Planning List

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR 20TH AUGUST 2003 (EAST) Page No. 1 MC2003/0461 Watling Construction of one detached 3-bedroomed house with attached single garage Rear of 60, Allison Avenue, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 3BX 3

2 MC2002/0489 Watling Erection of non-food retail warehouse (Class A1) including bulk builders yard and garden centre together with access and servicing arrangements, car parking, a new cycleway and landscaping Land at former Civil Service Sports Ground, Watling Street/Will Adams Way, Gillingham, Kent 7

3 MC2003/0529 Rainham Central Construction of first floor front, side and rear extension to accommodate 8 additional bedrooms, two storey side extension to facilitate a lift and single storey extension and conservatory to rear Hawthorne Residential Home, 369, Maidstone Road, Gillingham, Kent 20

4 MC2003/0645 Rainham Central Conversion of part ground floor, first and second floors from one residential dwelling to five 1-bedroomed flats 2, Norreys Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 9AJ 25

5 MC2003/0690 Watling Erection of non-food retail warehouse(class A1) including bulk builders yard and garden centre together with access and servicing arrangements, car parking, a new cycleway and landscaping (Duplicate Application) Land at former Civil Service Sports Ground, Watling Street/Will Adams Way, Gillingham 29

6 MC2003/0874 Luton & Wayfield Erection of two 3-bedroomed link-detached chalet bungalows and garages (demolition of existing garages) Land at Sailmakers Court (rear of 39a - 39d Dagmar Road) Chatham, Kent 30

7 MC2003/0946 Hempstead & Wigmore Reserved matters application pursuant to condition 1 of outline planning consent MC1999/6034 for construction of a detached 4-bedroomed house with integral garage Rear of Swithindene, Spekes Road, Hempstead, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 3RS 36

8 MC2003/0966 Rainham North Construction of sludge cake storage bay roof covering Motney Hill Wastewater Treatment Works, Motney Hill, Gillingham, Kent 40

9 MC2003/1205 Twydall Construction of a two storey extension, two single storey extensions and a conservatory to rear and insertion of two dormers in rear roof elevation 33-35 South Avenue, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 6EG 46

DC0902MW 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 the Compass Centre, Chatham Maritime, Chatham.

DC0902MW 2

1 MC2003/0461

Date Received: 4th March 2003

Location: Rear of 60, Allison Avenue, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 3BX

Proposal: Construction of one detached 3-bedroomed house with attached single garage

Applicant: Mr A Abramian 106 Balmoral Road Gillingham Kent ME7 4QE

Agent:

Ward: Watling

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by revised block plan received 29th July 2003)

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

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 building is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained for the duration of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally and any means of enclosure shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include hard surfacing materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

5 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The approved planting stock shall be maintained for a minimum period of five years following its planting and any of the stock that dies or is destroyed within this period shall be replanted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

DC0902MW 3

6 Vision splay(s) of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access point(s) and no obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the splay(s).

7 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 and 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.

8 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 shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the dwellinghouse herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority oither than those shown on approved plans.

Site Description

60 Allison Avenue is a detached two storey house on the corner with Preston Avenue. It has a rear garden, approximately 18 metres deep, which widens so that at the far end it is approximately 31 metres wide.

The application site is formed by the end of the rear garden and measures 12.5 metres wide by between 25 and 31 metres deep. Due to the orientation of Preston Avenue, the frontage is at a slight angle. It is enclosed by a brick wall and is well screened from the public highway and from neighbouring properties.

The surrounding area is entirely residential with a detached house immediately to the north (8 Preston Avenue), and similar detached properties to the west in Allison Avenue. Apart from 8 Preston Avenue, the area to the north comprises semi-detached houses, whilst to the east the predominant form of development is terraced housing.

Proposal

The proposal is to construct a detached three bedroom house with an attached single garage on the land. The house would be set back between 2.8 and 5.4 metres from the highway following a similar building line as the adjacent property at number 8. It would measure 9 metres wide by 9 metres deep, with a single storey rear projection of 5 metres for the kitchen. The rear garden to serve the proposed property would be between 13 and 18 metres deep leaving number 60 with a rear garden of between 9 and 14 metres deep.

Site area/density

Site area: 0.035 ha (0.086 acre) Site density 28.5 d.p.h. (11.5 d.p.a.)

DC0902MW 4

Relevant Planning History

GL/89/250 Outline application for erection of one dwelling with garage. Refused 15th December 1989

MC2002/1908 Construction of two storey rear extension and single storey side extension to either side of property (demolition of existing garage). Approved 13th November 2002

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of 58, 60 and 62 Allison Avenue and 8 Preston Avenue.

Three letters have been received objecting on the grounds of:

- overlooking/loss of privacy; - loss of light; - increase in noise and disturbance from additional people and from vehicles gaining access.

Six letters have been received raising no objection and stating that the proposal would enhance the neighbourhood.

One resident has withdrawn her letter of support and written objecting on the grounds that the proposal would increase on street parking and noise.

Development Plan Policies

Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy T17 (Parking)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity protection) Policy H4 (Housing in urban areas) Policy T13 (Vehicle parking standards)

Planning Appraisal

The principle issues for consideration in respect of this application are:

· whether the proposal is acceptable in principle; · the design and appearance of the proposal and its impact on the street scene and the character of the area; · the effect on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties; and

DC0902MW 5 · parking.

The principle of development

The site lies within a residential area where Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan contains a presumption in favour of infilling providing that a clear improvement to the local environment will result. Therefore, providing the development is acceptable in terms of its effect on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties, the proposal would comply with this Policy and is acceptable in principle.

Design and appearance

The immediate locality comprises mainly detached properties, including the existing house at 60 Allison Avenue, the neighbouring house at 8 Preston Avenue and a detached bungalow at 1 Preston Avenue. All these detached properties have their own individual design and therefore the proposed house would not be out of character with the surrounding area. The density, at 11.5 dwelling per acre is comparable with that of the surrounding development and the proposal is, therefore in accordance with Policy BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan.

Amenity considerations

The only properties that would be directly affected by the proposed house is the existing property at number 60 and the property immediately to the north, 8 Preston Avenue. The flank wall of the proposed house would be 0.6 metre from the boundary to that property which has been extended right up to the boundary. However, there are no windows in the flank wall of that property and therefore there would be no direct loss of light. The proposed building would have a similar building line to the front and would not project so far to the rear. It would not, therefore, cause any loss of light or loss of outlook to the front or rear windows to that property. There are no windows proposed in the north flank wall of the proposed house; the only opening would be a kitchen door at ground floor level, 5 metres from the boundary. Furthermore, this boundary is well screened and therefore, there is no potential for overlooking of that property.

The only other property close enough to be affected by the proposal is 60 Allison Avenue. Due to the layout of the site, the proposed house would not be directly behind the existing house and the flank wall of the two storey element of the proposal would be 23 metres away, at its closest point and would comply with the minimum privacy distance specified in Kent Design. It should be noted that planning permission has been granted for a single storey rear extension to no.60, projecting 4.5 metres. This would not affect the privacy distances. The proposal would, therefore comply with Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan.

Highways/parking

The submitted drawings show parking for two cars, one in the garage and one on a hardstanding in front and accordingly, no objection is raised on the grounds of conflict with Policy T17 of the Structure Plan and Policy T13 of the adopted Local Plan.

Conclusion

The application is recommended for approval.

DC0902MW 6 2 MC2002/0489

Date Received: 1st March 2002

Location: Land at former Civil Service Sports Ground, Watling Street/Will Adams Way, Gillingham, Kent

Proposal: Erection of non-food retail warehouse(class A1) including bulk builders yard and Garden Centre together with access and servicing arrangements, Car parking, a new Cycleway and Landscaping

Applicant: B & Q Plc Link House 2 Stoneycroft Rise Chandlers Ford Eastleigh Hampshire SO53 3YU

Agent: Mr SJ Slatford RPS Planning Transport and Environment 118 Southwark Street London SE1 OSW

Ward: Watling

Recommendation – That if the LPA had been in a position to determine the application it would have refused it for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development would result in the loss of employment land (for B1,B2 and B8 uses) which is recognised locally and regionally as being one the most important employment sites in Medway and is vital for the continued growth and regeneration of Medway within the Thames Gateway. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of RPG9a and policies S3, S5, R4, ED1 and ED2 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996 and Policy ED1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2 The sequential test undertaken is inadequate and incomplete as it has not considered a disaggregated format for the proposed store. It is considered that on the basis of a revised format there is a sequentially preferable site within Chatham Centre. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of PPG6 and policies R1 and R4 of the Kent Structure Plan1996 and S5, R1 and R12 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

3 The applicants have not adequately demonstrated improvements to the capacity of the A2/ Will Adams Way roundabout that do not compromise highway safety or increase hazards to vulnerable road users. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies T1 and T3 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Site Description

The application site lies some 2.5km to the south-east of Gillingham Centre and 3km east of Chatham Centre and is immediately to the north west of the developed part of Gillingham Business Park. It is bounded by the retained civil service sports facilities to the north (fronting the Sovereign Boulevard – the A2), industrial / commercial properties to the east and south, and Will Adams Way to the west.

DC0902MW 7 The site has an area of some 4.8 hectares. It is predominantly rectangular in shape, save for a hotel and pub / restaurant in the north-west corner. The site was last in use as a sports ground for the Civil Service, but has been vacant for some years. The grassed area has nevertheless been regularly cut.

The site lies on a slight gradient rising from north to south. Vehicular access to the site was previously through the retained civil service sports land to the north but is now from the new roundabout on Will Adams Way.

Proposal

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a 12,969sq.m retail warehouse, with 1817sq.m builders’ yard and 2,771sq.m garden centre. It is to accommodate a B&Q warehouse operation which would be the largest such store in the country. To put its size in perspective, the covered floorspace proposed is equivalent to about 65% of the entire comparison floorspace in Gillingham centre. The length of the store is some 160 metres with a depth of some 70 metres.

