5A Planning Applications

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR 19 SEPTEMBER 2007 Page No.

1 MC2007/0025 Hempstead & Wigmore Reserved matters (landscaping) pursuant to outline consent MC2004/2804 for construction of twelve 3-bedroomed houses (1 terrace of eight and 1 terrace of four) Land adjacent to Wigmore Reservoir, Maidstone Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent 4

2 MC2007/0156 Luton & Wayfield Outline application for construction of four blocks comprising 22 flats and associated parking 3 Upper Luton Road, Chatham, Kent 11

3 MC2007/0568 Rainham Central Engineering works to create an artificial playing surface for ten 5-A-side pitches with associated fencing and lighting; erection of a changing room/clubhouse building and pathway; access and car park; regrading of embankment with excavated material The Howard School Derwent Way Rainham Gillingham Medway ME8 0BX 25

4 MC2007/0675 Peninsula Outline application for the construction of 2 pairs of semi-detached houses) with associated parking The Ship, Cuckolds Green Road, Lower Stoke, Rochester ME3 9RD 43

5 MC2007/0819 Peninsula Demolition of existing garage block and construction of a two storey block comprising four 2-bedroomed self-contained flats with associated parking Land adjacent to Bells Lane and Kingsnorth Close, Hoo St. Werburgh, Rochester, Kent 49

6 MC2007/1072 Strood Rural Construction of two self contained flats Land adjoining 10 Rookery Crescent Cliffe Rochester ME3 7RH 57

7 MC2007/1095 Rainham Central Construction of a two storey/single storey side/rear extension incorporating an integral garage (Resubmission of MC2006/2017) (demolition of existing garage) 59 Chalfont Drive Rainham Gillingham ME8 9DW 62

8 MC2007/1119 Rainham Central Demolition of bungalow and garage and construction of three 4-bedroomed detached houses with garages 6B Salisbury Avenue Rainham Gillingham ME8 0BH 67

DC0902MW page 1 Page No.

9 MC2007/1129 PeninsulaFull Application Householder application for : Construction of a single storey rear extension; incorporating pitched roof over; dormer window to either side and new patio doors with juliet balcony to end elevation to provide additional living accommodation in roof space Rise Dale Allhallows Road Stoke Rochester ME3 9SL 76

10 MC2007/1139 Strood Rural Construction of a detached 4-bedroomed dwellinghouse with parking provision (Resubmission of MC2007/0331) Land adjacent to 8 Rookery Crescent, Cliffe Rochester, Kent 81

11 MC2007/1141 Strood North Construction of attached 3 bedroon dwelling with associated parking Land adjoining 14 Berber Road, Strood, Rochester 87

12 MC2007/1179 Strood Rural Construction of two storey extension to side, single storey extension to front and rear (demolition of conservatory) 35 North Road Cliffe Rochester ME3 7UH 92

13 MC2007/1207 Twydall Construction of a part single, part two storey building for use as ground floor A5 (Hot Food Takeaways) and first floor storage/staff room (demolition of buildings) 16-22 London Road Rainham Gillingham ME8 6YX 97

14 MC2007/1208 Chatham Central Application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country General Planning Regulations 1992 for construction of a two storey pitched gable ended welfare block Chatham Grammar School For Boys Maidstone Road Chatham Medway ME4 6JB 105

15 MC2007/1243 Peninsula Construction of a two-storey side extension & dormer window to rear St Mons Stoke Road Allhallows Rochester ME3 9PD 111

16 MC2007/1258 River Extension to existing bin store (resubmission of MC2006/1124) Estuary Reach, Pleasant Row, Brompton, Kent 114

17 MC2007/1273 Strood North Change of use from A1 to A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) together with the erection of an extract duct riser to the rear 96 Frindsbury Road Strood Rochester ME2 4JB 118

18 MC2007/1342 Watling Change of use from retail (A1) to cafe (A3) 90 Watling Street Gillingham ME7 2YS 124

DC0902MW page 2

19 MC2007/1405 River Construction of a detached 4-bedroomed house with integral garage Land adjacent to 3 Hammond Hill, Chatham, Kent. 129

20 MC2005/0814 Discharge of Condition 12 of MC2005/0814 2 Ash Tree Lane, Chatham, Kent 135

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 page 3

1 MC2007/0025

Date Received: 5th January 2007

Location: Land adjacent to Wigmore Reservoir, Maidstone Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent

Proposal: Reserved matters (landscaping) pursuant to outline consent MC2004/2804 for construction of twelve 3-bedroomed houses (1 terrace of eight and 1 terrace of four)

Applicant: Knowle House Limited The Old Oast Cold Harbour Lane Aylesford Kent ME20 7NS

Agent: N Kuntawala Prime Folio Ltd 24 Ashford Road Maidstone Kent ME14 5BH

Ward: Hempstead & Wigmore

Recommendation - Approval

A) Approval of reserved matters (landscaping) pursuant to condition 1 of planning permission MC2004/2804, subject to the imposition of the following additional conditions:

14 Notwithstanding the submitted details, the native hedgerow to the southern side of the access shall be maintained at a height no less than 1.8m, and shall be maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule hereunder approved.

15 The footpath to the access road shall be installed prior to the first occupation of any dwelling on site.

16 Planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the date of this decision and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the Maintenance Schedule hereunder approved unless any variation is first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

B Approval of details pursuant to condition 5 of outline permission MC2004/2804 (boundary treatment)

(as amended by maintenance schedule received 2 August 2007 and plans received 23 August 2007)

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

Site Description

The site lies to the rear of properties in Maidstone Road. The access is via a narrow vehicular driveway from Maidstone Road situated between numbers 734 and 738. The reservoir itself

DC0902MW page 4 is to the north east of the site, and the reservoir infrastructure forms the boundary to the north and west. Construction of twelve dwellings on site is currently well underway. Previously the site was occupied by a hard standing to the north of the site and small scale disused buildings associated with the former occupation of the site by Southern Water. There were previously a number of trees within the site but none of these were mature specimens. Most have now been removed with two silver birches remaining to the east of the site. The site is bounded to the south by properties on Fowler Close and this boundary is clearly delineated by an established cypress hedge. To the east the boundary with the application site is delineated by the rear gardens to the properties on Maidstone Road. The site is within a residential area, which is mixed in terms of character, age and type of property.

Proposal

The proposal is a reserved matters application for landscaping. This consists primarily of the following: - Native hedgerow to the southern side of the site access - Avenue of lime trees to the northern side of the site access - Substantial tree planting around two retained silver birch behind the main parking area - Scattered additional tree planting (including some in rear gardens) and shrub beds - Extension of existing cypress hedge to rear of plot 12

The plans also show details of boundary treatment pursuant to condition 5 of the outline permission MC2004/2804, which consists of 1.8m high close boarded fencing to all boundaries except the southwest, which is formed by the cypress hedge.

The plans submitted with the application also show a slight amendment to the site access, which was approved as part of the outline application. The road width has been reduced from 4.8m to 4.2m due to the presence of retained Southern Water infrastructure over which the road cannot run. It is considered that as this amendment is minor in scale it can be dealt with as part of the landscaping proposals, rather than requiring a resubmission of the other reserved matters.

Relevant Planning History

MC2004/2804 Outline application for construction of twelve 3-bedroomed houses (1 terrace of eight & 1 terrace of four) together with new access road & associated parking Refused 26 May 2005 Appeal allowed 18 January 2006

MC2005/0057 Construction of a 3 storey building comprising 31 x 1 & 2-bedroomed flats, staff and visitor accommodation, communal and administrative facilities to provide extra care for the elderly with associated car parking and access roads Withdrawn 6 March 2005

MC2006/1821 Application for approval of reserved matters (design & external appearance) pursuant to condition 1 of outline permission MC2004/2804 for construction of twelve 3-bedroomed houses (1 terrace of eight and 1 terrace of four)

DC0902MW page 5 Approved 21 December 2006

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of the following addresses: 182, 617, 633, 635639, 641, 645, 647, 653, 666, 696, 700, 732, 734, 738, 750, 752, 754, 756, 762, 768, 776 & 780 Maidstone Road; 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 (inc) Fowler Close; 6, 10, 12, 14 & 22 Harty Avenue; 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 & 29 Lime Court; 8, 21, 51, 54, 62, 84, 114, 126 & 142 Chart Place; 216, 253, 271 & 273 Wigmore Road; 271 Bredhurst Road; 5 Wallace Road; 29 Macdonald Road; 64 Canadian Avenue; 4 Speedwell Drive; 6 Wildfell Close; 106 Madden Avenue; and several people who commented by email on previous applications without leaving address. The following have also been consulted: Kent Wildlife Trust, Kent County Constabulary, Southern Water, Environment Agency, Transco, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, South Eastern Electricity Board, and Wigmore Community and Residents Association.

The application has been revised several times and the above have been re-consulted.

A total of thirteen letters from four neighbouring properties, plus two with no given address, have been received objecting to the proposals on the following grounds:

- The proposed fencing along the access is too low to protect adjacent properties and should be at least 8 feet (2.4m) high to prevent loss of privacy, lack of security and disturbance from passing vehicles’ headlights - Disturbance to adjacent properties from street lighting - Safety risk exiting from adjacent driveway - Mixture of locally grown/sourced trees would be more in keeping with area - Developers removed most of the trees on site before landscaping proposals had been considered - Fencing on both sides of access road should be at least 1.8m - Who will be responsible for maintenance of the trees/fences? - Loss of wildlife haven from existing tree cover and increased pollution - Fir trees should be maintained at their existing height - Strong, high fencing should be provided to boundaries with existing properties - Suggest planting changed to native species

Concerns have also been raised regarding the following matters which are either non- planning related or relate to matters considered under the previous applications:

- Noise, disturbance and unsafe working from construction on site; highway safety concerns from deliveries; - Will it be possible to park in the access road? - Will a communal refuse facility be provided; if so it should be sited away from surrounding properties; - Increase in traffic on Maidstone Road; - Design of properties is out of character with surrounding area consisting of converted bungalows; - Not enough parking spaces provided - Reservoir should be extended to combat water shortages - Mud on road from construction vehicles - Emergency services may have difficulty accessing some plots

DC0902MW page 6 Cllr Rodney Chambers has written making no objection to the reserved matters part of the proposal but commenting that the boundary treatment to the access road should be a wall, and the retained cypress hedge leaves a gap to one of the properties in Fowler Close.

Southern Water has written confirming no objection to the proposal.

Kent Police has written confirming they have no comments to make

CPRE has written objecting on the basis that the density is too high, Maidstone Road is too busy to cope with additional traffic, the quality of life for the existing bungalows would be impaired, and the development is not in keeping with the area. [These concerns relate to matters considered under the previous applications.]

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL2 (Priorities for the Public Realm)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE6 (Landscape Design) Policy BNE7 (Access for All) Policy BNE8 (Security and Personal Safety) Policy BNE37 (Wildlife Habitats) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T3 (Provision for Pedestrians)

Planning Appraisal

Principle of Development

The principle of residential development on this site was accepted at appeal under the outline application MC2004/2804. Details of access and siting were determined at that time. Design and external appearance have also already been considered and approved under reserved matters application MC2006/1821. The only matter outstanding is landscaping, and the main issues to be considered are as follows:

- The visual impact of the landscaping scheme - Its implications for amenity of surrounding properties - Its impact on highway safety/efficiency

Street Scene, Design and Character of Area

The site prior to its redevelopment had a significant amount of tree cover. It is unfortunate that most of the trees on site were removed before the current application could be considered, but with the exception of one silver birch, the trees that have been removed were not individually important specimens. Nevertheless the impression of tree cover and leafiness

DC0902MW page 7 of the site was an important contribution to the visual amenity of the area, and could be seen over existing properties despite the setback of the site.

Consequently, a significant amount of replacement tree planting is now being proposed, consisting of a clump of eight trees around the two remaining retained silver birch, four trees at other points within the main body of the site, and an avenue of lime leading down the northern side of the access road. It is considered that this, plus the proposed shrub planting, compensates adequately for the loss of the existing trees on site, relates well to the permitted layout, and will give the development a pleasant, spacious and leafy appearance. The species choice is considered appropriate. The extension of the cypress hedge has little impact in visual terms as it amounts to a small section in relation to the hedge as a whole. The provision of the avenue of lime trees and native hedgerow to either side of the access road will be the most visible element of the landscaping scheme from outside the site (i.e. from Maidstone Road) and it is considered that this will be an attractive feature which enhances the street scene in the locality. The hedgerow is shown to be maintained at 1.2m whereas a greater height would make more of an impact visually; the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to accept a condition requiring a greater height. In this regard a condition is recommended which requires the hedge to be maintained at a minimum height of 1.8m.

Overall the landscaping scheme is considered to be acceptable in relation to the site and development and in relation to its visual impact on the wider area. It therefore accords with the relevant provisions of Policies QL1 and QL2 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1 and BNE6 of the Local Plan.

Ecology

It is noted that some residents raise concern regarding loss of wildlife habitat, and Policy BNE37 acknowledges the contribution that can be made by undesignated sites. However, the replacement planting, including provision of a native hedgerow, is considered to offer adequate scope for retention of any wildlife interest in the site.

Amenity Considerations

The majority of the proposed landscaping will have little impact on the amenities of surrounding properties. The extension of the cypress hedge to cover the whole of the southwest boundary increases privacy screening for properties to the rear; particularly 10 Fowler Close which was previously in the gap at the end of the hedge. Likewise, the planting on either side of the access road will help screen the properties on either side, enhancing the protection of the proposed boundary treatment in terms of privacy, disturbance from passing vehicles and fumes. The native hedgerow could be particularly effective in this respect; however, for it to be of maximum use a greater height should be provided as recommended above.

The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policies BNE2 and BNE8 of the Local Plan.

Highways

The slight reduction proposed in the width of the access road will still allow to vehicles to pass, which given its length is considered important. The road still widens at its junction with Maidstone Road allowing easier ingress/egress to the site. Accordingly it is considered that

DC0902MW page 8 this minor change to the previously approved scheme will not cause any harm to highway safety.

Parking arrangements are as previously approved.

The surfacing material for roads, parking spaces and footpaths, and the arrangement of the main footpath into the site (which was previously proposed to be removed but has been reinstated on the most recent plans) are considered acceptable to allow for easy pedestrian/cycle access to the site.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Policies BNE7, T1, T2 and T3 of the Local Plan.

Condition 5 of MC2004/2804 - Boundary treatment

These details are also shown on the submitted landscaping drawing. The cypress hedge as extended forms the boundary to the southwest; given its height and density of planting this is considered acceptable; it will provide considerable privacy screening to properties on both sides and also screen views of the new development from properties in Fowler Close. Given that the boundary is between private rear gardens, it is considered that the hedge provides adequate security.

Boundary treatment to the remaining boundaries is proposed to be close board fencing approx. 1.8m in height. This is a usual solution for boundaries of residential sites; it is sturdier and neater in appearance than panel fencing and is at a height that provides a good degree of privacy to rear garden areas. The concerns of residents on either side of the access, particularly no. 734, which is set back from the highway towards the end of this access, are noted, in terms of privacy, security and screening from disturbance. The principle of the access running between these properties was considered at the outline stage by the appeal Inspector, who found that:

“vehicles would necessarily be moving slowly and there is space for a new border of trees and hedging along the access road which would mitigate any effect. Consequently it seems to me that the limited noise, disturbance and fumes from a small number of vehicles would not significantly detract from the living conditions of the occupiers”.

The proposal does provide hedging and trees to either side of the access in addition to the fencing, and in line with the Inspector’s reasoning this is considered to provide adequate protection from loss of privacy and noise and disturbance. The concerns regarding security are also noted but it is not considered that a 1.8m high close boarded fence would be easy to get through, and would certainly be an improvement on the existing situation where the boundary is formed by chain-link fencing. The boundary treatment would therefore accord with the relevant provisions of Policies BNE2, BNE8 and BNE1 of the Local Plan.

It is noted that some residents have requested taller boundary treatment, in one case up to 2.4m high. However, this would have visual implications and the small additional benefit deriving from an increased height of fence would not outweigh the harm to the character of the area.

DC0902MW page 9 Conclusion and reasons for approval

(A) The landscaping scheme is considered to be acceptable in terms of its design and relationship to the overall scheme, and in terms of its impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, amenity of neighbouring properties and highway safety implications. Accordingly the application complies with the abovementioned Development Plan policies and is recommended for approval.

(B) It is considered that the proposed boundary treatment is adequate for its purpose and provides a good degree of protection to neighbouring properties where appropriate; accordingly these details are considered to be in accordance with the abovementioned Development Plan policies and it is recommended that the condition be discharged on this basis.

This application would ordinarily fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been referred for Members’ consideration due to the number of representations received contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

DC0902MW page 10

2 MC2007/0156

Date Received: 26th January 2007

Location: 3 Upper Luton Road, Chatham, Kent

Proposal: Outline application for construction of four blocks comprising 22 flats and associated parking

Applicant: G & N Sturges 3 Upper Luton Road Chatham Kent ME5 7BG

Agent: Mr D J Hobbs 73 Marine Parade Sheerness Kent ME12 2BE

Ward: Luton & Wayfield

Recommendation - Approval subject to:-

A) The applicants entering into an agreement under the terms of S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following:

(i) A Financial Contribution of £100,958 towards the provision of Primary Care Trust Facilities. This contribution would be tied to the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) developments in the Luton area. (ii) A financial contribution of £13,366 towards the maintenance and refurbishment of the Luton Millennium Green equipped play area .

B) The imposition of the following conditions.

(as amended by plans and information submitted on 12 March, 12 April, 25 April, 5 June, 5 July, 17 July and 18 July)

1 Approval of the details of appearance of the building(s) and landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

2 Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such application for approval shall be made to the Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and the reserved matters shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the expiration of 2 years from the final approval of the reserved matters or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

4 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.

DC0902MW page 11

5 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 any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development the bathroom window(s) on the side elevations of the blocks hereby permitted shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light and shall thereafter be retained as such.

7 Prior to the commencement of the development herby approved, details of external storage of bins shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed prior to the first occupation of any part of the development building hereby permitted and shall be thereafter retained.

8 Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development, hereby permitted, details of a long-term maintenance programme for the external appearance of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme of maintenance shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

9 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include : - proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. external furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); 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.

10 No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance including the replacement of stock that dies or is destroyed for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. The landscape maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

11 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking shall be provided prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted and 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

DC0902MW page 12 carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

12 No part of the development shall be occupied until the means of vehicular and pedestrian access, the gradients of which shall not exceed 1 in 12, have been fully constructed and made available for use in accordance with the approved plans

13 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of a lighting scheme for the access road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of any part the development. The scheme shall thereafter, be retained and maintained.

14 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the boundary wall is repositioned and the new section of footway and pedestrian crossing point from the site accross Upper Luton Road is installed and available for use.

15 Prior to the commencement of the development, details of secured, covered cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall then be carried out in full acdordance with the approved details and completed prior to the first occupation of any part of the development and thereafter retained.

16 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of pedestrian handrails, safety barriers on the bends in the road and where areas of land fall sharply away from the edge of the highway and anti-skid surfacing on the access road shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any part of the development and shall be thereafter retained.

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

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

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

c) Prior to the commencement of any works associated with the construction of the development hereby permitted, including bringing any equipment, machinery or materials on to the site for the purposes of the development, an arboricultural method statement (AMS) and tree protection plan (TPP) shall be submitted to and

DC0902MW page 13 approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS and TPP are to be in accordance with BS5837:2005. The AMS and TPP will provide details of a methodology for any aspect of the development that has the potential to result in the loss of or damage to a tree. This will include the specification and timing of all works within the Root Protection Area for the Holm Oak labelled as T1 on Appendix 1 (drawing number tr-446-06) in the Arboricultural Survey produced by Ben Larkham dated 30th August 2006 and submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 26th January 2007. Works shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

18 Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development, hereby permitted, details of a long-term maintenance programme for the external appearance of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme of maintenance shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

19 Prior to the commencement of any demolition works to either the house or outbuildings, a further survey in relation to bats shall be undertaken by an appropriate ecological consultant. The results of the survey, including recommendations, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any demolition occurring. The demolition shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved recommendations.

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

Site Description

The site lies on Upper Luton Road, close to the junction with Beacon Road. The site is set higher than Upper Luton Road and to the south the site is bounded by a yellow brick and flint retaining wall, which is in excess of 2m high. To the north of the site the properties on Chatham Hill are set higher again. There is an overall change in levels of approximately 16m from north to south throughout the site (north spot height 62m – south spot height 46m). The site also falls from east to west – dropping approximately 12m. This topography provides long views to the south from the application site. There is strong tree cover within the site and particularly along the boundary with Upper Luton Road, which enhances the appearance of the area. Several individual trees growing on the site have recently been afforded protection via a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in recognition of their amenity value. Properties on Upper Luton Road are mainly 2 storey in height and there is a mix of ages/styles in the vicinity.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. There is on street parking in evidence along Upper Luton Road and indeed many properties, particularly to the south of Upper Luton Road have no off-street parking provision. Some of the newer dwellings immediately to the west of the application site do have some off street parking provision. Within the application site there is a single dwelling set in large grounds with a gated access road to the north of Upper Luton Road providing vehicular access to the site. The existing dwelling is of utilitarian design and is two storey in height, constructed from brown bricks and clay roof tiles with a dormer window to the front elevation. There is also a small garage to the rear of the house. The site lies within the main urban area of Chatham and is not the subject of any designations in the Medway Local Plan.

DC0902MW page 14

Proposal

The proposals seek outline planning permission for demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of 22 flats. Appearance and landscaping are reserved for future consideration. Consequently scale, layout and means of access fall to be considered as part of this application.

It is proposed to arrange the flats in 4 blocks. Blocks 1 and 2 would contain 5 flats and blocks 3 and 4 would contain 6 flats each (total of 22 flats). The blocks are 4 stories in overall height with lower ground floor levels making use of the changes in levels throughout the site (ie the blocks are 3 storey with roof space accommodation when viewed from the south west and 2 storey with roof space accommodation when viewed from the north east). From the southwest the overall height of the proposed blocks is 12m to the ridge. From the north-east the overall height is 9.5m to the ridge. The roof is of a hipped design with a gable detail to the south-west elevation which frames the ‘Juliet’ style balconies. To the north-east elevation there is a simple ‘porch’ detail provided.

It is proposed to provide 22 parking spaces within the site, these are arranged to the north of block numbers 3 and 4. A new vehicular access would be provided directly from Upper Luton Road.

The following information has also been submitted in support of the application:

- A bat and badger survey. - A tree survey and arboriculture method statement - Swept path analysis indicating how the proposed access would accommodate large vehicle movements/manoeuvres.

The current scheme is a resubmission following refusal of planning permission (ref MC2006/1060) on the grounds of impacts on trees and highway safety.

The key differences between this scheme and the one previously refused are as follows:

- Re-siting of the vehicular access further to the south of Upper Luton Road so that the Holmoak is retained. - Re-siting of blocks 1 and 2 further to the north-east to seek to address concerns concerning the layout of the site. - A reduction in the number of units to 22 (previously 24 units).

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.4559 ha (1.13 acres) Site density: 48 dph (19.5 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

MC2006/1060 Outline application for the erection of 4 four-storey blocks of flats comprising of 24 flats. Refused 21 September 2006.

DC0902MW page 15 Representations

The application has been advertised by way of a site notice and a press notice. The owners/occupiers of numbers 1 and 6-8 Viewlands, 170 – 182, 186 and 204 – 214 (evens) Chatham Hill, The Old Chapel, Chatham Hill, numbers 1 – 5 (odds) Beacon Road, numbers 22, 34 – 58 (evens), 58a, 60 – 92 (evens) Upper Luton Road have been directly notified of the proposals.

The following external bodies have also been notified of the proposals; Primary Care Trust, Kent County Constabulary, Southern Gas Networks, EDF Energy, Kent Fire & Rescue, Kent Wildlife Trust and Natural England.

26 letters of representation have been received raising the following issues:

- Upper Luton Road is already a rat run and this development will make matters worse. - Lack of outdoor space for children. - Antisocial behaviour in the area will worsen. - 4-storey buildings are out of character with the surrounding area. - There are bats and badgers at the site. - Highway safety and parking issues. The access road is not wide enough for cars to pass and so will be a highway safety issue. - Overlooking and loss of privacy. - The development will be out of keeping with the area. - Has a peak flow traffic survey been carried out? - The amendments to the proposals do not go far enough. - The rain water is too much for the area, recently there has been localised flooding as the drains cannot cope. There are no drains in the gutters along Upper Luton Road. - The development will not benefit or improve Upper Luton Road, it will be detrimental to the immediate vicinity and possible ‘knock on’ effect to neighbouring roads with regards to parking etc. - Are there any intentions for solar panels and or wind generation on this site? - Flats when occupied tend to be noisy and this will have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the surrounding residents. - Concern over the stability of the retaining wall it is proposed to cut through to provide the vehicular access. - Will there be enough child places at local primary and junior schools to cope with the demand? - Where will the rubbish and spoil go? - How would surface water be disposed of? - View of the car park is blocked by flat bock numbers 1 & 2. These concerns were addressed by the Police in the first planning application. - The gradient of the footpath is too steep. - Light pollution from car headlights using the new access road. - The recently TPO’d trees are still at risk. - There will be up to twenty fewer on street parking spaces due to the proposed access to the site. - The green space should be retained and its loss will contribute to global warming. - There is no pavement serving the site. - Increased noise and disturbance. - The previous planning application was refused and this one should be too.

DC0902MW page 16 Other non-planning related matters raised.

- Site owners just want to make as much money as possible and have no regard for the local residents. - The buildings should comply with part L of the building regulations. - The street numbering will cause confusion. - Who is responsible if the wall collapses? - Concern that the application will in the future, be amended to an even bigger block of 5 or even 6 stories in height. - The plot would be better used for three or four single dwellings aimed at people of a slightly higher income bracket than the surrounding area to help raise the profile of the area as a whole. - There will be nowhere for existing residents to place a skip. - Will home owners be given compensation? - Dust, dirt and noise during construction of the development.

Primary Care Trust request a contribution of £100,958 in respect of primary care trust facilities in the vicinity which are already overstretched. The monies would be used towards the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) projects in the Luton area.

