms of height the change in height from the adjacent dwelling at 1a Park Crescent the applicant contends that ‘as the third storey is located within the roof structure and as a result of the change in ground levels between the two buildings [1a Park Crescent and proposed building] the bulk of the proposal is very similar to that of 1a Park Crescent and is entirely appropriate. The part of the building with the greatest bulk would be focused on the corner of Letchworth Avenue and further away from the existing development’.

In response it is considered that the applicant is not correct. The proposed building has a 'building line' that projects beyond that established on Park Crescent to the front and the rear. Within the Park Crescent streetscape the proposed building is wider, higher and bulkier than the semi-detached dwellings within the street and therefore fails to respect the scale of the neighbouring buildings. From the southern side the bulky and wide southern flank of the building (in addition to the rear block of the building) will be very apparent behind the building 1a/2a Park Crescent and through the gap between 1a and the proposed building. From the north the whole western and northern elevations, which are both of significant width and height (with 3no. three storey gables at the northern western corner) will be seen as a single large-scale, high building against the adjacent row of semi-detached dwellings in Park Crescent.

Further to this, in terms of the impact on Letchworth Avenue, the current dwelling on this site has a single frontage only which is to Park Crescent and the flank of the existing dwelling is inset significantly from Letchworth Avenue. There is no established ‘building line’ along the southern side of Letchworth Avenue (with the school site being to the western side of Park Crescent) however the same generous set back of existing dwellings in Park Crescent is also characteristic of facing properties on the northern side of Letchworth Avenue. The current proposal would see the introduction of a new long ‘frontage’ to Letchworth Road set back a minimum of 1.8m from the back edge of the footpath. In creating new frontage the proposal is very close to the street, is wide (at around 21.25m) and the gable features are very high, with the ridges at about 11.7m high. The proposed design in fact involves the meeting of 3no. three storey gables at the junction of Park Crescent and Letchwoth

Page 74 Avenue. The creation of a prominent ‘feature building’ in this way at the junction of Letchworth Avenue with Park Crescent, which are minor roads within a long established suburban area, is considered to be inappropriate.

Urban design best practice might support an increase in scale or creation of some architectural feature to mark corner sites. In more urban settings this may be appropriate as a device to aid legibility and reinforce street hierarchy and structure. However, it would inappropriate to apply the same rules here. This is a suburban setting where buildings are set back from the street edge and trees and shrubs dominate the street scene emphasising that the priority is to create a peaceful, leafy environment with the emphasis on privacy to residents.

In addition the proposal will cause the removal of much of the existing mature planting in the rear garden which, although not the subject of tree protection orders, are reflective of the character of this long established suburban area. (Although it is appreciated that the applicant proposes further planting). Without replanting the removal of much of the planting will further erode the character of the area and will open up significant views of the development from Palmerston Road, from where currently there is very little appreciation of the existing dwellings within Park Crescent.

Although not of an unpleasing appearance in itself the elevational treatment of the proposed building is very much more elaborate than the more simple treatment of surrounding dwellings.

It is considered that the combination of concerns regarding this proposal the density, the building being out of place in the street scene due to matters of design, scale, width, height and mass and loss of mature planting, the close location of the building to Letchworth Avenue, with insufficient amenity space for the occupiers, the need to use all four elevations to provide primary windows for habitable rooms (discussed further in the section ‘Impact on residential amenities’ below) demonstrates that the proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of this site.

In summary of this section it is considered that the design of the proposed development in terms of its impact on the street scene and character of the area is of a mass, scale, height, width, appearance and setting that is out of place within the street scenes of Park Crescent and Letchworth Avenue and out of character with this established suburban area. It fails to provide an improvement to the local environment and is considered to be an over-intensive use of the site. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SP3 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies BNE1 and H5 of the Local Plan 2003.

Impact on residential amenities

Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan sets out general principles for development in that it should protect the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of nearby and adjacent properties and also seeks to secure good living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed units.

Page 75 With regard to the neighbours’ amenities the proposed building is to the north of other dwellings in Park Crescent and although to the south of properties in Letchworth Avenue is located about 21 metres from properties in Letchworth Avenue and as such there will be no significant overshadowing of neighbouring sites as a result of this proposal.

In terms of privacy however there are a number of windows proposed in the southern flank of the building and in the southern roof plane. Most of these windows are secondary windows to habitable space or serving bathrooms and as such these could be conditioned to be fitted with fixed, obscure glazing and overcome the matter of loss of privacy to neighbours. However both units 10 and 15 have sole bedroom windows located in this flank and roof slope that give a clear view over the rear garden of no. 1a Park Crescent. (In addition, due to the internal floor level, Unit 5 will also have a view over the boundary fence into this same property.) This loss of privacy is contrary to policy BNE2 of the Local Plan.

In terms of outlook, No. 1a has secondary windows and windows serving non- habitable space only in its northern flank. As such there will be no loss of outlook from these windows. From windows in the rear of 1a Park Crescent there will be no loss of outlook as the rear part of the proposed building has been further offset the shared boundary with no. 1a Park Crescent. However the proposed building projects around 8m past the rear of 1a Park Crescent and for occupiers of particularly 1a and 2a Park Avenue the building will be imposing from the rear garden of those dwellings and is very different from the current situation in this area of well spaced two storey family homes.

Due to the offset of the rear element of the building from the shared boundary with no. 1a Park Crescent and the distance of the proposed building from dwellings on the north side of Letchworth Avenue there will be no significant loss of daylight to habitable or primary windows of surrounding dwellings.

With regard to the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed flats the floor area of the flats are all of an acceptable size however there is a distinct lack of outdoor amenity space for the occupiers of the flats to utilise, relax in and for children to play in. Units 1, 4 and 5 have private gardens but the remaining 12 flats have to share a small ‘amenity area’ (about 6.5m (max.) by 11.5m) located to the northern side of the car park area under a retained mature tree. This area is considered to be inadequate as an amenity area due to its small size and its location under a mature tree with tree roots and falling leaves and tree debris. The average occupancy for 15no. two-bedroomed flats (at 2.45 persons per unit) would be in the region of 37 people (potentially less the occupants of the 3 flats with gardens). There are no public parks in close proximity to this development to which occupiers can walk to use as an alternative amenity area. Therefore it is considered that the living conditions of future occupiers of the development are below the acceptable levels. The matter of the lack of amenity space in this development is also considered to be indicative of the overdeveloped nature of this site.

Page 76 The timber-clad bin store with roof is proposed with 4 euro-bins for general waste and 2 euro-bins for recycling waste. The bin-store is in accordance with the latest Medway Council guidance regarding waste management for new developments and as such no concern is raised regarding the proposed bin store.

In summary the proposed development will detrimentally impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in Park Crescent by virtue of a loss of privacy and an imposing presence from these neighbours’ gardens. The proposal also provides sub-standard amenity conditions for future occupiers of the flats, symptomatic of the overdeveloped nature of the proposal and as such is considered to be contrary to Policy SP3 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy BNE2 of Medway Local Plan 2003.

Contamination

The applicant has submitted a Contamination Risk Assessment in support of their application. The report is a desk top study including details of site history, site walkover, information on the geology and hydrogeology at the site. A conceptual site model has been developed for the site. The desk top study concludes that the site should not be considered as a ‘contaminated site’. The report is acceptable but the applicant will need undertake a limited intrusive investigation once the buildings have been demolished at the site – in particular in the area of the garage and the proposed garden areas, this could be a condition of any approval.

Highways Impact and Parking

In terms of parking, 15 spaces are proposed to serve the development, comprising 15 two bedroom flats. A ratio of 1 parking space per dwelling has been provided. A new vehicle access from Palmerston Road would be created as part of this proposal to allow access to the on-site parking area.

Many neighbours have raised concerns regarding a lack of on-street parking in the area; that the proposed parking provision for the development is too low and that the new access/residents cars will create a highway hazard.

Regarding the level of parking on-site to be provided the ratio of one space per unit accords with Local Plan Policy T13. Although the provision of some unallocated spaces for visitors and casual use within the site would be desirable there is a significant amount of kerbside parking available in the vicinity.