Vehicular access is proposed to be from Will Adams Way via an existing roundabout junction located approximately 120m south of the junction of Will Adams Way with the A2 Sovereign Boulevard. 598 car parking spaces are proposed.

It is intended that B & Q would close their existing Supercentre store on the nearby Gillingham Business Park but this would continue to be used by another retail operator.

Relevant Planning History

GL96/0005 Outline application for hotel, restaurant, and employment development (B1, B2 and B8) incorporating access from Will Adams Way. Approved 5th February 1997

MC1999/6057 Application for approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition1, siting, design and means of access of GL96/0005/54/0099 for the erection of a bar/restaurant and hotel with associated car parking, landscaped areas and alteration to road layout. Approved 18th January 2000

MC2000/0045 Variation of condition 1 of planning consent GL96/0005 for an extension of an additional 2 years Approved 23rd February 2000

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and in the press as major development which is contrary to the provisions of the development plan. Southern Water Services, KCC Archaeological Officer, Police architectural liaison Officer, the owners of the adjoining Business Park, the manager of the Honourable Pilot and the Rainham, Gillingham and Chatham amenity society have been consulted on the application.

Southern Water Services has written requested that any consent be conditional on the submission of details of foul and surface water drainage.

DC0902MW 8 The Police architectural Liaison Officer has made some minor comments regarding improvements to security but these don’t really relate to planning matters. His letter has been forwarded to the applicants.

Development Plan Policies

PPG1, 6 and13 and RPG9 and 9a

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Statement of 10th April 2003

Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy S1 (Sustainable Development) Policy S2 (Quality of Environment) Policy S3 (Economic Activity) Policy S5 (Thames Gateway) Policy S8 (Town Centres) Policy NK2 (Medway Towns) Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy ENV18 (Archaeology) Policy ED1 (Scale of development) Policy ED2 (Quality of development) Policy T18 (Development traffic) Policy T19 (Highway safety) Policy R1 (Retail Development) Policy R4 (Retail Warehouses)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy S1 (Development Strategy) Policy S2 (Strategic Principles) Policy S4 (Landscape and Urban Design) Policy S5 (Medway’s City Centre) Policy BNE1 (Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity protection) Policy BNE4 (Energy Efficiency) Policy BNE7 (Access for all) Policy BNE21 (Archaeology) Policy ED1 (Employment areas) Policy R1 (Chatham retailing) Policy R13 (Retail and Sequential Approach) Policy T1 (Impact) Policy T2 (Intensification in use of network) Policy T3 (Provisions for Pedestrians) Policy T4 (Cycle facilities) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking) Policy T14 (Travel Plans) Policy T22 (Provision for people with Disabilities)

Planning Appraisal

This application should be assessed against the following issues:

DC0902MW 9 · Employment

· Retail impact – policy context

· Assessment of Need

· Sequential Test

· Retail Impact

· Design and Landscaping

· Highway Matters

EMPLOYMENT

Policy context

Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires planning decisions to be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The site is zoned under Policy ED1 of the recently adopted Local Plan, as an employment site essentially being an undeveloped part of the Gillingham Business Park. This is a reflection of the planning history of the site, when in 1996 it was recognised that the hugely successful and high quality Business Park had little scope for expansion. The Civil Service had playing fields which would be a natural extension to the business park. Although concerned about the loss of the playing fields the importance of the release of high quality land for the expansion of the park was considered to be a material factor which justified the loss of the playing fields. The Council did seek a contribution to the provision of improved facilities elsewhere and recognised that the sale of the playing fields would assist the Civil Service in improving their own leisure offer on their remaining land. The application had to be referred to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan (the 1992 plan) and he accepted the Council’s argument for the release of high quality employment land and allowed the application to proceed.

PPG4 requires that LPA’s should ensure that there is sufficient employment land available which is well served by infrastructure. In addition it advises of the need to provide a variety of sites to meet the differing needs of employers.

In this respect the Local Plan does provide that choice and the application site is important is providing for that choice.

PPG6 (Town Centres and retailing) states in paragraph 3.23 that planning applications for retail development should not normally be allowed on land designated for other uses in an approved development plan. This advise is applicable especially to land allocated for industry, employment and housing.

RPG9a on the Thames Gateway builds on this and states in paragraph 5.2.3 “development plans should provide a secure land use context for existing industry and sufficient space for growth, as well as opportunities for new industry. In order to avoid the loss of the potential for employment, industrial areas which are not in conflict with this guidance should not be favoured for other forms of development.”

DC0902MW 10 In paragraph 6.10.2 of RPG9a the regeneration of Medway is referred to and specific mention to the importance of Gillingham Business Park in that economic regeneration is made in the next paragraph. The Local Plan builds upon this and in paragraph 4.4.2 sets out the aim to stimulate and strengthen the expansion of economic activity in Medway. Referring to Gillingham Business Park and the allocation under Policy ED1, which includes the application site due to the 1997 permission, the plan states that Gillingham Business Park “is a major development, which is recognised as being amongst the finest of its kind in the South East. It contains high quality modern buildings providing accommodation for offices, research and development facilities, manufacturing, storage and distribution.”

Paragraph 4.5.2 continues by stating that “The Local Plan seeks to ensure that sufficient land is identified to enable a variety of employment opportunities to come forward. It also aims to limit the release of fresh land for development outside the urban area. The Council will seek to retain appropriate existing sites for employment use. More specifically, given the scale and nature of provision made here and elsewhere in the Plan, the Council sees no case for retailing and leisure development to be allowed on land identified for business, industrial or warehousing uses.” It must be stated at this point that there was no challenge to the Local Plan and the inclusion of Gillingham Business Park within Policy ED1 which in turn included the application site as part of the business park due to the 1997 consent.

The Local Plan allocation is in accordance with the Structure Plan and indeed the Inspector to the Local Plan commented in paragraph 4.9 that “Overall I am satisfied that the Medway Local Plan Economic Strategy is soundly based and reflects the approved Economic Development Strategy.” He continues in paragraph 4.19 by advising that “the remaining land at Gillingham Business Park is in a premium location for new business and its continued allocation for employment would complement and complete this successful business park.” (Note this was in response to objections to the over emphasis on economic development allocations as opposed to housing). He then states in paragraph 4.26 that there was good prospects of the site coming forward for development.

The principle of the development of the site for a retail warehouse is therefore contrary to the Development Plan. This report will thus consider the case put forward by the applicants and then set out the officers’ response to that for Committees consideration.

Applicants submission on loss of employment land

RPS who are the applicants main planning consultants stress the importance of the proposed development in meeting the employment needs of the area and how this links to regional policy as well as the Development Plan. They advise that the proposal will provide 275 full and part time jobs with a full time equivalent of around 200 jobs which will be for local people and that it will foster economic activity. They contend that if the site just went to a B8 use then the jobs created will be less than for a retail warehouse.

In addition the applicants employed Watson Day to do an employment land survey. Watson Day start by stating that there has only been a limited demand for B1, B2, and B8 uses in Medway in the last 12 years, which differs from elsewhere in Kent. They then consider a number of the employment allocated sites in the Development Plan. Rochester Airfield they contend will provide an excellent supply of good quality employment land. In terms of the application site they contend that despite “substantial marketing” there has only been one inquiry in 6 years and that company then left Medway altogether. They contend that both Isle of Grain and Kingsnorth should be considered as providing available employment land. They also point to a downturn in the market.

DC0902MW 11 Officers’ Response

The application site is adjacent to a successful business park which is recognised as such throughout the south east. There is little undeveloped land remaining on the park and the application site represents a natural extension to it. It has good access, good public transport, has no impact on residential amenity, good topography, can easily be developed and can attract a similar quality of user to that found elsewhere on the estate. It was for all the reasons that planning permission was granted in 1997.

It is disputed that there has been any formal marketing of the estate, rather what has been relied on is the knowledge of the permission, its availability and the general recognition of the quality of the estate. The Watson Day comment regarding the down turn in the market is noted but it is obvious that the market is a cyclical creature and at some time there will be an upturn and employment land needs to be available for this eventuality, which is exactly what the Local Plan seeks to achieve.

Notwithstanding this in 1996 Grosvenor, as the then owners of the Business Park, made an initial proposal to purchase. This was followed by their support for the outline application. This was not seriously taken forward but it can be reasonably assumed that this must have been to a large degree due to their re-organisation which then resulted in their sale of their entire interest in the Business Park estate.

There has also been enquiries for such uses as call centres, a small industrial unit/ warehouse scheme, a distribution facility, a printing facility and the new owners of the Business Park have made enquiries as purchase.

In terms of the alternative sites put forward by Watson Day, in the first instance the Local Plan makes it clear that the Isle of Grain is unlikely to be developed for uses which count towards the Structure Plan figures. Clearly also the Isle of Grain is very different from the application site. It is remote, has poor access, is clearly not suitable for office and is an entirely different offer. Kingsnorth is similarly a different offer for the same reasons and they are both to the North of the river. Rochester Airfield is not immediately available and is zoned for a science and business park which is not the same as the B1, B2 and B8 zoning of the application site. These 3 sites comprise 86% of the employment land allocation in the Local Plan and do not offer the same type of product as the application site as well as not being immediately available. In addition Medway Valley Park and Morgans Timber is now incorporated in the Strood Waterfront Action Area

On Gillingham Business Park in the last 2 years sites have been sold to Lloyds TSB, Telewest and the PDSA which illustrates a relatively healthy position, while the health authority land has not been available for marketing due to the need to address an access dispute.

It is accepted that office take up has not been great in terms of office space availability (7,000sq.m per year as opposed to 32,500sq.m available) but the allocation is for more than just office and includes other uses in B1 plus B2 and B8 uses.

The Watson Day, DTZ and applicants contention of lack of demand and their view that the site will not be taken up for employment purposes is not accepted as a result.