Natural England advise that the Bat Survey submitted on 17 July 2007 indicates that no evidence of bats were found in the house or outbuildings although the report does highlight the high roosting potential of the house and outbuildings as well as the presence of foraging areas located 350 metres away. In view of this, there is a possibility that bats may be affected by the proposals and as such Natural England request that should planning permission be granted that an informative is placed on the consent reminding the applicants of their legal obligations in respect of bats as a protected species.

Kent Wildlife Trust advise that they accept the findings of the ecologist with regards to bats and badgers at the site. It is also noted that the report makes recommendations in respect of further survey, the felling of trees according to best practice guidelines and the opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and hope that these can be secured by condition on any grant of planning permission, in order to comply with the guidance given in PPS9.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer advises as follows:

- The majority of the parking spaces are in the vicinity of blocks 3 and 4 and it is fair to assume that the residents of blocks 3 & 4 will use the bays closest to them. This will result in some of the parking spaces provided for blocks 1 & 2 being a considerable distance from the residents, and therefore vulnerable to crime. This lack of natural vehicle surveillance could be problematic, particularly as the Luton area of Chatham is generally a high crime area. - I also note that around the ground floor vicinity of blocks 3 and 4 there is the intention to build a terraced area. However, there is no such provision for blocks 1 and 2. The clear demarcation of public and private space is a fundamental crime prevention measure and Ihave concerns that a person could access unchallenged the ground floor windows of blocks 1 and 2. This lack of clearly defined private space could result in antisocial behaviour and a reduction in the quality of life for residents.

Southern Gas Networks raise no objection to the proposals but advise that there is low/medium/intermediate pressure gas main in the proximity of the site and advise that no mechanical excavations should take place above or within 0.5, of the low and medium

DC0902MW page 17 pressure systems or within 3m of the intermediate pressure system. A plan indicating the approximate locations of the gas infrastructure was also provided and this has been forwarded to the applicant’s agent.

Medway Fire Safety Office advise that the hammerhead turn is not large enough for use by a fire appliance.

Kent Wildlife Trust has written to confirm that it accepts the findings of the ecologist with regards to bats at the site and recommends a condition be imposed on any consent in accordance with the conclusions of the ecologist.

1 further letter has been received following re-consultation confirming that their original objections still remain.

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan: 2006

Policy EN9 (Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows) Policy HP1 (Housing Provision & Distribution) Policy HP3 (Previously Developed Land) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE41 (Tree Preservation Orders) Policy BNE43 (Trees and Development Sites) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H5 (High Density Housing) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T3 (Pedestrian Access) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Principle

The site lies within the urban area, as defined in the adopted Local Plan. Policy H4 of the Local Plan allows for the redevelopment of existing residential areas and infilling in such areas, providing that a clear improvement to the local environment results. The site is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

The key determining factors will therefore be whether:

- The proposals are acceptable in terms of layout and scale. - The development can be accommodated without adversely impacting on the protected trees on the site

DC0902MW page 18 - There is an acceptable vehicular access to the site - There would be any adverse impacts on the residential amenities of adjoining properties.

These issues will now be addressed in turn.

Street scene and design

The matters that can be considered as part of this outline application are whether the siting and design are acceptable – matters of appearance and landscaping are reserved for future consideration. The siting of the blocks is considered acceptable in terms of street scene impacts/design. The site is a sensitive one due to the topography of the area and when viewed from the south the site is very elevated. Consequently the visual impacts of any development on this site will be amplified by the changes in levels. That said, the principle of housing development is acceptable and the blocks of flats do respond to the changes in levels throughout the site via a split-level design. In addition to this, the fact that Chatham Hill to the north of the application site is higher again, does mean that there will be a sense of ‘stepping down’ from Chatham Hill to Upper Luton Road, and again beyond this down again to Constitution Road. This stepping down is echoed from the north to the south side of Upper Luton Road and is considered acceptable and indeed necessary, in order to accommodate the changing topography in this location.

In terms of design detailing, the hipped roof form does reduce the overall bulk of the roof form and buildings of 4 storeys in height (with the upper floor being within the roof) are considered acceptable in terms of scale and bulk. There is a set back from the Upper Luton Road frontage of between 20m – 23m and it is considered that this will lessen the visual impact of the buildings and would allow scope for some landscaping to be incorporated at reserved matters stage. With regard to the design detailing of the blocks, it is considered that there has been some attempt to add interest to the buildings, the ‘Juliet’ style openings provide interest in terms of fenestration detailing. To the rear elevations the porch detail again, adds some interest. On balance, the design is considered acceptable.

Neighbours’ amenities

In terms of impacts to neighbouring properties situated to the north of the application site on Chatham Hill, the minimum window to window distance is in excess of 30m and this is considered acceptable. There are no concerns therefore with regard to overlooking or loss of privacy in respect of these properties.

The windows serving the main habitable rooms (kitchens and lounges/dining rooms) to the flats are situated on the southern elevation of the blocks and front onto the existing properties on Upper Luton Road. Again, these properties are set a minimum distance of 30m from the proposed new blocks. Consequently the window to window distances are considered acceptable in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

In addition to the distance of the blocks it is also necessary to consider the impact of the changes in levels between the existing properties and the proposed new flats. The ground floor level of the blocks on this elevation will be set approximately 7m higher than the existing dwellings in Upper Luton Road– this will give an overall height of 19m when viewed from Upper Luton Road. Whilst this an additional visual impact (assessed under street scene and design section) in terms of overlooking the change in levels serves to create such an oblique angle between the properties that there will be no direct overlooking. This factor when

DC0902MW page 19 coupled with the distance between the properties means that it is considered that the properties on Upper Luton Road will not suffer an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy and the proposals are considered acceptable in this regard.

With regard to the properties immediately adjacent to the application site – number 1 Beacon Road immediately to the east and number 8 Newlands immediately to the west are the most likely properties to be adversely affected.

Block 1 is sited approximately 14 m beyond the rear building line of number 8 Newlands and at a distance of approximately 10m to the east. The windows to the side elevation (to the west) do not give any outlook as they serve bathrooms only (the kitchen windows shown on plan are marked as only being relevant to the western elevation) and therefore, a suitably worded condition attached to any planning permission could ensure that obscure glazing and non-opening windows are retained. The velux windows serving the lounge/dining room to the top floor flat due to their siting and height will not provide any direct outlook and so there is no concern in respect of overlooking. The front windows serving the main habitable rooms to the new flats in the proposed new block would not give rise to any overlooking to the rear of number 8 Newlands due to the extreme oblique angle created by the siting of the block in relation to the rear existing dwelling. With regard to the rear windows serving the bedrooms, again these are at an oblique angle and would not overlook the most private garden area to number 8 Newlands (ie the first 5m closest to the house). The final issue with regard to this property is whether the proposed new development would be overbearing or oppressive when viewed from the rear of number 8 Newlands. Given that the block is set 10m away from the property and at an angle, when coupled with the fact that the existing boundary is very heavily screened by trees (which are now protected) it must be concluded on balance that whilst the erection of this block would undoubtedly have an impact, it would not be overbearing or oppressive to the extent where the living conditions of the occupants of number 8 Newlands would be unacceptably compromised. In terms of impact it must be concluded therefore that after very careful consideration the overall impacts on number 8 Newlands are acceptable.

Block 4 is sited at an angle and at a distance of approximately 8m from number 1 Beacon Road. The rear of the proposed new block does not extend beyond the rear building line of number 1 Beacon Road. The side elevational windows will not provide any outlook as they serve the bathrooms and as noted before a suitably worded condition can ensure that these windows are obscure glazed and non-opening apart from a top hung fanlight to prevent overlooking. As the proposed units are flats they will not have any permitted development rights allowing the insertion of additional windows and so it will not be necessary to control this via conditions. The velux windows serving the lounge/dining room to the top floor flat due to their siting and height will not provide any direct outlook to the neighbouring property and so there is no concern in respect of overlooking. The windows serving the main habitable rooms of new flats within the proposed new block are situated on the southern elevation. As the front elevation of number 1 Beacon Road is set further back than the southern elevation of this block there will be no overlooking issues arising from these windows.

Given the distance between the proposed block 4 and the rear garden of 1 Beacon Road (approximately 20m) it is not considered that the windows on the side or rear elevations of block 4, which would serve a kitchen and a second bedroom would afford any outlook that would compromise the living conditions of 1 Beacon Road through overlooking or loss of privacy. This when coupled with the fact that the existing boundary treatment is strong and the trees along this boundary are now protected it is considered that the impacts of the proposals are acceptable in this regard.

DC0902MW page 20

The final issue to consider in relation to the impacts on number 1 Beacon Road is the siting of the proposed access road and car parking in relation to the existing dwelling. The proposed access road runs approximately 1m from the boundary with number 1 Beacon Road. There is some parking set to the north of the access road, which is opposite the ‘hammer head’ turning area to the rear of 1 Beacon Road. The remainder of the parking is set to the south of the access road (in front of block number 4) and further to the west adjacent to block number 2). Whilst the access road is quite close to the boundary, and there would be an impact, the disturbance would be of an intermittent nature and due to the bend of the access road the movements would be at slow speeds, which would further serve to reduce the impacts. The vehicle parking areas are also considered to be a sufficient distance away from the property at 1 Beacon Road to ensure that a overall the proposals would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of number 1 Beacon Road.

In terms of amenity for the future occupiers of the proposed new dwellings, the proposed units vary in size between approximately 64m2 and 84m2 in overall floor area. It is considered that units of this size would provide an adequate level of accommodation. The blocks are arranged in close proximity to one another but the orientation of the buildings and siting of the windows serving the main habitable rooms means that there is no overlooking arising from one block to another. There is no private amenity space provided for the units, however the ‘Juliet’ style balconies will serve to provide a good standard of accommodation and although private amenity space is not always provided with flat units these are set within a landscaped setting. Therefore it is considered that the future occupants of the proposed new dwellings would be afforded a suitable level of residential amenity.

Highways

The proposed development of 22 flats is likely to generate in the region of 72 vehicles movements per day, at an average of 3.2 trips per unit. There will clearly be additional movements onto Upper Luton Road during the morning peak and additional movements during the afternoon peak period, when existing traffic levels are likely to be at their highest.

The existing access to 3 Upper Luton Road, given its location and width, is not considered satisfactory to support a redevelopment of this site, and therefore this application proposes the creation of a new access point 32m to the east. The existing access will be closed and a new section of footway provided, which will connect in with the existing footway on Upper Luton Road and continue on to the site. The retaining wall will be repositioned to accommodate the footway, and also in order to provide satisfactory visibility in each direction from the new access point. There is an acceptable distance of 32m between the proposed access and the junction of Upper Luton Road and Beacon Road.

The proposed access is 7m wide at the mouth of the junction with Upper Luton Road and narrows to 5.5m beyond the junction radii, an arrangement that will permit two vehicles to pass each other. Although this road width is not required by Kent Design guidance, it is considered important that vehicles do not queue to access the development at this point on Upper Luton Road.

Upper Luton Road is a residential road of varying widths up to around 8m, however in the vicinity of the site the road narrows to 6m which, combined with the speed humps along this section, ensures that vehicle speeds are kept low. This is likely to account in part for the absence of any recorded accidents along this section of Upper Luton Road in the last three

DC0902MW page 21 years. On-street parking takes place along this section, on the southern side of Upper Luton Road. This can reduce the effective road width to approximately 4.5m in the immediate vicinity of the site, and therefore an informal 'shuttle system' is often in evidence for a short distance until the road widens out. The road width is insufficient to cater for parking on both sides of the road, and therefore no on-street parking takes place on the northern side adjacent to the boundary wall. The plan indicates that an over-run area will also be incorporated into the design of the junction. The surface material proposed will not encourage this to be used on a frequent basis; however, it will support access and egress to the development by large vehicles and improve overall visibility. Swept path analysis has been applied to the plan, and demonstrates that such vehicles can enter and leave the access within the road width available on Upper Luton Road, even with on-street parking taking place on the opposite side of the road.

The access road and pedestrian footpath would be constructed to a gradient of 1 in 12, which is considered acceptable taking into consideration the natural topography of the site. It will, however, be supported by the provision of handrails for pedestrians, safety barriers on the bends in the road, salt bins and anti-skid surfacing. It is considered appropriate for these safety measures to be secured by condition.

Taking into consideration the width of the access, the over-run area and the safety measures incorporated into the design, together with the improvement to pedestrian facilities in Upper Luton Road, the access arrangements proposed here are considered to be acceptable for the purposes of serving a development of 22 flats.

The application proposal provides 22 parking spaces at a ratio of 1 space per unit, which is considered appropriate for a flatted development in a location where alternative modes of transport are reasonably close by. The provision of secure, covered cycle storage for residents is considered to be necessary and therefore a condition is recommended in order to secure this. The on-site layout incorporates a turning head for larger vehicles such as refuse lorries.

For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposals would not be detrimental to highway safety and would adequately comply with the provisions of the relevant Development Plan Policies in this regard.

Trees

A Tree Preservation Order (confirmed on the 19th January 2007) has been served to protect five trees growing within the site. Of particular amenity value is a large Holm Oak situated to the north west of the site, and the proposed re-location of the vehicular access would ensure that this tree can be retained. The Holm Oak will however continually shade and block the outlook for the residents in Block 1.

The proposals have been fully considered in terms of the impact on the trees on the site, including very careful consideration of the trees that are shown to be removed and it is concluded that the information submitted in respect of the trees is sufficient to enable an informed decision to be made.

Overall the majority of concerns relating to trees have been addressed, the trees most worthy of retention can be adequately protected and no trees of merit are to be lost as a result of the proposals.

DC0902MW page 22 It is considered that details of tree protection zones and fencing methods could be adequately secured via suitably worded conditions should the application be viewed favourably.

S106 requirements

The proposed development has been considered in respect of additional impacts on infrastructure and services in the vicinity and it is considered that there would be an impact on the Millennium Green equipped play area which is in the vicinity of the site and has poor infrastructure through pressure of overuse. A financial contribution of £13,366 has been requested towards the maintenance and refurbishment of this facility and confirmation has been given that the financial contribution would be tie to the improvement of this facility.

In addition to this, a request has been received from the Primary Care Trust for a financial contribution of £100,958 towards the provision of Primary Care Trust Facilities. This contribution would be tied to the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) developments in the Luton area.

The applicant’s agent has confirmed that they would be prepared to enter into a S106 agreement to secure the provision of these monies and as such the proposals are deemed to be acceptable in terms of the wider impacts and pressure on service subject to the items listed above being secured via a S106 agreement.

Other Matters

Protected species on the site

A letter of representation indicated that there could be protected species on the site including (badgers and bats). Following this being brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority, 2 surveys were carried out to assess the likelihood of the presence of protected species and to assess any mitigation measures as necessary.

The surveys have been considered by Natural England and Kent Wildlife Trust and the methodology and content of the reports is considered to be sound. Natural England have not raised any objection to the proposals, or indeed any concerns with regards to potential impacts on any protected species and have requested that an informative is added to the grant of any planning permission advising the applicants of the legal requirements should any protected species be found on site once works commence.

It is concluded therefore, that the proposals are acceptable in terms of impacts on protected species.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

In the light of the preceding discussion it is concluded that the current proposals do serve to overcome some of the previous concerns that led to the refusal of planning permission. However the site, by virtue of its location, changes in level and protected trees makes it a difficult one to develop satisfactorily and this application remains a very finely balanced case. It is considered that the current proposals, on balance, do adequately comply with the relevant development plan policies cited above.

DC0902MW page 23 This application would normally fall to be determined under Officer’s powers but is being reported for Members consideration due to the extent of representations that have been received contrary to the Officer recommendation and at the request of Councillor Goulden.

[This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 29th August 2007, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.]

DC0902MW page 24

3 MC2007/0568

Date Received: 1st April 2007

Location: The Howard School Derwent Way Rainham Gillingham Medway ME8 0BX

Proposal: Engineering works to create an artificial playing surface for ten 5-A- side pitches with associated fencing and lighting; erection of a changing room/clubhouse building and pathway; access and car park; regrading of embankment with excavated material

Applicant: Governors Of Howard School C/o Sport And Leisure Group Wilford Lane Nottingham NG2 7RN

Agent: Mr M Thackeray Cliff Walsingham & Company Bourne House Cores End Road Bourne End Bucks SL8 5AR

Ward: Rainham Central

Recommendation - Approval subject to:-

A) The applicants entering into an Agreement under the terms of S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following:

(i) The adjacent playing field being marked up and laid out for 3 junior pitches in accordance with Sport England’s guidance.

(ii) The school entering into a Community Use Agreement to ensure that the grass pitches are available for community use. Such an agreement should address hours of availability, management, pricing structures, access to changing accommodation and should also include a mechanism for review.

(iii) A S278 agreement to undertake of all works required to incorporate a new signalized arm within the existing A2 London Road/Bloors Lane junction, including associated traffic signal works, closure of the existing bus lay by and the relocation of the bus stop and shelter, and the payment of all costs associated with obtaining and implementing any new or amended Traffic Regulation Orders necessitated by this scheme.

B) The imposition of the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three 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.

DC0902MW page 25 3 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include: - proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts for drop off/pick up facility, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. external furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); 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.

4 The use of the pitches shall only take place during the following hours:

08:00 to 23:00 Monday to Friday

10:00 to 23:00 on Saturdays 10:00 to 22:30 on Sundays.

5 The use of the pavilion shall only take place during the following hours of operation:

Monday to Thursday 08:00to 23:00 Friday 08:00 to midnight Saturday 10:00 to 12:00 midnight Sunday 10:00 to 23:00.

6 The floodlights shall not be operated outside the hours of

0800 to 23:00 on Monday to Friday 1000 to 23:00 on Saturdays 1000 to 22:30 on Sundays

7 Prior to commencement of the development, details of the pedestrian links between the Playfootball site and the Howard School shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Authority. The approved pedestrian links shall be installed and available for use prior to commencement of the use of the playfootball site.

8 Prior to first occupation, an amended school travel plan acknowledging the provision of the new area for dropping off/picking up pupils and containing measures to encourage vehicles to use the new facility shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Authority. The amended school travel plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

9 Prior to commencement of the development, details of secure, covered cycle parking provision shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Authority. The cycle parking provisions shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the development and shall thereafter be retained.

DC0902MW page 26

10 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.

11 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a site management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,. The Management Plan shall include details of security measures outside of the opening hours of the site and a management strategy for the parking area including advertising the new vehicular access to users of the facility, operation of the barriers to the new vehicular access and a strategy for managing the drop off facility.

12 No public address system shall be used in relation to the proposed development unless otherwise first agreed in advance in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13 The pavilion shall not be available for private hire or a purpose not ancillary to the use of the multi-sports courts by the School or the operator of the multi-sports courts unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme to minimise the transmission of noise from the use of the clubhouse that implements the measures described in the noise assessment by Hepworth Acoustics, reference 4665.1v1 and dated June 2007, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

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

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

DC0902MW page 27 placed in any area fenced in accordance with this Condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Site Description

The application concerns approximately 2.85 hectares (7 acres) of existing playing field attached to the Howard School and fronting the A2 (London Road). The majority of the site is within a sunken horseshoe shaped bowl which will be 2m to 3m below the remaining school grounds and the main school building with a tree screen to each side boundary planted on the higher level. The front boundary with the A2 (London Road) is bounded by a 3m high hedge. The site lies approximately 100m from the boundary with properties in Jefferson Drive to the west and approximately 65m from properties in Salisbury Avenue to the east. Three residential properties, numbers 6A and 6B Salisbury Avenue and 75 London Road immediately adjoin the site. The existing vehicular access is situated to the south of the site at the end of Derwent Way, which is a residential street. The site lies within the main urban area of Gillingham and is not subjected to any designations in the Medway Local Plan.

Proposal

The proposals seek full planning permission for the establishment of a multi-sports facility including a new clubhouse/ changing room. The proposals include 10 artificial surfaced sports pitches with associated lighting and fencing. It is proposed to create a new pedestrian and vehicular access to the site from the main A2 to the north of the site together with a new parking area sited here.

It is proposed to provide ten 5-a-side sports pitches. The proposed pitches are situated to the north of the existing school buildings and are accessed from the north via a new vehicular/pedestrian access onto the A2. Each pitch is 30m x 20m and would be enclosed by a fence, which is rigid at the bottom and then mesh/netting above to a total height of 2.6m. There would be a central walkway used to access the pitches and each pitch would be flood lit at the corners with the lighting columns forming an integral part of the fencing unit. The height of the lighting columns would be 8m and the lights would be angled towards the pitches. The total area covered by the pitches would be approximately 62m x 48m. There would also be free standing light poles within the car park area.

The proposed clubhouse/changing room is sited 15m to the north of the proposed new pitches. The building would provide changing rooms, showers, toilet facilities, storage, a bar area with associated kitchen and cellar together with a small office and reception area. The overall floor area is approximately 350 square metres. The building is of a simple design with a roof height of 4.4m at the highest point (south elevation) and this lowers to 3.6m at the northern end of the building. The design of the building has been amended through the course of the application and now incorporates a large central porch detail and some glazing detail has been added to the front elevation.

The original proposed car park layout provided 110 spaces and is set to the north of the pavilion building. During the course of the application the layout has been amended slightly to incorporate a footway link from the footpath at the north of the site through to the pavilion entrance. Although this has resulted in the reconfiguration of the parking there would be no

DC0902MW page 28 net loss of spaces over that originally proposed (ie the parking provision remains at 110 spaces).

The final aspect of the proposals relate to the engineering works to re-grade the bank to the south of the site. This would alter the location of the bottom of the slope by moving it further to the north by approximately 20m. The proposed infilling would provide a more shallow profile to the bank and at the highest point would result in additional infill to a depth of approximately 7m (when viewed in profile).

There are highway works proposed which fall outside of the application site and these could be secured via a S278 agreement. These works involve the creation of a new four arm signalised crossroads. The pedestrian footbridge and the controlled pedestrian crossing of the A2 London Road would be retained and an un-controlled pedestrian crossing point provided across the proposed access serving the site.

The proposed hours of use of the facility have been confirmed by the applicants agent as follows:

Pitches:

School use:

0800 to 1700 weekdays.

General public use:

17:00 to 23:00 on weekdays 10:00 to 23:00 on Saturdays 10:00 to 22:30 on Sundays

Clubhouse:

Monday to Thursday 17:00 to 23:00 Friday 17:00 to midnight. Saturday 10:00 to 12:00 midnight Sunday 10:00 to 22:00

Notwithstanding this it is possible that the school may want to use the facilities later while during school holidays the operator of the courts may wish to make available the facilities during daytime hours. Accordingly conditions have been phrased to reflect this.

A Transport Assessment has also been submitted in support of the application.

Since the submission of the application the following addition information/changes have been made:

- The design of the pavilion building has been altered to incorporate a porch detail and glazing to the front elevation. - The submission of the acoustic assessment as additional information. - The submission of a bat survey as additional information. - Revised plans indicating the location of CCTV cameras and a barrier to the proposed new vehicular access.

DC0902MW page 29

The application as currently submitted is a resubmission following refusal of planning permission under reference MC2006/1522 on 30 November 2006. The key differences in current scheme from the one previously refused are as follows:

- The new vehicular access from the A2 to the north of the site as opposed to using the existing vehicular access to the south of the site off Derwent Way as before. - The club house/pavilion and parking are sited to the north of the site as opposed to the south of the site as before. - The number of pitches proposed is now 10 as opposed to 9 as before. - The design of the club house/pavilion building has been altered to incorporate a porch feature and glazing detailing to the front elevation. - The re-grading of the bank was not included on the previous application.

Relevant Planning History

MC/99/0024MG/63/0030 Erection of a multi-sports centre including new pavilion, twelve floodlit multi-sports courts, four floodlit basketball courts, and alterations to roadway within the site to access the existing parking area. Withdrawn 22 October 1999.

MC1999/5901 Erection of a multi sports centre including new pavilion, twelve flood lit multi sports courts with new vehicular access from London Road, on site school dropping off facility and new car park with 130 spaces. Approved 5 April 2000.

MC2000/1164 Construction of a new pavilion (amended scheme approved under MC2006/5901). Approved 26 October 2000.

MC2000/1802 Variation of conditions 2 & 8 of approval MC2000/5901 and conditions 2 & 3 of approval MC2000/1164 to extend the opening hours of the pavilion on Fridays and Saturdays and to allow the use of the pavilion for general private hire. Withdrawn 15 April 2003.

MC2006/1522 Construction of a changing room/clubhouse, creation of nine artificial sports pitches with associated fencing and lighting and use of existing hard surface area for parking. Refused 30 November 2006.

Representations

The development has been advertised by way of a site and press notices. The owners/occupiers of numbers 1 –10 Crabtree Road, 1-25 Oldfield Close, 1 - 37 (inclusive) 47- 71 (Inclusive) & 73 Derwent Way, 1 – 30 (inclusive) 29a, 30a, 31 – 89 (inclusive) 6a, & 6b Salisbury Avenue, 2a Hamilton Lodge, Salisbury Avenue, ground & First Floor Flats 50 Salisbury Avenue, Flats 1 – 4 66 – 68 Salisbury Avenue, 1 – 12 (inclusive) Wilmecote Court, Derwent Way, School House, Derwent Way, Rainham School for Girls, Derwent Way, 10, 12, 14, 16, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 Jefferson Drive, 36 The Platters, 1- 3, 4,5, 6 and Tythebarn,

DC0902MW page 30 Denbeigh Avenue, 35, 36, 36a, 37 – 40 Birling Avenue, 7 Laurel Walk, 12, 14, 16, 18, Charlotte Drive, 1 – 12 (inclusive) Charlecote Court, 1 – 12 (inclusive) Welcombe Court, 1 – 12 (inclusive) Clopton Court, 67-75 (odds) & flats A&B 69, flats 1 – 10 73, 73a London Road, 2 Nursery Road, 73 Bendon Way have been directly notified of the development. The following bodies have also been directly notified of the proposals; Jefferson Drive Residents Committee, The open Spaces Society, Natural England, Kent Wildlife Trust, Sport England, Rainham School for Girls, and Medway Towns Sports Council.

Kent Police advise as follows: the drawings including perimeter treatments and Design statements are a little unclear and at times possibly conflict, but a significant concern is regarding the potential of increased permeability onto the school grounds and subsequent vulnerability of the School site, and its users and buildings to criminal activity.

The vehicle parking area will be accessible at all times and this too could become a location for congregation or antisocial activity, particularly out of hours. This may affect the quality of life and amenity for resident’s close by. Likelihood of this occurring could be reduced if gates or barriers were installed across the entrance point off the A2, thus restricting unauthorised access out of hours.