The accident record of this area records that only two personal injuries (resulting in slight injuries) have occurred in this area in the past 3 years (one in Park Crescent and one in Palmerston Road). Both accidents seem to have been due to pedestrian error and as such there is no indication that these accidents resulted from inappropriate driving behaviour or any deficiency in the highway network that would be significantly exacerbated by the proposed development.

The 4.1m wide new vehicle access is proposed via a dropped kerb pavement crossing on Palmerston Road. The width of the access will allow two cars to pass at low speed and 2m x 2m splays are to be provided to ensure that pedestrians on the

Page 77 footway can be seen by emerging vehicles. Palmerston Road is relatively straight at this point and vehicle sightlines can be provided that accord with guidance for residential roads contained within 'Manual for Streets'. The position of the access gates within the site will enable a car to wait off the highway.

It is appreciated that due to the close location of Chatham Grammar School for Boys there is likely to be some congestion and parking pressures during peak periods in this area but at these times the demand for residential on-street parking is low. Outside of school peak arrival and departure times the site is located in an area characterised by lightly trafficked residential roads. Due to this factor, in conjunction with that there is no indication that inherently unsafe highway conditions exist in the vicinity of the site, it is considered that any on-street parking generated by the development will not cause a significant issue in terms of highway safety or the free-flow of traffic.

It is also noted that cycle parking for 5 cycles is to be provided which is in accordance with the Vehicle Parking Standards requirement of 1 cycle parking space per 5 units in addition to car parking.

The proposed development will result in a relatively low level of traffic using an access with acceptable visibility. A satisfactory level of on-site parking is provided and any overspill parking on the local roads can be accommodated safely. On this basis, the proposed development is considered to accord with the transport policies of the Local Plan and no objection is raised.

As such, no objection is raised under the provisions of Policy T4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies T1 and T13 of the adopted local plan.

Other Matters

Matters raised by Southern Water and Kent Fire and Rescue Services can be addressed under other legislation and by condition on any approval and is not a reason for refusal of the proposal.

Developer Contributions

New residential development can create additional demand for local services. Policy S6 of the adopted Local Plan state conditions and/or legal agreements should be used to make provision for such needs.

The applicant has confirmed that they agree to contributions in relation to addressing the impacts of the development on : open space provision in the area (Great Lines City Park) in the order of £1,749.30 and medical facilities (PCT) in the order of £6551.30, in accordance with the amounts requested by these parties.

Page 78

Conclusions and Reasons for Refusal

The proposed development is of a pleasing appearance in isolation however the site is not considered to be appropriate for a high-density flat development as it is a low- density suburban area of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. The design in terms of the creation of a ‘feature corner’, the height, width and mass of the building results in a building that is out of keeping with both the street scene and the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site which is demonstrated by its very large footprint, close location to Letchworth Road, significant projection past the rear of adjacent dwellings, lack of supporting amenity space and the need to use all four elevations for the location of primary windows serving habitable rooms. The amenity of occupiers in Park Crescent will also be compromised by virtue of overlooking and the sense of the building being imposing from rear gardens.

The proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy SP3 of the South East Plan 2009 and policies BNE1, BNE2 and H5 of the Medway local Plan 2003 and the application is accordingly recommended for refusal

The application would ordinarily fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers, but is referred for Members’ at the request of the Development Control Manager due to the sensitivity of the application. ______

Page 79

5 MC/09/1832

Date Received: 12 October, 2009

Location: Land to rear of No. 1 and 3 Moor Street (opposite 1 Otterham Quay Lane), Rainham, Gillingham, Kent

Proposal: Change of use from agricultural land to residential vehicle parking area with access from Otterham Quay Lane for use of No 3 Moor Street.

Applicant: Mr C Barber

Agent: Ward Rainham South

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 27 January, 2010.

Recommendation - Refusal

1 The proposed development by virtue of the extent of the land involved, its siting, materials proposed, fencing and gateway and general urbanisation and domestication of the land, will result in an unacceptable loss of agricultural land, incursion into the open countryside and would be detrimental to the character of the rural area and area of local landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policies C4 of the South East Plan 2009 and BNE25 and BNE34 of the Medway Local Plan 2003, and the provisions within PPS7.

Site Description

This application relates to the far southern corner of part of an agricultural field sited to the east of Otterham Quay Lane. It is understood that the field is used during the summer for boot fairs and in winter for the grazing of horses.

The application site adjoins at the far southeastern corner the rear curtilage of No.3 Moor Street, within which there is a pedestrian gate access onto the field. There is a conifer hedge along the rear boundary of this property The site also abuts the vehicular driveway serving the garage associated with No.1 Moor Street. A wooden rustic looking gate secures this access. The site has a width of 14m and depth of 32m.

Page 80 The boundary to the west with Otterham Quay Lane is partially screened by trees and hedgerow scrub. The boundary of a 1.5 metre high chain link fence is set up on an earth turfed bank approx 1 metre higher than the public highway, leaving a wide grass verge separating the field from the public highway.

Due to the traffic light junction cars can sometimes back up along Otterham Quay lane to the site of the proposed access to the application site. There is a street lamp on this grass verge close to the proximity of the proposed access, plus four large Poplar trees.

Opposite the site are residential properties fronting Otterham Quay Lane, a small single storey building occupied by a used car sales business and closer to the junction with Moor Street, a vacant public house.

Proposal

It is proposed to change the use of the land from agricultural to residential vehicle parking area with access from Otterham Quay Lane for use of No 3 Moor Street.

The submitted Planning Statement explains the reasons behind the application. No.3 Moor Street is situated on the A2, within 35 metres from the junction with Otterham Quay Lane, Meresborough Lane and the High Street, Rainham.

In recent years vehicular access from this property has proved extremely dangerous due to the increased traffic and the actions of some motorists accelerating at speed through the traffic signals at this junction. The occupants have had 1 vehicle written off and received numerous damage to their car. The site is noted as a crash reduction site as per the Medway Road Safety Plan 2006-2011. This shows that site 64, being the A2 Moor Street boundary to Mierscourt Road junction, had no fatal accidents, 1 serious accident, and 5 slight accidents.

The existing driveway in front of the garage door is on a slope. When the extension to the house was built, removing three off-street car parking spaces, it was considered that the replacement garage and driveway provided sufficient car parking provision and there should be sufficient room in front of the garage to permit safe access for vehicles leaving the public highway. While this remains to a degree true, it does require vehicles either to reverse onto or from the drive, as there are no turning facilities (or the possibility of such facilities) on site. Consequently the applicants experience is that access and or egress onto the A2 is not safe.

They propose, as part of this application, to acquire part of the adjacent farmland and to construct a vehicular access onto Otterham Quay lane. The site will have a frontage of 14m to Otterham Quay land and will then project back 32m to connect with the applicants rear garden.

The vehicular entrance has been chosen in-between two Poplar trees. It will be sited approx 5m back from the kerb side and will be 3m wide and enclosed by a wooden traditional gate opening inwards. There is a 1m gradient differential in levels from verge to the site.

Page 81 The construction of the track will consist of the excavation of 800mm wide X 150mm deep trenches with a 1600mm grass verge separation in-between. A Type 1 sub base will be laid with a 50mm bed of 10mm shingle will then be laid above and then compacted. This will be self-binding on the gradient to prevent scattering towards the public highway.

1.5m high post and wire stock fencing is proposed to separate the land from the adjacent agricultural fields. The fencing will be supported by a wildlife/ natural hedge row.

Site Area

Site Area: 0.0448ha.

Relevant Planning History

In 1972 the site was going to be affected by the Rainham Southern Relief Road, with a blight also placed on 3 Moor Street. The plans for the relief road were abandoned in the late 1990’s. As such this part of the field has not been used for any particular agricultural use for many years. Part of the same blighted land was granted planning permission for a new dwelling now known as 1 Moor Street with an associated vehicular access on the agricultural land to the north.

MC2000/0242 Site at 1 Moor Street, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent Outline application for the erection of one dwelling. Approved 31 August 2000

MC2002/1015 Site at 1 Moor Street, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent Construction of a 3-bedroomed detached house with detached garage Approved 7 August 2002

MC2003/0559 3 Moor Street Construction of a two-storey side extension. Approved 30 April 2003

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the occupiers and owners of Nos.1, 5, 7 Moor Street, The Man of Kent PH and flat above at 395 High Street, 1, 3,5, 7 Otterham Quay Lane and letters hand delivered to Nos. 2, 4,6 and 8 Pear tree Cottages on the corner of Moor Street and to Roydens Ltd in Otterham Quay Lane.