In relation to jobs, the proposal would offer 275 jobs now. The applicants contend that this is greater than if the site were to be developed solely for B8 uses (warehouse and distribution). It is accepted that by retaining the site for business the number of jobs offered would take time before it reached the levels that B&Q are offering now. However it is very unlikely that

DC0902MW 12 the site would be developed for just B8 purposes based on the experiences elsewhere on the business park, so it is likely that employment levels will eventually outstrip that offered by the application. However because of the jobs now versus future jobs argument and that it may be possible that the total jobs created by an employment use will not be a great level more than B&Q, no objection is raised to the proposal purely in terms of job creation.

A further consideration though relates to the quality and range of the jobs likely to be offered and members need to give some thought to this. The applicants advise that the job offer relates to shop floor workers, some tradesmen, design experts and management. They further advise that many of the jobs will be suitable for the more elderly unemployed, the long term unemployed and single parents who are looking at flexible working. This needs to be compared against the likely offer of an employment use which would be likely to cover the range of uses within classes B1, B2 and B8. This is likely to include people starting their own business, warehouse staff, trained industrial employees (possibly apprenticeships), administration staff, office staff etc and clearly covers a wide range of jobs. While no specific ground of refusal is set out on the quality and range of jobs that would be lost if the proposal were to go ahead, it is another issue which supports the concern in the first reason for refusal about the loss of employment land.

Notwithstanding this though the proposal would result in the loss of one of the most important employment sites in Medway and the Local Plan. Its loss would have a significant impact on the Economic Development strategy for Medway which has developed through the Regional guidance and Development Plan process and is so important in the regeneration of Medway. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of RPG9a and policies S3, S5, ED1 and ED2 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996 and Policy ED1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Retail Impact – Policy Context

PPG1 (General Principles) states that one of the Governments’ aims is to encourage continued economic development coupled with protecting the Environment. It emphasises the contribution of the planning system to achieving sustainable development and the importance of Town Centres in the quality of life and their key role in delivering such development.

PPG6 (Town Centres and retail development) seeks to promote policies which sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of Town Centres by concentrating new retail development in these locations. It acknowledges that flexibility and realism is needed from all parties.

DC0902MW 13 A statement by the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister on 10th April 2003 has further clarified PPG6. It sets out a number of tests that must be satisfied. Applicants must:

· Demonstrate that there is a need for the development;

· Having established that such a need exists, adopt a sequential approach to site selection;

· Consider the impact on nearby centres; and

· Provide evidence on the site’s accessibility by choice of means of transport

Proposals at the edge of a centre or in an out of centre location and which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan should be required to demonstrate both a retail need and that a sequential test has been applied. In applying the sequential test applicants should demonstrate flexibility and realism in terms of the format, design and scale of their development, and the amount of car parking, tailoring these to fit local circumstances. Development that would serve a wide catchment should be located in a centre that serves a similar catchment. The Secretary of State considers that it rests with developers and retailers to demonstrate that a majority of their goods cannot be sold from Town Centre stores. He does not consider that developments involving the sale of bulky goods are exempted from meeting the policy tests in PPG6 and subsequent clarifications.

RPG9 sets objectives for sustainable development including social progress, protection of the Environment and high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. Policy Q5 seeks to focus retail development on the regions larger Town Centres.

Policy R1 of the Kent Structure plan in supporting Retail growth looks for new developments to be sited in Town Centres with retail warehousing located either in Town or District Centres or on the edge of such centres (policy R4). Policy S8 seeks to encourage the viability and vitality of Town Centres.

The “Mapping out the Future” Policy Directions Document 2002 being the first consultation on policy directions for the new structure plan, proposes that major non food retailing be located in sub regional or principal Town Centres, and Chatham is the only site in Medway intended for such development.

The aims and objectives of the Structure Plan, regional and national policy are reflected in the policies set out in the recently adopted Local Plan. Policy S5 seeks to promote Chatham as the focus for Medway – its “City Centre”. This is further encapsulated in Policies R1 and R13.

Of note as well is that the owners of Gillingham Business Park at the Local Plan Inquiry sought to have designated the retail warehouse part of the park as a defined shopping centre. This was not supported by the Inspector as he considered that to designate it as such would not accord with the current emphasis towards Town Centres in PPG6. It could also lead, he felt, to pressures for other less appropriate retail development in this out of centre location. (Paragraphs 6.7 and 6.96 to 6.101 of the Inspectors report)

DC0902MW 14 ASSESSMENT OF NEED

Applicant’s assessment

(i) Quantitative

RPS on behalf of the applicants have undertaken a quantitative need assessment using a 10 minute drive catchment area, existing and predicted population levels in the catchment, available and predicted expenditure and trading levels of the existing store. The conclusion they reach is that there is a huge capacity in the area at present with the existing store over trading and people going outside of Medway for DIY products.

(ii) Qualitative

In looking at this aspect RPS have considered the type of store proposed and the fact that a warehouse is very different from a superstore. At the time of submitting the original application the nearest other warehouse was at Thurrock. The nearest warehouse is now at Dartford (opened 22 May) there are also warehouses at Canterbury and Ashford. They considered the number of products offered and other ancillary services, and that it would also cater for trade. They looked at the other DIY offers in Medway and the floors pace of DIY per head of population compared with the other main centres in Kent. It was noted that expenditure on DIY had risen but there had been no new DIY stores in Medway since 1993 (Wickes). They then compared the various DIY facilities on offer to each other, to the proposed warehouse and to the offers outside of Medway. They conclude that there is a qualitative improvement with warehouses and this would be particularly so for Medway. In reaching this conclusion they refer to recent appeal decisions where on this aspect the Inspectors have accepted that the Warehouses offer a qualitative improvement.

Officer response

It is considered that the catchment area for this warehouse store would be the whole of Medway not just within a 10 minute drive time. The growth estimates are accepted and on this basis alone it can be shown than a quantitative capacity exists. However when this is allied to the existing surplus of expenditure in the Towns then it is clear that a quantitative capacity does exist.

The issue of the qualitative assessment is more difficult in that the warehouse does provide a wider choice of products. The existing store is over trading and there is an outward expenditure from Medway on DIY at the moment (Kent Household expenditure survey 2000 showed 86% of spend on bulky goods in Medway, the loss is less than all other districts) and it can be argued that this is due to a qualitative deficiency. The important response to this though is that while accepting that is such a deficiency, is the appropriate response to provide a warehouse in this location or is it preferable to look at meeting the shortfall by using a different format which may have other benefits.

SEQUENTIAL TEST

Applicants’ submission

It is the applicants contention that in real terms the nature of the need identified can only be satisfied by a large store and that they do not consider that any of the 5 towns can accommodate the development of such a large store. Notwithstanding this they have undertaken a sequential test and have had consideration to the requirements of PPG6

DC0902MW 15 regarding format. They have looked at all 5 centres and an area within 350 metres of the core retail area. They advise that they were able to quickly discount many sites purely down to size but have the following comments on the remainder:

(i) Strood

· Commercial Road – site already occupied and not available

· Civic Centre car park – not available

· Showmans site –not available and in poor location.

· Friary Precinct – unacceptable loss of car parking and site too constrained

(ii) Rochester

· Corporation car park – part of Rochester Riverside regeneration and therefore retail warehouse inappropriate, unacceptable loss of car parking and too constrained.

· Land adjacent to Acorn Wharf – Part of Rochester Riverside, wrong side of railway line and public access poor.

· Lattice Site – Part of Rochester Riverside

· Blueboar Lane – unviable due to land acquisition and stability issues and part of Rochester Riverside.

(iii) Chatham

· Railway Street Car Park – unacceptable loss of car parking.

· Staples and Medway Street – Part of the Chatham Riverside mixed development and warehouse inappropriate. Loss of car parking un acceptable.

· James Street Car park – Unacceptable loss of parking

· Richard Street car park – Large scale proposals cannot be accommodated and would be detrimental to city centre concept. Unacceptable loss of car parking.

(iv) Gillingham

· Jeffrey Street car park – Allocated for convenience development, unacceptable loss of car parking and constrained footprint.

· Railway Street – Zoned for employment and over 200 metres from the centre.

(v) Rainham

· Old Co-op Site – Has planning permission for redevelopment and access difficulties for large store.

They conclude that there are no suitable sites in a central position even taking a flexible approach to format.

DC0902MW 16 Officers Response

It is not considered that the applicants have been flexible and realistic in their approach in terms of format, design and scale of their development as required by PPG6 and emphasised in the recent ODPM statement of 10th April. Indeed in the penultimate paragraph of that statement specifically on Bulky Goods it states “PPG6 recognises that some types of retailing, such as large stores selling bulky goods, may not be able to find suitable sites either in or on the edge of town centres. The First Secretary of State considers that it rests with developers and retailers to demonstrate that a majority of their goods cannot be sold from town centre stores. He does not consider that developments involving the sale of bulky goods are exempted from meeting the policy tests in PPG6 and subsequent clarifications.

This advise is very clear and it is not considered that B&Q within their sequential test have considered the issue of scale and format to the extent required by PPG6 and reflected in Development Plan Policy.

There is clear advice in PPG6 and RPG9 that retail warehouses should be located (where practical) in Town Centres. Policy R4 of the Kent Structure Plan emphasises this, expressing concern that if it isn’t it could affect the viability and vitality of the centre (and in this respect it must be remembered that the proposed warehouse would be the equivalent of 65%of the comparison shopping provision in Gillingham in terms of size). The policy also stresses that the location of retail warehouses should not have implications for other designated land uses such as employment.

Policy S5 of the Local Plan 2003 states that Chatham Centre will be developed as the major multi-use centre for Medway, with any major comparison retail proposals located here. Policy R13 stresses the need for the sequential approach and for new retail development to be considered first for Town Centres such as Chatham. In this respect Policy R1 identifies Chatham as a regional scale comparison goods centre. Proposals which would undermine the strategy for or the vitality and viability of Chatham centre will not be permitted. Paragraph 6.5.3 of the reasoned justification for Policy R1 states “the Local Plan gives specific priority to the centre as the preferred location for new or replacement comparison retailing, including so called bulky goods. To facilitate this policy R1 gives a presumption in favour of such floorspace within the core area of the centre as defined in the proposals map and allocates a specific site at Richard Street”

B&Q objected to policy R1 of deposit version including the presumption against major comparison proposals outside the town centre. The Inspector commented “MC has agreed to amend the distance from the Core Area to 200-300 metres in para 6.5.5 and, in order to meet B&Q’s objection, a similar amendment should be made in the text of Policy R1. As for using the term Core Area, this defines the principal retail area of the centre, which reflects the guidance in PPG6 about primary shopping areas and “edge of centre” sites. Similarly, the presumption against major Class A1 comparison proposals outside the defined Core Area of Chatham reflects the sequential approach in PPG6 and Policy R12, by favouring sites within existing centres for major retail developments. No further changes are therefore needed in response to B&Q’s objection.”