Similarly the car park is to be utilised as a drop off and collection point for pupils/parents with an apparent link to an existing footpath across the school playing fields to the main school buildings site. Whilst this may benefit pupil drop off/collection and assist highway safety, any links from parking area to school grounds adds to permeability for both authorised and unauthorised persons.

At present the school grounds are reasonably well secured and protected from unauthorised access out of hours or when not permitted from the A2 elevations by secure perimeter screening and palisade fences and lockable gates from the footbridge over the A2.

It is recommended that robust, adequate and secure perimeter treatments are incorporated and linked into existing metal palisade fencing to a height of 1.8 – 2 metres that will completely enclose the new sports development and segregate it from the school site. Should the need for a pedestrian route from the parking area to the school be necessary then consideration to gating this and securing it out of hours/non permitted times will be necessary to ensure that access to and from grounds can be controlled.

There is a relatively substantial tree screening along the perimeter adjoining the A2. If development were authorised it may be beneficial to remove this planted screen, thereby opening up the parking area and clubhouse to better surveillance from highway and pedestrian routes, which may reduce opportunity for crime or wrongdoing within the new development.

CCTV is mentioned, whilst the design guide indicates a camera will be situated next to the club house the drawings appear to indicate its positioning to the far south east corner of the development near the furthest football pitch. In order to enhance user safety and security over facilities additional CCTV is recommended that will give adequate coverage of all publicly accessible areas including pitches, car park, and internal circulation points, reception and bar area of the club house. A system that will provide images of evidential quality both day and night is suggested.

DC0902MW page 31 The clubhouse may also provide only limited surveillance over the sports pitches, particularly due to the differing land levels and gradients and enhanced CCTV would therefore provide additional surveillance of a more formal nature.

Design and Access statement reflects in part about the clubhouse, ‘located in a potentially vulnerable location in a relatively isolated part of the site’ and therefore it is recommended that both security and safety measures be maximised to reduce this vulnerability. The above recommendations should all assist this and likewise the clubhouse should incorporate high levels of security fitment to primary doors and windows (doors to LPS level 3 minimum and laminated glazing) and be linked to a central station monitored alarm system that would be capable of giving the earliest possible warning, advice and possible response on activation.

The relevant licensing application will need to be submitted to Medway Council, which in turn will also be assessed with Medway Police. We would not wish to see a potential conflict of uses in respect of the sports facility, clubhouse and school and equally would require thorough detail on how use of the licensed premises element of the clubhouse is to be regulated and controlled by the operators, particularly as it may be available for independent use. Without significant control and care the bar could potentially be utilised as a ‘pub’ or become a regulars drinking establishment or one that can be utilised by anyone (not just sports facility users). This may affect residential amenity or cause a drain on parking and significantly increase noise. Occupancy may be difficult to manage.

Likewise there should be no access to the bar area during school hours, particularly to pupils who may be utilising the clubhouse facilities. Consideration should be given to moveable partitioning or screens that can be utilised to segregate the bar area. Opening hours of the bar should not coincide with school hours and should be limited to after 17.00 hours. The bar servery should incorporate secure shutters or grilles to restrict access or views to alcohol out of hours likewise this may provide additional security over contents.

Sport England – Advise that they raised an objection to a similar proposal in September 2006 since the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) identified a shortage of grass pitches. Following discussion with the applicants, it was agreed that the grass playing field adjacent to the application site, could be laid out to provide 3 junior pitches. The applicants were also willing to sign a Community Use Agreement to bring them into use which responded to one of the issues in the PPS. The PPS currently identifies two pitches on this site currently in a north-south orientation.

Given the above, Sport England is satisfied that the proposed development could meet with exception E5 to the above policy in that:

E5 ‘The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields’.

Consequently Sport England does not with to raise an objection to the development on condition that the adjacent playing field is marked up and laid out for 3 junior pitches in accordance with Sport England’s guidance. The school should enter into a Community Use Agreement to ensure that the grass pitches are available for community use. Such an agreement should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and should address hours of availability, management, pricing structures, access to changing accommodation and should also include a mechanism for review.

DC0902MW page 32 Neighbour representations

A total of 108 letters of representation have been received in respect of the proposals raising the following issues:

- Having a bar/clubhouse that sells alcohol on a school complex is appalling/immoral. - A bar will not set a good example to young people about drugs/alcohol abuse. - Medway towns already have a large number of nightclubs and sports facilities, one being only a mile or so along the road – namely Rocco and Splashes and further down there is the Strand, Black Lion and the Waterfront. How many more fitness clubs are needed? - Some houses are just a few metres from the boundary of the school and so will be adversely affected by the proposals. - Light pollution from both the floodlights to the pitches and in the car parking area. - Noise pollution – there is already a lot of noise that emanates from the school pitches, however this is restricted to term time and reasonable hours. This would change with the current proposals and the pollution would be increased, more sustained and unacceptable. - Highways issues – traffic volumes will increase significantly and this will overspill onto residential streets causing congestion and inconvenience to local residents. - The proposed new access is close to an existing junction, bus stops and the pedestrian bridge to cross the A2. This is not safe. - Litter – school children do not use bins and litter is an issue and this situation would become worse if the proposals were to go ahead. This will also attract vermin and will become a health issue. - Unruly behaviour – there seems to be a lack of strict discipline at this school and trespassing and antisocial behaviour are already problems that would be worsened by the proposals. - If a facility like this is really needed then it should be sited in the Gillingham Business Park away from homes where highways issues would not be so vital and noise not so significant. - The clubhouse doors will be wedged open in the summer to disperse heat and this will worsen the noise pollution. - The changes to the clubhouse are cosmetic only and do not make the application acceptable. - The fact that there have been continuous changes to the scheme shows how poorly thought out the scheme is. - This application should be refused and further applications should be prevented from being submitted as the number of applications and amendments is bordering on harassment of the local community. - There are preferable alternative locations available in Medway for a scheme such as this and it should be sited away from houses. - Proposals would be an infringement of people’s human rights due to the increased noise and disturbance and increased traffic affecting the enjoyment of their homes. - The benchmark for the acoustic assessment seems to be that so long as the proposals are not as noisy as the A2 then it will be alright. The noise is a low persistent rumble and changes with the weather ie if it is wet and the wind is from the north it is much louder. The noise from the clubhouse will add to this existing noise and is not acceptable. - No amount of sound proofing will prevent noise escaping from the clubhouse.

DC0902MW page 33 - It is unacceptable that material information has been submitted in a piecemeal fashion and it should all be submitted at the outset. - Who will police the clubhouse/pavilion to ensure that the windows and door remain closed after 11pm? - The quality of life of the local residents will be degraded – particularly the elderly. - The Howard school already impacts on residents life enough – to allow this facility would make living conditions unacceptable. - Neighbouring roads will be used for ‘overflow’ parking and for those wishing to avoid queues at the exit, which will affect residents. - Offensive language from players will be audible inside people’s homes and gardens. - Fundamentally the proposals are not different to the previously refused application MC2006/1522. - The fact that the facilities will be hired out is of great concern. - It appears that the school will not be able to use these facilities and so they will be of no benefit to them. - The existing open space should be retained and should not be taken up by pitches. - Trees should be checked to see if they warrant a TPO. - Wildlife will be affected. - There are bats on the site. - If the facilities are not used to the extent anticipated – what is the contingency plan? - People have already dismantled fencing to create short cuts and this will increase with the proposals.

2 letters of support have been received from local residents.

A further two letters of support have been submitted by the applicant’s agent one of these was from the assistant head teacher of the Stopsley school in Luton, Bedfordshire (where there is a similar facility) the other is from the school business manager of a school in Blackpool. Both letters indicate that they have not experienced any problems concerning the running of the clubhouses/bars at the respective sites which are run by ‘Playfootball’, who are the applicants in this instance. Given that the latter two letters are not related to this specific development and the writers are geographically removed from the proposals, whilst the general point that similar facilities have operated without problems and are successful (in the view of the authors of these letters) is noted, it is nevertheless considered that these letters of support should be afforded little weight in the determination of this application, particularly as the facility if granted could be operated by any company and would not be restricted to the ‘Playfootball’ group.

Petitions

3 petitions have been received in total.

A petition objecting to the proposals containing 50 signatures has been received raising the following issues:

- This application has already been raised and defeated twice before and we wonder what change in circumstances has prompted its renewal – our objections remain as previously. - The increase in traffic in these roads already practically gridlocked during school entry and exit times. - Increase of noise especially when people leave the premises probably late at night. - Increased litter, already a source of annoyance to residents.

DC0902MW page 34 - Light pollution. The assurances that this being minimal do not re-assure us. Any light when there was previously none is a step in the wrong direction. Aren’t we supposed to be cutting down on this now we are threatened with global warming. - Unease at the prospect of a licensed bar so near to quiet residential streets. We have rowdy children to contend with during the daytime, we do not want the same at night.

A petition objecting to the proposals containing 32 signatures has been received raising the following issues:

- It is a repeat of like-minded applications going back many years and is a major commercial development in a predominantly residential area and would bring many problems. - An increase in traffic problems in an already busy area. By providing an entrance at the junction of Bloors Lane would create tail backs of traffic beyond Salisbury Avenue and consequential streams of cars following along the A2 road towards Rainham Mark. - Light pollution – generally well into the night particularly during the winter months. - Noise pollution – whilst games are being played and with a Grand Encore when the bar of the clubhouse is closed late every evening through the whole of the year (7 days per week 52 weeks per year). - Vandalism – would increase with alcohol fuelled youngsters carrying out damage to property and other such antisocial activities. - The venue itself would provide opportunities for unsavoury characters to lurk around all hours of the day and night. - An increase in litter pollution will undoubtedly occur, evidence of this has been seen along the chain link fencing affronting the A2 trunk road for many years now despite repeated requests to the school to clean up, nothing has been done.

A petition objecting to the proposals containing 28 signatures has been received raising the following issues:

- Persistent unacceptable noise levels from matches, evenings and weekends, that will makes it impossible to relax in our gardens and will seriously impair our quality of life and mental well being. - Light pollution impacting negatively on residents and wildlife. - Offensive language from players and spectators that will be audible in our gardens. - Significant noise from cars as players and other visitors arrive and leave the new site at all hours day and night. - Increased litter at the Howard School site’s boundaries and further spoiling of the neighbourhood. - Greater level of fighting, vandalism and antisocial behaviour can be anticipated from players, spectators and visitors to the site. - Risk of the road outside being our houses being used for overspill parking, or to allow a speedier exit after matches. - Increased level of risk to the public, including school children using the A2 by withdrawing the bus lay by and adding a new road. - Lack of need for the sports facilities as there are many other sites within two miles of this application including Beechings Way, Old Anchorians, Cozington Park as well as existing school sites. - Plans for a bar on a site used by children makes this issue particularly disturbing and does not provide an appropriate message.

DC0902MW page 35 - Linking sport with alcohol in a country known throughout Europe as having a high level of drink related problems. - A licensed bar will compound problems of alcohol related antisocial behaviour issues, noise, violence and vandalism. Fighting often breaks out at similar events without the additional factor of alcohol. Local residents, their properties, the school premises and parked cars will be at increased significant risk. - There will be an increased perception from local residents including the elderly that the area is unsafe, inside and outside their homes. - There is no need for a bar as there are numerous public houses, bars and clubs in the local vicinity without the need to enclose rival teams in a hothouse environment. - Placing a bus stop without a lay-by is ill considered and an accident risk. - Placing the bus stop nearer to houses in London Road will cause house owners significantly more problems with vandalism and antisocial behaviour from groups of children waiting at the bus stop and will block access of passers by. It will additionally prevent visitors to the houses and affected householders from using the front of their house for short-term parking. - The requirement for access traffic to turn right from the site will significantly slow the flow of the A2 traffic. - Increased congestion, which during peak periods currently causes-access problems. - Concern over health & safety, welfare and security of the school’s pupils and overuse of outdoor sports pitches that will affect the day to day use by pupils. - Finally the project is purely profit driven and is not providing an essential service, nor is it on land that had been allocated for commercial development.

Non-planning matters raised

- It is a crude way of making money at the expense of young adults. - The facility will increase anti social behaviour. - The school has a poor record of controlling its pupils and visitors and they cannot police them – let alone with this venture. - The school has previously ‘bent the rules’ with regard to planning and erected a grey fence instead of a green one – will they be allowed to continue to get away with this? - The way the application keeps being submitted is intended to ‘wear down’ objectors and is very underhanded. - Proposals will de-value properties.

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy SP1 (Sustainable Pattern of Development) Policy EN8 (Protecting, conserving and enhancing biodiversity) Policy EN9 (Trees, woodland and hedgerows) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL2 (Priorities for public realm) Policy QL3 (Movement and accessibility in the public realm) Policy QL5 (Quality and Density of Development) Policy QL15 (Formal and Informal recreation/sport Facilities) Policy TP9 (Supporting public transport) Policy TP11 (Facilities for pedestrians and cyclists) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

DC0902MW page 36 Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy S1 (Development Strategy) Policy S2 (Strategic Principles) Policy S4 (Landscape and Urban Design Guidance) Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise Standards) Policy BNE6 (Landscape Design) Policy BNE39 (Protected species) Policy BNE43 (Trees on Development Sites) Policy L2 (New Leisure Facilities) Policy L3 (Protection of Open Space) Policy L8 (Dual use of recreational facilities) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T3 (Provision for Pedestrians) Policy T4 (Cycle Facilities) Policy T5 (Bus preference measures) Policy T13 (Parking Standards) Policy T14 (Travel Plans) Policy CF2 (New Community Facilities)

Planning Appraisal

Principle

There is a fairly recent history of planning permission being granted for multi use pitches and a pavilion at this site (2000). However, there is not an extant permission for this use as the most recent grant of permission has expired. That said, the principle of the location for this use has been deemed acceptable and the most recent decision also took account of the emerging Local Plan in its draft form. Since the grant of that permission the Medway Local Plan has been adopted (2003) and the Kent and Medway Structure plan has been adopted (2006) – as such there is a material change in the development plan since the previous grant of planning permission.

Given that this application is not a renewal and that it differs from the scheme previously approved it must be treated as an entirely fresh application and be assessed in the light of the current Development Plan and on its own merits.

The provisions of Policy L3 of the Medway Local Plan does provide that school playing fields may be developed provided that sufficient land is retained for school sport use. Given that the school will have access to the multi use pitches during school term time, and that the proposed new use is for sports pitches (albeit a more restrictive sport use than open playing fields) it is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable subject to the provisions of the other relevant Development Plan policies cited above. In addition the views of the Sport England support the principle of the proposal subject to certain criteria being met which are covered by the proposed legal agreement.

The current scheme differs from that previously approved in 2 key ways as outlined below:

DC0902MW page 37 1) The number of pitches proposed – previously 12 pitches were proposed (10 now proposed). 2) Opening hours – previously the opening hours were until 23.00 Monday to Saturday and 21.30 on Sundays and Public Holidays. The hours now proposed are to 23.00 Mon-Thur, midnight on Friday and sat and 22.00 on Sundays in relation to the pavilion with the use of the pitches ceasing at 23.00 at the latest.

In the light of these differences, the key issues in the determination of this application are therefore:

1) Whether the proposals are acceptable in design/street scene terms

2) Whether the proposals would cause harm to the residential amenity of the occupants of nearby properties.

3) Whether the proposal would prejudice highway safety and provide sufficient parking within the site.

These issues will now be addressed in turn.

Street scene and design

The design of the clubhouse is fairly ‘standard’ and it is essentially utilitarian in character. Scheme has been amended and it is considered that the incorporation of a porch and the glazed detailing has ‘lifted’ the overall appearance of the scheme and that the detailing is now acceptable. It is not considered that the design, scale, siting or bulk would have a detrimental impact in visual terms on the street scene due to the siting of the building itself, which is not overly visible from outside of the site. The alterations to the vehicular access to the A2 are also considered to be acceptable in terms of their visual impact. The sports pitches would not be overly visible from the wider area given that the existing use is as a sports field. It is considered that the visual impact of the proposals are overall acceptable in this regard.

Neighbours’ amenities

In terms of the proposed pitches, these are sited largely within a natural ‘dip’ in the landscape and are sited a good distance from the nearest residential properties. In terms of noise and disturbance arsing from the pitches themselves, given that the site is already used as a sports field it is considered that the use is acceptable in and would not unduly affect the amenity of neighbouring properties in general terms. The closing time of the pitches is 23.00 on weekdays and Saturdays – the clubhouse will remain open until midnight and this will issue will be discussed separately.

The lighting of the pitches is considered acceptable given the distances to the nearest properties and the fact that modern flood lighting causes only a small amount of light spill. The natural screening of the existing trees could be enhanced by a landscaping/supplementary planting scheme and the hours of lighting could be controlled via a suitably worded condition. Also the natural undulations in the land will help to act as an acoustic/visual barrier. It is proposed to light the pitches during the evening usage and the lighting poles are an integral part of the perimeter fencing to the pitches. Modern lighting technology means that there is an acceptable level of lighting ‘spill’ from the floodlights. It is considered that a condition to ensure that the lights are switched off at a specific hour (i.e

DC0902MW page 38 after the last use of the pitches) would ensure that no undue light pollution continued late into the night. In this regard the impacts of the use and lighting of the sports pitches themselves on residential amenity are considered acceptable.

The proposed parking area is considered to be acceptable in terms of its visual impact. The lighting and use of the car park in itself is considered acceptable. In addition to this, the location of the car park, to the north of the site and further away from the majority of the surrounding residential properties is considered to be preferable to the previous siting of the parking area to the south of the site and adjacent to the properties in Derwent Way as refused under ref MC2006/1522. It is considered that the current siting of the parking area together with a new vehicular access would lead to far fewer additional vehicle movements in the surrounding residential streets and as such would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the surrounding residents. There is no pedestrian access through the site from the existing access on Derwent Way and a condition to secure a parking management strategy could reasonably be imposed to ensure that the access from the A2 is utilised by the users of the new sports facilities.

The proposed clubhouse is sited to the north of the site and again, this revised siting has reduced the number of residential properties that would be potentially adversely affected by the use of the club house as opposed to the previous siting to the south of the site. An acoustic assessment has been submitted in support of the application, which addresses the issue of noise and disturbance arising from the proposed use of the premises. Therefore, on balance the use of the club-house and the proposed hours of use although longer than those previously approved, are considered to be acceptable after reviewing the acoustic assessment submitted in support of the application and it is not considered that there would be reasonable grounds on which to resist the application.

Highways

Access

The proposed access to the development is served off the A2 London Road at its junction with Bloors Lane. The principle of an access at this point was established in 2000 when an application containing similar access proposals was approved, though it is noted that the current application proposes fewer football pitches than the previously approved scheme. In terms of the design of the junction, the current application proposes a four-arm signalised crossroads that is considered to be a more compact and conventional arrangement than the previously approved scheme. The access road is 8 metres in width at the stop line, which then tapers to 6 metres in width over a distance of 20 metres. These dimensions allow for easy access and egress by coaches that may access the site. The pedestrian footbridge and the controlled crossing of the A2 London Road would be retained and an un-controlled pedestrian crossing point provided across the proposed access serving the PlayFootball site. Footways are provided on both sides of the access road, and a section of cycle route is provided to link in with the route on the northern side of London Road. The existing bus layby opposite the junction of Bloors Lane would be closed to facilitate the new access; it is proposed to relocate the bus stop approximately 50 metres to the west within the dualled two-lane section of the A2 so that vehicles travelling westbound would be able to pass a bus stopped within the carriageway.

DC0902MW page 39

Traffic generation and impact

Information relating to the number of vehicles movements generated by the proposal has been carried forward from the 2006 application, and is based upon data obtained from a scheme in Luton. The Transport Assessment states that the Rainham proposal would generate around 133 two-way movements during the peak hour of 1945-2045.

The proposed junction and access arrangements have been fully assessed in respect of their ability to cater for the traffic associated with the Playfootball scheme in the evenings and the school-related traffic during the morning and afternoon peak periods when it is intended that the Playfootball car park will provide a drop-off/pick-up area for vehicles currently using residential roads in the vicinity of the school. It is inevitable that some queuing at the junction will continue to take place during busy periods, particularly during the morning peak, though it is has been demonstrated that vehicle queues currently dissipate with every cycle of the traffic signals, and that will continue to be the case under the proposed arrangement. The Transport Assessment illustrates that the junction would operate well within capacity following the introduction of the additional arm serving the proposed PlayFootball facility, and as such would not have a material impact on the capacity or operation of the junction. Medway Council’s Safety Team and Traffic Signal Engineer have audited the proposals and raised no objection to the principle of the junction design, although much of the design detail would be finalised as part of a section 278 agreement if planning consent is granted.

Parking

This proposal provides 110 parking spaces in roughly the same position as the previously approved scheme. Data obtained from the Luton site shows that a maximum of 95 spaces were occupied during the peak period. Applying this figure to the Rainham proposal, there is considered to be a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate the peak requirement. The proposed car park is also intended to provide a formal drop-off and pick-up facility for the school, and the internal arrangement of the site has been designed to ensure that good circulation is provided for this purpose. This provision is likely to reduce both the on street parking in London Road during school peak periods and the drop-off and pick-up of pupils on residential roads such as Salisbury Avenue and Derwent Way. The school will be required to acknowledge this new provision in their travel plan, and make every effort to encourage parents to use the new facility.

In the light of this it is concluded that the proposals are acceptable in terms of overall highway safety and the level of parking provision.

Trees

Whilst it is noted that some trees would be lost to accommodate the proposals, it is considered that the proposed tree loss is on balance, acceptable and replacement/supplementary planting could be secured via a suitably worded condition. This would ensure that the tree cover and resultant visual and acoustic screening provided could be maintained at its current level or even improved. On this basis there are no objections in this regard.

DC0902MW page 40

Other matters

Protected species

Some of the letters of representation refer to the presence of protected species within the site (specifically bats). The applicant’s agent were advised of this and advised that a protected species survey would need to be carried out and submitted for consideration in accordance with the requirements of Government Guidance in the form of PPS9. The required survey work has been undertaken and submitted in support of the application. The conclusions of the report are that there is no evidence of protected species within the application site including; great crested newt, reptiles, dormouse, otter, bat, water vole or badger. The report does highlight that the trees and hedgerows on the site could offer potential nesting sites for birds and any works that may result in the destruction of these habitats should take place outside of the bird nesting season (March – September inclusive). The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of impacts on biodiversity.

S106 requirements

The following requirements are considered to be necessary should the application be viewed favourably and the applicant’s agent has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure these items.

1) The adjacent playing field being marked up and laid out for 3 junior pitches in accordance with Sport England’s guidance. 2) The school entering into a Community Use Agreement to ensure that the grass pitches are available for community use. Such an agreement should address hours of availability, management, pricing structures, access to changing accommodation and should also include a mechanism for review. 3) The undertaking of all works required to incorporate a new signalized arm within the existing A2 London Road/Bloors Lane junction, including associated traffic signal works, closure of the existing bus lay by and the relocation of the bus stop and shelter, and the payment of all costs associated with obtaining and implementing any new or amended Traffic Regulation Orders necessitated by this scheme.

Concerns regarding the number of planning applications at the site.

A number of representations also refer to the fact that there have been a number of applications submitted for these proposals at the site and also that additional information has been submitted since the original submission of the current application. Concern is raised that the submission of important information in a piecemeal fashion is misleading and confusing and should be resisted by the Council. These comments are noted; however the Local Planning Authority has a legal obligation to consider planning applications submitted and cannot restrict the number of applications that are made at any one site. In this case the current application does materially differ from the once previously refused (MC2006/1522) not least due to the siting of the access and so there are different issues to consider. Also, additional information can be submitted by the applicant’s (or their agents) and provided this information is made public via the re-consultation process this is again legal and cannot be reasonably resisted. Finally, one of the letters of representation stated that bats (which are a protected species) were present at the site. On the basis of this information a bat survey was requested and subsequently submitted for consideration.

DC0902MW page 41 Conclusions

In the light of the preceding discussion it is concluded that on balance there are no objections arising in respect of the principle of the development, highway safety, design, landscaping or impact on the street scene.

The key issue remains whether the residential amenity of the surrounding residents would be unacceptably prejudiced by the proposals. The contents of the acoustic assessment have been very carefully considered and the methods adopted for the research are deemed to be acceptable and as such the conclusions drawn in the report should be afforded significant weight. As such, it is considered that the impact of the clubhouse could be adequately mitigated through the imposition of appropriately worded conditions to ensure that the recommendations contained within the report are implemented. This, when coupled with the fact that the previous concerns related to the noise and disturbance through the use of the existing access have been overcome with the current application by re-locating the access results in the key concerns being adequately addressed by this latest submission.

There are no concerns related to the floodlighting of the pitches through light spill and the hours of use can be controlled via suitably worded conditions.

Therefore, not withstanding the number of objections received and after very careful consideration it is considered that the proposals would on balance be acceptable and consequently the proposals are recommended for approval.

This application would normally fall to be determined under Officer’s powers but is being reported for Members consideration due to the extent of representations that have been received contrary to the Officer recommendation and at the request of Councillor O’Brien due to the planning history of the site which he feels necessitates a decision by the Committee rather than under delegated powers.

DC0902MW page 42

4 MC2007/0675

Date Received: 13th April 2007

Location: The Ship, Cuckolds Green Road, Lower Stoke, Rochester ME3 9RD

Proposal: Outline application for the construction of 2 pairs of semi-detached houses) with associated parking

Applicant: Mr S McMorrow Freemasons Arms 267 Malling Road Snodland ME6 5JR

Agent: Mr G Bunce Prime Folio Limited 24 Ashford Road Maidstone Kent ME14 5BH

Ward: Peninsula

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by plans received on 10 August 2007)

1 Approval of the details of appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

4 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 any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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 page 43 6 The landscaping provided to the front of the site shall not exceed 0.6m above the level of the nearest part of the carriageway.

7 Prior to the commencement of the development, a site 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 any measures necessary to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the commencement of the development the approved measures shall be fully implemented and a completion report, issued by the competent person referred to above stating that remediation has been completed and that the site is suitable for the permitted use, shall be provided to the Authority prior to the first occupation of the development herein permitted.