Medway Council’s Agricultural Adviser notes that the application relates to a small field corner and the proposal involves the loss of a small area (some 0.04 ha or 0.1 acre) which appears to fall within a general area classified as Grade 1 agricultural land (excellent quality), albeit a detailed site survey would be required to confirm this. DEFRA advises that land protection policy is relevant to all planning

Page 82 applications including (as here) those on smaller areas, but that it is for the LPA to decide how significant are the agricultural land issues and the need for field information.

The Council’s Local Plan Policy on the protection of agricultural land (BNE48) has not been “saved”, and unless and until the forthcoming LDF Core Strategy incorporates a more stringent protection regime, the main policy guidance on safeguarding “best and most versatile” (BMV) agricultural land appears to be the relatively limited protection suggested in paragraph 28 of Planning Policy Statement No.7.

This advises, broadly, that the presence of BMV land should be taken into account along with other sustainability considerations, and that it is for LPAs to decide whether BMV land can be developed, having carefully weighed the options in the light of competent advice.

In this case it would appear that other benefits are being cited for the development particularly in terms of safe vehicular access to/from the residence concerned (3 Moor Street).

The merits of that argument are not for his consideration, and there may be other planning policy issues that also arise in this case. However, the relatively insignificant loss of such a small area of BMV agricultural land, alone, is unlikely to be a determining issue in this particular case, in which case further investigation to confirm the precise quality grading would not be warranted, and realistically no potential case for objection to the development is likely to be sustainable based on the loss of agricultural land per se.

3 letters of support have been received (including two anonymous via on-line comment). They make the following comments:

• The application is supported, as there are serious safety issues involved with the present access. • It will be safer for the family and other busy traffic. • It will fit in with the area. • It will add security to the rear of neighbouring houses. • It will stop people treading down boundary fences to take a short cut to the boot fairs. • It will be a mirror image of what is already there. • Will not affect views. • Will put the land to good use being somewhere they can park their car safely, compared to at present when people jump the traffic lights.

One letter of objection from an agent on behalf of the occupier of 1 Moor Street has been submitted on the following grounds:

• The application site comprises agricultural land outside the urban boundary as defined in the Medway Local Plan and is therefore subject to the provisions of policy BNE25.

Page 83 • The site is also within the Mierscourt/ Meresborough Area of Local Landscape Importance (ALLI) designated under policy BNE34 of the Local Plan. • The site is therefore in an area where there is a general presumption against permitting new development unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. • The application in effect extends the residential curtilage of 3 Moor Street and the proposal does not fall into any of the categories that can be considered as exceptional development within the countryside as set out under policy BNE25. • It is considered that the development will harm the landscape character of the site, with it being severed from the remainder of the adjoining open farm land contrary to policy BNE34 and there are no economic or social benefits arising from the proposed development that outweigh the local priority to conserve the area’s landscape. • The proposal represents urban sprawl which policy BNE34 seeks to control. • It is considered that the site area is excessive and has the potential to be used actively as a garden, rather than just a parking area with associated vehicular access. The establishment of a garden, with the introduction of associated paraphernalia would further compromise the character and visual amenities of the immediate area. • Permitting the development has the potential to establish a precedent for similar proposals promoted by other occupiers of Moor Street, resulting in incremental urban sprawl. • The occupiers of 1 Moor Street will experience a loss of visual amenity, loss of outlook, loss of privacy and potential disturbance. • The formation of the access onto Otterham Quay Lane will require some hard engineering works to be undertaken, which will detract from the appearance of the existing embankment, adding to the adverse impact of the proposed development at the western extremity of the ALLI and the local countryside. • It is acknowledged that the applicant submits highway safety grounds for the proposal, however it is submitted that these grounds are not materially sufficient to overcome the strong policy objections to the development. It is submitted that the accident data for Moor Street does not indicate a particularly poor situation that might be alleviated or justified by providing alternative parking and access arrangements for 3 Moor Street. • Prior to 3 Moor Street being extended, the dwelling had more associated off- street car parking. The resulting access and parking arrangements were judged to be safe at the time of consideration of the two storey extension with garage, otherwise the planning application would not have been granted. • Reference is also made to photos that show vehicles at the traffic lights backing up along Otterham Quay Lane, concerns are raised for the potential for a north travelling vehicle turning into the proposed access to cause a tail back onto the A2 junction, if there is south bound traffic blocking the access. This situation would be prejudicial to highway safety.

The applicant has written a further letter of support and explains that:

• The site size was chosen to reduce any impact on the occupants of No.1 Moor Street. The initial idea was to use the vehicular access used by No.1

Page 84 Moor Street, which is not solely owned by them. • With regard to highway safety it is submitted that the new site is a safer option as vehicles driving along an A class road exceed far greater speeds than vehicles approaching the traffic light controlled T-junction. • Regarding parking at 3 Moor Street, the site has never had enough space to drive into. It has always required a reversing manoeuvre to access the site. This was considered a safer alternative at the time of the application as the only other option was to park on the A2. Since the initial application, there has been an increase in both speed and traffic along the A2. Hence the application for a safer alternative. • Concerns regarding turning right prejudicing highway safety is refuted and it is pointed out that neighbours also turn right into their access on Otterham Quay Lane, which is even closer to the traffic light junction.

In response to the agents objection letter another letter in support from another neighbour has been submitted stating that:

• The design of the proposal (especially the native hedgerow, stock fencing and driveway) has been specifically tailored to suit the rural setting. • The field is not used for any agricultural purposes and is used for boot fairs and other events during the summer, which adds to the applicant’s parking and access problems. • In reference to queues along Otterham Quay, reference is also made to traffic queues further along the A2 near to Westmoor Farm. • With regard to the quoted countryside protection policies, reference is made to other developments in the area that breach these policies, although no specific addresses have been quoted.

National Planning Guidance

PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

Development Plan Policies

South East Plan 2009

Policy C4 (Landscape and Countryside Management)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Considerations) Policy BNE25 (Development in the Countryside) Policy BNE28 (Farm Diversification) Policy BNE34 (Area of Local Landscape Importance) Policy BNE42 (Hedgerow Retention) Policy BNE43 (Trees & Development Sites) Policy T1 (Impact of New development on the Highway Network) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Page 85

Planning Appraisal

Having regard to the provision of the Development Plan, it is considered that the main issues arising from the proposal are as follows:

• Principle and impact on Countryside/ALLI. • Whether the proposal would cause harm to the amenities of the nearby residential units. • Whether the proposal would prejudice highway safety and car parking implications.

Principle and impact on the countryside

The site lies in an area defined as open countryside on the proposals maps of the Local Plan and outside the urban boundary of the Medway and the boundaries of any rural village. The countryside is also designated as an Area of Local Landscape Importance.

Policy C4 of the South East Regional Plan and Planning Policy Statement No.7 (paragraphs 28 and 29) recognise the important and varied roles of agricultural including the maintenance and management of the countryside and presume against the irreversible loss of land from farming unless otherwise allocated by the Development Plan.

The presence of the best and most versatile agricultural land (DEFRA Grades 1, 2 and 3a) should be taken into account alongside other sustainability considerations (e.g. Biodiversity; the quality and character of the landscape; its amenity value and the protection of natural resources) when determining planning applications.

Paragraph 30 of PPS7 encourages farm diversification and encourages Local Planning Authorities to support well conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that contribute to sustainable development objectives and helps to sustain the agricultural enterprise. However, paragraph 31 advises that a supportive approach to farm diversification should not result in excessive expansion and encroachment of building development into the countryside

Policy BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan only normally permits development in the rural area where they are necessary for agriculture, forestry or other land use demanding a rural location.

The applicant has not provided any evidence that the proposed use is required in connection with Farm Diversification as advocated by Government Policy in PPS7, and transferred down into Policy BNE28 of the Medway Local Plan. The proposal is not necessary for agriculture, forestry or other land use demanding a rural location and a justification cannot therefore be made in relation to Policy BNE25. Therefore justification cannot be made under these policies for the proposed use.