Paragraph 6.5.2 (iii) of the Adopted Local Plan recognises that there will be expenditure growth on bulky goods and that this in the past has resulted in the growth of retail parks. However, this will have to change if PPG6 is followed and large showrooms in Town centres will supersede retail parks and this is a sector in which Chatham can be the vanguard of change.

DC0902MW 17 Retail Impact

The applicants contend that they have undertaken a health check of the 5 Towns. In this they effectively conclude that as none of the centres has any significant dependence upon the sale of DIY then the warehouse will not impact on the vitality and viability of the centres.

The point about significant dependence is noted but the proposal will have some impact. For instance Wilkinsons in Chatham, sell quite a range of DIY materials (the equivalent of most of their upper floor would be the sort of products B&Q sell – paint and wallpaper, screws and nails, small knockdown furniture, garden products, tools, bathroom accessories, picture frames, curtain rails, etc) and AE Smith in Chatham High Street sells tools and workwear. Elsewhere in Chatham Halfords, Varley electrics, Allders, Co-op, Argos and Woolworths also have overlapping ranges. There are also stores within Rainham and Gillingham centres who sell B&Q related products

However while the point regarding impact on vitality and viability is noted. it misses the essence of the advise in RPG9, PPG6 and the policies in the Development Plan which seek to encourage the regeneration of centres and in this case Chatham. The location of such a large retail warehouse at Gillingham Business Park may not significantly harm existing trading in Chatham but it could have a significant impact on the success of the regeneration of Chatham by failing to meet the requirements of the sequential test. The Local Plan is clear that Chatham will be the main regional Centre and indeed the Council is progressing the Development Framework for Chatham’s regeneration. Paragraphs 4.1-4.3 of PPG6 clearly state that new retail developments should support the sustaining and enhancing of existing centres. This includes the enhancement of the vitality and viability of the centre. Proposals which run contrary to this or which put at risk a strategy for the Centre are not acceptable. Taking the elements of the proposal which could be located in centre and addressing the format and scale in a way which is appropriate for Richard Street would be a step forward in the regeneration of Chatham and assist in meeting the aims of national, regional and development plan policy. For this reason as well the proposal runs contrary to the aims of those documents.

Design and Landscaping

The proposed building will not directly front onto any major highway. However it is a big building and there will clearly be views and glimpses of it from the A2 and Will Adams Way in particular. It is essentially a large box, however, the applicants have attempted to break up the impact and make the building more interesting with detailing and landscaping. In the context of its location to the North of warehouse units within the business park it is not considered that a sustainable ground of refusal can be put forward on design grounds.

Highway Matters

The application proposes to access the site from the new roundabout onto Will Adams Way utilising the new road which serves the Honourable Pilot hotel and restaurant. The new road is proposed to be extended into a car park designed to provide 587 spaces of which 12 will be available for persons with disabilities or parent and child and 9 will be available for Trade. In order to deal with the capacity issues for the A2/ Will Adams Way roundabout it is proposed to provide a dedicated left turn lane for vehicles on the A2 going west which will extend into Will Adams Way.

It was agreed in the original outline application for the development of this site for employment purposes that vehicular access would be solely derived from Will Adams Way from the new

DC0902MW 18 roundabout. It is also considered that the number of parking spaces proposed is satisfactory to serve the development and no objection is raised on these aspects.

The Council did however instruct an independent stage 1 safety audit report to be prepared in respect of the proposed alterations to the A2/ Will Adams Way Roundabout. The report concluded that on the A2 west approach to the roundabout a third lane would be created and this would turn into Will Adams Way. There is then a short distance in Will Adams Way before the next roundabout is met. This may result in poor usage and lane discipline on the approach on the A2 and many lane changes in Will Adams Way over a short length of Road. Both these aspects would increase the likelihood of road traffic accidents.

In addition the dedicated lane into Will Adams Way would increase the difficulty for pedestrians crossing Will Adams Way at the roundabout and would therefore result in pedestrian and vehicular conflict.

The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies T1 and T3 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposal would result in the loss of one of the most important employment sites in Medway and the Local Plan. Its loss would have a significant impact on the Economic Development strategy for Medway which has developed through the Regional guidance and Development Plan process and is so important in the regeneration of Medway. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of RPG9a and policies S3, S5, ED1 and ED2 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996 and Policy ED1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The sequential test undertaken is inadequate and incomplete as it has not considered a disaggregated format for the proposed store. It is considered that on the basis of a revised format there is a sequentially preferable site within Chatham Centre. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of PPG6 and policies R1 and R4 of the Kent Structure Plan1996 and S5, R1 and R12 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The applicants have not adequately demonstrated improvements to the capacity of the A2/ Will Adams Way roundabout that do not compromise highway safety or increase hazards to vulnerable road users. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies T1 and T3 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The application is accordingly recommended for Refusal.

DC0902MW 19

3 MC2003/0529

Date Received: 14th March 2003

Location: Hawthorne Residential Home, 369, Maidstone Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0HX

Proposal: Construction of first floor front, side and rear extension to accommodate 8 additional bedrooms, two storey side extension to facilitate a lift and single storey extension and conservatory to rear

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Radzic C/o Designs Architecture & Planning

Agent: Mr C Tidmarsh Designs Architecture & Planning The Old School, School Road Tilmanstone Deal Kent CT14 0JL

Ward: Rainham Central

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by drawings received on 12th June 2003; 10th July 2003 and 19th July 2003)

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

2 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally and any means of enclosure shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 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 additional windows shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the extensions herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

4 The premises shall be used for the purpose of an elderly persons residential care home for up to only 36 residents and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Towns and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

5 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and 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.

DC0902MW 20

Site Description

This application relates to a large property situated within large grounds on the eastern side of Maidstone Road in Gillingham and situated opposite the junction with Woodside Road. The building has been extended in the past and is used as an elderly persons residential home catering for 28 residents within 26 single and 1 double bedrooms. There are 14 members of staff who work in shifts with 4 during the day and 3 at night. A large car park exists at the front of the building for staff and visitors can accommodate 12 cars. The adjacent building to the north is situated approximately 3.5 metres away from the boundary and is a chalet bungalow with a dentist business operating in rooms within the south of the building. The dentist lives in the rest of the building. Further to the north are 2-storey houses. To the south is a row of 3 single storey shops and then a hairdresser shop. Opposite are a petrol station, vets surgery and a public house. The rear boundary backs onto the rear gardens of 2 storey houses in Woodpecker Glade.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct a first floor front, side and rear extension to accommodate 8 additional single bedrooms (resulting in a total of 35 bedrooms accommodating 36 residents), to construct a 2-storey side extension to facilitate a lift and a single storey extension and conservatory to the rear. Four new staff will be required but with only 1 working per shift.

The additional bedrooms will be within an extension built above an existing ground floor extension situated to the north of the building which skirts around to the rear and east of the building, creating an internal courtyard area. The existing height of this extension will increase from 2.5metres to the eaves and 4.7 metres to the ridge, up to 4.5 metres to eaves and 6.5 metres to the ridge. Three high level first floor windows are proposed in the northern elevation to serve an internal corridor. Bedroom windows are proposed to face onto the internal courtyard. A number of the rear elevation first floor windows are proposed to serve bedrooms and en suite bathrooms.

The 2-storey extension to facilitate the installation of a lift will be to the southern elevation of the building and has a depth of 1.8 metres, length of 4 metres, height to eaves of 6.5 metres and 7.5 metres to the ridge. It will have one first floor window to serve the corridor.

To the rear a single storey extension linking into a conservatory is proposed. Existing boundary trees are to remain.

Relevant Planning History

GL62/26C Change of use to residential care home. Approved 18th August 1988

GL62/26/90/120 Variation of condition ii of planning approval GL62/26C to increase the number of residents to 16. Approved

GL62/0026/96/0047 Change of use to residential care home. Approved the July 1996

DC0902MW 21

MC2000/1399 Construction of single storey & 2 storey rear extension situated to the southern side of the building. Approved 13th November 2000

MC2003/1245 Retrospective application for construction of a two storey rear extension (amendment to planning consent MC2000/1399 by increase in length of 1.5metres). Approved 5th August 2003

MC2003/1246 Formation of owners/ staff flat in roof space. Approved 5th August 2003

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: Queens Head Public House, 390, 392. 394, 400 and 363 to 377 Maidstone Road; 9,11,17,19 Woodpecker Glade; 22 to 30 Deanwood Drive.

3 letters of representation have been received raising the following objections:

- Over development of the site - Piecemeal development over the years will result in a building with an over bearing nature. - Detrimental impact on visual amenities - Concern over access for emergency vehicles - Concern over increased vehicular traffic - There appears to be no allowance for additional car parking - Concern over highway safety should insufficient car parking provision result in traffic piling into the main road - Loss of privacy - Light pollution at night

Development Plan Policies

Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy ENV16. (Urban Open Space and Town Cramming) Policy T17 (Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003:

Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Provision) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards) Policy CF5 (Nursing & Special Care facilities)

DC0902MW 22

Planning Appraisal

This application raises the following issues for consideration:

· Matters of principle · Impact upon residential amenity; · Design and impact upon the street scene · Car parking and highway implications.

Principle

The principle of the use of the building as a residential care home has been established for some years. Policy CF5 of the adopted Medway Local Plan advises that accommodation providing nursing or special care to meet the needs arising in local neighbourhoods will be permitted, subject to there being no undue loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. Proposals should be of a size, design and location that will provide a satisfactory environment for future residents.