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

Site Description

The application site lies on the northern side of the High Street in Lower Stoke and is currently occupied by a public house called The Ship. The pub has been closed since December 2006, and is currently boarded up. The building is a two storey property of brick construction painted cream, with a tiled roof. There is a flat roof single storey extension to both the front and sides of the building and additions at the rear as well. To the front of the pub, between this and the highway, is a small area of hard standing. There is a beer garden at the rear which is at a raised level from the patio area, and the site is enclosed at the rear by a mixture of fencing and hedging/trees.

The pub is surrounded by residential properties, with vehicular access to The Willows to the north running alongside the western boundary of the site. To the south, on the other side of the road, is a large area of hardstanding which is informally used for parking. In the wider village area there is a petrol filling station to the west, and convenience store and another pub to the east.

Proposal

As amended the application seeks outline permission for the demolition of the existing public house and the construction of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings. (The application originally proposed a terrace of 5 dwellings) Access to the site would be located in between the two pairs of semi detached dwellings and would lead to a parking court located at the rear. This would provide 6 parking spaces, and room on site to turn.

The houses would have identical layouts, with each pair being handed, and access located on the side elevations. There would be a kitchen diner, lounge and wc at ground floor, two bedrooms, an en-suite and a family bathroom at first floor level, and a third bedroom and study room located in the roof space.

The dwellings would have an eaves height of 5m and a ridge height of 9.5m. The rooms in the roof would be served by small pitched roof dormer windows. Each property would have a private rear garden, 9m in length.

DC0902MW page 44 Matters of layout, scale and access are to be determined now, with matters of landscaping and external appearance reserved for a later application.

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres) Site density: 50 dwellings per hectare (20 dwellings per acre)

Relevant Planning History

1996/0741 Erection of a pair of semi-detached bungalows. Approved 16 July 1997

Representations

The application has been advertised on site by the posting of a site notice, and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupier of South View, High Street; Orchard View, High Street; Nags Head PH, High Street; Flats 1-8 Bradley House, High Street; Flats 2, 3 and 4 Herberts Court, High Street; 48 heron Way; Chapel Rise, All Hallows Road; Forge House, Grain road; The Willows, Grain Road; and Wilclem, Grain Road.

Three letters of objection were received against the original plans for a terrace of 5 dwellings raising the following points:

- Overdevelopment of the site - Detrimental effect on surrounding properties and area - Loss of privacy to surrounding properties - lack of adequate parking which will cause further problems - Increase noise disturbance from 5 more families - Site should only be developed for 2 houses - Will exacerbate existing drainage problems - Houses will affect sight lines for cars leaving adjoining driveways - Three storey town houses not in keeping with the surrounding properties - Noise disturbance from 5 new properties - Surrounding area characterised by detached dwellings in significant plots, and this development would be out of keeping - Narrow access to parking area - Potential loss of boundary hedge and boundary wall

Stoke Parish Council objects to the development of a terrace of 5 dwellings on the grounds of over-intensification of the site – four houses would be a maximum number of units for the site in their view.

Re-consultation letters have been sent out in relation to the amended and reduced scheme of 4 dwellings.

No letters of objection have been received in relation to the revised plans.

DC0902MW page 45

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 Quality of development and design Policy HP4 Housing: quality and density of development Policy TP19 Vehicle Parking Standards

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 General Principles for Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy H11 Residential Development in Rural Settlements Policy T13 Vehicle Parking Standards Policy CF1 Community Facilities

Planning Appraisal

The key planning considerations in the determination of this application are:

- The principle of development and the loss of a community building - Design and street scene - Amenity - Highways

Principle of Development

The site lies within the rural settlement of Lower Stoke where Policy H11 of the Local Plan permits minor residential development. In principle, therefore, the development is considered to be acceptable.

Public houses are considered to be community facilities especially in rural settlements and therefore Policy CF1 needs to be considered. This policy states that the loss of such facilities will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist such that it would be beneficial to redevelop sites, and that replacement facilities should be sought.

The pub ceased trading on 19 December 2006 after a long period of declining sales. The pub was put on the market with Fleurets for new owners at a price of £300,000 originally, before the price was dropped to £250,000. Only two couples viewed the property with a view to running it as a pub, with neither progressing to a sale. The pub was on the market for at least 6 months.

The applicant has submitted details of alternative options that were considered for the site, to replace the community facility. These included a take away outlet and restaurant, or a children’s day nursery. The restaurant was considered unviable as there is already a fast food take away in the village and Lower Stoke doesn’t tend to get any passing trade. The children’s day nursery was considered to be in the wrong location, as parents are unlikely to travel to Lower Stoke to drop their children off if they worked in Medway and would only be

DC0902MW page 46 convenient for local children. Given the anticipated limited number of children such a facility would cater for, and the costs involved in converting the pub for such a facility, it was again considered unviable.

The village already has another pub, two local shops, a post office and a petrol station. Given these existing facilities and the relatively small population base contained within Lower Stoke, it is considered that the site would struggle if converted to another community facility. Given the length of time the property has been on the market, the fact that there have been no complaints to the Licensing Committee about the pubs closure, and the above information, it is considered that alternative options for the site have been considered and found to be unacceptable. It is therefore appropriate to consider redevelopment of the site.

Street Scene and Design

The application is in outline, with layout, scale and access to be determined at this stage. The revised plans show two pairs of semi-detached houses located at the front of the site, with access to the parking court located between them. The houses would be set off each boundary by 1m and set back from the road frontage by 4m. The houses would sit slightly further forward than the existing pub and the two properties to either side, but are considered acceptable in this location, where they give a strong frontage development for the street. It is indicated that the front would be landscaped to enhance the setting of the properties and the details of this would be secured through the reserved matter of landscaping.

Each property would have a 9m long rear garden which is considered to be acceptable in amenity terms for the future occupiers. This then provides room to the rear for off street parking for the houses, with 6 spaces shown.

The houses are shown to have a ridge height of 9.5m, which would be slightly less than that of the existing pub, and comparable to the ridge height of the property to the west. It would be higher than the ridge height of Forge House, to the east, but in a village setting like this, where styles vary it is considered acceptable for there to be such a variation.

It is therefore considered that the layout and scale of the buildings is acceptable, and would accord with Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan.

Amenity Considerations

The plans show the detailed design of the houses, which are considered to be traditional in appearance and would be in keeping with the varied design of development in Lower Stoke. At the front the houses would face across to the area of hard standing and Herbert Court behind. There would be a distance of 40m between the front elevations and the closest elevation of Herbert Court therefore no loss of privacy would result from the development.

To the rear the houses would back onto existing residential development, with the properties Orchard View and The Willows directly abutting the site boundary. At the closest point, plots 3 and 4 would be 34m away from Orchard View, therefore again it could not be demonstrated that the development would result in any loss of privacy for existing occupants.

Access to both Orchard View and The Willows would run down each side boundary of the site, further separating the new houses from the properties to either side. It is considered this would help ensure that the development would not result in any loss of outlook for the occupants of these houses, and provide space about the dwellings.

DC0902MW page 47

It is therefore considered that the development would accord with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan.

Highways

The amended plans show the access for the site to be located centrally and lead to a parking court to the rear. There would be room for turning within the site to allow for cars to emerge in a forward gear, and thus avoid the need to reverse onto the highway. Satisfactory vision can be achieved at the access point and accordingly the proposal is acceptable from a highway safety perspective.

6 parking spaces have been provided which equates to 1.5 spaces per unit. This would fall within the maximum parking standards of 2 spaces per unit, and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

As such the scheme is considered to accord with Policy T1 and T13 of the Local Plan.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

The proposed development, as amended, is considered to be acceptable, would accord with the relevant policies of the Local Plan, and is recommended for approval.

The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being reported to committee due to the number of representations received. Whilst no objections have been received directly against the amendments, the original objectors have not written to withdraw their previous concerns and so the application needs to be reported to Committee.

DC0902MW page 48

5 MC2007/0819

Date Received: 10th May 2007

Location: Land adjacent to Bells Lane and Kingsnorth Close, Hoo St. Werburgh, Rochester, Kent

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage block and construction of a two storey block comprising four 2-bedroomed self-contained flats with associated parking

Applicant: Mr H Klein 3 Park Hill Bury New Road Prestwich M25 0FX

Agent: Mr Hearfield-Hodgson Cartwright & Gross 255 Wellington Road South Stockport SK2 6NG

Ward: Peninsula

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(and as amended by information and plans received on 8th and 9th August 2007)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three 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 any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. 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 Prior to occupation of any part of the development the first floor window on the northern corner of the building shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non- opening apart from any top hung fan light, and shall thereafter be retained as such.

5 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; 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,

DC0902MW page 49 plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

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

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

7 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.

8 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, detailed plans relating to the external storage of bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before any of the units are first occupied and thereafter retained.

9 Prior to the commencement of the development, a site 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 any measures necessary to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the commencement of the development the approved measures shall be fully implemented and a completion report, issued by the competent person referred to above stating that remediation has been completed and that the site is suitable for the permitted use, shall be provided to the Authority prior to the first occupation of the development herein permitted.

DC0902MW page 50 For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.

Site Description

The application site is located within the rural settlement of Hoo St Werbergh, as defined on the proposals map of the Local Plan.

The site is located on the eastern side of Bells Lane. It currently contains a fairly dilapidated concrete block of 11 single storey garages, which do not appear to be particularly well-used. The garages are located along the south-eastern boundary of the site. The site is an irregular shape, and the access to the site from Bells Lane also serves Nos. 94 and 96, a pair of two storey, semi-detached properties. No. 94 is a single dwellinghouse, which also has a detached garage beyond the north-eastern boundary of the site, adjacent the garages on the application site. No. 96 is used as a dental practice, with a car park to the side and rear. The application site is at a slightly higher level than the road.

There is a public footpath along the south-eastern boundary, outside the application site. Kingsnorth Close is beyond the footpath to the south and south-east. The houses in Kingsnorth Close are two storey, terraced properties. There is also a block of garages to serve the houses within the close.

The surrounding area is largely residential in character, and made up of a mix of house types and ages.

Proposal

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing garage block and the construction of a two storey block comprising 4 two bedroom self-contained flats with associated parking.

The proposed block will be positioned centrally within the site. There will be a fairly large public lawned area to the front of the block, and a smaller lawn area to the rear. The driveway will pass along the northern boundary of the site adjacent No. 94, to four car parking spaces at the rear of the site. The driveway would also continue to maintain access to the garage belonging to No. 94. There will be a drying area to the southern side of the building.

The building will have the appearance of a two storey semi-detached pair of houses, with a hipped roof and projecting bays. The building will measure 4.8m to eaves level and 7.9m to the ridge. It will be 10.9m wide, extending to 11.5m taking into account the projecting bays. The building will be 12.3m deep, extending to 13.5m into the bays. At the front, the building will be roughly in line with the building line of Nos. 94 and 96.

There will be two flats on the ground floor and two on the first floor. Each flat will have a hallway, a kitchen/living room, a bathroom and two double bedrooms. All the bedrooms will be on the southern side of the building. There will be windows on every elevation, serving both habitable and non-habitable rooms. Each flat will have its own separate entrance.

After concerns were raised about the proposed bedrooms overlooking the front of properties in Kingsnorth Close, amended plans were submitted with revisions to the flank bay windows, changing them from three-sided bay windows to bays with solid sides. The secondary windows to the bedrooms at the front and back of the building have also been removed.

DC0902MW page 51 In addition to these revisions, the plans also show a bin storage area within the building, under the stairs leading to the first floor flats, accessed from doors on the northern side of the building.

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.0762 ha (0.1883 acres) Site density: 52 dph (21 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

MC2006/2042 Demolition of existing garage block and erection of a two storey block of 6 two bedroomed flats with six car parking spaces Withdrawn

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of: 1-8 Kingsnorth Close; 77-89 (odds) Bells Lane; and 86 and 94-98 (evens) Bells Lane.

Three letters of representations have been received, objecting on the following grounds:

- At least 6 of the garages are in use - The proposal will force local residents to park on the street, which will have a direct impact on nearby homes and a significant effect on road safety - The garage of No. 94 is in constant use; is there no right of access for this purpose? - The plans do not show how the parking for the flats would be organised - The proposed development will reduce the daylight entering the house at No. 94; will increase noise disturbance; and will cause a loss of privacy - Someone is keen on benefiting financially from this proposal - With the current residential development already underway in Bells Lane, it would be madness to introduce more residential properties into this overcrowded village - The proposed car parking provision for the flats is inadequate - Cars will be left in front of the building and will block access to the dental practice car park; the practice has a right of access over the road.

Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority state that the fire appliance must be able to park within 5m of the entrance to meet travel distances.

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy SS8 (Development in the Countryside) Policy EN1 (Protecting Kent’s Countryside) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy HP5 (Housing Development in the Countryside) Policy TP3 (Transport and the Location of Development) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

DC0902MW page 52 Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H11 (Residential Development in Rural Settlements) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

The main issues in the consideration of this application are as follows:

- Principle - Character and appearance of the street scene; - Amenities of neighbouring properties and future occupiers; and - Impact on parking or highway safety.

Principle

In terms of considering the principle of the development, the general guidance given in PPS3: Housing advises of the need to make effective and efficient use of previously developed land.

It must be considered that there are not many flats in the area, and the introduction of a flatted development could be argued to be out of keeping with the general residential character of the area. However, this proposal is in line with government advice about making the most efficient use of land, and the density of the development is not excessive. The provision of flats assists in providing a mix of accommodation needs for the village. There is no justifiable reason as to why flats would be unacceptable in this location, particularly as the development has been designed in a manner that is in keeping with the form of development along the road (the design aspects of the development will be examined in more detail below).

Consideration should be given to the loss of the garages. The agent has clarified that the garages are unoccupied, unsafe to use and in some areas have collapsed. They also state that when they were in use, the tenants of the garages were residents of neither this section of Bells Lane nor Kingsnorth Close. On the basis of this there is no objection to the principle of the removal of the garages.

Policy H11 of the Local Plan asserts that housing development in the rural area will be restricted to minor development within the confines of particular villages and settlements, such as Hoo. Policy H4 also allows residential development within urban areas, provided the site is vacant or derelict, or the development is redevelopment of an existing residential area and infilling will provide a clear improvement in the local environment. As the development falls within the confines of the settlement, and the redevelopment of this site would result in an improvement of the environment, the proposal complies with the requirements of both national and local policies, and is therefore acceptable in principle.

DC0902MW page 53 Street Scene and Design

Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in terms of its layout and siting, details, materials, proportion, scale and mass, and that it respects the scale, appearance and location of surrounding buildings and spaces.

A run-down block of garages of low architectural quality currently occupies the application site. The garages are considered to detract from the character and appearance of the area and because they are of no architectural or historic significance their removal will not be prejudicial to the character of the area. As such, the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is welcome and is in keeping with the character of the area.

The footprint of the building is fairly large when taking into account its depth; however, the building will not take up an excessive portion of the site, and sufficient space will be maintained around and between buildings.

The proposed building will have the appearance of a pair of semi-detached properties, with rendered walls, a hipped roof and projecting bays to break up and add interest to the elevations of the building. The height of the building will not be excessive, and will be similar to Nos. 94 and 96. The building will be higher than the properties in Kingsnorth Close; however, this is due to the existing land levels, and as the houses in Kingsnorth Close are set so far back from the main road, the difference in height will not be particularly noticeable. The building will also be set back from the road in line with Nos. 94 and 96, creating a fairly generous green space to the front, which is in keeping with the front gardens of adjacent properties on Bells Lane.

On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan.

Amenity Considerations

Policy BNE2 seeks to ensure development does not affect the amenity of existing residents or future occupiers through loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight, or noise, activity levels and traffic generation.

The properties most directly affected by the proposed development would be No. 94 Bells Lane, and No. 1 Kingsnorth Close.

In terms of the impact on No. 94 Bells Lane, the northern flank elevation of the block of flats will be approximately 11m away from the flank of No. 94. At this distance, there is unlikely to be any significant loss of light to No. 94 caused by the proposed building.

There will be one secondary window at first floor level on the northern corner of the building that could afford views over the garden of No. 94; however, this is unlikely to cause an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to No. 94. Furthermore, as this window is a secondary window (the main window serving the living room is a bay on the rear elevation) it could be conditioned to be obscure glazed.

In terms of the impact on No. 1 Kingsnorth Close, the proposed building will be more than 5m away at its closest point, on the other side of a public footpath. The plans also indicate that trees on the southern boundary will be maintained, which will help to screen the building from Kingsnorth Close. The proposed building will be sited forward of the building line of the

DC0902MW page 54 properties on Kingsnorth Close so that the southern flank elevation of the building will face across the front gardens of these properties. At first floor level in particular there will be windows on the rear elevation of the building that may have a view over part of the rear garden of No. 1, but again the level of overlooking likely to be experienced is unlikely to be significant.

Furthermore, in terms of noise and general disturbance to neighbouring properties, the site currently has the potential to be used as a parking area for up to 11 cars, plus the access serves the dental practice at No. 96. The use of the site for a block of four flats with four car parking spaces is unlikely to create an unacceptable level of activity, noise or disturbance on this site, particularly as the area is residential in character and the proposed use will not deviate from this.

In relation to the effect on the amenities of future occupiers, the proposed flats will be two bedroom flats and there is adequate circulation, living and eating, and storage space. Each flat will have two double bedrooms, and all rooms will have adequate access to light and ventilation. The flats will also retain an outside amenity space. The proposed accommodation is therefore considered to be acceptable for occupation by small households.

There are therefore no objections in relation to the requirements of Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan.

Highway Considerations

The existing garages on the site do not appear to serve any particular properties nearby; the houses in Kingsnorth Close do not have off-street parking, but there is a block of garages in the close provided for each house. It would appear from the representations that at least half of the existing garages on the application site are not currently in use. The agent has since clarified that the garages are unoccupied, unsafe to use and in some areas have collapsed. They also state that when they were in use, the tenants of the garages were residents of neither this section of Bells Lane nor Kingsnorth Close. Therefore, their loss is unlikely to have a significant impact on parking in the immediate area.

The adopted vehicle parking standards require the provision of a maximum of two spaces per dwelling in this location, which equates to a total maximum requirement of eight car parking spaces. The submitted drawing shows the provision of one space for each of the four flats. In view of the size and type of the accommodation and its proximity to the village centre and on a bus route the proposal is considered acceptable. The access to the parking area provides for adequate vision and so no objections are raised in terms of highway safety.

Accordingly no objection is raised to this aspect of the application under the provisions of Policy T19 of the Structure Plan and Policy T13 of the Local Plan.

Recommendation

The design of the proposed development will be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene, and there are likely to be no adverse effects on the amenities of neighbouring properties or future occupiers, or on highway safety. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable and the application therefore accords with the provisions of Policies SS8, EN1, QL1, HP5, TP3 and TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, H4, H11, T1, T2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan. The application is accordingly recommended for approval.

DC0902MW page 55

This application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers, but is being reported for Members consideration due to the number of representations received contrary to the recommendation.

DC0902MW page 56

6 MC2007/1072

Date Received: 22nd June 2007

Location: Land adjoining 10 Rookery Crescent Cliffe Rochester ME3 7RH

Proposal: Construction of two self contained flats

Applicant: Ms C Liddiard 14 Wentworth Drive Cliffe Woods Rochester Kent

Agent: Mr J Liddiard 14 Wentworth Drive Cliffe Woods Rochester Kent ME3 8UL

Ward: Strood Rural

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by plans received on 21 August 2007)

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

2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the dwelling herein approved shall be as specified on approved drawing no. CL2 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3 Boundary treatment shall be as specified on drawing no. CL1 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4 Prior to the first occupation of the flats hereby approved, arrangements shall be made for the removal of the street tree outside of the site and its replacement with a tree of such size and species and in such location as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such arrangements shall provide for the replacement of the tree within the first planting season after completion.

5 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, vision splays of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access points and no obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the splays thereafter.

6 The windows on the flank elevations (with the exception of the conservatory glazing) shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non opening except for a fan light which shall have a minimum internal floor to opening height of 1.7m.

DC0902MW page 57

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

Site Description

The application relates to the side garden of 10 Rookery Crescent, which is predominantly level with a low hedge to the front, and a mixture of higher hedging and fencing to other boundaries. No. 10 itself is a two-storey semi-detached property of 1950s construction. The area is residential, in a village location. Properties of similar character (but with differences in detailing) form the predominant character, but more modern infill properties are also visible. Some, both the 1950s properties and the newer ones, contain flats or maisonettes. The road is lined by grass verges and street trees; one of these trees is directly outside the site. The site backs on to further residential properties. The side garden of the adjacent properties (nos. 6 & 8) has been fenced off and permission has been granted for construction of a detached dwelling on this plot.

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a detached two-storey building comprising two self- contained flats. The ground floor flat would have a floor area of 51m² and would be accessed from a communal hallway/porch to side; the first floor/roof level flat would have an area of 89m² and would be accessed from a porch to front. Both would feature a living room, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom; the ground floor flat would also have a conservatory and the first floor flat would have a “playroom/workspace/ study” in the roof space with a separate WC/shower room. A shared bin store is shown under the stairwell, accessed from an external door.

The building would be positioned in line with the front and rear of no. 10, and would have a basic footprint of 8.8m deep and 6.6m wide, plus the porches to front and side and a small conservatory to rear. It would have a gable roof with a ridge height of 9m, including a gable roof feature to the front and two small, pitched roof dormers to rear. One parking space for each flat is shown in the front garden, with a new dropped kerb to serve these. Each flat would have a small private garden to rear.

The roof design has been amended since its original submission.

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.0225 ha (0.055 acres) Site density: 89 dph (36 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

MC2004/2834 Outline application for construction of a detached dwelling Approved 14/02/05

MC2005/1095 Reserved matters application pursuant to Conditions 1 (siting, design, external appearance and landscaping), 4 (boundary treatment), 5 (external materials) and 6 (hard landscaping) of outline planning

DC0902MW page 58 permission MC2004/2834 for the construction of a 4-bedroomed detached house with associated parking Approved 20/07/05

MC2005/1511 Reserved matters application pursuant to conditions 1 (siting, design, external appearance and landscaping), 4 (boundary treatment), 5 (external materials) and 6 (hard landscaping) of outline planning permission MC2004/2834 for the construction of a 4-bedroomed detached house with associated parking Approved 20/10/05

MC2005/2317 Outline application for construction of pair of semi-detached three bedroomed houses Refused 13/03/06

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of the following properties: 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 12 Rookery Crescent; 1, & 3 Ann Villas, Thatchers Lane; 76 Reed Street, Cliffe; and to the developers of the adjacent site.

Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that the height of the dwelling and additional accommodation in the roof space would lead to overlooking of neighbouring properties, and is out of character with the vast majority of properties in the area.

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development) Policy HP4 (Housing: Quality and Density of Development) Policy HP5 (Housing Development in the Countryside) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE43 (Trees and Development Sites) Policy H11 (Residential Development in Rural Settlements) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Principle of Development

The application site lies within the village of Cliffe, where the principle of minor infill residential development is acceptable subject to detailed consideration of its impacts. It is further noted in this respect that previous permissions have been granted for residential

DC0902MW page 59 development on this site. The principle of the proposal is therefore in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy HP5 of the Structure Plan and Policy H11 of the Local Plan.

The main issues in the determination of this application are:

- Visual impact of the proposal - Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties - Impact on highway safety and efficiency

Density, Design and Character of Area

The density of the proposal at 88 dph is high, and above the range recommended by Policy HP4 of the Structure Plan. However, this is as a result of the building being split into two flats. Other nearby properties (such as nos. 6 & 8 and a new build on the corner with Thatchers Lane) are also split in this way resulting in a similarly high density. It is therefore considered that the density of the proposal is acceptable.

Properties in this area are generally two-storey, and while the proposal does include a third level of living accommodation, this is contained in the roof slope with small dormer windows to the rear that do not significantly increase the bulk of the building and are only visible from surrounding gardens. The ridge height would be in line with neighbouring buildings, as would the main front and rear elevations. The design of the building is fairly standard but will work well with the existing street scene, which features mainly traditional redbrick two-storey buildings with varying detailing. The provision of parking within the front garden results in it being almost entirely hard surfaced, which is not considered ideal due to the harsh appearance this presents. However, many other properties within the street have similar arrangements for parking provision and it is therefore considered that it would not be reasonable to object to this. The effect would also be softened by the grass verge and trees to the road.

The proposal, specifically the provision of the dropped kerb, would require the removal of the street tree directly outside the property. This tree and the grass verge, part of which would also be lost, contribute to visual amenity within the area, being part of a pattern within the street. However, this particular tree is showing signs of poor health, which means that it would probably have to be removed anyway in the long term. There is therefore no objection to the removal of the tree, but replacement planting would be needed to maintain the attractive street scene. A condition is therefore recommended to this effect.

Overall, the visual impact of the proposal is therefore considered acceptable. In this respect the proposal is in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policies QL1 and HP5 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1 and BNE43 of the adopted local plan.

Amenity Considerations

The proposed building would be sited in line with the adjacent property no. 10 and approx. 1m deeper into the site that nos. 6/8 and the new property proposed on the plot between. It would be of similar height to the surrounding properties. Given also the orientation of the plots in relation to each other, and that none of the existing or proposed adjacent properties have sole habitable room windows on flank walls facing the site, it is therefore considered that there would be no significant impact on surrounding properties in terms of loss of outlook, sunlight or daylight. In terms of privacy, flank wall windows proposed to the flats above ground floor are either non-habitable or secondary and as such can be conditioned to

DC0902MW page 60 be obscure glazed and non-opening to prevent loss of privacy. Those at ground level, including the side glazing to the conservatory, would be screened by boundary treatment. Rear facing windows, including dormers, would have some views over neighbouring gardens, but the level of overlooking would be no more than already exists between properties in residential areas such as this. It is further noted that the house previously approved on this site had similar dormer windows to rear.

Each flat would have its own private garden area, which although small would be adequate in relation to the level of accommodation provided (taking into account that the “playroom/workroom/study” at roof level is likely to be used as a second bedroom), and indeed would be more generous in size than some others in the vicinity. The garden for the ground floor flat would be overlooked by the first floor property, but this is common in such developments, and not so objectionable that it would merit the refusal of the application. The level of internal accommodation is also considered reasonable.

In terms of refuse storage and collection, as each property has its own private garden with access to the highway that would not require going through the main house, it is considered that arrangements could be made by individual occupiers which would be comparable to those for semi-detached houses.

The proposal’s impact on neighbouring amenities and provision for future occupiers is therefore considered to be acceptable. In this respect the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the adopted local plan.