The proposal is seeking consent for access and car parking development in the open countryside associated with the adjacent curtilage of a residential dwelling. It is

Page 86 acknowledged that the proposal has been designed as much as possible to reduce its impact upon the countryside by the use of stock proof fencing, hedgerow planting and the design of the part grassed/ part hard core lain over with shingle trackway.

The site area proposed is 0.04 ha and is 14m wide by 32m long. This is not an insignificant incursion into the Countryside and the proposed trackway and areas for car parking and turning would involve the permanent loss of best quality farmland.

The site is located within the Mierscourt/Meresborough Area of Local Landscape (policy BNE34) – a particularly attractive and important landscape, which has an important function as a buffer zone, helping to counteract the outward pressure of urban sprawl and maintaining the separation of settlements. It is a continuation of the adjacent area in Swale Borough, which is subject to a settlement separation policy in the Swale Borough Local Plan. The ALLI designation is particularly important in the context of urban fringe land providing valuable countryside and recreation opportunities.

The site is in quite a prominent position due to the topography of the land and is also generally uncluttered and devoid of man-made structures. Although screened to an extent near the junction with the A2 along Otterham Quay Lane, the site can be seen through the trees. The planting of existing boundaries adjacent to the rear of dwellings along Moor Street provides a rural backdrop appearance.

It is considered important to protect the general open aspect of the countryside in which the application site is situated and it is considered that the car parking area, access and associated hard landscaping materials for the trackway would harm this open character.

It is acknowledged that the applicants’ have attempted to design the scheme in such a way as to try and reduce its impact upon the countryside by the use of stock proof fencing, hedgerow planting and the design of the part grassed/ part hard core lain over with shingle trackway.

However, not withstanding that the proposed hedgerow planting will eventually grow to screen the proposed fencing, it is considered that the proposed wooden gate onto the rural lane and the enclosure of the site with post and wire stock fencing will have a high visual impact and with the use of the site for vehicle parking, would result in unacceptable proliferation of man made structures within the rural area and be harmful to this ALLI and character of the area.

The proposal does not demand a rural location, is not necessary for agriculture or forestry and involves a not insignificant area of land. The proposal would result in an unacceptable extension of the urban area into the open countryside and Area of Local Landscape Importance, with the resultant loss of the highest quality agricultural land and harm to the landscape character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy C4 of the South East Plan and policies BNE25 and BNE34 of the Medway Local Plan 2003, and the provisions in PPS7. There is no locational or farm diversification benefits that would justify an exception under policy BNE28 or PPS7.

Page 87 Amenity Considerations

Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that the amenities of existing residents are safeguarded. The principal issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents in terms of noise and general disturbance, loss of outlook and privacy.

The nearest adjacent residential property is No.1 Moor Street, which would be sited approx 15 metres south of the proposed area of car parking. Although the rear garden of that property backs onto the application site, the area immediately adjacent to the application site is laid out as a car turning area associated with the garden of that property. This garage and car parking area is also accessed from Otterham Quay.

In view of this and that the proposal would only provide for a small area of parking serving one property it is not considered that there would result any unacceptable impact to residential amenity either through noise or outlook.

In amenity terms the proposal is therefore viewed as being in accordance with the provisions of Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan.

Highways

Policy T1 of the South East Plan, and Policies T1 and T2 of the adopted Local Plan deal with the impact of additional traffic caused by development and seek to ensure that the Highway network is adequate in terms of capacity and safety.

The applicants have one garage and a small driveway associated with their property and therefore adequate car parking is provided for associated with the dwelling. There is therefore no justification for the proposed development in terms of car parking that would override the normal policy constraint against development in the Countryside.

The applicant is not seeking to justify the proposal in terms of the Countryside protection policies or a use demanding a rural location. Their justification for the proposal and wishing for it to be treated as an exception to the countryside protection policies, is one purely of highway safety to do with their existing access arrangements. They advise that they have to either reverse into or from their existing driveway and that there is no provision possible within their site for vehicles to turn. This is a matter of fact. They continue by advising that in their opinion, such a reversing manoeuvre onto the busy A2 and in close proximity to the traffic lights, is a dangerous manoeuvre with the likelihood or serious road traffic accidents. They point out their own experience in this regard. To address this concern, they consider their only option is to purchase adjoining agricultural land and create an access from Otterham Quay Lane and such an access could incorporate turning. They have tried to minimize the visual impact of this, as stated above.

Consideration is therefore simply but balanced. Do the highway safety benefits, as advised by the applicant, outweigh the principle and policy objection to the proposal in terms of countryside and ALLI protection.

Page 88

The current parking arrangements require a reversing manoeuvre either onto or off the site from the A2, which is one of the busiest roads in Medway. A recent traffic survey counted around 12,500 two-way movements per day including around 2,000 HGV’s. The accident database indicates that there have been 5 personal injury accidents on the A2 in the vicinity of the site in the past 3 years. Four accidents occurred at the Otterham Quay Lane/A2 junction, 3 of which involved shunts and one occurred when a car swerved to avoid a cyclist crossing Otterham Quay Lane. One accident occurred adjacent to number 3 when a car mounted the pavement and collided with a cyclist. None of these accidents were attributable to vehicle movements from private driveways. This is reflected in recent Government research contained with Manual for streets, which indicates that very few accidents occur involving vehicles turning into or out of driveways, even on heavily trafficked roads. It goes on to say that there is good evidence for permitting direct frontage access onto roads with traffic flows of at least 10,000 vehicles per day, or higher depending upon traffic flows, vehicle speeds and accident records. This research was carried out on roads with speed limits of 30mph, which is the speed limit of the A2 at this location.

It is noted that concerns have been expressed in respect of a vehicle turning right into the access impacting upon north-bound traffic flow. However, the low level of traffic using the proposed access means that this will be a very infrequent occurrence that will have a minimal impact upon highway safety. It is also noted that the access will be adjacent to an existing access. As such there are in fact no highway safety objections against the proposed development.

While it is considered that the proposed access is preferable in highway safety terms to the existing access arrangements, it is not considered that there are sufficient highway safety concerns that would justify a new access in the location proposed with the consequential impact on the countryside and ALLI.

Conclusions and Reasons for Refusal

The applicants currently have a garage and drive at their premises. The proposal is for a new access and cark parking area on adjoining agricultural land where there is a presumption against development. It is not considered that the applicants argument that access to and from their existing drive is dangerous, is sufficient to merit a grant of planning consent for development that would encroach and be harmful to the character of the ALLI and the rural area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of the above mentioned Development Plan policies and is recommended for refusal.

The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being referred for Committee determination due to the extent of the support received contrary to the officer recommendation. ______

Page 89

6 MC/09/2120

Date Received: 29 October, 2009

Location: Land adjacent 181 Bells Lane Hoo St Werburgh Rochester Kent ME3 9JA

Proposal: Construction of 5 detached dwellings with associated parking

Applicant: Mrs Mackay

Agent: Miller Ankas Ltd Unit 4 New Court 1 New Road Rochester Kent ME1 1BD

Ward Peninsula

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 27 January, 2010.

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 No development shall take place until samples of all materials to be used externally in the construction of the development, and as listed on Drawing No. P07, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 90 Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and without prejudice to conditions of visual amenity in the locality, in accordance with Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

4 The south east elevation windows/doors and first floor bathroom window on the north west of Plot 5 shall be fitted with obscure glass and, apart from any top-hung light shall be non-opening. The doors on the south east elevation of plot 4 and north west elevation of Plot 1 shall be fitted with obscure glass. All bathroom and w.c. windows on plots 1 to 5 shall be fitted with obscure glass and, apart from any top-hung light shall be non opening. This work shall be carried out prior to first occupation of the dwellings approved on the above plots and shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of amenity by reason of unneighbourly overlooking of adjoining property, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development shall be carried out within Class A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H of Part A of Schedule 2 of that Order unless planning permission has been granted on an application relating thereto.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control such development in the interests of amenity, in accordance with Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

6 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping (hard and soft). All planting, seeding and turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be implemented as approved during the first planting season following occupation of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is the earlier. Any trees or plants which within 5 years of planting are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

7 In this Condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs a) and b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use.