Design Considerations

In design terms, it is considered that the proposed extensions respect the architectural character of the original building and will compliment its character as well as that of the street scene. The internal attractive landscaped courtyard will remain for the benefit of the residents as well as the large rear garden. As the 2 storey main extension is to be built above an existing extension, it is not considered to be an over development of the plot as the relatively large rear garden will remain. As the proposed extension to the north pitches away from the boundary, its impact on that boundary is reduced.

In terms of design and appearance, the proposal complies with the above-mentioned Development Plan policies.

Impact on Amenities

It is proposed to construct a two storey front, side and rear extension on a nursing home which is located in an area of mixed use with there being residential properties to the north and east, a petrol filling station and public house to the west and shops to the south. The two storey extension would be situated above an existing ground floor extension with the roof pitching away from the boundary, thereby reducing its impact. Although situated approximately 3.5 metres south of number 367, that property has a garage located adjacent to the boundary with no.369 and is on a level approx. 700mm below that of the application site. The proposed extension will also be situated further east from the front elevation of the adjacent bungalow. It is considered that there would be some affect on the amenities of the occupiers of properties to the north in terms of loss of some sunlight to the southern elevation windows and doors. However as these windows serve the dentist surgery, office and kitchen it is not considered sufficient enough to warrant a refusal. In terms of privacy, there will be no impact as the proposed windows within the northern elevation facing onto the bungalow are high level and only serve an internal corridor. Therefore the privacy of residents within Deanwood Drive and of Maidstone Road will also be protected.

DC0902MW 23

The property benefits from a long rear garden (of approximately 25 metres) which results in the residential units to the rear being approx. 35m from the proposed 2-storey extension therefore the impact would by minimal and acceptable.

Regarding the properties to the south, the 3 adjacent properties are single storey shops with garages behind. The proposed window on the south elevation serves the lift corridor and in order to protect the privacy of the properties to the south the window would need to be obscured glazing and non-opening.

The pleasant living environment for the residents will remain.

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

Highways Impact, Traffic and Car Parking

With regard to the vehicle parking, the adopted vehicle parking standards (as maxima) for nursing homes require the provision of up to one space per 6 residents (for their visitors) and parking for members of staff. To satisfy this standard the proposal would require up to 6 spaces for visitors & 5 spaces for staff, a total of 11 spaces.

The proposed scheme indicates 12 car parking spaces plus a vehicle circulation area. The proposed parking arrangements are therefore considered to be acceptable and no highways objection is raised to the application.

Recommendation

On balance it is considered that the application complies with the relevant development Plan Polices and is therefore recommended for approval.

(This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ consideration due to the amount of letters of objection received.)

DC0902MW 24

4 MC2003/0645

Date Received: 26th March 2003

Location: 2, Norreys Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 9AJ

Proposal: Conversion of part ground floor, first and second floors from one residential dwelling to five 1-bedroomed flats

Applicant: Mr J Hall & Mrs S Scudder 88 Northumberland Avenue Rainham Gillingham Kent ME8 7JY

Agent:

Ward: Rainham Central

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by revised drawing received on 6th August 2003)

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

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 to the front of the site shall be completed before the building is occupiedand shall thereafter be maintained for the duration of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 Vision splay(s) of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access point(s) and no obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the splay(s).

4 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and 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.

5 The kitchen window on the northern elevation on flat 1 shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light.

6 Prior to the commencement of development details of measures to soundproof the dividing walls between the shop and the flats shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be undertaken prior to the first occupation of the flats.

DC0902MW 25

Site Description

The application property is the right hand, north-east, of a pair of semi-detached properties currently in retail (Class A1) use on the corner of Norreys Road and Arthur Road. The application property has been extended on both floors to the side and at single storey level to the rear; the rear extension has been built right up to the rear boundary. There has also been a loft conversion with a dormer window to the side. It is currently used as an off licence. The ground floor comprises the shop on the ground floor with ancillary accommodation, five bedrooms and a sauna on the first floor and a sixth bedroom and bathroom in the roof space.

The front of the site comprises a shop forecourt, whilst to the side, there is a garden area, enclosed by a low brick wall and a hedge to the front, and a 1.8 metres high brick wall, fence and planting to the rear.

The application property lies within a local shopping centre, comprising the application property, and the neighbouring property a hairdresser's, and two shops opposite.

Proposal

The proposal is to retain the shop and to convert the remainder of the property into 5 self- contained one bedroom flats. The layout would comprise two flats on the ground floor, one to the side and one to the rear of the shop; two flats on the first floor and one flat in the roof space. 5 parking spaces would be provided, two in front of the residential part of the building, facing Norreys Road, and three to the side, facing Arthur Road. The forecourt in front of the shop would remain. A patio is shown immediately to the rear of the building, with a garden area behind the parking spaces facing Arthur Road.

Relevant Planning History

55/99 Outline application – shops. Approved 4th August 1955

55/99 Details. Approved 16th January 1957

GL/79/329 Two storey side and rear extensions. Approved 7th February 1980

GL/79/329A Two storey rear extension. Approved 8th April 1982

GL/79/329B Rear lounge extension. Approved 11th October 1984

GL/79/329C Close-boarded timber fence 2m high. Approved 13th December 1984

DC0902MW 26

GL/79/329D Erection of domestic garden shed. Approved 21st June 1985

GL/92/0138 Two storey side extension and rear extensions to property. Approved 28th May 1992

GL/92/0736 Details of parking and boundary treatment pursuant to GL/92/0138. Approved 15th January 1993

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of 1, 3, 4, 4a and 4b Norreys Road; and 44 and 55-65 (odd) Arthur Road.

Three letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

- inadequate parking; - noise and disturbance; - overlooking; - over development.

Development Plan Policies

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H4 (Housing in urban Areas) Policy H6 (Flat conversions) Policy T13 (Parking)

Planning Appraisal

The issues for consideration in respect of this application are:

· the principle of the development; · the effect on the character and appearance of the area; · the effect on the amenities of nearby residents; and · parking.

Principle

The principle of the development falls to be assessed under Policies H4 and H5 of the Local Plan. Policy H4 contains a presumption in favour of residential development in urban areas, including the use of upper floors above commercial premises. Policy H6 identifies criteria for the assessment of flat conversions and contains a presumption in favour of conversions unless these can be met. Assessing the proposal against the criteria, it is acknowledged that the surrounding area is predominantly in single household occupation, although a precedent has been set with the use of the adjoining property as two self-contained flats. Being

DC0902MW 27 attached to a shop, the property lends itself to flat conversion, and furthermore, having been substantially extended in the past, the property is of a size which can accommodate five units, in addition to a shop. In this regard, therefore, the proposal would comply with Policy H6 of the Local Plan and would be acceptable in principle.

The character and appearance of the area

Although, the property would not be extended, the proposal would have an impact on the character and appearance of the locality due to the opening of the side to provide parking. However, subject to satisfactory treatment of this area in terms of hardsurfacing and planting, the scheme could be designed to enhance the appearance of the locality and the proposal would, therefore comply with Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan.

Amenity

The proposal would not involve the introduction of any new windows to the building and in this regard there should be no additional overlooking. One bathroom window, on the first floor side elevation would be converted to a lounge window. However, that window would overlook Arthur Road and would be 22.5 metres from the front window of the house opposite, and would comply with the minimum privacy distance recommended in Kent Design. As the building is not being extended, there would be no impact on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light or loss of outlook.

It is anticipated that 5 one bedroom flats are likely to generate a higher level of activity than one 6 bedroom house. However, as the site is within a local shopping centre, there is already a significant level of activity in the locality and it is not considered that the additional activity generated by the proposal would detract from the amenities of the area.

It is, therefore, considered that the proposal would comply with Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan.

Parking

Currently there is a forecourt in front of the shop and the adjoining room, which is available for customers and staff cars, but is not used. This could accommodate five cars. If the scheme were allowed, these five spaces would remain and a further three spaces would be provided to the side of the building. This would result in the provision of one space per flat, which is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the adopted vehicle parking standards and Policy T13 of the Local Plan.

Conclusion

The application is recommended for approval.

DC0902MW 28

5 MC2003/0690

Date Received: 2nd April 2003

Location: Land at former Civil Service Sports Ground, Watling Street/Will Adams Way, Gillingham

Proposal: Erection of non-food retail warehouse(class A1) including bulk builders yard and garden centre together with access and servicing arrangements, car parking, a new cycleway and landscaping (Duplicate Application)

Applicant: B & Q Plc Porstwood House 1 Hampshire Corporate Park Chandlers Ford Eastleigh Hant SO53 3YY

Agent: Mr SJ Slatford RPS Planning Transport and Environment 118 Southwark Street London SE1 OSW

Ward: Watling

Recommendation - Refusal

Members are advised that if they are minded to approve the application referral to the Secretary of State is required as the proposal is a material Departure from the Development Plan.

Members are advised that this application is a duplicate of MC2002/0489 considered earlier on this agenda. Therefore matters of site description, details of the proposal, relevant planning history, representations, development plan policies and planning appraisal are all as set out in that earlier report.

DC0902MW 29

6 MC2003/0874

Date Received: 28th April 2003

Location: Land at Sailmakers Court (rear of 39a - 39d Dagmar Road) Chatham, Kent

Proposal: Erection of two 3-bedroomed link-detached chalet bungalows and garages (demolition of existing garages)

Applicant: Mr P Hancock Craigard Spekes Road Hempstead Gillingham Kent

Agent: Mr R E Paylor The Hermitage Eastcourt Lane Gillingham Kent ME7 2UR

Ward: Luton & Wayfield

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

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 dwellings are occupied and shall thereafter be maintained for the duration of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4 The velux roof windows on the north west elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light.