Highways

The provision of one parking space per property is in accordance with adopted (maximum) standards and is considered reasonable for properties of this size in a village location. Adequate visibility can be provided within the front garden, and a condition is recommended to ensure this. It is not considered that the traffic generated by two extra dwellings, or the provision of a new private access onto Rookery Crescent, would have any detrimental impact on highway safety or efficiency. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies T1, T2 and T13 of the Local Plan.

Conclusions and reasons for recommendation

The principle of residential development in this area is acceptable, and the proposal is considered to be appropriate in terms of its scale and design. There would be no significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or on highway safety or efficiency. Accordingly the proposal complies with the abovementioned Development Plan policies and is recommended for approval.

This application would ordinarily fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but is referred for Members’ consideration due to the objection from Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council.

DC0902MW page 61

7 MC2007/1095

Date Received: 27th June 2007

Location: 59 Chalfont Drive Rainham Gillingham ME8 9DW

Proposal: Construction of a two storey/single storey side/rear extension incorporating an integral garage (Resubmission of MC2006/2017) (demolition of existing garage)

Applicant: Mr Harris 59 Chalfont Drive Rainham Kent ME8 9DW

Agent: Mr S Ferguson-McCardle Crixhall House Buckland Lane Staple Canterbury Kent CT3 1JY

Ward: Rainham Central

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the extension herein approved shall match those used on the existing dwelling.

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 walls of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Site Description

59 Chalfont Drive is situated in a residential part of Gillingham. The properties are mixed in design but mainly two storey semi detached. Opposite to the southwest there are some detached bungalows. Most properties have garages and driveways. There is both on street and off road parking available and the land slopes down to the northeast. There are various extensions visible in the street scene most notably at 16 and 14 Wimbourne Drive.

The application site is a semi detached property at the end of the road and therefore the south-eastern flank faces the rear garden of 16 Wimbourne Drive. That property has a detached garage at the end of the garden adjacent to the side boundary of the application property with its vehicular access from Chalfont Drive. There is a driveway to the side of the application property and a small front garden. To the rear is a garden laid to lawn with flowerbeds. The boundary treatment is an approx. 1.8m close boarded fence and a 2m fence on the eastern boundary with a shed in the northern most corner.

DC0902MW page 62

Proposal

It is proposed to construct a side/rear extension to provide an integral garage, garden room and wc at ground floor with bedroom, bathroom and store above. The proposal will include the demolition of the existing garage. There will be a small flat roof section above the front of the garage. The remainder of the side section will have a cat slide roof following the pitch of the existing dwelling. Where the side extension projects to the rear of the existing property it will extend to two storey with a short wrap around the rear elevation. It will project approx. 3.5m from the rear elevation and will be 4.8m wide at the rear-most point.

The amendments from the original proposal that was refused and is now the subject of appeal are as follows:

- Reduction of extent of overall projection at rear from 5.4m (approx) to 3.5m - Removal of ground floor utility room and reduction of 1st floor bedroom size - Feature window introduced to rear elevation (bedroom) and flank high level window reduced in width - Two first floor rooflight windows removed from the roof plane at the side/rear and one rooflight from ground floor level at the rear.

Relevant Planning History

MC2005/1774 Increase in roof height and construction of two storey side/rear extension with dormer to side and rear to facilitate living accommodation in roof space and single storey side extension Withdrawn.

MC2006/2017 Construction of a two storey/single storey side extension incorporating an integral garage together with the construction of a flat roof canopy to the front (Resubmission of MC2005/1774) Refused 10 January 2007 (awaiting an appeal decision)

Representations

Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 12-16 (evens) Wimbourne Drive and 57, 72 and 74 Chalfont Drive, Gillingham, Kent.

Three letters of representation have been received raising the following concerns:

- The proposal is large and dominant - Out of character with the surrounding area - 7 windows overlooking rear garden of number 16, 14 and 12 - Loss of outlook, light and privacy to number 16 - Loss of light and privacy to number 12 - The proposal will be intrusive - It will shade number 14

Kent Fire and Rescue has written raising awareness for access for fire fighting.

DC0902MW page 63

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Street scene and design

The dwellings in the street are mixed in design but predominantly two storey semi detached. To the front of the garage there will be an element of flat roof, which although not ideal, is not out of character with the area as the neighbouring garage at number 16 also has a flat roof. The extent of projection to the side is approx. 3.5m. This is considered in keeping with extensions visible from the street and from the rear of this dwelling; particularly those at number 14 (which extends approx. 3m to 4.5 incorporating a garage), 16 (which has a two storey side extension projecting 3.6m from the side and a garage built in the rear garden) Wimbourne Drive and number 57 Chalfont Drive (which has a conservatory to the rear).

The use of a cat slide roof and the wrap around to the rear respects the character of the existing property.

Therefore the proposal complies with the objectives of Policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and with regards to the impacts on street scene and design.

Neighbours’ amenities

Number 57 is situated to the northwest of the application site and away from the extension. In terms of impact upon sunlight and daylight the extension will have no impact due to the path of the sun and siting of the extension. Due to the distance away from the shared boundary with this property of approx. 4.5m there will be no impact in terms of loss of outlook from any windows. There is one window proposed in the northwest flank at first floor level which will be situated at high level (approx. 1.8m above floor level) and therefore will minimise the loss of privacy that may have been caused had the window been situated with a normal height sill level. A condition is recommended to control the alteration of this window or the introduction of any additional windows to ensure no overlooking is introduced at a later date. At ground floor level there will be one door that will face the boundary treatment with number 57 Chalfont Drive. The distance between this door and the boundary is approx 4.5m and the boundary treatment is approx. 1.8m high; therefore it is considered that any loss of privacy to this neighbour would be minimal.

Number 16 Wimbourne Drive is situated to the southeast of the application site at a lower level (approx. 0.3-0.5m) and is situated on the corner plot with a two storey side extension

DC0902MW page 64 which projects 3.6m from the side. This property has a small rear garden made smaller than the original garden by the garage built at the end. There are windows in the rear elevation of this property facing the application site. The ground floor windows are considered sufficiently screened from the proposal by the existing boundary treatment and their own existing garage. The height of the proposal of approx. 2.4m sloping up to meet the original roof is not considered to cause any detrimental impact to outlook to both ground floor and first floor windows despite the change in land levels. There will be five rooflights in the roof slope which will be high level and do not serve habitable rooms. There will be one rooflight situated in the flat garage roof. As none of these windows enjoy any outlook due to being situated at high level and that they serve non-habitable rooms they are not considered to cause any loss of privacy for this neighbour. Due to the path of sun rising in the east and setting in the west there will be no detrimental impact to this neighbour in terms of loss of sunlight or daylight.

Number 14 Wimbourne Drive is situated to the east of the application site at a lower level (approx. 0.3-0.5m) and has a single storey rear extension which projects approx. 3m from the rear. This extension has resulted in the loss of garden space for this property. 14 has bedroom windows in the rear elevation that currently overlook the rear garden of the application site. The proposed extension will project adjacent to part of the rear of number 14 where the boundary treatment is approx. 2m high close boarded fencing. The extension will be situated approx. 1.1 and 1.9m away from the shared boundary with 14. Due to the height and distance away of the extension it is not considered to cause any loss of outlook from any windows in this property. As above, the proposed rooflights in the roof plane will be high level and not serve habitable rooms; therefore there will be no detrimental impact on this neighbour in terms of privacy.

There will be one window in the rear elevation at first floor level to serve a bedroom however the garden is approx. 19m long and the boundary treatment is considered sufficient to prevent any overlooking to the rear of the property from the extension.

Therefore the proposal complies with the objectives of Policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 with regards to the impacts on neighbours’ amenities.

Highways

The proposed extension will increase the number of bedrooms from three to four however it will not result in the loss of off road parking or of a garage. Two off street car parking spaces will remain with the availability of on street parking to accommodate a further vehicle; therefore no objection is raised on highways grounds.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

The design of the proposed development will be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene, and there are likely to be no adverse effects on the amenities of neighbouring properties or future occupiers, or on highway safety. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable and the application therefore accords with the provisions of Policies QL1 and TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan. The application is accordingly recommended for approval.

DC0902MW page 65

[This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 29th August 2007, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.]

DC0902MW page 66

8 MC2007/1119

Date Received: 29th June 2007

Location: 6B Salisbury Avenue Rainham Gillingham ME8 0BH

Proposal: Demolition of bungalow and garage and construction of three 4- bedroomed detached houses with garages

Applicant: Ms M Owen 6B "Out Of The Way" Salisbury Avenue Rainham Gillingham Kent ME8 0BH

Agent: Mr A Hawkins 187 Edwin Road Rainham Kent ME8 0AH

Ward: Rainham Central

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by plans received on 12 and 31July 2007)

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

4 The bathroom and en-suite window on the northern elevation of plot 3 elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light.

5 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc). Soft landscape works shall include planting plans including the planting of a replacement tree for tree 6 agreed to be removed under condition 8, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations

DC0902MW page 67 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.

6 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.

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

8 Trees numbered 4, 5 6 and 7 as indicated on plan SALTP1 received on 31st July 2007 shall be removed prior to commencement of development.

9 Details for the decompression of the soil within the root protection area of Tree number 3 (as indicated on plan SALTP1 received on 31st July 2007) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within one month of this permission and the approved details performed within one month of the date of the approval of the details.

10 No development shall commence on site until improvement works to widen the access track have been completed in accordance with details that have been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

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

DC0902MW page 68 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.

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

Site Description

The site is located to the south of the A2, to the rear of 69-75 London Road and the land that has been approved for housing within that rear area. It is bounded by residential development to the east, the Howard School playing fields to the west and a nursery to the south.

Access to the site is via an unmade road between 6 and 8 Salisbury Avenue, which serves a number of garages, a parking court, the nursery and the rear of properties fronting Salisbury Avenue.

The site is quite well screened with hedgerows around the perimeter and some mature trees. There is an existing dwelling located on the site, known as 6b Salisbury Avenue.

Proposal

This is a full application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of 3 two storey detached houses. The houses would comprise of four bed units. The units would be sited across the centre of the site in a staggered line.

The houses would all have pitched roofs. They would have a maximum height of approx. 8.7m to the ridge, and an eaves height of approx. 5.2m.

Plot 1 would be provided with an detached double garage, plot 2 with an integral single garage and plot 3 with an attached double garage and all three plots would have driveway parking in front. Access to the site would be via the track between 6 and 8 Salisbury Avenue.

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.16 hectares (0.39 acres) Site density: 18.75 dph (7.69 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

65/66C Outline for 4 detached houses. Refused 19 February 1987

65/66D Outline for 4 houses. Approved 22 May 1987

65/66E Outline for erection of 12 retirement bungalows each with garage. Approved 18 August 1988

DC0902MW page 69 94/654 Outline for residential development comprising nine bungalows. Approved 3 February 1995

MC2000/0413 Outline application for residential development comprising eleven houses and garages. Refused 9 August 2000 Appeal dismissed 31 May 2001

MC2001/1664 Outline application for residential development comprising of 11 houses and two garages (Duplicate application of MC2001/1665) Withdrawn

MC2001/1665 Outline application for residential development comprising of 11 houses and two garages Refused 2nd January 2002 Appeal dismissed 29th July 2002

MC2003/1517 Outline application for the construction of two 4-bed houses. Refused 17 December 2003 Appeal dismissed 23 September 2004

MC2004/0069 Outline application for the construction of one house. Refused 10 March 2004 Appeal dismissed 23 September 2004

MC2004/2487 Outline application for construction of two detached houses Approved 17 March 2005

It should be noted that the planning history above relates to different site areas, some of which include the land to the rear of 75 London Road.

Representations

The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 2, 2a, 4, 6, 6a, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30 and 30a Salisbury Avenue and 69, 71, flats at 73, and 75 London Road.

Letters have been received from 5 households raising the following objections:

- Traffic generation - Road access has not been constructed prior to construction of the houses and is causing mud and inconvenience to the people with garages at the back of Salisbury Avenue - Trees have been removed that weren’t supposed to have been - The access road would be too busy and dangerous especially at school start and finish times - Add to congestion and more problems to an already hazardous area - Overflow of parking would create an added problem - Cram and over-populate a very small area, pushing development to the limit in the proposed area - Destruction of natural habit and impact on wildlife - Light and noise pollution would interfere with the wildlife living in this natural haven

DC0902MW page 70 - History of accidents on this very busy road junction - Reduce the standard of living - The houses are off a back alley and not even an un-adopted road

Kent Fire and Rescue Service:

Measuring from the edge of the plot closest to the access to the furthest point on the proposed premises on plot No 1 seems to exceed 45m. Access may be satisfactory if fire appliance can drive onto the paved area (i.e. closer to plot 1) and does not need to reverse excessively to use turning intended on earlier application 0031.

Southern Water does not wish to comment on this application

Development Plan Policies

Medway Local Plan 2003:

Policy BNE1 General Principles for Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy BNE3 Noise Standards Policy H4 Housing in Urban Areas Policy H9 Backland Development Policy T1 Impact of Development Policy T2 Access to the Highway Policy T13 Parking Standards

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006:

Policy QL1 Quality of Development and Design Policy HP4 Housing: Quality and density of development Policy TP19 Vehicle parking standards

Planning Appraisal

This application raises the following issues for consideration:

- Background - Principle - Character of area and Design - Amenity issues - Highways - Trees - Background

There have been two very recent applications on this site, both of which were refused and dismissed at appeal in 2004. In both of these previous applications the access track was excluded from the application site.

In dismissing the appeals, the inspector noted that in its current form the track was unsuitable to serve the proposed developments, but that if it were improved it would bring about a significant highway improvement. However as the access track was not within the applicant’s

DC0902MW page 71 control and there was no assurance that the improvements detailed in the applications for the adjoining land would ever be implemented, the Inspector concluded two points. One, that it would be inappropriate to impose a condition requiring improvements to the access track in relation to these applications; and two, that without the works taking place, the proposals were unacceptable.

However the Inspector considered that the site was capable of being developed for 2 detached dwellings in a manner that would respect the character and appearance of the locality and living conditions of local residents.

The unresolved issue was therefore simply the inability of the applicants to secure the improvements required to the access track to make the scheme acceptable in highway terms. This was considered to have been overcome in the outline application for construction of two detached houses, which was approved by the Council on 17 March 2005 with a condition to ensure that no development commenced on site until improvement works to widen the access track have been completed. This current application differs from the approved application through the demolition of the dwelling at 6b and its replacement with three detached dwellings. The total number of dwellings on the site would therefore not alter between the approved scheme and the current scheme.

Principle

Whilst the allocation of the site for housing was deleted from the adopted version of the Local Plan, the development would fall within Policy H4 of the plan as a windfall site. The policy states that redevelopment and infilling for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. Furthermore the appeal inspector considering development on the site accepted that there was no objection in principle to the residential use of the land. The current application for demolition of the dwelling on site and the construction of three houses does not increase the number of dwellings on the site above that which the site already has consent for under application MC2004/2487. Therefore the principle for the development of three dwellings on the site is accepted subject to issues of design, neighbour amenity, tree issues and highways and is in accordance with policy H4 of the Local Plan.

Character of the Area and Design

The principle of developing adjacent to 6B ‘Out of the Way’ has already been established, and in the most recent appeal decision the Inspector notes that development in this location would be acceptable, and would respect the character and appearance of the locality.

It should be taken into account that the site already has outline consent for two dwellings, and there is an existing dwelling on site. In effect therefore, this proposal results in no net gain of dwellings.

The houses are of a similar design to those approved at the adjoining site (MC2006/2054). The scheme includes some large areas that would be laid to grass at the front of the houses, which would help soften the appearance of the development and provide a better balance with the amount of hard standing provided for the driveways.

Garden lengths range from between 18m (plot 3) to 16m (plot 2). Whilst these garden lengths may be significantly less than those provided for existing houses in the surrounding area, they are not uncommon for modern houses, given the density standards now being worked to under Government advice.

DC0902MW page 72

The proposals provide for a density of development on the site at 18.75 d.p.h. which would be significantly below the range identified in Government guidance and structure plan policy HP4; however the prevailing adjoining housing in Salisbury Road and London Road is at a significantly lower development density and the proposed development therefore compliments the character of the area.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and would accord with Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the structure plan.

Neighbour Amenities

The site lies to the rear of the properties fronting Salisbury Avenue, however all of these dwellings have long rear gardens. This would result in distances in excess of 45m between the front elevation of the new houses and the rear of those in Salisbury Avenue, which would clearly not result in any unacceptable loss of privacy or perceived overlooking.

The houses have been designed in such a way to have non-habitable rooms along the flank walls of the properties with windows that can be conditioned to contain obscure glazing which would overcome any issues with regard to overlooking.

The rear elevations of the houses face out over the playing fields to the west, therefore would not result in any privacy issues in this direction.

The planning permission granted for the new houses on land to the rear of 75 London Road also needs to be taken into account. Plot SAL0601 has a utility room door, and W.C. on the ground floor and an en-suite and bathroom on the first floor, therefore given that these do not serve habitable rooms, there is no concern about potential loss of privacy between the two sites.

In terms of noise and disturbance, it is considered that due to the previous permission for two dwellings in outline and the permission at the adjoining site there would be no additional harm caused as a result of the dwellings, given the number of cars that already use this access road.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and would accord with Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the structure plan.

Highways

The Inspector, in considering the previous appeal did not raise any objection to the proposal on highway grounds, subject to the improvements to the track being undertaken.

The Inspector also considered at the same time two applications to develop on land to the rear of 75 London Road adjacent to this application site. He allowed those appeals on the basis that the applicant there did have control over the access and could implement its widening and improvement. It is understood that this site has recently had approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of four 4-bedroomed detached dwellings on 22 February 2007. The applicant of that application is now acting as the agent for this current application and the site at land rear of 75 London Road has now been brought forward for development. This will include the improvements to the access, which are also required to facilitate the development of this application site. Accordingly subject to a

DC0902MW page 73 Grampian condition to ensure the access is improved prior to commencement of building works on this site no objection can be raised on highway grounds against the development based on the Inspectors conclusions.

In terms of on site parking facilities, the development would provide each property with at least one garage space and one driveway space in front. This provides at least two spaces per dwelling, which is considered acceptable to serve 4-bedroom dwellings in this location.

The applicant has amended the plans to indicate that the turning head In front of the proposed dwellings has been extended back towards plot 2 in order for a large vehicle (such as a fire engine) to be able to turn comfortably. This would still provide a 5m driveway in front of the garage, which could be separated from the turning head by a low level kerb.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in highway terms, and would accord with Policies T1, T2, T3 and T13 of the Local Plan and Policy TP19 of the Structure Plan.

Trees

Construction works currently taking place on the neighbouring plot have resulted in damage to several of the existing trees. Trees numbered 1-3 have all suffered impact damage and have had construction traffic travelling within their root protection areas (RPA) or currently have materials stored within their root protection areas. Trees numbered 1, 2, 3 and 6 are all protected by a tree preservation order TPO 76/1988. Unfortunately, the majority of these trees appear to be in a poor condition. Tree number 3 has suffered through the excavation within the root protection area and there is evidence that roots have been severed.

Tree number 6 is a tree of high amenity value, unfortunately, there is evidence of cavities within 2 of the major limbs of this tree. Following submission by the applicant of a tree report in view of the condition of tree number 6, the consultant following a climbing inspection has identified decay, and the expected life expectancy is of between 10-20 years. It is recommended that this tree is removed before construction works begin and a suitably worded condition is placed on any consent to secure a replacement tree be planted as part of the soft landscape works.

It is recommended that trees numbered 1-2, 4, 5, and 7 are removed on the grounds of their poor condition. The soil within the root protection areas of tree number 3 will have to be de- compacted using a high-pressure air stream or similar device, this is recommended to be conditioned. Plot 3 appears to be situated a sufficient distance from tree number 3 for it to be unaffected by the current proposal.

The boundary hedgerow, G1, is of low amenity value but does provide an effective screen. It is recommended that it is retained and protected through the wording of a suitable condition before construction works begin.

Conclusions and reasons for approval

The principle of development on this site is established through Policy H4 and the previous planning decision for the site, which permitted consent for 2 additional units. The demolition of the existing unit on site, has allowed a good layout of development to be achieved, totalling 3 units, which is considered to be in accordance with Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. Adequate amenity protection for existing residents can be provided, which would ensure accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan. It is considered that the Inspectors

DC0902MW page 74 outstanding concern regarding the improvements to the access track has been addressed, and therefore the proposal would accord with Policies T1, T2, T3 and T13 of the Local Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions recommended.

This application would normally fall to be determined under officer’s powers but is being reported for Members consideration due to the extent of representations received contrary to the officer recommendation.

DC0902MW page 75

9 MC2007/1129

Date Received: 29th June 2007

Location: Rise Dale Allhallows Road Stoke Rochester ME3 9SL

Proposal: Construction of a single storey rear extension; incorporating pitched roof over; dormer window to either side and new patio doors with juliet balcony to end elevation to provide additional living accommodation in roof space

Applicant: Mr M C R Biggs Risedale Allhallows Road Lower Stoke Rochester Kent ME3 9SL

Agent: Mr J Liddiard 14 Wentworth Drive Cliffe Woods Rochester Kent ME3 8UL

Ward: Peninsula

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the development herein approved shall match those on the existing dwelling.

3 The bathroom window on the north elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light.

4 Nothwithstanding 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 other than those shown on the approved plans shall be installed in the north flank walls or roof slope of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Site description

The application dwelling is a bungalow located within a residential area. The street scene comprises of a mixture of two-storey detached, semi-detached and terrace houses as well as other bungalows. As a result of these various design of properties there is a very mixed character to the street scene. The size of the plot that the application dwelling is located within is large. To the front of the dwelling there is an area used for parking for two to three vehicles. To the rear of the dwelling there is fencing and planting on all boundaries, the fencing is (approx) 1.8m in height with some areas of planting up to 6m high. The rear of the

DC0902MW page 76 property has already been extended at single storey and projects (approx) 3.9m. By the rear elevation there is a patio area which projects (approx) 2m into the garden. Within the vicinity a number of properties have been extended at single storey to the rear and also have dormer windows.

Proposal

The submitted application proposes the construction of a single storey rear extension, incorporating pitched roof over existing and proposed rear extensions, with a dormer window either side and a Juliet balcony to rear, creating living accommodation with roof space.

The proposed single storey element would be (approx) 3.65m in projection, (approx) 8.35m in width and 5.95m high.

The proposal would allow the re-configuration of the ground floor layout and create a sitting room and breakfast room. At first floor there would be provision for three new bedrooms and a family bathroom within the loft space. The proposal would not increase the number of bedrooms from four, but considering the size of the study it would mean that it could easily be used as a fifth bedroom.

Relevant Planning History

6/64/20 Erection of bungalow Approved, 1st April 1964

6/67/148 Formation of a vehicular access Approved, 10th August 1967

77/601 Single storey rear study extension Approved, 14th September 1977

MC2003/1172 Construction of porch to front and single storey rear extension incorporating pitched roof over existing single storey addition to facilitate loft conversion (demolition of side addition) Approved with conditions, 6th August 2003

Representations

Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of Stonefield and to Stoke Community School in Allhallows Road.

The Fire service has written in drawing attention Approved Document ‘B’ and that the proposed alterations may bring a situation of non-compliance with travel distance exceeding 45 metres. The fire service would favourably upon the installation of an approved sprinkler system. (This will be covered under building regulations)

Letters of objection have been received from the owner of Stonefield and Stoke Parish Council objecting on the following points

- Loss of privacy and light to neighbouring property - Overdevelopment of the site considering the dwelling has already been extended - Overlooking of the school

DC0902MW page 77 - The amount of parking provision mighty not be sufficient for four bedrooms

In both letters they have also raised the question that they believed MC2003/1172 was refused.

Development Plan Policies

Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of development and design) Policy TP19 (Vehicle parking standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity protection) Policy T1 (Impact of development) PolicyT13 (Vehicle parking standards)

Planning Appraisal

Street scene and design

The siting and design of the proposal means that it would not be visible from the highway but would be seen from neighbour properties and gardens. The extent of projection would be large at (approx) 3.65m. This is in addition to the existing rear extension. Despite the extent of projection of the proposal there would still be a distance of over 25m between the application dwelling and the rear boundary and considering the size of the plot there would not be a detrimental impact on the character of the street scene to the rear of properties within this part of Allhallows Road.

The properties within the vicinity have varying degrees of set back from the highway and combined with the various extensions and alterations to the rear of the dwellings it means that there is no uniform building line.

Part of the design of the proposal would include pitched roof dormer windows. This would not be the first property to have dormer windows. An example of which can be seen on the adjacent property at Stonefield. The two pitched roof dormer windows would be in keeping with the gable end design, which is seen on the side of the existing dwelling and proposed rear elevation. Although both dormer windows would be large both would be obscured from view either by the high boundary treatment to the south of the site and the extent of projection of the property to the north of the application dwelling. A condition would be required to ensure that the materials used on the external surface match the existing dwelling to retain the character of the dwelling.

Therefore taking all of these points into careful consideration the proposal would not be detrimental to the character of the dwelling and street scene. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Kent and Medway Local Plan 2003.

DC0902MW page 78 Neighbour Amenities

The neighbour at Stonefield is located to the north of the application site. The siting and extent of the neighbouring property in relation to the application property as proposed to be extended means that the proposal will not cause harm in relation to outlook, shadow or sunlight. The proposal would result in there being two first floor windows in the north flank facing this neighbouring property. This neighbouring property does not have any windows at first floor facing the application dwelling. The proposed dormer window would serve a bathroom and therefore a condition would be used to ensure obscure glazing is used to prevent a detrimental impact on this neighbours privacy. The other window would be a roof light and would serve a bedroom within the roofspace of the existing property. This will face onto the flank wall of the neighbouring property and will not impact on amenity

To the rear a window will be installed within the rear gable of the extension. This will provide a view into the rear part of the garden of Stonefield. While this does not currently occur the character of the area is mixed with 2 storey dwellings and chalet bungalows where there is an element of mutual overlooking of gardens. In the light of this, this impact is considered acceptable.

Stoke Community School is located to the south of the application site. Due to the height of the boundary treatment and that there would be a distance of (approx) 11m between both buildings then there would not be a detrimental impact in terms of daylight, sunlight outlook and privacy.

Due to siting and distance, no other neighbours would be detrimentally affected by the development, in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy.

Therefore the overall proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding dwellings and is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local plan 2003.