Page 91 a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work).

c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this Condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

8 The Hawthorn hedges, indicated on Appendix A ii & iii of the submitted Arboriculture Report dated 3 November 2009, shall be retained, and protected in accordance with the measures set out within the report both during and after construction and shall thereafter retained and maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Pursuant to Condition 197 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan, 2003.

9 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking and garaging shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of highway safety or efficiency.

Page 92 For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.

Site Description

The application site forms an irregular shaped piece of land, which previously formed part of a large garden to no.181 Bells Lane, a private dwelling. The site slopes gently down from west to east and is bounded mainly by timber fences. It has been cleared of trees and shrubs but a range of single storey out buildings remain. The site has two road frontages, one to Bells Lane and the other to Kingshill Drive. It is bounded on the remaining sides by private houses.

The area is primarily residential in nature, and the site is located within but on the outskirts of the settlement of Hoo St Werburgh. Bells Lane forms the edge of built development with an open outlook to the north east (over the Coleman Land, earmarked for development under MC2004/0006), whereas Kingshill Drive is built up and suburban in character.

There is no consistent pattern of development on this part of Bells Lane, with houses having a variety of size, period, type and set back from the road. The built development on Kingshill Drive is not quite so inconsistent but still contains a variety of forms. To either side of the site detached houses of differing styles predominate, most having frontage parking. Most properties are two-storey dwellings.

Proposal

The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 5 detached dwellings with associated parking.

Four of the proposed dwellings will face onto Kingshill Drive, with the remaining fifth unit facing onto Bells Lane; all five dwellings will provide detached accommodation. Plots 1 to 4 will provide a hallway and w.c., kitchen/family room, utility and lounge diner at ground floor, with three double bedrooms, one single bedroom, a study and bathroom at first floor. Each dwelling will benefit from an integral garage and additional off-street parking. Plot 5 will also provide similar accommodation on ground and first floor, with integral garage and off-street parking. Each dwelling will benefit from private gardens and landscaping.

Site Area/Density

Site Area: 0.21 hectares (0.52 acres) Site Density: 23.8 dph (9.63 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

77/624 Polperra/181, Bells Lane, Hoo St Werburgh Conversion of garage to lounge and erect a new garage Approved 23 September 1977

Page 93 87/1271 Land adjoining/181, Bells Lane and fronting/Kingshill Drive Outline permission for three detached dwellings Approved 26 January 1988

87/1271/A Land adjoining/181, Bells Lane and fronting/Kingshill Drive Details pursuant to outline for the erection of a detached four- bedroomed house with integral, double garage (plot C) Approved 29 September 1988

87/1271/B Land adjoining/181, Bells Lane and fronting/Kingshill Drive Details pursuant to outline for the erection of a detached house with integral garage Approved 6 December 1988

87/1271/C Land adjoining/181, Bells Lane and fronting/Kingshill Drive Details pursuant to outline for detached house and garage Approved 10 February 1989

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and individual neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of no's 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65 & 67 Kingshill Drive, Rayes Lodge, 169, 171, 173, 175, 183, 187, 189, 191 & 193 Bells Lane, and 62 & 64 Rochester Crescent.

6 letters have been received raising the following objections to the proposal:

• The new build will exacerbate parking and driving problems in the area, especially Kingshill Drive & Rochester Crescent, which already suffering because of recent developments in the area. • One allocated off-street parking space for each new dwelling is not adequate or acceptable for four-bed detached properties. There is already inadequate on- street parking provision in the area. Most families have more than one car. • The garages appear to small to accommodate modern-day cars. • On clay land, what method is to be used for the foundations? Concern regarding damage to neighbouring properties. • Are the existing drains able to cope with additional use? • concern for loss of outlook for neighbours, and loss of privacy, especially for immediate neighbours adjacent to the site. • Potential loss of light caused as a result of the new build. • Concern that the new dwellings will be built right up to the boundary line of adjacent dwellings, particularly affecting no 56 and 50 Kingshill Drive. • Affect on the value of properties. • Additional building will result in flooding. • Significant concern with regard to loss of sunlight, daylight, privacy and outlook for 56 Kingshill Drive.

Page 94

Hoo St Werburgh Parish Council raises concerns relating to car parking, freshwater supply, drainage and potential flood risk. There is concern that the proposal does not provide sufficient off-road parking for the type and size of dwelling and additional on-street parking will result in excess vehicles parking on the road contrary to the planning authorities guidance.

There is also concern that any continued development within the locality should not result in deteriorisation in the level or quality of water supply to existing properties. In addition, local residents consider that foul water sewers are still not accommodating existing flows and feel additional dwellings will worsen the situation.

The Parish Council also ask whether the Local Planning Authority would be insist that the developer demonstrate that the risk of flooding by surface water to other areas is not exacerbated by the proposed development and that measures are put in place to minimise that risk.

National Planning Guidance

Planning Policy Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport

Development Plan Policies

South East Plan, 2009

Policy SP3 (Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance) Policy CC1 (Sustainable Development) Policy CC4 (Sustainable Design & Construction) Policy CC6 (Sustainable Communities & Character of the Environment) Policy H4 (Type & Size of New Housing) Policy H5 (Housing Design & Density) Policy T4 (Parking)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H11 (Residential Development in Rural Settlements) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Page 95 Planning Appraisal

The main determining issues with this application relate to:

• Principle of development, • Street Scene, Design and density, • Amenity Protection, • Flooding and • Highway issues

Principle

The application site lies within the defined village boundary of Hoo St Werburgh as identified on the proposals map to the Medway Local Plan 2003 and as such the proposal falls to be considered against the criteria set out under Local Plan Policy H11. This policy states that unless the site is allocated for housing development in the Local Plan, or an exceptional justification can be made, housing development in the rural area will be restricted to minor development within the confines of the defined village settlement as indicated on the Proposals Map. It is clear in this instance that the construction of 4 houses fronting onto Kingshill Drive and 1 fronting Bells Lane, constitute infill development and this complies with interpretation within the Local Plan in the reasoned justification to the built environment policies.

The proposal is considered acceptable in principle under the provisions of Local Plan Policy H11.

Street Scene and Design

Development Plan Policy places considerable emphasis on the importance of achieving good design to ensure that all new development are appropriate to the shape, size and location of the site. Local Plan Policy BNE1 seeks to ensure that the design of development is appropriate in relation to the character, appearance and functioning of the surrounding area.

The loss of part of the garden area for 181 Bells Lane will not result in harm to the street scene or character of the area. When this plot was part of the demise to no. 181 Bells Lane this property's garden was very much larger than that of any of it's neighbours. A fence has recently been erected to leave no. 181 with a still generous garden and the site vacant. The development of the site, in the manner proposed will result in a density and form of development more in character with the surrounding area.

A traditional form of design and construction is proposed and it is considered that the design chosen compliments the residential nature of the development and the adjacent area, including the scale and massing of the buildings themselves. The site is sufficiently deep enough to allow development along Bells Lane and Kingshill Drive and this is consistent with the prevailing pattern of development. Although the part of the site facing Bells Lane is wide enough for a pair of semi-detached properties, it is considered that a single large dwelling (plot 5) will allow better relationships with no's. 181 and 175 Bells Lane. To Kingshill Drive four medium sized

Page 96 detached properties (plots 1 to 4) reflect the pattern of the street scene and are aligned with existing neighbours.

With regard to the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling at Plot 5, facing onto Bells Lane. Bell's Lane itself is mixed in design and character, made up of detached and semi-detached, and some terraced properties, all predominantly two- stories in height. The proposed dwelling reflects common design characteristics found elsewhere along Bells Lane, for example gabled front and window features and weatherboarding. The design, size and mass of the proposed dwelling and it's plot reflects its immediate neighbours, which also benefit from large gardens. No. 181 Bells Lane also has a gabled frontage design, similar to that proposed. Whilst a list of proposed materials has been provided it is considered necessary to require samples of these materials to be submitted via condition should Members be minded to permit.

With regard to the design and appearance of the proposed dwellings at plots 1 to 4, facing onto Kingshill Drive. Kingshill drive is also mixed in design, but generally development is of a smaller scale to those found along Bells Lane. With the exception of the two dwellings either side of the application site, the majority of dwellings are two-storey terraced and semi-detached properties. The four properties proposed along Kingshill drive are detached in character, but smaller in size compared to Plot 5. The detached character of this development reflects the character of development at 50 and 56 Kingshill Drive, which are also detached. The infill of this plot creates a continuous street scene pattern, and represents an improvement to the extended length of close boarded fencing that currently exists. In terms of design, these four properties will also benefit from cat-slide roofs, gabled frontages and windows, all of which feature else where in the area. The porch design especially reflects the design features found opposite the application site, on the south west side of Kingshill Drive.