5 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 development within Parts 1 and 2 of the Second Schedule to the Order shall be carried out on the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

6 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include hard surfacing materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting

DC0902MW 30 species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

7 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The approved planting stock shall be maintained for a minimum period of five years following its planting and any of the stock that dies or is destroyed within this period shall be replanted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8 Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted an investigation shall be undertaken to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. The results of the investigation together with a risk assessment by a competent person and details of a scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and a completion report issued by the competent person referred to above, stating how remediation has been completed and that the site is suitable for the permitted use, shall be provided to the Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

9 No dwelling shall be occupied until the area shown on the approved plan for car parking purposes has been drained and surfaced in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

10 Vision splays of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres shall be provided on either side of the vehicular access points and no obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the splays.

11 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 and 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.

Site Description

This application relates to a site situated on the north west corner of Sailmakers Court and to the rear of 39a to 39d Dagmar Road in Chatham. The site is occupied by two rows of garages which are currently vacant but were previously used in connection with an undertakers business. The north western part of the site adjoins a rear alleyway belonging to the occupiers of 39a to 39d Dagmar Road which then adjoins the rear gardens of those properties. Due to the significant drop in ground levels between Sailmakers Court and Dagmar Road, those properties although two storey to the front, are single storey at the rear. The gardens are also terraced and stepped as they rise towards the application site. To the north east the site adjoins an unmade access road serving a number of garages within the rear gardens of properties in Clarence Road, which are also at a much lower ground level due to slope of the land. To the south west the site adjoins a rear alleyway (which has been

DC0902MW 31 blocked off and incorporated into the rear garden of 41 Dagmar Road,) and then a number of garages situated in the rear part of gardens to 41 –40 Dagmar Road. To the south east are 2-storey houses in Sailmakers Court. The character of the area generally is one of dense terraced housing.

Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the garages and to erect two three-bedroomed detached chalet bungalows linked together by their garages with the third bedroom above. The dwellings have been designed so that first floor dormer windows to serve the bedrooms are only within the front elevation. The only first floor windows in the rear elevation are two small velux roof lights, which will be obscure glazed to serve the bathrooms. No windows are proposed in the side elevations. In front of each garage is a driveway to accommodate one car. No landscaping or boundary treatment is shown. The dwellings are proposed to be set in from the boundaries by 1.1metres from the south western boundary and 0.6 metres increasing to 2 metres from the northern boundary. The rear gardens will have a depth of 5 metres and a width of at least 10 metres.

Site Area/Density

Site Area: 0.032 hectares (0.079acres) Site Density: 62.5 d.p.h (25.3 d.p.a)

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: 3 to 10 Sailmakers Court; 2 to 18 Clarence Road; 35, 37,39a, 39b,39c,39d,41,43 Dagmar Road.

4 letters of representation from 3 households have been received raising the following objections:

- Concern over loss of privacy and overlooking; - Due to the changes in ground level, concern over domination and enclosure; - Concern that the narrow access to garages with rear gardens is not impacted upon, however also states that the new dwellings may provide additional security for these garages than at present; - As leave for work very early in the morning this may disturb the future occupants of the proposed dwellings; - Proposal is over development; - Concern over loss of light; and - Concern over loss of access over the land on which the garages are on.

Development Plan Policies

Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy S1 (Sustainable development) Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy ENV16. (Urban Open Space and Town Cramming) Policy H3 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T17 (Parking Standards)

DC0902MW 32

Medway Local Plan 2003:

Policy S1 (Development Strategy) Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Provision) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated Land) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

This application raises the following issues for consideration:

· matters of principle, · impact upon residential amenity; · design and impact upon the street scene · car parking and highway implications.

Principle

The principle of the application falls to be determined against the provisions of Polices H3 of the Kent structure Plan 1996, and Policy H4 of the Medway Local Plan (Adopted Version) 2003. These policies indicate a presumption in favour of redevelopment for housing of sites within the urban area.

The site is not allocated for new housing development under Policy H1 of the Adopted Local Plan. Nevertheless the site lies within a predominantly residential area and the principle of residential development is considered acceptable in accordance with Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan.

Design Considerations

Generally the design of the two dwellings is considered acceptable, and will remove an unkempt unused prominent corner site, which currently attracts gatherings of youths in the evening. The frontages are proposed to be broken up with dormer windows to provide interest. Being single storey with rooms in the roof it is considered that the low level design will not harm the character of the street scene, which is varied. As no details have been provided on boundary treatment and landscaping it is considered that these can be dealt with by way of condition, although the drawings would seem to indicate as well as a reasonable sized rear garden, that there is a small element of frontage available for soft landscaping.

In terms of design and appearance, the proposal complies with the above-mentioned Development Plan policies.

Impact on Amenities

The building is set well within its own plot and with the siting of garages to the south west and an access driveway to the eastern boundary, the main impact will be upon the residents within the terrace of houses opposite to the north west and rear of the site fronting Dagmar

DC0902MW 33 Road. The dwellings will be situated approx. 18 metres away from these dwellings. However, as the proposed chalet bungalows are to be single storey with no windows facing the Dagmar Road properties (other than obscure glazed windows serving bathrooms) and as the existing 1.8 metre high boundary fence protects the privacy of the occupiers of the dwellings, it is considered that therefore there would not be any detrimental impact in terms of loss of privacy, over looking, enclosure, domination or loss of light to the occupiers of these dwellings. This is subject to the erection of a replacement boundary fence to the rear gardens of at least 1.8 metres (for the mutual privacy of existing neighbours and potential residents) and this can be dealt with by way of condition.

The proposed dwellings are set in from the boundary adjacent to the access road serving the rear garages within the gardens of properties in Clarence Road. It is considered that there will be no detrimental impact upon this access road. In addition there are no rear or side elevation windows overlooking the properties in Clarence Road, which nevertheless are situated over 29 metres away.

The applicant has submitted copies of his deeds which shows that there is no right of access from the rear alleyway to the rear of 39a to 39d Dagmar Road onto the application site. It would appear that at one time the gate from this alleyway onto the site was created by one of the residents in Dagmar Road who was an employee of the funeral directors who previously used the garages. The rear alleyway and its right of way/access will not be impacted upon by this proposed development. A letter submitted by one of the objectors refers to this alleyway being protected but this continues to be unchanged by this proposal.

As there are no windows within the side elevation of 8 Sailmakers Court and due to the nature of the ground levels in the area, there will be no overlooking onto the rear gardens or bedroom windows of the proposed chalet bungalows.

In addition the design and layout of the scheme is such that the residential amenities for prospective occupiers will be satisfactory and each dwelling would have adequate internal space and external amenity space. To take into consideration the previous use of the site for the storage of cars and the potential for oil leaks it is considered prudent to ensure a site contamination survey by way of condition to protect the health of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

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

Highways Impact, Traffic and Car Parking

The proposed scheme indicates a single garage and one car parking spaces for each proposed dwelling. The proposed parking arrangements are considered to be acceptable and no highways objection is raised to the application.

Recommendation

The proposed development will improve the appearance of a prominent site and will also contribute to the provision of housing in the area. In view of the above assessment it is considered that the proposal accords with the cited Local Plan policies and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

DC0902MW 34

(This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ consideration due to the amount of letters of representation received.)

DC0902MW 35

7 MC2003/0946

Date Received: 7th May 2003

Location: Rear of Swithindene, Spekes Road, Hempstead, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 3RS

Proposal: Reserved matters application pursuant to condition 1 of outline planning consent MC1999/6034 for construction of a detached 4- bedroomed house with integral garage

Applicant: Mr K Troubridge Swithindene Spekes Road Hempstead Gillingham Kent ME7 3RS

Agent: Mr M Brinsmead Brinsmead Development Limited The Barn Tidebrook Cottage Tidebrook East Sussex TN5 8PQ

Ward: Hempstead & Wigmore

Recommended that approval of the reserved matters be granted:

(as amended by plans received on 25th July 2003)

Site Description

The site is a wedge shaped former paddock bounded by properties in Hickory Dell, Pippin Croft and Spekes Road. It currently forms part of the garden area of the property known as Swithindene which fronts onto Spekes Road. The site rises steeply from east to west towards Hempstead Valley Drive with Pippin Croft to the west sited at a higher level than the site. The land also rises to the east towards Spekes Road and the site is effectively in a “dip”. The western end where the site narrows, fronts Hempstead Valley Drive. There are trees to the boundaries and within the site. Hickory Dell consists of two cul-de-sacs.

Proposal

This application is for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition Number 1 of the Outline Planning Permission MC1999/6034, approved on 7.6.2000, relating to siting, design, external appearance and landscaping.

The submitted drawings show one 4-bedroomed dwelling with an integral garage and accessed from Hickory Dell between nos. 14 and 15 in accordance with the outline Planning Permission. The proposed dwelling is to be sited on the flatter part of the site and approximately 15 metres to the rear of 15 Hickory Dell, 39 metres away from the rear of Swithindene and 47 metres away from the rear of other properties in Spekes Road, and 48 metres away from properties in Pippin Croft. The plans show a turning area and driveway in front of the dwelling, which is shown to be block paved. As well as the existing trees indicated to be retained a number of additional trees are proposed to be planted, adjoining the boundaries of adjacent dwellings.

DC0902MW 36 Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.35ha (0.86 a) Site density: 2.8dph (1.1 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

MC1998/1007 Outline application for erection of 5 detached dwellings. Refused 24.3.1999.

MC1999/6034 Outline application for erection of 1 detached dwellings. Approved 7.6.2000.

MC2002/0425 Outline application for erection of 3 detached dwellings. Refused 22.1.2003.

MC2003/0216 Variation of condition 2 of Planning Permission MC1999/6034 (for the construction of one dwelling) to extend the time allowed for the submission of reserved matters by 3 years. Approved 4.6.2003.

Representations

A notice has been displayed on site and notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: Hedgerows; Woodbank; Hazeldene, Domus; Octavian; Tenroh, Pegan; Craigard; Polhendra; Swithendene, Acorn Lodge and Falcon Lodge, Spekes Road; 13 to 20 Pippin Croft; 1 to 32, 67 and 68 Hickory Dell and 43, 43A and 43B Hempstead Road.