Highways

There are currently 3 bedrooms provided at ground floor. The proposal would provide for 1 bedroom on the ground floor and 3 bedrooms within the roof space. Three car parking spaces are provided and this is considered sufficient to serve a property of the size proposed Therefore the proposal would be in accordance with Policy TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Conclusions and reasons for approval

The proposed extension would be located to the rear of the dwelling and considering the size of the plot, the design of the application dwelling and the proposal, there would not be a detrimental impact in terms of the character of the dwelling and the street scene. The distance between application dwelling and the neighbouring buildings, siting of habitable windows, height of boundary treatment and the conditions imposed means that there would not be a detrimental impact in terms of neighbours amenities. Therefore the proposal would be in accordance with Policy QL1 and TP19 of the Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1, BNE2 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

DC0902MW page 79 This application would normally fall to be considered under the officers’ delegated powers but has to be reported for Members’ consideration due to the representation made by Stoke Parish Council contrary to the recommendation.

DC0902MW page 80

10 MC2007/1139

Date Received: 3rd July 2007

Location: Land adjacent to 8 Rookery Crescent, Cliffe Rochester, Kent

Proposal: Construction of a detached 4-bedroomed dwellinghouse with parking provision (Resubmission of MC2007/0331)

Applicant: DK Leydon C/o Agent

Agent: Mr A Street Synergy PPL Limited The Estate Office Windmill Business Centre Wrotham Road Meopham Kent DA13 0AT

Ward: Strood Rural

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

2 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally 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 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, to erect at all sides of the rear garden of the dwelling hereby permitted close board or fixed panel fencing at a minimum height of 1.8m and thereafter to retain such fencing.

4 The roof level stairwell window on the eastern flank elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non opening with the exception of any fan light which shall have a minimum internal floor to opening height of 1.7m.

6 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, vision splays of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access points and no obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the splays thereafter.

7 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 other than those shown on the

DC0902MW page 81 approved plans shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the dwelling herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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 development within Part 1, Classes A, B, C and E of the Second Schedule to the Order shall be carried out on the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

9 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include hard surfacing materials and soft landscaping details including:- 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.

10 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.

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

Site Description

This application relates to a plot of land adjacent to 6 and 8 Rookery Crescent (a two-storey block of maisonettes) and is likely to have once been part of their garden space. The site is level and predominantly laid to lawn, with overgrown vegetation on the front boundary. Boundary treatment to the north and west is close-boarded fencing approximately 2 metres in height, and to the east is a low wall and fencing approximately 1 metre in height.

The site is located within a residential part of the village of Cliffe. The street scene is varied in terms of design and size of dwellings and comprises predominantly 2-storey detached and semi-detached properties, including several fairly recent infill developments. Nos. 6 and 8 to the east and 10 to the west have windows facing onto the site.

Proposal

The proposal is for construction of a detached dwelling with accommodation comprising kitchen, lounge, dining room, study and WC at ground floor; three bedrooms (one with en- suite) and family bathroom at first floor; and master bedroom with en-suite at roof level.

The main footprint of the dwelling would be 7.6m wide and 7.5m deep, with a shallow two- storey gable feature to front. The main roof would be gabled, with a small, pitched roof dormer window and two roof lights to rear. One parking space and a small area of soft

DC0902MW page 82 landscaping would be provided in the front garden, and the rear garden would be approx. 8m deep.

The proposal is a revision to a previously approved MC2007/0331; the dwelling has been moved closer to the eastern boundary due to the presence of a Southern Water sewer on the other side of the plot, and the main entrance has been relocated to the front elevation.

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.0210 ha (0.052 acres) Site density: 47.4 dph (19.2 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

MC2005/2317 Outline application for the construction of a pair of semi detached three bedroom houses Refused 13/03/06

MC2006/0510 Outline application for construction of a detached dwelling Approved 05/07/06

MC2006/0973 Construction of detached 4-bedroom dwellinghouse with parking provision Approved 14/07/06

MC2007/0331 Construction of a detached 4-bedroomed dwellinghouse with parking provision Approved 20/04/07

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of the following properties:5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 12 Rookery Crescent; 1, 2 & 3 Ann Villas, Thatchers Lane; 76 Reed Street; and the developer of the adjacent site.

Cliffe and Cliffe Woods parish council have objected to the proposal on the basis that the height of the dwelling and the additional accommodation in the roof space is out of keeping with the vast majority of residential properties in the area, and would lead to overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development) Policy HP4 (Housing: Quality and Density of Development) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

DC0902MW page 83 Medway Local Plan 2003

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

Planning Appraisal

Principle of Development

The site is located within the village boundary of Cliffe, which is identified under policy H11 of the adopted local plan as a rural settlement capable of accommodating minor infill development. The principle of a residential unit on this site has also been accepted by the approval of previous applications as detailed above. The principle of the development is therefore considered acceptable and is in accordance with Policy HP5 of the Structure Plan and Policy H11 of the adopted local plan. The main issues to be determined are:

- The visual impact of the proposal - Its impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties - Its impact on highway safety and efficiency

Street Scene and Design

The street scene in Rookery Crescent is varied and there are a number of modern infill properties visible nearby. The proposed dwelling follows the pattern of two-storey development and the building line of surrounding properties. Although accommodation is proposed within the roof space, this is served by a dormer and roof lights to the rear and therefore does not impact on the street scene. It is noted that a further new property has been approved on the adjacent site (adjacent no. 10 Rookery Crescent) and there is another application for that site also on this agenda; the properties would be spaced approx. 2.5m apart with a slightly lesser distance to the existing properties on either side; again this is similar to other developments in the street and it is therefore considered that this would not result in a cramped appearance. It is not considered that the re-siting of the dwelling from that previously approved causes harm to the street scene.

The design of the property is as previously approved and is considered acceptable in its context; the relocation of the entrance door to the front elevation is considered to be an improvement.

Overall, the visual impact of the proposal is therefore considered acceptable. In this respect the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the adopted local plan.

Trees

The vegetation to the front boundary does not include any trees of particular amenity value and its loss is not considered objectionable. Previous applications have included consideration of and measures to protect a large and attractive street tree in front of the site but unfortunately this has recently had to be removed due to damage from a passing high-

DC0902MW page 84 sided vehicle. There are therefore no tree issues with regard to the current proposal.

Amenity Considerations

The proposed dwelling would be roughly in line with the front and rear elevations of nos. 6 and 8 adjacent, and would be of similar height. While there are windows facing the site in the flank wall of nos. 6 and 8, these either serve non-habitable rooms or are secondary to windows on the main front and rear elevations. As such, while the proposal may cause some loss of outlook, daylight and sunlight to this property, this would be at a level to be expected in a residential area and would not be significantly detrimental to occupiers of the properties. The slightly closer siting (by approx. 0.5m) would not make a significant difference to the impact on this property.

The existing property at no. 10 is set some distance away and impact on this property would therefore be minimal. The new property proposed to be built between no. 10 and the application site is designed with only non-habitable rooms served by flank wall windows and with its front and rear elevations roughly in line with those proposed here; the impact on sunlight outlook and daylight to this property would therefore also be at an acceptable level. This is the same with the application for that site considered earlier on this agenda.

All other properties are at sufficient distance that they would remain unaffected by the proposal in terms of loss of outlook, sunlight and daylight.

In terms of loss of privacy to surrounding properties (including the proposed dwelling at no. 10), first floor and roof level windows would have some views into rear gardens, but such views are already a common feature of the area given the two-storey nature of the surrounding properties and are therefore not considered significantly detrimental. It is also noted that they were approved in the same position in the previous application. Ground floor flank windows and doors would be screened by boundary treatment and the only other flank window proposed serves a stairwell at roof level. A condition is recommended ensuring this is obscure glazed and preventing the installation of any further windows on the flank walls (which would have more damaging views into neighbouring properties).

The rear garden of the proposed property would be smaller than many others in the vicinity but would still provide a good level of amenity for future occupiers, and it is noted in this respect that some of the other infill properties have much smaller gardens.

The impact of the proposal on residential amenities is therefore considered acceptable and in this respect the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the adopted local plan.

Highways

One parking space is proposed within the front garden; while this is significantly below the adopted standard of three spaces for a four bedroom dwelling in a rural location, this is a maximum standard and on-street parking is available in the vicinity. This level of parking provision has also already been accepted through the previous approvals.

The provision of another private access onto Rookery Crescent is considered acceptable and adequate visibility can be provided; a condition is recommended to secure appropriate vision splays. The increased traffic associated with one additional dwelling would not have a

DC0902MW page 85 significant impact on highway safety and has also already been accepted by way of the previous approvals.

No highways objection is raised and the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies T1, T2 and T13 of the adopted local plan.

Conclusions and reason for recommendation

The proposed dwelling is very similar to those previously approved in an area where the principle of residential development is acceptable, and it is considered acceptable in terms of its visual impact, impact on surrounding properties and impact on highway safety/efficiency. Accordingly it complies with the abovementioned Development Plan policies and is recommended for approval.

This application would ordinarily fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers and has been referred for Members’ consideration due to the objection from Cliffe and Cliffe Woods parish council.

DC0902MW page 86

11 MC2007/1141

Date Received: 2nd July 2007

Location: Land adjoining 14 Berber Road, Strood, Rochester

Proposal: Construction of attached 3 bedroon dwelling with associated parking

Applicant: Diamond Letting Property Ltd 145 Willington Street Maidstone Kent

Agent: Mr J S Alford Three Elms Pip's View Cooling Rochester, Kent ME3 8DH

Ward: Strood North

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

3 The hallway window on the flank elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non opening with the exception of any fan light which shall shall be a minimum of 1.7m above the internal floor level. Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order, no further windows shall be installed in this elevation or the flank roof slope without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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.

6 The area in the front garden shown as soft landscaping shall be retained as such and notwithstanding the provisions of any development order, no hard surfacing shall be carried out in this area without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

DC0902MW page 87 For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.

Site Description

The application site comprises the side garden of 14 Berber Road, which is mainly laid to lawn with an overgrown frontage. No. 14 itself is a two-storey end-terrace property set above road level. Land levels slope down to the northwest (side) and then step up to Slatin Road properties to the rear. No. 14 and its garden are set significantly higher than no. 12, which has been extended to the side at two-storeys. The boundary between the two properties is panel fencing approx. 1.3m high. The area is residential in character and consists predominantly of terraced properties, with some differences in detailing. Most properties do not have off-road parking due to the land levels and the small size of front gardens. On street parking is available.

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of an end-terrace house. Accommodation would comprise kitchen, lounge-diner and WC at ground floor and three bedrooms and family bathroom at first floor. This would be stepped down from no. 14, with a hipped roof and catslide feature to the side; the main dwelling would be in line with the front and rear elevation of no. 14, with the catslide element stepped slightly back from the front to allow for provision of one driveway parking space in the front garden. The existing rear garden would be split between existing and new properties, narrowing to the rear.

Site Area/Density

Site area: 0.0148 ha (0.036 acres) Site density: 68 dph approx (27.7 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

MC2005/1241 No. 24 Berber Road Construction of one end of terraced 2-bedroomed house with associated car parking spaces Refused 26/09/05

MC2006/1459 No. 2 Slatin Road Outline application for the erection of one 2-bedroomed end of terraced dwelling Approved 28/09/06

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of the following properties: 11, 12, 13 and 14 Berber Road and 15 and 17 Slatin Road.

Four responses (from three properties) have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

- Loss of light, outlook and privacy

DC0902MW page 88 - Parking is a problem in the area and one space is not sufficient for the new dwelling - Proposed dwelling will make road “messy looking and closed in” - Contrary to human rights - Proposed dwelling will cause anti-social behaviour - Impact on health of elderly residents - Structural concerns

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development) Policy HP4 (Housing: Quality and Density of Development) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Principle of Development

The principle of residential infilling within the main urban area is acceptable under the terms of Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan, subject to detailed consideration of its impacts. The main issues to be considered in determining the application are therefore:

- The impact on the character of the area - The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties - The highways implications

Street Scene and Design

The area is residential in character consisting predominantly of terraced properties. The proposed dwelling would constitute a new end-terrace property following the established pattern of development in the area. While it does not exactly reproduce the detailing of the adjoining property, it follows the same basic form with a hipped roof and catslide to the side, and as properties in the area are of mixed appearance it would not appear incongruous. The staggered ridge height and the fact that the built form steps down with the land levels are also features of existing properties in the area. The gap to no. 12 is fairly large at present and would be mainly filled by the proposed dwelling, but gaps of this scale are not a common feature in the area and it is not considered that its loss would be detrimental to the street scene, particularly since the only views over it are of the backs of Slatin Road properties. The provision of a parking space in the front garden is unusual as most properties do not have sufficient depth for this, but a good sized area of soft landscaping would also be provided.

DC0902MW page 89 Overall, the visual impact of the proposal is therefore considered acceptable. In this respect the proposal is in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1 and H4 of the adopted local plan.

Amenity Considerations

The property is sited in line with both adjacent properties, and steps down towards no. 12 with the catslide roof further minimising its bulk. While there would be some loss of sunlight and daylight to rear garden areas this would not be at a significant level. No. 12 has a large window in the side flank but as this serves a non-habitable room (hallway) any loss of outlook, sunlight or daylight would not be significantly detrimental to the occupiers. The windows and door to no. 14 would be blocked up but again as these are not the sole windows to habitable rooms this would not be significantly detrimental. The main entrance door would be on the side elevation but this would be screened by boundary treatment, and at first floor the window proposed would serve a hallway and could therefore be conditioned to be obscure glazed to prevent loss of privacy to no. 12. The distance between the rear elevation of the new properties and those in Slatin Road would be approx. 20m; the relationship would be the same as between existing properties and it is considered that this distance is sufficient to prevent any significant loss of outlook, sunlight, daylight or privacy to these properties.

The property would provide a good level of amenity for future occupiers, and although garden sizes (for the new property and no. 14) are small, they are adequate for their purpose and comparable to others in the area. It is noted that this was one of the grounds for refusal of the application at the other end of the terrace, but the arrangement here is different, particularly the sloping boundary.

The proposal’s impact on neighbouring amenities is therefore considered to be acceptable. In this respect the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the adopted local plan.

Highways

The additional traffic generated by one dwelling would be minimal and would not have a significant impact on highway safety or efficiency in the area. Sufficient visibility for the proposed driveway can be provided within the site. The provision of a single off-road parking space accords with adopted maximum standards, and is greater provision than the majority of properties in the area. While it is noted that on-street parking is in demand in the area, there is still some available and it is not considered that the extra demand from one dwelling (particularly given its on-site provision) would be detrimental to highway safety or to the amenity of neighbouring residents.

The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies T1, T2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan.

Other matters

Issues of impact of construction works (both structural impact and in terms of noise and disturbance) are covered by other legislation and therefore cannot be taken into account during consideration of the planning application.

DC0902MW page 90 The proposed dwelling is comparable to most others in the area and there is nothing to suggest that it would be any more susceptible to anti-social behaviour (either as a target or due to the type of residents) than any others.

It is noted that one of the objectors feels the proposal would be detrimental to their human rights, although it has not been stated in what way. The rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1988 which could be relevant to this application are: Article 1 (the protection of property), Article 6 (the right to a fair trial), Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The recommendation contained in this report has been made proportionately, ensuring that interference with the above rights as contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 is no more than is necessary when balancing the landowners’ and the Council’s concerns, the public interest and the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Conclusion and reasons for approval

For the reasons given above, it is considered that the proposed new dwelling is acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area, the amenity of surrounding properties and highway safety and efficiency. The proposal complies with the aforementioned Development Plan policies and is accordingly recommended for approval.

This application would ordinarily fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but has been referred for Members’ consideration due to the number of representations received contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

DC0902MW page 91

12 MC2007/1179

Date Received: 10th July 2007

Location: 35 North Road Cliffe Rochester ME3 7UH

Proposal: Construction of two storey extension to side, single storey extension to front and rear (demolition of conservatory)

Applicant: Mr C Steadman 35 North Road Cliffe Rochester Kent

Agent: Mr B L Cullen Kent Drawings Office 1, First Floor 25 High Street Rainham Gillingham, Kent ME8 7HX

Ward: Strood Rural

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the development herein approved shall match those used on the existing dwelling.

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 windows shall be installed in the northern and southern flank walls of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Site description

The application dwelling is a two-storey semi-detached property located within a residential area. The street scene comprises of two-storey semi-detached properties which are similar in design and style. To the front of the dwelling there is a small single storey extension 1.25m in projection. To the side of the dwelling there is an area of hard standing providing parking for two vehicles.

To the rear of the dwelling there is a conservatory projecting (approx) 2.8m. The rest of the garden is covered by planting and lawn. The boundary treatment on the east is close boarded fencing (approx) 1.5m high where as on the west the fencing starts at (approx) 1.5m high and reduces to (approx) 1m high.

Within the vicinity there are a number of extensions to the front, side and rear of dwellings. There are a number of two-storey side extensions, the majority of which are not recent apart

DC0902MW page 92 from the one at 37 North Road which is located 1m off the boundary and was approved in 2005.

Proposal

The submitted application proposes the construction of a part two /part single storey side extension and single storey front and rear extensions with the demolition of the existing conservatory.

The proposed single storey front element would be (approx) 1.25m in projection, (approx) 5.4m in width and (approx) 2.55m high creating a new porch and allowing more space for the new bedroom at ground floor.

The part single/two storey side element would be (approx) 2.5m in width, up to (approx) 11.1m in length and up to (approx) 7.3m high. Creating a new kitchen at ground floor and allowing the reconfiguration of the first floor to allow a new study and fourth bedroom.

The single storey rear extension would be (approx) 3.5m in projection, 7.686m in width and up to (approx) 3.75m high, creating a new lounge/diner.

It is noted that the floor plan of the existing dwelling provided by the agent does not show the single storey front projection. The officer has measured this on site and the existing single storey front extension is the same as shown on the proposed single storey front projection. The proposal would result in the number of bedrooms increasing from three to five.

This application is different from the recently refused scheme (MC2007/0443) due to it being sited off the boundary with number 33 by 1m rather than 500mm.

Relevant Planning History

86/357 Proposed two-storey rear and single storey side extensions, Approved, 24th June 1986 (39 North Road)

MC2000/0862 Erection of a first floor side extension, Approved 23rd August 2000 (25 North Road)

MC2001/1425 Conversion of garage into habitable room together with first floor extension to side, Approved 1st October 2001 (34 North Road)

MC2005/1153 Construction of a first floor side extension and new-pitched roof to single storey rear projection Approved 28th September 2005 (37 North Road)

MC2006/1199 Construction of a part two part single storey side extension and single storey front and rear extensions (demolition of existing conservatory) Withdrawn

DC0902MW page 93 MC2007/0443 Construction of a part two /part single storey side extension and single storey front and rear extension (demolition of existing conservatory) Refused, 8th May 2007

Representations

Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 33, 34, 36, & 37 North Road

The Fire service has written in drawing attention that the proposed alterations may bring a situation of non-compliance with Approved Document ‘B’ as the travel distance exceeds 45 metres. The fire service would look favourably upon the installation of an approved sprinkler system. (This is a matter covered under building regulations)

Cliffe & Cliffe woods Parish Council has written to object to the application and stated that they have concern with regard to the potential loss of parking provision and that the development would seek to increase the number of bedrooms without increasing the parking provision.

Development Plan Policies

Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 Quality of development and design Policy TP19 Vehicle parking standards

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 General principles for built development Policy BNE2 Amenity protection Policy T1 Impact of development PolicyT13 Vehicle parking standards

Planning Appraisal

Street scene and design

The single storey front extension would be the same extent of projection as the existing single front projection and it would also have the same roof design. There is a canopy to the front of number 37 North Road which projects a similar distance.

The single storey rear extension would be larger than the existing conservatory by (approx) 0.7m in projection. However the proposal would be similar in its extent of projection as the conservatory at number 37 North Road and other single storey projections within the street scene to the rear.

The two/single storey side extension would not be the first within this particular street scene. However the majority of extensions were built some time ago and have been built to boundary. The most recent approval is at number 37 North Road and is located off the boundary by 1m. The proposal would be sited off the boundary by 1m, which would mean that there would be sufficient space retained between properties to protect the character of the street scene and address the concerns raised with the previous application.

DC0902MW page 94

In terms of design all the various extensions have been designed to reflect the character and appearance of the existing property and will be constructed of materials to match.

Therefore taking all of these points into careful consideration the proposal would not be detrimental to the character of the dwelling and the street scene and is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Kent and Medway Local Plan 2003.

Neighbour Amenities

The neighbour at 37 North Road is located to the east of the application dwelling. The siting and extent of projection of the front and side elements of the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of this neighbouring property. The siting of this neighbours conservatory, impact of the existing conservatory on the application site as well as the impact of the existing boundary treatment means that it would not be a detrimental on the amenities of this neighbour. The height of the boundary treatment means that a condition would be recommended to control the siting of any windows which maybe added at later date to this flank, due to the potential impact in terms of privacy.

The neighbour at 33 North Road is located to the west of the application dwelling. The siting and extent of projection of the front element of the proposal would mean that this aspect of the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of this neighbour. This neighbour has two first floor windows facing the application site. The first serves a sole bedroom window and the other serves a storage room. As the window to the storage room serves a non habitable room the impact is acceptable. The bedroom window is located within a two storey rear extension and the proposed two storey side extension to the application property will not extend as far to the rear as the neighbours window and will therefore not have a negative impact in terms of light and outlook. The single storey rear extension will not impact on the neighbour due to their own rear extension.

Due to siting and distance, no other neighbours would be detrimentally affected by the development, in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local plan 2003.

Highways

The proposal would result in the creation of a fourth and fifth bedroom. Two off street parking spaces exist and this is considered sufficient to serve the needs of the property as proposed to be extended. Therefore the proposal would be in accordance with Policy TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Conclusions and reasons for approval

The design of the proposal would be in keeping with the design principles of the existing dwelling and the surrounding street scene. The impact on neighbouring amenity is considered acceptable and there is sufficient car parking to serve the needs of the occupiers. Therefore the proposal would be in accordance with the above mentioned policies and is accordingly recommended for approval.

DC0902MW page 95 This application would normally fall to be considered under the officers’ delegated powers but has to be reported for Members’ consideration due to the representation made by Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council contrary to the recommendation

DC0902MW page 96

13 MC2007/1207

Date Received: 20th July 2007

Location: 16-22 London Road Rainham Gillingham ME8 6YX

Proposal: Construction of a part single, part two storey building for use as ground floor A5 (Hot Food Takeaways) and first floor storage/staff room (demolition of buildings)

Applicant: First London Developments Ltd 239 Regents Park Road Fincham London N3 3LF

Agent: Mr J Hancock Brocklehurst Architects 15 High Street West Wycombe Bucks. HP14 3AE

Ward: Twydall

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three 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 retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the building approved other than those on the plans herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

5 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); 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 page 97 species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

6 No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance including replacement of stock that dies or is destroyed for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

7 The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 09:00 to 22:30 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 21:30 Sunday and Bank Holidays.

8 No servicing or deliveries to the site shall take place outside the hours 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 18:00 Saturday or at any time on Sunday or Bank Holidays.

9 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for the extraction and treatment of cooking fumes, including details for the control of noise and vibration from the system, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is brought into use and thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

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

11 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of cycle racks for bicycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The cycle racks shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being bought into use and maintained thereafter. 12 Vision splays of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access points and no obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the splays thereafter.

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

Site Description

The application relates to the curtilage of a vacant petrol station. To the east is an office with several flank wall windows at first and ground floor, to the west is an osteopath on the ground floor with obscure glazed flank wall windows that relate to treatment rooms and on the first

DC0902MW page 98 floor a residential property with habitable room flank wall windows. To the north is a tyre fitters and to the south across the A2 residential premises and office use.

Proposal

The application concerns the demolition of the present structures and the construction of a part single part two-storey building for use on the ground floor as A5 (Take away) and the first floor as storage/staff room.

The building is proposed to the south side of the plot approx. 7.8m from the front boundary. The ground floor of the building is approx. 13.6m long, 18.15m wide and the single storey portion is 3m in height with a flat roof. The first floor is approx. 6.5m long, 18.15m wide and 8.4m in height with a pitch roof.

The external walls are proposed to be finished in brickwork up to the head of the glazed shop fronts with render to the first floor element. The first floor windows are of domestic proportions with larger shop window glazing to the ground floor at the front.

The ground floor is proposed for use as an A5 take away, the development is shown as being split into two units of equal size but the Design Strategy suggests that the building has been designed to be flexible to be used as a single A5 unit or two A5 units.

Twelve parking spaces are proposed to the rear of the site with two being used for disabled parking. Cycle parking is proposed to the front of the site. The existing “one way” access and egress from the site is proposed to be retained in the same position. Servicing of the units is provided by a delivery bay to the rear of the site, which also doubles as two parking spaces when not in use. To the north west corner of the site is an area dedicated for bins.

Representations

The application has been advertised by means of a site notice. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of:

1, 2, 2a, 4, 18, 31, 36, 45 Edwin Road, 12, 12a, 14, 24, 24a, 26, 26a, 28, 275, 277, 279, 281, 285, 287, The Hop and Vine P.H, Watling Tyres, Jade Business Bureau London Road and 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 Elizabeth Court.

35 letters and a petition with 7 signatures have been received raising the following concerns:

- Site notice does not stipulate the actual use and purpose of the building to be constructed - The Council website does not provide any further information upon which to make a reasoned judgement - Parking at the bottom of Edwin Road on both sides is already a hazard for traffic trying to enter or exit onto the London Road causing congestion and traffic jams especially at peak times. As Edwin Road is directly opposite the siting of the proposed development it is certain that the parking will increases as a convenience for those shopping at the fast food outlet. - Increased risk of accidents - Litter problems - Problems with vermin - Reduction in the quality of life to residents

DC0902MW page 99 - There is no need for another fast food outlet in the area which would be totally out of character for the locality - Distress to elderly residents - Too near to existing homes - Non-fast food companies have showed an interest, surely those would be preferable - Predominantly a residential area and such a takeaway with late opening hours is not suitable, particularly as it will be adjacent to sheltered housing for older people. - Noise disturbance - Unsocial behaviour from potential users - Deliveries at unsocial hours - Car park will be misused when premises are closed - Harm to residential amenity - Impact on Osteopath business due to odour, litter, vermin and anti-social behaviour - Will be detrimental to Character of area - Timing of the application is unfortunate due to the summer recess period with many residents being away on holiday and local Councillors on leave and out of contact - Close proximity to sheltered housing at Elizabeth Court - Air pollution - Disadvantaged because there is not the right to publicly speak at the meeting - Request a site visit - No closing times for serving food, delivering foodstuffs or collection of refuse indicated in the application. Night item activities do not fit in with this residential area - With the health of the population and obesity a major in this country, it does not seem logical to constantly allow more fast food establishments to open - Historic traffic problems with the site was last used as a petrol station, when traffic was entering or leaving the site, particularly when turning right across the traffic when travelling west along London Road and equally when exiting the site and turning towards Gillingham on London Road. Also Edwin Road is no right turn onto London Road so people will have to drive across the travel flow. To confuse matters more there is a cycle track across the site.