The application site is currently a neglected and vacant site and in its current state provides limited value to the area. The proposed development and indeed the proposed design approach is considered to enhance the local character of the area.

Overall, it is considered that the application proposal will provide a high quality residential development which will enhance the character of the surrounding area and immediate street scene. The proposal is considered to provide an architectural scheme which will incorporate the use of a good palette of materials providing an attractive visual presence between the existing residential development on Bells Lane and Kingshill Drive. As a result the scheme accords with the provisions set out under South East Plan Policies CC4, CC6, H4 and H5 and Local Plan Policy BNE1.

Amenity Considerations

All development should secure the amenities of its future occupants and protect those amenities enjoyed by nearby and adjacent properties. According to Local Plan Policy BNE2, the design of development should have regard to: privacy, daylight and sunlight; noise, vibration, light, heat, smell and airborne emissions and activity levels and traffic generation. This is further supported by advice given in Planning Policy Statement 3.

Page 97

The proposed plot 5 dwelling has been designed to not overlook or dominate habitable rooms and gardens to nos. 175 and 181 Bells Lane. This has been achieved by layout, siting and restricting fenestration to the side elevations. The south-east elevation will have two secondary doors at ground floor, and two high level windows, providing light into the garage and utility area. There will also be one high level window at first floor, serving the bathroom. None of the windows serve habitable rooms, and as a result of the high level nature of the windows and the boundary treatment there are no concerns regarding overlooking and privacy in this instance. The north west elevation of the proposed dwelling looks onto 181 Bells Lane, which contains a chimney feature, three windows at ground floor and a high level window at first floor. These windows will serve the living room, kitchen and dining area for the property and the upstairs en-suite to bedroom one. As a result of the boundary treatment there will be no overlooking from the ground floor windows while the first floor window is high level. There will be no resultant privacy and overlooking issues. The proposed dwelling here also sits approximately 10 metres from the front building line of the adjoining property at no. 181, and this staggered building line further aids to reduce any potential risk to neighbours' privacy. There is a risk of the private amenity space to the rear of the proposed house being overlooked from bedroom windows in the south east elevation of 181 but this is not uncommon within two storey developments where there will always be some overlooking of garden areas.

There will be no impact upon sunlight and daylight as a result of Plot 5.

Looking at the proposed Kingshill Drive properties, they would be separated from existing dwellings by distances consistent with existing development. Within Plot 4, along the south east elevation would be two doors at ground floor, with no windows looking onto the north west elevation of no 50 Kingshill Drive. The existing property adjacent to Plot 4 has small obscure windows to its ground and first floors facing the site but these are not to habitable rooms and loss of outlook is not an issue.

The existing house adjacent to Plot 1 (no 56 Kingshill Drive) has a small first floor window facing the site, but it is not a habitable room. Concern has been raised by the occupants of this property however, with regard to the impact the proposed development will have on their property, particularly with regard to loss of outlook, privacy and loss of light into the living room area at ground floor. Plot 1 will be situated approximately 4.8 metres from the south east (side) elevation of no 56 Kingshill Drive, and will not therefore result in an unacceptable outlook for residents of 56 Kingshill Drive despite the concerns raised. There will be no windows overlooking this property at first floor, and at ground floor only two secondary doors (this elevation mirrors that found on the south east flank of Plot 4). There maybe some impact on light into the living room area of No. 56, however, this room is also served by a front facing window, and as such loss of light is unlikely to be significant. Additional landscaping will further mitigate against any potential impact.

It is proposed to retain an existing hawthorn hedge to Bells Lane for screening and a neighbour has requested that a hawthorn tree in Kingshill Drive be retained. All protection measures are detailed within the submitted Arboriculture Report, although a condition will be included to ensure these measures are carried out. It is proposed

Page 98 to remove certain permitted development rights to further mitigate and control potential impacts on neighbouring development.

Overall the development is considered acceptable under the provisions set out under Local Plan Policy BNE2 and the advice given in Planning Policy Statement 3.

Flooding

The Parish Council have raised concern with regard to the potential increase in flooding following the construction of the proposed development, however, the application site is not located within a flood risk zone, and is not considered significant enough to raise concern about flooding and surface water run off, of which there is minimal risk. As such no objection is raised to the development.

Highways & Parking

Two parking spaces (including a garage) plus manoeuvring area are proposed for the 4/5 bedroom house on Bells Lane. The four bedroomed houses each have a garage (13m²) with space for a further car in front. It is considered that the provision is appropriate in the context of Local Plan Policy T13 and South East Plan Policy T4.

Concern has been raised with regard to the impact of additional cars (resulting from the development) will have on the area both in terms of traffic and on-street parking provision. Overall, the scheme for 5 additional dwellings will have minimal impact on traffic in the area, and little impact on existing on-street parking availability as the scheme has proposed sufficient off-street parking for each individual unit. A small number of spaces (although there are no designated spaces) along Kingshill drive will be lost due to access to Plots 1 to 4, however, this impact will not be at the detriment of existing residents in the area. Most dwellings in the immediate vicinity benefit from off-street parking.

Overall, the proposed development accords with the provisions set out under Local Plan Policies T1 and T13 and South East Plan Policy T4.

Other Matters

Concerns raised with regard to foundations and drainage are matters for consideration under Building Regulations.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

The proposed development constitutes infill development encouraged by Government Advice set out with Planning Policy Statement 3. The development is acceptable in terms of its impact on the street scene and character of the local area by way of design and layout. With regard to impact on outlook, sunlight and privacy, there are no overriding concerns raised with regard to amenity protection. As such the proposed scheme for 5 new residential family homes is recommended for approval.

Page 99 The application would normally fall under Officer delegated powers of determination, but is being reported to Committee due to the high number of representations received. ______

Page 100

7 MC/09/1406

Date Received: 22 September, 2009

Location: Newlands Farm, Station Road, Cliffe, ME3 7RU

Proposal: Variation of condition 4 under planning permission MC2008/0793 to allow the occupation of caravans during the months of December and April

Applicant: Allens Hill Farms Ltd

Agent: Ms S Elliott Graham Simpkin Planning 2 The Parade Ash Road Longfield, Kent DA3 8BG

Ward Strood Rural

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 27 January, 2010.

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended subject to the additional supporting letter received on 2 December 2009)

1 The caravan and protacabin hereby permitted shall be removed and land restored to its former condition on or before (31st July 2013) in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The structure is not such as the Local Planning Authority is prepared to permit other than for a limited period in the interest of visual amenity having regards to its material and design.

2 No more than 3 seasonal labourers caravans and one mobile laundry unit to the east of Newland Farm; and as shown on the submitted drawings shall be placed on site at any one time.

Reason: To reflect the special occupational need for the permitted development and its situation in an area where residential development would not normally be permitted.

Page 101 3 The three caravans hereunder approved for seasonal labourers shall only be occupied by persons solely or mainly employed for the purposes of agriculture at Newlands Farm.

Reason: To reflect the special occupational need for the permitted development and its situation in an area where residential development would not normally be permitted.

4 Proposal for a hedgerow perimeter landscaping (to include Alder trees and native hedgerow species) to screen the 3 caravans and mobile laundry unit approved shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing, within one month of the granting of planning permission. Such approved planting shall be planted within 5 months| for the written approval and thereafter regularly maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or plants which within this 5 year period are removed or become seriously damaged, diseased or unhealthy shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority give written consent to any variation.

Reason: to safeguard the character and appearance of the premises and the area in which they lie.

5 No materials, plant or other equipment of any description relating to the storage of the caravans shall be placed on the land without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

6 No security lighting or any other form of external lighting shall be installed without first obtain the prior consent in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the night-time rural environment from uncontrolled light pollution as well as the residential amenities of adjacent dwellings.

7 Occupation of 3 caravans shall be limited to no more than 12 workers at any one time, all of whom must be engaged under the provisions of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme.