Seven letters have been received objecting to the application on the grounds as follows: -

- the development of this site would be an unwelcome intrusion in this unspoilt green area and would change the character of the area;

- loss of privacy; outlook

- increased noise levels and general disturbance;

- the development of the site would be contrary to the provisions of the development plan as it represents backland development;

- the proposed access is not suitable to serve another property or emergency vehicles and would ruin the quiet cul-de-sac location;

- the proposal would cause further parking congestion on Hickory Dell and consequent hazards to pedestrians due to the lack of a footpath;

- the proposal will result in the loss of trees which currently form a screen from Hempstead Valley Drive sited high above Hickory Dell;

DC0902MW 37 - the applicant has no legal access to the site

- concerns over impact of any excavation works on the structural soundness of adjoining property, the road in Hichory Dell and impact of the proposed entrance over main sewerage and water drains

- the development of the site would result in the loss of important wildlife habitats.

- If the proposed road is allowed, there would be a serious compromise of vehicle, cycle and pedestrian safety, pushchairs and prams

- Concern over the safety of children who ride their bikes in the cul de sac

- The proposed entrance site is currently a green bank with several trees. This is a common play area for children.

Southern Water has no objection to the proposal but refer to the Council’s Building control section in connection with the adequacy of the local land drainage system. They request a condition relating to details to be submitted of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal and a further condition requiring measures for the protection of the foul sewers prior to the commencement of the development. (This is however covered under separate legislation enforced by the water Authority and covered under Building Regulations)

Following the receipt of amended plans increasing the width of the access driveway to 3.6 metres to satisfy the requirements of the fire officer, re-consultation letters have been sent to the adjacent neighbours at 13 to 16 Hickory Dell.

Development Plan Policies

Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy H3 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T17 (Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan (Adopted Version) 2003:

Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Provision) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

This application raises the following issues for consideration:

· matters of principle, · impact upon residential amenity; · design and impact upon the street scene · car parking and highway implications.

DC0902MW 38 Principle

The principle of the proposed dwelling has already been established by the granting of Outline Planning Permission on 7.6.2000 and the approval under MC2003/0216 on 4.6.2003 to extend the time allowed for the submission of reserved matters by 3 years.

Design Considerations, Impact on Amenities and Car Parking

It is considered that in terms of design and appearance the proposed 4-bedroomed dwelling is considered acceptable, within an area of varied architectural styles and varied sizes of dwellings. Although a number of trees are required to be removed to facilitate access to the site, this has already been accepted by the earlier planning consents. However, the submitted drawings show the retention of the remaining trees within the site as well as additional tree planting adjacent to the boundaries of neighbouring properties. This is proposed in order to address the concerns expressed by local residents with respect to overlooking and loss of privacy, as well as residents concerns regarding the loss of trees and wildlife habitat.

The siting of the access to the property has already been approved under the earlier planning permissions and the width complies with the requirements of the fire officer. Adequate car parking provision is indicted.

In terms of orientation of the dwelling in relation to adjoining properties, it is noted that the Kent Design Guidance recommends a back to back distance between the rear of properties of 21 metres, the distance shown on the submitted drawings is greater at 39 metres away from the rear of Swithindene and 47 metres away from the rear of other properties in Spekes Road. The distance of 58 metres away from properties in Pippin Croft is also considered acceptable. The distance from 15 Hickory Dell is 15 metres compared to the recommend distance of 11 metres for the orientation of the proposed dwelling to 15 Hickory Dell. In addition the planting of trees adjacent to the boundary with 15 Hickory Dell will help to screen the proposed dwelling from that property. Also of consideration is the fact that the land on which the proposed dwelling is to be built is at a slightly lower ground level than that of 15 Hickory Dell. Therefore it is considered that the proposed dwelling would not result in a development, which would cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

Recommendation

In view of the above it is therefore recommended that this reserved matters application be approved.

DC0902MW 39

8 MC2003/0966

Date Received: 9th May 2003

Location: Motney Hill Wastewater Treatment Works, Motney Hill, Gillingham, Kent

Proposal: Construction of sludge cake storage bay roof covering

Applicant: Southern Water Southern House Lewes Road Falmer Brighton BN1 9PY

Agent: Mr Love FPD Savills Wessex House Wimborne Dorset BH21 1PB

Ward: Rainham North

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

2 The materials used in carrying out the development shall be as shown on the approved plans.

3 The building hereby approved shall only be used to provide cover for the sludge cake stacking area ancillary to the use of the site as a wastewater treatment works and for no other purpose whatsoever without first obtaining the prior consent in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

4 The proposed building shall be constructed at the level shown in relation to the existing sludge treatment building as shown on plan no. 20031.70011 rev B.

Site Description

This is a long established complex situated on an isolated site at the northern tip of the promontory extending into the Medway estuary between Rainham and Otterham Creeks.

The site is arranged in a series of level terraces and is occupied by a variety of treatment plant, buildings and structures of differing type, sizes and designs. The six existing sludge cake storage bays occupy a central position within the site.

The site deals with both domestic and trade waste from a wide area.

Proposal

There are six large existing sludge cake storage bays within the site and the proposal is to erect a single freestanding structure 155 metres long by 46.5 metres wide with a height to eaves of 7 metres rising to 8.4 metres at the ridge. The roof is to be clad in plastic coated profiled steel sheeting colour goosewing grey while to prevent water entry from the direction

DC0902MW 40 of the prevailing wind timber vertical boarding with 25 mm gaps between will be applied from beneath eaves level along the south and southwest elevations. The intention is that the building will inhibit contamination of the sludge cake by aerial pollution while preventing its further wetting which inhibits its biological breakdown while helping to minimise odours.

The applicants have submitted a lengthy supporting statement also setting out the legislative and policy background to the proposal.

- The applicants are one of the leading companies within the water industry recycling sewage sludge into a range of bio solids that are then used a fertilisers and soil conditioners.

- The intention is that all sewage sludge will be recycled for use on farmland once the process of pathogen removal is completed. Trials carried out by the applicants confirm that the best way of achieving this aim is to store the sludge undercover where it will be kept dry while avoiding contamination by aerial borne pollutants.

- PPG10 promotes the idea of regional self sufficient in waste disposal whereby all waste should be treated or disposed of in the region where it is produced and that adequate provision should be made for waste management facilities in appropriate locations.

- The Kent Structure Plan, The Kent Waste Local plan seeks to promote a sustainable pattern of waste disposal committed to the reuse and recycling of waste that will reduce dependence on landfill or other unsustainable forms of waste disposal.

- It is predicted that the demand for recycled Sewage sludge will increase as a consequence of increased population and improvements in sewage treatment. Given the beneficial impacts of this type of fertiliser on soil structure there is therefore a need to maintain confidence in its agricultural use.

- If recycling cannot continue options for dealing with what would be then become just another waste product would be restricted to landfill or incineration.

- Regarding other measures that could be used to recycle the sludge to enable its use by agriculture, sludge composting or pasteurisation is discounted as this would still bring a requirement for large building in which the process would be carried out while still requiring a covered storage area for the resultant product.

- Thermal drying also discounted as this is an expensive procedure and would require the importation of sludge to make such investment worthwhile while also necessitating prominent drying plants.

- Lime stabilisation would result in the release of large amounts of ammonia in order to deal with pathogens and therefore does not represent a safe or viable system. Chemical dosing systems are not yet considered to be effective and there would still be the need to keep the resultant cake under cover to avoid contamination by the elements while being stored.

- The preferred option in policy and resource terms is to enable the treated sludge to be kept in a dry environment that minimises the possibility of further contamination while

DC0902MW 41 making best use of existing systems and machinery already in place currently dealing with the existing storage pile.

- Regarding odours, one of the problems associated with leaving the sludge cake out in the open is that there is a risk of its becoming wet and when being moved can cause odour plumes to be emitted. The sludge cake as it dries becomes less prone to odours while odours that are given off in low concentrations over a longer period rather than all at once when the piles are disturbed.

- Any noise generated by he existing operations will be largely contained within the proposed building while there will be no change in traffic generation, hours of use, staffing levels.

- Taking into account that the building does not lie within a sensitive area and is covering an existing process and is less than 1000 sqr metres does not fall to be the subject of an EIA.

Representations

Due to the remoteness of site from neighbouring properties no neighbour consultations were carried out. The proposal was however advertised as a major development both by site notice and in the press. English Nature has been consulted on the application.

English Nature advise that, as the works will be screened from the estuary by existing infrastructure at the treatment works that there is little likelihood of the proposal harming wildlife or the SSSI.

Development Plan Policies

PPG10: Planning and waste management

Kent Waste Local Plan (Adopted March 1998):

Policy W1 Provision for waste processing Policy W2 Protection of the environment Policy W10 Composting and digestion

Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy ENV21 Need to deal with waste in the region that it is generated Policy ENV22 Presumption against the treatment of waste Policy ENV23 Need to maintain 10 year waste disposal capacity

Medway Local Plan (Adopted Version) 2003

Policy BNE1 Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity protection Policy BNE4 Undeveloped coast Policy BNE24 Air quality Policy BNE25 Development in the countryside Policy BNE34 Special Landscape Area Policy CF13 Tidal flood areas

DC0902MW 42 Policy T1 Impact of development

Planning Appraisal

Policy Considerations:

This is an established waste water treatment works covering a large area and sited on an exposed promontory forming part of the North Kent Marshes Special Landscape Area and set behind the coastal zone identified as an undeveloped coastline. The area is predominantly rural in character.

A principal consideration is how the proposed building fits within the adopted waste disposal strategy set out in the Kent Waste Local Plan and the Kent Structure Plan.

Policy W1 of the Kent Waste Local Plan sets out a hierarchy of how waste will be dealt with in Kent and the recovery and composting of waste forms a key part of the overall strategy. The sludge recycling that currently takes place is an ancillary by-product of the wider waste disposal functions of the site that must continue to be dealt with irrespective of the outcome of this application. Currently the sludge cake is taken off site and used for agriculture and is an approach that is seen to comply with the intentions of PPG10 and provisions of policy W1 of the waste local plan.