One letter of support has been received

The Environment Agency have written stating:

No objections providing conditions are added with regard to potential contamination.

They have also said “The developer as waste producer has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. No soakaway should be sited in or allowed to discharge into land impacted by contamination or land previously identified as being contaminated. Soakaways are therefore unlikely to be acceptable on this site for surface water disposal. If existing drainage is to soakaway then soakaways should be removed and excavations validated as clean. Surface water should be sent to mains drainage, as must foul drainage”.

DC0902MW page 100 Southern Water has written raising no objection but referring to the location of the public sewer (This letter has been copied to the applicants) 32 additional letters/emails of representation have been received (including those directly to councillors and copied to officers) making the same comments as set out in the report with the additional points as follows:

- The proposed development by reasons of its siting, design and floor use of vacant land would represent an out of character form of development in the locality and street scheme contrary to Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and the Medway Local Plan 2003 - Summer recess period makes it difficult for residents to respond or contact councillors - Site visit requested due to highway concerns - Many accidents when was a garage

The Agent has written making the following comments on representations received

- The site is an existing filling station and the scheme uses the same access, crossovers and filter lane as the filling station. - Parking has been provided to maximum standards - The site is zoned for retail but retail users not interested due to proximity of Tesco’s - Most interested tenants want mostly deliveries which will reduce highway issues and anti social activity - Southern Water has written advising that they can provide foul and service water disposal and make recommendations for the applicant (these have been forwarded)

Development Plan Policies

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (Built Environment) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Considerations) Policy BNE3 (Noise Considerations) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated Land) Policy BNE43 (Trees and development sites) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards) Policy R10 (Local centers, village shops and neighbourhood centers) Policy R18 (Take away hot food shops, restaurants, cafes, bars and public houses)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Built Environment) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning History

GL/61/229/90/0233 Proposed redevelopment to include new sales building, petrol pumps and canopy. Approved 29 June 1990

DC0902MW page 101 MC2000/0935 Display of various internally illuminated and non-illuminated signs Approved 25 July 2000

MC2001/1443 Application for prior approval under Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 for the siting of a 15m high telecommunications street tower with one tri-sector antenna and ancillary equipment cabin Withdrawn

MC2005/0252 Demolition of buildings and construction of building for use as car wash facility with ancillary office Refused 21 November 2005

MC2007/1207 Construction of single storey building for use as two units, unit A Class A1 and unit B Class A5 (demolition of buildings) Refused 14 May 2007

Planning Appraisal

Principal

The site lies within the Medway Towns urban area and in a recognised neighbourhood centre in the adopted Local Plan and the principle of commercial development including A5 9Take away) uses is unobjectionable in development plan and national planning policy guidance terms subject to design, neighbourhood amenity and highways issues being satisfied.

Street Scene and Design

The proposed building located to the front of the site with commercial use on the ground floor and storage/staff room at first floor fits in well with the prevailing character of the area, which comprises properties that are set to the front of their plots. The vacant site now lends itself to being enhanced and it is considered that a two storey development, set closer to the front of the site would be a better use of the site and would be more in keeping with the frontage of adjoining properties and hence more in character with the street scene than the current set up and is regarded as acceptable. While the large expanse of the flat roof portion of the single storey element is not aesthetically pleasing it is hidden from most angles of view by the surrounding buildings and is of a functional design that is not considered so objectionable to refuse the scheme.

The agents have supplied marketing information with regard to the potential users of the ground and first floor and the plans propose a flexible ground floor layout that can be one A5 or split into two A5 uses. The preferred use of the site would have been as mixed use but as set out in the information supplied with the application there is little demand for office accommodation in this area with a surplus in the nearby Gillingham Business Park. The parking set to the rear of the site is functional and yet hidden from sight, which is an improvement to the previously refused scheme. The raised planting beds to the front of the site will enable soft landscaping to enhance the street scene and soften the building and otherwise hard streetscape.

As such the proposed development is considered to be in character with the prevailing streetscene. The proposal is in accordance with policy QL1 of the KMSP 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the MLP

DC0902MW page 102

Neighbour Amenities

While the new building would be approx. double the size of the present petrol filling station building and two stories in height, the existing canopy over the forecourt would be demolished. Due to the siting of the building with regard to the neighbours habitable room windows and the design of the building which reduces to single storey to the rear, the development is considered to be unlikely to have any material impact upon the prevailing conditions of light, outlook or privacy for neighbouring properties other than by way of possible improvement.

Noise from operation of commercial units and deliveries

The primary form of control of noise generated within the premises will be by way of hours of operation. In order to safeguard the situation a condition is recommended on any forthcoming consent to be subject to the following hours of use: -

09:00 to 22:30 Monday to Saturday 09:00 to 21:30 Sunday and Bank Holiday

Odour

It is unclear from the details supplied whether a kitchen extract system is proposed. If such a system is to be installed the ventilation system should be capable of suppressing and dispersing fumes and odours due to cooking operations on the premises to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area. In order to safeguard the situation a condition is recommended on any forthcoming consent that a scheme for the extraction and treatment of cooking fumes, including details for the control of noise and vibration from the system, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Contaminated Land

Assessments have been submitted and considered. The conclusion of those assessments, the recommendations contained within them and consideration of them by the Council is that with appropriate remediation the site is suitable for the proposed development, however suitably worded conditions would need to be imposed to ensure a full site investigation is undertaken and that a method statement is submitted for piled foundations should these be the preferred method of construction.

As such the proposed development is considered in accordance with policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Highways

The previous use of this site as a petrol filling station will have generated a higher level of traffic than the retail units currently proposed, and therefore the impact upon the surrounding road network is likely to be lower. Compared with a petrol filling station, the units are more likely to attract customers traveling by modes other than the private car: London Road is on a cycle route, a strategic bus corridor, and pedestrian crossing facilities are adjacent to the site. Similarly, this application maintains the access arrangements associated with the previous use, which is also considered acceptable, as there will be no intensification in the use of the site. Swept path analysis has been submitted that demonstrates large vehicle access and

DC0902MW page 103 maneuvering, and it is likely the size of the delivery vehicles will be smaller than those required to service the petrol filling station previously on the site. In addition, it is probable that deliveries would take place outside of peak business hours, and therefore the servicing arrangements are unlikely to result in conflict with customers of the units. Analysis of the accident database indicates that there has been one slight accident on the London Road in the vicinity of the site (between Bowaters Roundabout and the London Road/Caldew Road junction) in the last 36 months, with no accidents recorded at the London Road/Edwin Road junction.

Medway Council Parking Standards indicate a maximum of 12 car parking spaces should be provided for the development and this provision has been incorporated into the layout, with the bays adjacent to the building suitable for a delivery vehicle. Therefore, although representations have been received expressing concern about existing on-street parking in Edwin Road, and the potential for overspill parking as a result of the development, this application could not reasonably be expected to provide a greater on-site parking provision, as to do so would exceed the Parking Standards for a development of this use class. It is considered appropriate for the development to provide cycle parking facilities, and this will be secured by condition.

The proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy T19 of the KMSP 2006 and T13 of the MLP 2006

Trees

There are no trees of any significance on the application site. There are several overgrown shrubs within the vicinity of the existing garage. There are 3 mature Sycamore situated on the rear boundary of 24 London Road. These trees are situated between 2 and 4 metres from the boundary of the development site. These trees are of low amenity value as they have been badly pruned in the past and are probably self-seeded. In view of the fact that these trees are of low amenity value and the proposed works appear to be taking place outside of the root protection area, no objection is raised. As such the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Conclusions and Reasons for approval

The proposed development will not be out of context with its surroundings and it is considered to be acceptable for the reasons outlined above. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policy QL1, and T19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE3, BNE23, BNE43, T13, R10 and R18 of the Local Plan and the application is accordingly recommended for approval.

[The application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers but has been referred to Committee due to the number of representations received contrary to officer’s recommendation.]

[This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 29th August 2007, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.]

DC0902MW page 104

14 MC2007/1208

Date Received: 6th July 2007

Location: Chatham Grammar School For Boys Maidstone Road Chatham Medway ME4 6JB

Proposal: Application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country General Planning Regulations 1992 for construction of a two storey pitched gable ended welfare block

Applicant: Medway Council Children's Services Medway Council Civic Centre Strood Rochester KENT

Agent: Mr S B Gilberthorpe Medway Council Design & Surveying Manager Annexe B, Civic Centre Strood, Rochester Kent ME2 4AU

Ward: Chatham Central

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

3 No development shall take place until full details of soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details 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.

4 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.

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

DC0902MW page 105 a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work).

6 No construction operations shall take place except between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday, 09:00 and 13:00 on Saturday, and no operations shall take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays, except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Site Description

Chatham Grammar School for Boys and Chatham South School have adjoining sites between Letchworth Avenue, Park Crescent, Walderslade Road and the rear of dwellings in Maidstone Road. The Grammar School is located on the northern and western part of this joint area. The site of the proposed detached building is on the west side of the Grammar School site (in an area of protected open space and home to a number of mature trees) and is proposed to be located between existing school buildings to the south and north. The area in question for the new build is currently locating a school mobile building proposed for removal. East of the proposed development are existing games courts and beyond properties along Park Crescent. To the west and north-west across a small access and parking area are rear gardens of the houses in Letchworth Avenue and Maidstone Road. To the south are further school buildings.

Vehicular access to the school site is made via Letchworth Avenue; however, an additional pedestrian access is located on Maidstone Road.

Proposal

This application seeks planning permission under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country General Planning Regulations 1992 for the construction of a two storey pitched gable ended welfare block.

DC0902MW page 106 This project enables the provision of welfare facilities that are much needed by the School. It includes an inclusion area, special needs area, medical room and interview rooms. This is in addition to the provision of spaces for personnel in positions where privacy equates to pupil dignity and support.

This permanent built will be replacing temporary modular classroom facilities currently occupying a percentage of the footprint. The temporary planning permission for the modular buildings expires in autumn 2007. By creating this freestanding block, dedicated to this type of learning, further space will be freed up within the rest of the school.

North of the proposed site is a newly constructed steel framed gable ended traditional brick maths block (built in 2004). The new build will be built in the same manner (i.e. matching bricks, windows, fascia and roof tiles), so as to match in with the character of the school environment. The new block will also be arranged in a similar way to the existing Maths block, so as to maintain the character of the school.

Relevant Planning History

The most recent of many applications on this school site are:

MC2001/523 Temporary permission for two mobile classrooms. Approved 18 May 2001, expired 30 June 2004.

MC2001/928 Ball stop fencing. Approved 22 August 2001.

MC2001/1886 Two storey classroom block and removal of two mobile classrooms. Approved 31 July 2002.

MC2003/2264 1.98 high security fencing and gates. Approved 2 February 2004.

MC2004/1660 Two linked mobile classrooms. Approved 10 September 2004 . MC2005/0508 Detached open sided structure consisting of 8 Dalo canopies to provide sheltered waiting area adjacent to science block. Approved 3 May 2005.

MC2006/0019 Single storey extension to provide two art studios, two classrooms and ancillary facilities. Approved.

Representations

The application has been advertised on site by way of 3 site notices. Neighbour Notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of all properties in Letchworth Avenue, and Park Crescent; 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123,125, 127, 129, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216 (flats 1 – 11), and 218 Maidstone Road; 1,

DC0902MW page 107 2, 3, 5, 6, 6a, 12, 14, 16, and 18 Walderslade Road; St Stephens Church and St Stephens Church Hall.

Three letters of representation have been received in objection to the proposal, in summary raising the following issues:

- This construction will add to the serious parking problems the residents of Letchworth Avenue have to put up with at present. No extra parking spaces are proposed on the school site. - The new built and resultant construction work will cause unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, noise and disruption. - The school is constantly expanding, and this is unacceptable on the near by neighbours. - The constant expansion of the school and increase in staff and pupil numbers will exacerbate parking and traffic problems. - If the proposal is to be given planning permission builders should follow the Code of Construction Practice in order to minimise impact on neighbours. - Concern that the proposal will result in the loss of attractive trees.

Development Plan Policies

Medway Local Plan, 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE43 (Trees on Development Sites) Policy L3 (Protection of Open Space) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Kent and Medway Structure Plan, 2006

PolicySP1 (Conserving and enhancing Kent’s environment and ensuring a sustainable pattern of development) Policy EN9 (Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development & Design) Policy QL11 (Protecting and Enhancing existing Community Services) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Principle

In principle there is no objection to additional development at this school as it is located within an urban area. Much of the open space and playing fields within the school grounds are designated as protected open space in the Local Plan. However, it is not considered that the development would compromise or conflict with the aims of Policy L3 of the adopted Medway Local Plan. The proposed new build would replace existing mobile classrooms on the site and would be sited in predominantly the same location. The new building would be incorporated into the main footprint of the existing school, located between two existing school buildings and would not encroach on any playing space or grassed areas on the

DC0902MW page 108 school site. The overall footprint of the school will not be dramatically altered, the development is complimentary in terms of scale and proportion in relation to existing surrounding buildings, and is well within the proportions of available grounds on site.

Development on this site is therefore acceptable in principle and the acceptability of the scheme rests on matters of detail:

– The visual impact, – The impact on trees, – The impact on neighbours and – Any parking and highway effects.

Street Scene and Design

The design of any new development should be considered appropriate in relation to the character, appearance and functioning of the built and natural environment and should be satisfactory in terms of use, scale, materials, layout and siting as well as respecting the scale, appearance and location of the buildings and spaces of the surrounding area. This proposal is considered satisfactory in terms of use, as it will be performing a function for the school and would also be in accordance with Structure Plan Policy QL11, which seeks to preserve and enhance existing community facilities (including schools).

With regard to scale, the building is designed to fit in with the existing adjacent school buildings and will be of a similar size and scale to the building to the north of the new development. Materials and design of the proposed new building have also been designed to match in with the existing building to the north. The new building will respect the surrounding character of the school environment and is considered acceptable under Local Plan Policy BNE1. The location of the proposed development will ensure that the development does not encroach beyond the built footprint of the school and will blend in with the existing school buildings, and be easily accessible for all users of the site. The new building does not encroach on playing field space and grassed areas and will not be out of place on the school site. The chosen location of the proposed development will also ensure that the building does not have a prominent or detrimental impact on the street scene beyond the school boundary as it will be ‘nestled’ in with other school buildings.

The development is therefore considered acceptable in terms of street scene and design and is in accordance with Local Plan Policy BNE1 and Structure Plan Policy QL1 and QL11.

Amenity Considerations

Although it is noted that the structure is in close proximity to existing school buildings, the positioning of the new build being east/west means that throughout the day, a shadow will not be passed over the existing buildings. There will not therefore be any detrimental impact on the working environments of staff and pupils within other adjacent buildings within the school.

The proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on neighbours of the school site given its distance from the boundary of the school and the nearest neighbouring properties (70m from the nearest boundary to the east and 90m from the nearest residential property along Park Crescent). The building will be seen by residents along Park Crescent and a small number in Letchworth Avenue, however, the school boundaries are well landscaped, with a number of large trees, particularly to the east, which will aid in mitigating any visual intrusion. Given the distance of the building from neighbouring properties and the chosen location of

DC0902MW page 109 the development between two existing school buildings, it is considered unlikely that there will be an unacceptable impact on neighbour and local amenity.

Throughout the course of the works there will be an element of noise created by the construction work. However, the position of the site is a fair distance from any adjoining residential properties. A condition will be attached to any Planning decision controlling hours of construction should Member’s be minded to permit.

It is considered that the proposed new welfare block is acceptable in terms of amenity protection and is in accordance with Local Plan Policy BNE2.

Trees

As indicated in Local Plan Policy BNE43 the retention of trees is an important factor in applications such as this one. Careful consideration has been taken in the siting of the new build so as to retain the three mature trees to the north west of the site. The applicant has satisfactorily achieved the required distance of 9 metres no build from the trees. However, it has been requested that a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultual Method Statement be submitted for approval.

A number of other conditions have also been requested in order to mitigate against any possible damage to the 3 trees adjacent to the development site. These include the need for prior approval of the scheme from a tree officer before any tree work is carried out and details of the location of tree protection fencing to be submitted along with a detailed landscaping scheme.

Policy BNE43 states that development should seek to retain trees that are considered to provide a valuable contribution to local character. It is generally considered, in light of Local Plan Policy BNE43 and Structure Plan Policy EN9 that this proposal is in accordance with this Local Plan Policy and is therefore acceptable in principle subject to the approval of a detailed Tree Protection Plan.

Highways

As the development is intended to improve the existing facilities on the site rather than to increase the capacity of the school there are unlikely to be any significant parking or highway effects. The existing and proposed staff and pupil numbers will remain the same at the school and will not change as a result of this proposal. It is therefore considered that there are no traffic and parking issues as a result of this proposal, as highway conditions will remain as existing. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Local Plan Policies T1, T2 and T13, and Structure Plan Policy TP19.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

In summary for the reasons given above the impact of the development is considered acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan. The application is accordingly recommended for approval.

The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being reported to committee due to the number of representations received expressing views contrary to the recommendation.

DC0902MW page 110

15 MC2007/1243

Date Received: 13th July 2007

Location: St Mons Stoke Road Allhallows Rochester ME3 9PD

Proposal: Construction of a two-storey side extension & dormer window to rear

Applicant: Mr R Mortley St. Mons Stoke Road Allhallows Rochester Kent ME3 9PD

Agent: Mr J Liddiard 14 Wentworth Drive Cliffe Woods Rochester Kent ME3 8UL

Ward: Peninsula

Recommendation - Refusal

1 The proposed rear dormer by virtue of its scale would be bulky in its appearance and would dominate the roof slope of the existing property detrimental to the character of the dwelling contrary Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Medway Structure Plan 2003.

2 The proposed two-storey side extension by virtue of scale would represent a significant floor area increase detrimental to the rural character of the street scene. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policies QL1 and EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1 and BNE25 of the Medway Structure Plan 2003.

Site description

The application dwelling is a two-storey semi-detached property located outside of the built confines of Allhallows as defined in the proposals map to the Local Plan. The property is one of a small cluster of properties (including a nursing home) set in the open countryside. The properties surrounding the application site are of various designs and styles. To the front of the dwelling there is an area of concrete providing parking for four plus vehicles, as well as an area covered by planting and lawn. To the side of the dwelling there is a conservatory projecting (approx) 4.25m in a northern direction. Located within the rear garden is a pre-fab garage, as well as a lean to conservatory on the rear elevation projecting (approx) 2m. There is an area of decking which is located to the side and rear of the dwelling.

Proposal

The submitted application proposes the construction of a two-storey side extension incorporating dormer window, insertion of dormer to rear to facilitate accommodation at first floor level and the demolition of the existing conservatory to the side.

DC0902MW page 111 The proposed two-storey side extension would be (approx) 4.55m in width, (approx) 7.7m in length, (approx) 8.4m in height, creating a new lounge at ground floor, three new bedrooms at first floor and a further bedroom within the roof space.

The proposal would result in the increase of the number of bedrooms at the property from three to seven.

Relevant Planning History

65/108/60 Erection of a private motor garage, Approved, 12th August 1960

Representations

Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners / occupiers of Norwood, The cabbage Patch Ashgrove & Allhallows House in Stoke Road.

No letters of representation have been received

Development Plan Policies

Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 Quality of development and design Policy EN1 Protecting Kent’s countryside Policy EN3 Protecting and enhancing countryside character Policy TP19 Vehicle parking standards

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 General principles for built development Policy BNE2 Amenity protection Policy BNE25 Development in the countryside Policy T1 Impact of development PolicyT13 Vehicle parking standards

Planning Appraisal

Principle

The existing property, while located within a small cluster of properties, is within the countryside being outside of the built confines of the settlement of Allhallows. Policy BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan states that extensions to existing dwellings in the countryside will only be accepted if they are “modest” and this is defined in the reasoned justification to the policy as no more than a 25% increase over the original dwellings floorspace. The proposed extension and conservatory would increase the floorspace of the existing property by 86% and is therefore significantly higher than the accepted figure and contrary to the provisions of the policy

DC0902MW page 112

Design and appearance

The proposed two-storey side extension incorporating a dormer window to the side would be visible from the highway. All aspects of the proposal would be visible from the open countryside surrounding the application site. The proposal would result in a significant increase in the scale of the dwelling.

The proposed rear dormer would cover the majority of the existing rear roof slope of the dwelling as well as the rear of the proposed two-storey side extension. The proposed dormer would be built off the ridgeline which would further increase the bulky appearance of this aspect of the proposal.

Accordingly both the size of the side extension and the extent of the rear dormer would be harmful to the appearance of the existing property, its appearance within the street scene and the character of the open countryside setting. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies QL1 and EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1 and BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Neighbour Amenities

Due to the extent of the alterations involved, impact from existing first floor windows and the siting of neighbouring properties, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 in terms of its impact on the amenities of the neighbours and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Highways

The proposal would result in the number of bedrooms increasing from three to seven. Taking into account the amount of off road parking currently provided there would be no detrimental impact on the highway in terms of parking problems and highway safety. Therefore the proposal would be in accordance with Policy TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Conclusions and reasons for refusal

The proposal would result in the application dwelling being significantly increased in its overall size and changing its appearance. The siting of the application dwelling outside the urban area as defined by the Medway Local Plan 2003 and its overall scale would represent a form of development which would be in excessive and bulky in its appearance and detrimental to the character of the dwelling, street scene and rural character. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policies QL1 and EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1and BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

This application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers, but is being reported for Members’ consideration at the request of Cllr Filmer]

[This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 29th August 2007, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.]

DC0902MW page 113

16 MC2007/1258

Date Received: 17th July 2007

Location: Estuary Reach, Pleasant Row, Brompton, Kent

Proposal: Extension to existing bin store (resubmission of MC2006/1124)

Applicant: Estuary Reach Management Company C/O Prime Folio Ltd

Agent: N Kuntawala Prime Folio Ltd 24 Ashford Road Maidstone Kent ME14 5BH

Ward: River

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

2 Materials used on the construction of the external surfaces of the bin store enclosure herein approved shall match those used on the existing bin store enclosure.

3 Waste material shall only be deposited and stored inside the bin store enclosures as shown on the approved plans.

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

Site Description

Estuary Reach is a modern development of 24 flats and 7 houses, granted planning permission in April 2003. The development is located on a slope that falls away to the west, down towards the river. There is an existing bin store for 4 bins in the car park located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site, and approx. 4m from the block of flats to the east containing Flats 1-6.

The site lies within the Brompton Lines Conservation Area. The surrounding area is predominantly made up of residential flatted accommodation.

Proposal

The application proposes an extension of the existing bin store. It is a resubmission of a previous application (MC2006/1124).

The extension will provide a store for a total of six 1100 litre bins on the site, including one for recyclable waste.

DC0902MW page 114 The proposed extension will be located to the eastern side of the existing bin store, adjacent to Flats 1-6. The bin store will have a maximum 1.2m high brick wall around it with a 0.9m high gauge trellis on top. There will be a tiled pitched roof over the enclosure, which will measure approx. 3m to the top of the pitch.

There are already 2 bins temporarily stored at the eastern side of the existing store, and a 1m high fence enclosing them at the side and rear.

This application differs from that one approved as it brings the bins stores closer towards the flats.

Relevant Planning History

MC2001/2147: Construction of 24 two bedroom flats, 7 houses and access road Approved 4 April 2003

MC2006/1124: Construction of bin store enclosure to provide two additional 1100 litre rubbish bins Approved 9 November 2006

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of Nos. 1-31 Estuary Reach, Nos. 11-50 Melville Court, and No. 8 Pleasant Row.

Four representations have been received from neighbouring properties, objecting on the following grounds:

- The bin store will be located very close to the block of flats 1-6 and their windows and doors - The bin store will not be able to be emptied if residents’ cars are parked outside it, plus cars will probably be damaged when access is attempted - The Design and Access Statement is misleading, as there will be changes to the landscaping to make way for the extension and changes in levels will limit/restrict access - There is existing noise from the bins; and rubbish is blown out of the bins when the lids are open - The visual impact of the bin from neighbouring properties is unacceptable - The bin store should be located well away from residents’ properties with unrestricted access - The bins should be fully enclosed; open trellis does not stop wind blowing open the bins and blowing rubbish around - The bins are used by residents of the remodelled apartments outside Estuary Reach and are not large enough to serve both developments - The smells have an adverse effect on nearby properties, and the bins attract flies and vermin - A lighting bollard will have to be removed to make way for the extension, which will reduce the already insufficient lighting in the car park and leave the area around the bin store unlit - Why has the proposed extension been moved from the other end of the

DC0902MW page 115 existing store?

Two letters of support have been received, with the following comments:

- The proposed bin store extension will provide protected cover for the bins, and will be aesthetically pleasing, as it will blend and match with the existing facility, and will simply extend this area and provide adequate waste disposal facilities - The proposal will offer a much needed increase in bin storage for Estuary Reach.

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 Quality of Development and Design Policy QL6 Conservation Areas

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 General Principles for Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy BNE12 Conservation Areas Policy BNE14 Development in Conservation Areas

Planning Appraisal

The main issues in the consideration of this application are as follows:

- The design and impact upon the street scene and the conservation area; - Whether the proposal would cause harm to the amenities of nearby residential properties.

Street Scene and Design

Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan states that the design of development should be appropriate in relation to the character, appearance and functioning of the built environment, and Policies BNE12 and BNE14 are concerned with the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas. The proposed bin store enclosure will be built in the same design as the existing bin store enclosure, and therefore there are no objections in terms of its visual impact on either the street scene or the conservation area.

Amenity Considerations

Policy BNE2 is concerned with the protection of amenity. The residential properties most likely to be affected by the proposal are the flats to the east of the existing bin store enclosure.