Reason: To reflect the special occupation need for the permitted development and its situation in an area where residential development would not normally be permitted.

8 None of the individual workers may reside on site for more than 6 months at a time followed by a 3 month break before any return, with the exception that 2 of the workers may reside on site for up to 11 months in any one calendar year followed by a 1 month break before any return.

Page 102

Reason: To reflect the special occupation need for the permitted development and its situation in an area where residential development would not normally be permitted.

9 In accordance with conditions 7 and 8, the applicant must keep a log of the names of the occupants, which caravan they occupied, which dates they were occupied by the person and to ensure that all these details can be made available on reasonable request to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To reflect the special occupation need for the permitted development and its situation.

“Variation of condition 4 under planning permission MC2008/0793 to allow the occupation of caravans during the months of December and April.”

Site Description

Newlands Farm is accessed from Station Road (the B2000). To the north of the wide vehicular access are three cottages that have been combined into one larger dwelling, whilst to the south is Oast Cottage. Further into the access, which expands into a farmyard, is large packing shed, used to sort out farm produce and store tractors etc and to the south of this, parallel with Oast Cottage, is a bungalow.

The farm lies within the countryside just to the south of the village of Cliffe on the eastern side of Station Road. Although situated within the open countryside the area is not covered by any specific landscape protection policies.

Newlands Farm extends to approx 87.96 ha, all east of Station Road and crossing over Cooling Street (further to the east). The farmer has for the last two years developed the growing of crops such as broad beans, cauliflowers, onions, potatoes, spring greens and leeks which are supplied to local farm shops, restaurants and public houses and are also sold at the local Farmers Market in High Halstow and the Isle of Grain.

The surrounding wider area is farmland, although there are a few sporadic dwellings in the countryside.

On site, three large caravans have been erected with a mobile unit in the middle providing a laundry room, shower and fridge/freezer facilities. A thick hedgerow screens the caravans from the adjacent dwelling at Almond Lodge, sited approx 42 metres away from the site’s western boundary.

Background from previous application

The supporting statement with the last application advised that two caravans have been kept at Newlands Farm since the late 1990’s and used to provide accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers under the provisions of Schedule

Page 103 2, part 5, Class A of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995.

The seasonal stationing of the caravans on the site for agricultural workers would be “permitted development” under Part 5, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. A previous application ME98/0579 was therefore only to regularize the storage of the empty caravans on the same site when not in use, rather than having to keep moving them off and on the site each year. Due to their size they cannot easily be relocated during the winter months into a building.

The seasonal workers who are employed under the S.A.W.S. (Seasonal Agricultural workers Scheme) scheme need to live on site from May until mid-November and then again for 12 weeks from early January until March. They are employed on the farm picking the produce. The nature of vegetables is that it must be harvested relatively quickly within a short window of time. The use of seasonal labour is vital for the continuation of profitable agricultural activity at Newlands Farm and in early season the workers assist with planting as well as helping with the picking. They will remain on the farm until the autumn to help clean up the land and clear up.

The submitted plans show two caravans each with a kitchen, living room, shower room and three bedrooms. The third caravan only has two bedrooms. Between 3 and 4 students/workers are accommodated per caravan. This would equate to a maximum of 12 persons.

The caravans are for students from Europe who are employed under a Government approved, Harvest Opportunity Permit Scheme (HOPS). As well as being paid a regular wage, they are provided with English lessons with trips arranged to local attractions. The aim of the HOPS scheme is to foster international relations and to provide farms with badly needed staff to enable the harvest to be gathered.

The Council’s Agricultural Adviser supported the previous applications. The farmer’s form of intensive cropping requires a relatively high labour requirement and thus the availability of suitable seasonal labour forms an essential part of the business. He also notes that many fruit and vegetable farms in Medway, Kent and further afield now rely to a large extent on the availability of a significant workforce of Eastern European student labour, which requires the provision of adequate temporary accommodation to approved standards. This is commonly provided in caravans, which are often granted consent to remain year-round, subject to vacancy periods.

There are various precedents for permitting winter storage of such caravans on other farms in the area and further afield, and the agricultural advisor considers that the proposed storage of the 3 caravans and portacabin on the application site to be a relatively modest facility that appears to be genuinely required in relation to the operation of the vegetable enterprise on the farm.

Page 104 Proposal

Planning permission MC2008/0793 was subject to a condition that restricted occupation of the caravans to 1 January – 31 March and 1 May – 30 November (inclusive). The current application is to vary that condition to allow the occupation of caravans during the months of December and April.

In the agents supporting letter they advise that the restriction of condition No.4 will cause difficulties for the applicant who farms the land.

In normal circumstances the cauliflower crop is finished by the end of November. In autumn 2008 due to unusually cold weather conditions, the cauliflower crop was very late, and there was a need to retain the experienced cutters to harvest it. Local labour cannot be relied on to take in the main crop and the applicant was obliged to keep on the SAWS agricultural workers as it was essential to bring in the cauliflower crop which makes an important contribution to the viability of the farm enterprise.

This illustrates the difficulty with specific finishing date conditions as agricultural operations can be seriously affected by weather conditions. Cropping requires regular flexibility and the applicant is concerned that this difficulty is likely to arise again in April.

Of the two “closed” periods, the December period is the most likely to cause difficulty and is a crucial time as the demand is high for fresh produce in the Christmas run up. Therefore the applicant is requesting the removal of the one month period from 30th November to 1st January from the restrictive condition.

He also requests that the wording be varied to allow occasional overrun in April if it is necessary, to be notified in advance and approved by the Council on an “as and when basis”. The applicant considers that he would be able to notify the council at the beginning of March if operations are likely to overrun into April.

Following requests for further information, the agent supplied the following.

It is emphasized that there can never be occupation of caravans by the same persons all year round. The Home Office rigorously monitors the Agencies who run the SAWS schemes in respect of residency qualifications. The students can only ever work on a 6-month contract and then they need to go home or otherwise leave the country for at least a period of 3 months. It is possible to have returnees but this does not happen frequently.

There is therefore a continuous rotation of students and the numbers of students at the farm in any one time can vary. The applicant advises that at the moment he has two students at the farm who are on a Home Office approved training programme and they can extend their stay to 11 months in any one calendar year but even they must leave the country for at least a period of one month.

At the moment the applicant has students on the farm who have come from Bulgaria. For next year from May until mid August he will have 10-12 students from Bulgaria at the farm. Some of these will go back home in mid August and he is not sure how

Page 105 many, some may go back for personal reasons. In general, in his experience, they like to stay for at least 3 months. Some will stay until November, which will be their 6-month’s allowance. Hence, it is considered that there will not be permanent accommodation for the same persons all year round.

In respect of the husbandry tasks during the December and April period, December is a busy time when cauliflowers, parsnips and brussel sprouts are harvested in the run up to Christmas. The applicant needs to have the caravans available for occupation if he has a good crop and good demand for the produce. This winter one caravan will remain unoccupied but ideally the applicant would require all 3 to be available during December.

In April students are required for planting duties, to plant out cauliflower. In addition, if there has been a severe winter, the harvesting of spring greens may overrun into April. The applicant may wish to have students to help with these duties. It is not possible to tie down how many students will be needed during these months because it is entirely dependent on the weather and on demand. It also depends upon the availability of students who are willing to come to the farm.

The caravans will only be used to accommodate students who are employed under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme but the application has been submitted to allow these seasonal workers to come and go throughout the year as and when necessary. Using the mobile homes throughout the year means that they do not qualify for Permitted Development Rights because such use will not be “seasonal”.

The application has been made to assist the applicant in his efforts to continue viable agricultural production.

Site Area

Site area of farm holding: 87.96 ha (217 acres).

Relevant Planning History

ME98/0579 Winter storage of two caravans for accommodation of seasonal workers Approved 18 December 1998 Conditioned to expire on 30 November 2003; occupation of caravans only between 1st May and 30th November and not to be used for residential purposes at any other time.