The applicants main case is that if the sludge cake continues to remain uncovered and exposed to the elements and taking into account the need to prevent its contamination and reduce the likelihood of pathogen build up, the proposed building is essential in providing additional weather protection to meet future requirements and maintain confidence in the end product.

If the building is not provided there is the risk that the sludge cake will become another waste product that will have to dealt with by other means. The most likely alternative at this stage is disposal at a landfill site. Given the scarcity of such sites and the consequent need to husband the existing provision this is an outcome that should be avoided if possible. The proposed building by continuing to ensure that the sludge cake can reused therefore assists in continuing to meet the provisions of PPG10 and polices set out in the Kent Waste Local Plan and the Kent Structure Plan.

Detailed siting and design considerations:

The building has been designed to completely cover the existing sludge cake storage area while its height has been determined by the size of the machines that are currently used to load the sludge cake into bays and then loaded onto HGV’s.

Though the building is to be sited within a rural area that has been identified as having a high landscape value and will be seen against the backdrop of an undeveloped coastal area, taking into account the size and siting of the building close to other structures that form part of the wider complex and generally low lying nature of the site, (that will offset both the height and prominence of the building), any increase in visual impact outside the site will be minor and acceptable in the context of the area as a whole. The proposal is therefore considered to meet the design and siting polices set out in policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the adopted local plan and while avoiding any material harm to the character and setting of the nearby special landscape area and undeveloped coastal area contrary to the intentions of policies BNE4, BNE25 and BNE34

DC0902MW 43

Highway and parking considerations

As the proposed building will provide cover to an existing use it raises no additional traffic generation or parking issues so long as it is only used for the storage use proposed. To ensure that this remains the case it is considered that the use of the building should be restricted by condition to that of a sludge cake stacking area ancillary to the use of the site as a wastewater treatment works.

Tidal Flooding:

Though the proposed building will fall within part of the site where this has historically occurred taking into account the purpose and construction of the building and that the EA has raised no objection no breach of policy CF13 is identified.

Odour concerns:

This is an existing activity and the applicants advise that because of the sludge cake is currently open to the elements, the process of wetting can inhibit and extend the period breakdown of the sludge into its recyclable cake state. Furthermore that movement of the sludge cake when wet gives out intense odour plumes. The applicants advise that if the sludge stockpile is covered that it will revert into friable usable cake more swiftly while generating fewer odours. This is the likely outcome and consequently a beneficial side effect of the proposal is that the intensity of odours from the stockpile should be less thereby resulting in an improvement in local air quality that is supported by policy BNE24 of the emerging local plan.

Conclusion

It is acknowledged that the proposed building is large but taking into account its siting and design and proximity to other large plant and buildings it will not appear out of scale or incongruous in this setting or adversely affect the appearance of the wider area.

It will also enable the recycling of the sludge cake to continue thereby avoiding its possible disposal to landfill and ease further pressure on existing constrained landfill capacity in line with waste disposal policy while helping to minimise odours from the process. In the circumstances it is considered that the balance of issues comes down in favour of the proposal.

The application would have been considered as a delegated decision but Cllr Webber requires that it be considered by the Planning Committee due to longstanding odour and environmental problems generated by plant at the site.

DC0902MW 44

9 MC2003/1205

Date Received: 9th June 2003

Location: 33-35 South Avenue, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 6EG

Proposal: Construction of a two storey extension, two single storey extensions and a conservatory to rear and insertion of two dormers in rear roof elevation

Applicant: S S Dhindsa 255 London Road Rainham Kent ME8 6YS

Agent:

Ward: Twydall

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

3 No development shall take place until details of the proposed windows on the east elevation of the extension hereby approved facing onto Locarno Avenue (including their size and general proportions) have first been approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be installed before first occupation of the development hereby approved and retained as such at all times thereafter.

4 The flank ground floor window facing towards 31 South Avenue shown to serve the proposed kitchen shall be fixed shut at all times. Prior to first use of the kitchen details of mechanical ventilation to serve the kitchen shall be submitted for prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, installed as approved and retained as such at all times thereafter.

5 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning area shown on the approved plans has first been provided. The area so provided shall be maintained free of any impediment as to its designated use at all times thereafter.

6 Before first use of the parking and turning area hereby permitted, the gates to the access onto Locarno Avenue shall be set at least 2 metres back from the highway and a pedestrian visibility splay 2 x 2 metres shall be provided to the southern side of the access point. The area within the visibility splay shall be cleared of any obstruction exceeding 600mm in height and retained as such at all times thereafter.

DC0902MW 45 Site Description

This is an established elderly persons care home and comprises a pair of converted semi detached houses sited at the junction of Locarno Avenue and South Avenue within a residential area.

The application site has a garden flanking onto and separated from Locarno Avenue by a brick wall behind which are 3 semi mature trees. Locarno Avenue rises slightly towards South Avenue resulting in the application site occupying an elevated position. On site car parking serving the use is at the bottom of the garden with access onto Locarno Avenue.

Proposal

The scheme has been amended and the total number of bedrooms proposed reduced to 14 (16 originally proposed) This is to be achieved by carrying out internal alterations and extensions to the property.

Conversion will take place of the roof area involving the installation of 6 rooflights facing towards South Avenue while two small dormer windows are proposed at the rear of the property. Also proposed is a two storey pitched roof rear addition extending along Locarno Avenue reducing to a single storey addition. This latter element has been revised by deleting two bedrooms and effectively reducing its length by half.

A conservatory will be erected to the side of the rear addition while a single storey flat roofed addition will be erected on the side of the property abutting 31 Locarno Avenue.

Parking provision for 4 cars is shown at the rear of the garden.

A previous application to extend this property was withdrawn under ref: MC2002/2470. The applicant advises that the supporting information submitted in connection with this proposal still applies.

- The existing care home was registered for 10 persons and had to closed because it was not viable. - A care home requires at least 16 rooms if it is to be viable while the Medway Towns area is short of care home beds and this proposal will permit further capacity to be provided.

Representations

Neighbour notification letters were sent to the owner/occupiers of 31 and 37 South Avenue, Cloonagh, and 2,3, 4, 6 7 Cecil Avenue. A site notice was also posted.

3 letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

- Design of the additions inappropriate and not in keeping with the residential character of the area while representing over development. - Concerned that proposed parking provision is not sufficient to meet demand resulting in on street parking, noise, and disturbance and traffic hazard to a quiet residential area. - Will result in loss of privacy to adjoining dwellings.

DC0902MW 46 - The siting of the kitchen close to the 31 South Avenue will result in noise and odours from use of kitchen bringing about a substantial loss of amenity while loss of privacy will result from the siting of flank windows serving the single storey rear addition and kitchen.

Relevant Planning History

GL/93/0471/90/0761 Conversion of 33/35 South Avenue to residential care home for 10 residents Approved 10.09.93

MC2002/2470 Construction of single storey and two storey rear additions Withdrawn

Development Plan Policies

Medway Local Plan 2003:

Policy BNE1 General Principles for built development Policy BNE2 Amenity protection. Policy CF5 Nursing and special care Policy T13 Vehicle parking standards

Planning Appraisal

General considerations:

Analysis of demographic changes indicates that there will be a significant growth in the demand for the care for the elderly and an increase in the requirement for nursing home provision as a consequence. Furthermore that this provision should be met locally and be small scale in order to satisfy the needs of future residents.

Accordingly policy CF5 of the adopted local plan requires that proposals that increase the supply of accommodation for the elderly should be considered positively unless there are amenity or other reasons that might weigh against such an outcome.

Detailed design and siting considerations:

The proposed two-storey rear addition is considered to have minimal visual impact on adjoining properties in South Avenue and the Locarno Avenue street scene. However there are still outstanding concerns regarding the design and siting of windows to be installed in the end elevation of the existing building and the proposed addition due to their size and general proportions. However this can be resolved by redesigning the windows and reworking the proportions of the glazed areas both of which can be achieved by condition.

Regarding the visual impact of the single storey rear addition extending along to the Locarno Avenue frontage, there is already a brick wall fronting the road which will screen the lower part of the addition. However the addition will line through with the existing ground floor level of the main house and level changes means that its overall height and impact will be emphasised.

In order to reduce its visual impact two bedrooms have now been deleted resulting in a

DC0902MW 47 substantial decrease in length which, it is considered, overcomes any objections on visual amenity grounds by retaining the feeling of openness that is characteristic of the immediate locality. The proposal will result in loss of the trees fronting Locarno Avenue but given that they are immature specimens that will overshadow the proposal it is considered that there is no sustainable objection to their loss.

Turning to the remaining elements of the proposal, the impact of the flat roofed single storey rear addition on the outlook of 31 South Avenue is considered to be minor as is the proposed conservatory, particularly as the application site is set at a lower level than this property. Concerns have been raised relating to loss of amenity due to noise, general disturbance and odours coming from the kitchen. However the applicant will not relocate the kitchen as he feels that it would put other elements of the proposal out of balance. In the circumstances it is considered that a condition should be imposed requiring the window to be fixed shut at all times with the kitchen mechanically ventilated.

The remaining external changes, being the 6 rooflights fronting South Avenue and the rear dormers will, due to the their design, small size and high-level positions have limited visual impact and are considered to meet the design and siting polices set out in the adopted local plan.

Concerns raised regarding overlooking from the dormers are also noted. However there is existing overlooking from first floor windows, the proposed dormers will not, it is considered result in a material alteration in existing privacy levels.

Highway and parking considerations.

The proposed parking area is to be sited at the bottom of the garden with access onto Locarno Avenue in the position already approved as part of the original care home approval of the site. Care homes do not have significant traffic generation or parking requirements and given that the revised proposal only increases the number of residents by 4 there is not considered to be any sustainable objections on these grounds.

Conclusion:

The design and siting of the proposed additions and car park are considered to meet the requirements of the relevant policies set out in the adopted local plan while also increasing the capacity of the care home in line with policy CF5 without resulting in material harm to the locality. It is therefore considered that the proposal is worthy of support.

DC0902MW 48