MC2008/0793 Stationing of three caravans and one WC/laundry portacabin, new path and associated plant for agricultural workers. Approved 24 July 2009

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of Newlands Cottage, Newlands Farm shop, Almond Lodge, Station Bungalow, Oast Cottage, Newland Farm all in Station Road;

Page 106 2 to 12 Cooling Road, plus 1 and 2 Syringa Villas, 1 and 2 Maple Cottages and Maple Cottage, Fairleigh, 1 and 2 Morning Cross Place, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Morning Cross Cottages all in Cooling Road. Letters have also been sent to the Newlands Bungalow within the farmyard; Kia Cra and Sunnyside further to the south in Station Road; plus 5 cottages (Reginald Lodge, Cliffe Cottage, Heathcliffe Cotage, Peninsula Cottage and Spadges Cottage) along Well Penn Road. The Council’s Agricultural advisor has also been consulted.

Medway Council’s Agricultural Adviser: Originally advised that the change to the condition will result in the occupation of the caravans by the same person(s) year- round which goes against the concept of “seasonal” accommodation and makes the scenario rather more like permanent accommodation under PPS7 Annex A criteria. Following the receipt of further supporting information the Advisor now confirms support for the application based on the labour needs of the farm. A number of relevant conditions are suggested, in order to protect the Council’s position in terms of policy compliance, whilst also accommodating the farm’s labour requirements.

Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council: Raises objection to the proposal on the grounds that the current provision has already been granted as an agricultural exception with appropriate conditions. Further extension would establish a residential use.

Dickens Country Protection Society: Concerns are raised that there may be pressure to permit this development on a full time permanent basis and any moves in that direction should be vigorously resisted. No need to vary the condition since the accommodation is for temporary workers and the work required in the winter months is insufficient to warrant the number of people to be on site.

One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

• The need for additional “seasonal workers” within these months is highly unlikely. • Concerns that if granted the application would make this a permanent site and lay the foundation for future re-development of agricultural farm land. • Concerns that if this variation is approved, it will remove most of the conditions imposed on the original application, thus making a mockery of the planning system. • Requests that the Local Council uphold the conditions previously imposed. • Complaint that the caravan park is already on the farmers land and occupied by 11 workers. • Concerns that up to 20+ workers are able to stay in the caravans some being teens, mid twenties. • Concerns that caravans could be occupied up to 11 months of the year. • Concern over loss of residential amenity, noise and disturbance, smells, loss of privacy, light pollution. • Object to the noise of the workers playing loud music, football and generally cause a disturbance late at night. • Concerns over security. • Considers that the farmer could accommodate these workers elsewhere.

Page 107

National Planning Guidance

PPS1: Delivery and Sustainable Development PPS1A: Planning System & General Principles PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG24: Planning and noise

Development Plan Policies

South East Plan 2009

Policy C4 (Landscape and Countryside Management)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Considerations) Policy BNE25 (Development in the Countryside) Policy BNE42 (Hedgerow Retention) Policy T1 (Impact of New development on the Highway Network) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Having regard to the provision of the Development Plan, it is considered that the main issues arising from the proposal are as follows:

• Matters of principle and variation of condition No.4, • Whether the proposed development would cause harm to the established character of the rural countryside and landscape. • Whether the proposal would cause harm to the amenities of the nearby residential units. • Whether the proposal would prejudice highway safety and car parking implications.

Principle

This application concerns farm land and the site lies within the rural area and within the open countryside and is outside any recognised rural settlement as defined in the adopted Local Plan.

The principle of having the caravan and portacabin on the land all year round has been established by the granting of the earlier planning permission.

The existing consent granted under MC2008/0793 was designed to meet the requirements arising at Newlands Farm for the availability of suitable seasonal labour, which forms an essential part of the business, based on 88 ha of good quality land cropped with a wide range of vegetables including beans, various brassicas,

Page 108 onions, leeks and potatoes, supplied to local farm shops, restaurants and pubs, and local farmers’ markets.

The consent provides that the caravans can stay on site year-round (at least up to 31 July 2013) but at present occupation during the months of December and April is excluded: to ensure the use does not effectively become living accommodation for the same person(s) year-round which would be at odds with the concept of "seasonal" accommodation and would be more like permanent accommodation which is unlikely to be supportable under the relevant planning policies and the criteria set out in PPS7 Annex A.

The additional statement from the applicant’s agent sets out the labour needs of the farm more fully. It is explained that up to 12 students are accommodated in the 3 caravans during the summer, and fewer at other times of the year with the numbers depending on weather and demand. Under the provisions of the SAWS scheme itself no one worker can stay for more than 6 months, followed by a 3 month break before any potential return, and thus the arrangements at Newlands Farm involve a continuous rotation of students. Two of the workers, however, are on an extended training scheme and are able to extend their stay to 11 months in any one year and the applicant would like to make provision for these two if possible.

In view of the Farms labour requirements balanced against planning policy and in particular to prevent the permanent residence by the same person(s) year round the proposals could be allowed with the suggested conditions. Theses conditions include a temporary consent in any event up to 31 July 2013 which will enable an opportunity for a review of the arrangements at that time.

The principle of the application and variation of condition No.4 is therefore considered acceptable in planning terms and it is recognised as essential to the continued viability of the farming enterprise.

Countryside and Design Considerations

This aspect was carefully considered under the previous approval MC2008/0793.

It was considered that due to the flat topography of the land utilised for low growing crops, the four mobile structures are very prominent from long distance views from the north from Cooling Street and west from Well Penn Road and even further west from Cooling Road, but that with appropriate planting, such structures can be hidden from view and their impact could be lessened by screen planting, and thus reduce their impact upon the countryside.

Impact on Amenities

Policies BNE1, BNE2 and BNE25 of the adopted Local Plan seek to ensure that the amenities of existing residents are safeguarded.

It is considered that the principal issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents in terms of noise and general disturbance.

Page 109 Again, this aspect was carefully considered under the previous approval MC2008/0793.

The sited caravans being of a relatively low key nature in terms of numbers and being a reasonable distance away from the closest dwellings (the nearest being approximately 42 metres away from the rear of Almond Lodge and approx 21 metres away from the rear boundary of that property) is such that it is not considered that the caravans will have any detrimental visual impact and harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of these properties. Indeed the caravans are screened from the rear of this property by an existing tall hedgerow of alder trees.

It is not expected that the level of vehicle movement associated with the occupation of the caravans would create unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to adjoining residential properties such that would warrant a refusal of planning permission. The nature of such use is that the itinerant workers do not generally have access to their own cars and rely on public transport if they go out from the site.

Subject to the recommended conditions which seek to prevent the permanent habitation of these caravans by the same person(s), it is considered that the proposed extended occupation period is acceptable. It is considered that there are sufficient conditions to safeguard the amenities of local residents.

In amenity terms the proposal is therefore viewed as being acceptable and complies with the cited Development Plan Policies

Highways Impact, Traffic and Car Parking

In terms of car parking provision, Policies T4 of the South East Plan, and T13 of the adopted local Plan set out parking standards (as maxima). Policy T1 of the South East Plan, and Policies T1 and T2 of the adopted Local Plan deal with the impact of additional traffic caused by development and seek to ensure that the Highway network is adequate in terms of capacity and safety.

Again, this aspect was carefully considered under the previous approval MC2008/0793. It is not considered that the current application alters the findings of the earlier application.

The maxima allowance for the 3 seasonal caravans would be 2 spaces each, a total of 6 spaces. Although the occupiers of the caravans are not expected to have cars, there is sufficient room for cars to be parked within the farm yard.

With respect to the car parking arrangements for the development, although the submitted drawings do not show any specific area dedicated for car parking, having regard to the rural location of the site it is considered that it would be inappropriate in visual terms to provide a dedicated area within the confines of the site. A sea of cars would not be appropriate for this rural area, and in any case such itinerant workers would not normally have their own cars and none were viewed during the case officers site visit, when the caravans are already in occupation.

Page 110 No highway objection is therefore raised and in car parking terms the proposal is therefore viewed as being acceptable.

Conclusions and reasons for Approval

It is important to assist small local farmers to survive in the current faming climate and in view of the above appraisal the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the protective conditions set out. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in appearance, amenity and highway terms and therefore accords with the provisions of Policies C4, T1 and T4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE3, BNE25, BNE28, BNE42, BNE43, T1, T2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan.

This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ consideration due to letters received from the Parish Council and the Dickens Country Protection Society raising objections contrary to the officers recommendation and in view of the fact that The Planning Committee considered the previous application and imposed the condition concerned.

______

Page 111