The bin store is not located directly in front of the doors and windows on the car park elevation of the block of flats, and as the land slopes down away from this block, the store is also at a slightly lower level. The extension will bring the bin store within 2m of the block of flats, compared to approx. 4m as existing. The height of the extension will not be excessive, and will match that of the existing store. Although the extension will bring the bin store closer to the flats, the affect on outlook will not be significantly worse than the existing situation.

DC0902MW page 116

There is likely to be a certain amount of smell from the existing bins, and there is already an affect on amenities in this regard; the addition of 2 further bins is unlikely to make smells significantly worse.

With regards to the issue of access to the bin store for refuse collection, the existing store is already located behind car parking spaces; the situation will be no different with the introduction of the proposed extension.

On balance, the proposal would not cause any undue harm to the present outlook and amenities of the occupiers of the residential units to the east or in the surrounding area, and therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval

It is considered that the proposed extension to the bin store is appropriate in relation to the character and appearance of the area. The impact on residential amenities is also considered to be acceptable. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policies QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE12 and BNE14 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

DC0902MW page 117

17 MC2007/1273

Date Received: 23rd July 2007

Location: 96 Frindsbury Road Strood Rochester ME2 4JB

Proposal: Change of use from A1 to A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) together with the erection of an extract duct riser to the rear

Applicant: Mr Ulus 96 Frindsbury Road Rochester Kent ME2 4JB

Agent: Mr Gibson Mast Projects LLP 11c Sherwood House Walderslade Road Chatham Kent ME5 9UA

Ward: Strood North

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

(as amended by plans received on 4th September 2007)

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

2 The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 08:00 to 23:00 Mondays to Fridays, 10:00 to 23:00 Saturdays and 12:00 to 22:00 Sundays.

3 No materials, plant or other equipment of any description shall be stored in the open other than in areas and to such heights as have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4 The development shall not be brought into use until arrangements for the conduction and extraction of fumes have been made in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such arrangements shall thereafter be retained.

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

Site Description

96 Frindsbury Road is a two-storey mid terrace property currently vacant (previously occupied as an off licence and grocer shop, Class A1) on the ground floor, with a self- contained flat on the first floor. The flat has its own external access stairway, situated at the rear of the premises. The adjacent building to the South west is 2 storey and occupied by a butchers, with residential above, the adjacent building to the North East is single storey and used by a blind shop. There is a pedestrian access to the side, whilst vehicular access to a rear parking area is derived via a drive between nos. 98 and 100 Frindsbury Road, which also serves a recently constructed detached bungalow (No.94a). Further to the south of this bungalow is another 2 storey residential property at No.92, set back from Frindsbury Rd. To

DC0902MW page 118 the rear of the application property the area is residential in character with bungalows in Watermill Close and houses in Banks Road.

On the opposite side of Frindsbury Road are a petrol filling station (with a 24 hour mini market) and the English Martyrs R.C. Primary School, separated by the junction of Frindsbury Road with Bill Street Road.

The application property lies within a local shopping centre, which consists of a parade of eleven units. Seven units, including the application property, are in Class A1 retail use, there is one D2 use and three are in food and drink Class A3 and A5 usage. Of the three units in food and drink use, two are A5 uses – take aways,- while one is A3 restaurant. The fish and chip shop at 110 Frindsbury Road has existed for a considerable number of years and represents a lawful use. The hot food takeaway at 88 Frindsbury Road was allowed on appeal on 18th March 1999. No.90 is in use as a restaurant having previously been a pub and the conversion was undertaken before the changes to the use classes order. It is noted that planning permission was granted under MC2001/0548 dated 15.08.2001 for a change of use to a Class A5 hot food takeaway at No.94 and which has not yet been implemented. As the 5 years expired on 15.08.2006 this consent has now lapsed.

Outside the shops are on-street car parking spaces (for approx 8 cars), restricted to 1 hour parking between 8:00 to 18:00 Monday to Saturday.

Proposal

The proposal is for the change of use of the premises from a Class A1 use to use as a hot food take-away outlet (Class A5), together with the erection of an extract duct riser to the rear. The off licence closed due to a lack of trade. The proposed opening hours are 08.00 to 23.00 Mondays to Fridays, 10:00 to 23:00 Saturdays and 12.00 to 22.00 on Sundays. Two additional full time and one part time member of staff will be employed at the premises, with the intention that staff would live in the first floor flat. An external extraction flue duct is proposed and this would be located on the eastern side elevation to the building and will discharge vertically ending 1m above the eaves.

The drawing also shows the provision of seven wheelie bins. These were viewed on site and are the blue commercial ones, serving all of the three shop units.

Along with the submitted drawings, technical specifications for anti-vibration mountings and an extractor fan have been submitted.

Relevant Planning History

No.94 Frindsbury

ME/85/851 Change of use of ground floor from launderette to hot food takeaway shop Refused 22nd November 1985

ME/93/0160 Change of use of ground floor from launderette into a butcher’s shop (Class A1) Approved 27th April 1993

MC2000/0156 Part change of use from butchers to hot food take-away.

DC0902MW page 119 Approved 29th March 2000

MC2001/0548 Change of use of butchers (Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Class A3) Approved 15.08.2001, now lapsed.

Representations

The proposal has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of 90, 92, 94, 94a, 96, 98, 100, 103, 105 and Tesco Express in Frindsbury Road; 1 and 2 Watermill Close.

Six letters have been received objecting to the application for the following reasons: -

- There is already a sufficient number of hot food takeaway outlets in this parade; - The site is opposite a busy junction and there is inadequate on- street parking; - Concern that the access to the rear bungalow at No.94a will be blocked by visiting cars; - The extractor flue will be in full view of all surrounding residential properties; and - Proposal will generate unacceptable levels of noise, cooking odours and litter;

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy EP18 (Urban and Rural Service Centres) Policy NR5 (Pollution Impacts) Policy TP15 (Development Traffic and Heavy Goods Vehicles) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Provision) Policy BNE3 (Noise Standards) Policy R10 (Local Centres, Village Shops & Neighbourhood Centres) Policy R17 (A2 and A3 Uses and Change of Use) Policy R18 (Takeaway hot food shops, restaurants, cafes, bars and public houses) Policy T1 (Impact of New development on the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

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

- Whether the principle of the change of use from retail (class A1) to a hot food takeaway (Class A5) use is acceptable and impact upon the retail centre, - Design and impact upon the street scene - Whether the proposal would cause harm to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential units/ buildings.

DC0902MW page 120 - Whether the proposal would prejudice highway safety and vehicle parking implications.

Principle

The site is located within a local shopping centre (Frindsbury Road 88-110 evens and 105- 109 odds) and is therefore subject to Policy R10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. This policy aims to prevent the loss of existing shopping facilities (Classes A1, A2 and A3) unless an improvement to local amenity or the provision of community facilities would occur to outweigh the loss. The proposed use falls within Class A5 (but was included within the old Class A3) and it therefore would be in accordance with this policy.

Policy R17 of the adopted plan contains a presumption against the change of use to Food and Drink (Class A3) use within a Local Centre unless the traffic and pedestrian flows generated are not detrimental to the surrounding uses; the proportion of non-shopping uses will not as a result of the proposal, exceed a level where the vitality and viability of the centre would be adversely affected; and the proposal will not in itself or in conjunction with existing similar uses or permissions, be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding area.

Although this use is for an A5 use, the policy is considered to still apply as when the policy was drafted Take aways fell within class A3 usage.

The percentage of existing uses within the parade is: A1 8 units (73%) A3/A5 3 units (27%) Total 11 units

The percentage of uses if the application site were to get permission for A5 use: A1 7 units (64%) A3/A5 4 units (36%) Total 11 units

If the proposal were allowed, the proportion of A1 units within this parade would decrease from 73% to 64% and the proportion of A3/A5 uses would increase from 27% up to 36%. However, as within the parade there will remain a reasonable mix of A1 and other uses, it is considered that the loss of one additional retail unit would not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the local centre.

In addition, the principle of a further A5 use within this parade has already been established by the grant of Planning Permission for No.94 Frindsbury, the permission for which has now lapsed. The biggest impact on the vitality and viability of this parade of shops, and one of the possible reasons for the failure of the off licence, is the recent development of the Tesco shop within the petrol filling station opposite.

It is therefore considered that the principle of the development is acceptable.

Street Scene and Design Considerations

Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies S4, BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan set out criteria for the assessment of proposals in terms of their impact on the built environment and design quality.

DC0902MW page 121 There are no external alterations proposed other than the flue to the rear, which will not be readily seen from Frindsbury Road, although it will be seen from Watermill Close to the south east, which is not considered so harmful as to warrant a refusal of planning permission. As a shop front appearance will be retained it is considered that there would be no harm to the appearance of the street scene.

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

Impact on Amenities

Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan seek to ensure that the amenities of prospective occupiers and those of existing residents are safeguarded. These policies seek to ensure that new development, including changes of use and commercial developments, will normally be refused if they detract from the existing pleasant appearance and character of the area and proposals should not give rise to levels of activity and traffic generation which would be detrimental to amenities of surrounding uses.

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

The proposed hours of opening of the takeaway are 08.00 to 23.00 Mondays to Fridays, 10:00 to 23:00 Saturdays and 12.00 to 22.00 on Sundays. This is a location with a mix of existing commercial uses including a number of other takeaway uses and as such these hours are considered reasonable. So far as the potential noise and disturbance caused by late night opening is concerned, it is considered that the proposal would not materially add to any disturbance caused by the existing takeaways and the public houses in the immediate area and no objection is raised in this regard.

Any consent granted must be conditioned with regard to opening hours so as to provide adequate safeguards against unreasonable disturbance to the occupiers of adjacent buildings/dwellings due to noise.

The issue of cooking odours can be addressed by the imposition of a condition requiring details of the fume extraction system to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and a condition to this effect is recommended. The applicant would need to demonstrate that such a system would be effective in terms of controlling odours, would not give rise to noise disturbance to neighbouring occupiers and that it would not be visually intrusive.

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

Highways Impact, Traffic and Car Parking

In terms of car parking provision, Policies T19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and T13 of the adopted local Plan set out parking standards (as maxima).

DC0902MW page 122 Policy T15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and Policies T1 and T2 of the adopted Local Plan deal with the impact of additional traffic caused by development and seek to ensure that the Highway network is adequate in terms of capacity and safety.

In relation to the existing use the current parking standards (as maxima) would allow the provision of a maximum of 3 car parking spaces for the shop use and 1.5 spaces for the 1st floor flat (total 4.5 spaces). The proposed change of use allows the provision of a maximum of 6 car parking spaces for the proposed takeaway and 1.5 spaces for the first floor flat resulting in a total of 7.5 spaces.

The submitted drawings do not show any provision for car parking. There is a layby to the front of the parade which is designed to serve the needs of customers to the shops within the parade, while there are parking spaces available within the petrol station opposite.

When the appeal at 88 Frindsbury Road was allowed, the Inspector was of the opinion that there was sufficient on-street parking in the vicinity and that the traffic and on-street parking generated by that unit would not result in additional traffic congestion or constitute a hazard. No additional parking was considered as being necessary when the application for the incorporation of a takeaway facility into the butcher’s shop was approved at No.94 Frindsbury and it is considered that the currently proposed use would not generate a level of additional traffic or parking that would be prejudicial to highway safety.

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

Recommendation and reasons for Approval

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.

This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ consideration due to the number of letters received raising objections contrary to the officers recommendation.

DC0902MW page 123

18 MC2007/1342

Date Received: 27th July 2007

Location: 90 Watling Street Gillingham ME7 2YS

Proposal: Change of use from retail (A1) to cafe (A3)

Applicant: Mrs C Liddle 84 Hunters Way Gillingham Kent ME7 3BS

Agent: Mr J Cook Architecnique Architects Unit 5A Spectrum Business Centre Medway City Estate Frindsbury Rochester Kent ME2 4NP

Ward: Watling

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

2 The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 0800 to 1700 Mondays to Saturdays inclusive and not at all on Sundays or National Holidays.

3 The use hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until arrangements for the conduction and extraction of fumes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including details of noise generated by the system and any measures for mitigation of this. The arrangements as approved shall be installed prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained.

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

Site Description

90 Watling Street is a two-storey mid-terrace property, with an extensive single-storey flat- roofed area to the rear. There is a retail (Class A1) unit at ground floor, currently occupied by a greengrocer, and a flat above.

The unit is in a terrace of six similar properties, and is part of a much longer commercial parade along both sides of the A2 Watling Street. There is a rear unmade service access. Some of the units have small parking areas to the rear. There are a number of small single- storey extensions to the rear of the terrace, and a large workshop building extends for some distance to the rear at the end of the access road. To the rear is a residential area which falls within the Gillingham Park Conservation Area.

There is a small parking lay-by to the front of the terrace, with capacity for a maximum of five cars, which is heavily used. On the opposite side of the road is an on-street parking bay accommodating around seven or eight cars; however, immediately opposite and on the

DC0902MW page 124 remainder of both sides parking is controlled by double yellow lines. Further to the west there is more lay-by parking outside other parts of the commercial parade. Parking for the residential properties to rear is generally on street only and is congested

Proposal

The proposal is for the change of use of the ground floor from Class A1 (retail) to Class A3 (café). The shop area would be used for seating and serving, with the rear extension being storage. Details of a fume extraction system are also shown, with ducting on the rear elevation finishing 1m above eaves level. Proposed opening hours are 0800-1700 Monday to Saturday.

Relevant Planning History

MC2007/0221 Change of use from retail to hot food takeaway (class A5) and construction of extraction flue to rear Refused 03/04/07

Representations

The application has been advertised on site, and notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: 86, 88, 92, 94, 103, 105, 107, 109, 113 & 115 Watling Street (and flats above); and 97 Holmside.

Five letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

- Lack of available parking; - There are already a number of hot food outlets in the area and the application will have an adverse effect of the variety of the area; - The parking bay outside the premises would become monopolised by the eating outlets preventing the quick turnover of visitors that would benefit the parade as a whole; - Competition with established businesses

A petition of 257 signatures has also been received attached to a letter from the proprietor of Gina’s café at 103 Watling Street objecting to the proposal on the basis of the impact of increased competition on their business:

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE14 (Development in Conservation Areas) Policy R10 (Local Centres, Village Shops and Neighbourhood Centres) Policy R17 (A2 and A3 and Changes of Use)

DC0902MW page 125 Policy R18 (Takeaway Hot Food Shops, Restaurants, Cafes, Bars and Public Houses) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

The main issues to be considered are:

- The principle of the change of use - The visual impact of the proposal - The impact on neighbouring amenity - The impact on highway safety and efficiency

Principle of Development

The property lies within a local centre as defined by Policy R10 of the adopted local plan. Although this policy provides protection for “shopping facilities”, this is said to include A3 uses. Policy R18 also allows for such uses to be provided outside of main town centres, subject to detailed consideration of amenity and highways issues. The principle of this use is therefore acceptable, provided the overall functioning of the parade is not undermined.

Within the small terrace of six properties, this would be the first A3 use and the second non- retail (although there is a sandwich bar next door this use still falls under Class A1). Looking at the wider parade in immediate proximity to the site, the proportion of retail would be reduced from 51% to 49%, and the proportion of food uses (both eat in and takeaway) would increase from 21% to 23%. It is further noted that many of the existing uses are takeaway where as this proposal is for an eat-in use which would enhance the appeal of the parade by providing further facilities for shoppers, and that these uses are spread throughout the parade rather than being concentrated on one part of it. While the proportion of retail would be below half, there is a good mix of types of units within the parade, and retail would still be the most common.

The principle of the change of use to A3 is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy R10 of the adopted local plan, subject to detailed consideration of its impacts on amenity and highway safety.

Street Scene and Design

The only external changes proposed would be in relation to the extractor ducting to rear. The previous application for an A5 use proposed extensive ducting which ran over the rear roof slope and above the ridgeline, and the visual impact of this was one of the reasons for refusal. The current application proposes a lesser extent of ducting, finishing 1m above eaves level to the rear. The rear elevation can be seen from an access behind the shop units and from immediately surrounding properties. This area features a number of utilitarian rear extensions and alterations, and a large warehouse building at the end of the access. Given this context and the reduced scale of the ducting, it is considered that it would not be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the property. Although Holmside to rear is part of Gillingham Park conservation area, the rear elevation of the property cannot be seen from this road and the flue would therefore have no impact on the setting of the conservation area.

DC0902MW page 126 In this respect the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan.

Amenity Considerations

The main issues with regard to A3 units and residential amenity relates to noise disturbance and fumes. As well as the properties to rear in Holmside, a number of the Watling Street units have flats at first floor which could be affected in this manner.

Given that the hours of the business would be during the daytime when the background noise from the shopping parade and traffic on Watling Street will be at its greatest, and when surrounding properties will be less sensitive to noise, it is considered that the change of use is unlikely to cause significant disturbance in terms of comings and goings and noise from inside the café. Furthermore as it is an eat-in use, disturbance from congregation of customers outside is much less likely than with a takeaway unit.

In terms of fumes, this is unlikely to be an issue provided satisfactory extraction equipment is installed. The system proposed appears to be acceptable but further details about noise generated by the system need to be provided to prevent disturbance particularly to the flat above the shop. This can be required by condition.

Subject to this and a condition limiting the hours of use, it is considered that the proposal’s impact on the amenity of surrounding properties would be acceptable, and the proposal is therefore in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policies BN2 and R18 of the Local Plan.

Highways

While there is a parking area to the rear of the property, this is accessed via a small, unmade way, through the service areas to rear of the terrace. There is no customer entrance in this area. Therefore, although this may accommodate the necessary staff parking, it is very unlikely to be used by customers of the cafe, who would therefore need to park on street. There is a small parking bay directly outside the property, with space for four or five vehicles, and further (larger) parking bays elsewhere in the parade. Also, residential streets to rear have unrestricted parking, which although somewhat in demand usually have spaces available during the daytime when the unit would primarily be open. The likelihood for indiscriminate parking is less for a café where customers would be remaining in the premises to eat than for a takeaway use and it is accordingly considered that the parking in nearby lined bays and surrounding roads is sufficient to cater for customers of the café. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies T1 and T13 of the Local Plan.

Conclusion and reasons for recommendation

Given the mixture of uses within the shopping parade, the change of use of the premises from A1 to A3 is not considered to be detrimental to its vitality and viability. The impact on the visual amenity of the area, the amenities of surrounding residential properties and highway safety is also considered acceptable, taking into consideration the hours of opening and the nature of the proposed use. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the abovementioned Development Plan policies.

DC0902MW page 127 This application would ordinarily fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but has been referred for Members’ consideration due to the amount of representations contrary to officers’ recommendation.

DC0902MW page 128

19 MC2007/1405

Date Received: 6th August 2007

Location: Land adjacent to 3 Hammond Hill, Chatham, Kent.

Proposal: Construction of a detached 4-bedroomed house with integral garage

Applicant: Mr A Williams & Mr P Harris Clements Farm Pilgrims Way Upper Halling Rochester Kent ME2 1JR

Agent:

Ward: River

Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

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

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

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development within Part 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.

5 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.

6 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of; the brickwork pointing and bonding; joinery details for external doors and windows; rainwater goods and any external soil and vent pipes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details.

DC0902MW page 129 7 The second floor windows serving the landing and study on the northern side elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light, which shall have a minimum floor to opening of 1.7m.

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

Site Description

The application relates to a small L-shaped site located to the eastern side of Hammond Hill in Chatham. The site was originally surfaced in rough hard standing used for parking, however works have commenced on site to implement a planning permission (MC2003/1414) for a detached 3-bedroomed house with integral garage. To the south of the site is a pair of recently built 4 storey town houses within which there are clear glazed side windows facing onto the application site at each floor level. Whilst to the north is a detached garage, some parking for commercial premises in Chatham High Street and a single storey extension to the rear of 40 High Street. Opposite the site are three storey terraced town houses.

The area is mainly residential in character, with some commercial uses and is located approximately 30 metres south of Chatham High Street.

Hammond Hill slopes steeply downwards towards the north, and adjoining land to the east (rear of the properties on the High Street) are set at a much lower level with a large retaining wall holding up the application site.

The site is situated within the Star Hill to Sun Pier Conservation Area.

Proposal

Planning consent is sought for the erection of a detached 4-bed house with an integral garage and being a revision to the previous planning consent MC2003/1414 dated 29.8.2003 to include another storey. The design and fenestration is identical except for an additional floor. The approved footprint is not altered.

The house would be set over three floors, with a pitched roof set behind a parapet to the front and to the southern side. A small rear yard area would lead via steps to a further open area to the rear of the neighbouring garage.

The accommodation comprises of: on the ground floor a garage, lounge, hall, WC, kitchen/ dining room; on the first floor a bathroom, 3 bedrooms (one being ensuite). Both of these floors are the same as what has been previously approved, except that the landing has been enlarged to incorporate a further set of steps up to the second floor which comprises of a study, playroom and a further ensuite bedroom.

The height to the parapet wall has been increased from (at its lowest ground level point) 7.5 metres up to 10.2 metres.

Additional windows (to match those already approved, are proposed to the front west elevation, the rear eastern elevation and the northern side elevation. No additional windows (other than the originally approved ground floor window) are proposed for the side southern elevation facing onto No.3 Hammond Hill.

DC0902MW page 130

Site Area/Density

Site Area: 0.0095 hectares (0.023 acres) Site Density: 105 d.p.h (43 d.p.a)

Relevant Planning History

MC2003/1414 l Land adjacent 3 Hammond Hill, Chatham Construction of a detached 3-bed house with integral garage. Approved 29.8.2003

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and in the press. The Star Hill to Sun Pier Traders have been consulted on the application and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: Nos. 40, 40a, 40b, 42, flats at 44, 46 High Street; 13, 14, 15 New Road Avenue and the Unitarian Church in New Road Avenue; Nos. 2, 3, flats at No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12a Hammond Hill

Councillor Bill Esterton has called in the application to go to Committee in support of a resident’s letter of objection on the following grounds:

- We live on a very steep hill, one way and only just enough room for one vehicle to pass.

- There are double yellow lines all the way down, no parking allowed at any time

- A 3 storey building will block a lot of natural light from the front of our house, and our view would be strictly prohibited.

- Our building is a multiple dwelling and the new building will look over most of the rooms, privacy could become an issue.

- The building is built straight onto the road, there is no forecourt and parking could become an issue.

In addition Cllr Esterson comments that the proposal increase traffic on Hammong Hill which already suffers from heavy traffic and a 3 storey building represents an over development of the site

National Planning Guidance

PPS1: Delivery and Sustainable Development PPS1A: Planning System & General Principles PPG 3: Housing PPS6: Planning for Town Centres PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment

Development Plan Policies

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

DC0902MW page 131

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL6 (Conservation Areas) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Provision) Policy BNE12 (Conservation Area) Policy BNE14 (Development in Conservation Areas) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Other Supplementary Planning Guidance

Star Hill to Sun Pier Planning and Design Strategy Adopted May 2004

Planning Appraisal

This application raises the following issues for consideration:

- Matters of principle - Design and impact upon the street scene and the Conservation Area - Impact upon residential amenity - Car parking and highway implications.

Principle

The principle of residential development has already been established as acceptable by the previous planning permission as the application site is located within the urban area of Chatham where the principle of residential infilling is accepted. It was also noted that on that previous application two letters in support were received on the basis that the site was overgrown and an eyesore.

Design Considerations

Policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and BNE1 and H4 of the adopted Local Plan set out criteria for the assessment of proposals in terms of their impact on the built environment and design quality. Policy QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies BNE12 and BNE14 of the Medway Local Plan address proposals within Conservation Areas. These policies indicate that proposals should achieve a high level of design that will preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and make a positive contribution.

In terms of elevations, the proposed additional floor has been designed to reflect the original approved dwelling and as a whole the building has been designed to reflect the style of the recent houses on the site to the south, using traditional forms and roof treatment, which are appropriate to the character and appearance of the area.

It is further noted that the proposed three storey dwelling would actually look more in keeping with the character of the street scene which is one of three and four storey dwellings and

DC0902MW page 132 therefore could be said to represent an improvement over the originally approved two storey dwelling.

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

Impact on Amenities

Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan seek to ensure that the amenities of prospective occupiers and those of existing residents are safeguarded. Development should therefore have regard to privacy, sunlight, daylight and activity levels and traffic generation; landscaping around the dwellings, the provision of private garden space, parking and access, aspect and orientation.

It is considered that the proposed additional floor will not result in any increased activity greater than the previous approval for a three bedroomed dwelling such that would warrant a refusal of planning permission.

In terms of internal space standards it is considered that adequate standards of accommodation and residential amenities will be provided for its future occupants.

In terms of residential amenity, the relationship with the properties opposite would be similar to that found in many areas and would not result in unacceptable overlooking or overbearing and very little loss of light. It is noted that there is a similar existing situation at the adjacent property to the south with numbers 3 and 5 Hammond Hill being four storeys high and opposite No.8 Hammond Hill, which is also a three storey dwelling.

The proposed house would be set forward in its plot compared to the properties to the south, but due to the distance between them and the position of existing windows it is not considered that any unacceptable loss of outlook or overbearing would result. Due to the position of the application site to the north of the neighbouring properties there would be no loss of actual sunlight to main habitable room windows of 3 and 5 Hammond Hill.

It is noted that the proposed additional floor does not include any windows in the side elevation facing onto No.3 Hammond Hill and therefore would not cause any overlooking or loss of privacy issues. It is acknowledged that the additional floor would cause some loss of light to the side windows within No.3 Hammond Hill. Although these windows are clear glazed they are not principal windows serving habitable rooms, and therefore this situation is considered to be acceptable.

There are garages to the north of the site where the greatest overshadowing would occur. The land to the east of the proposed house is set at a much lower level and benefits from very little natural light at present. Due to the distance of 20 metres away from the main rear of the properties facing Chatham High Street, it is considered that an additional floor would not cause such loss of light, overshadowing as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

The proposed additional windows within the north elevation facing these properties serve a study and a landing. As there is an additional window within the rear elevation serving the study, it is considered acceptable to condition both of these windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut in the interest of protecting the privacy of the occupiers of these properties.

DC0902MW page 133 It is considered that an additional floor and the windows within the rear elevation facing onto the back gardens of properties within Chatham High Street is also considered acceptable and would not result in any greater impact than the previously approved two storey dwelling and its rear windows.

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

Highways Impact, Traffic and Car Parking

In terms of car parking provision, Policies T19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and T13 of the adopted local Plan set out parking standards (as maxima). Policy TP12 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and Policies T1 and T2 of the adopted Local Plan deal with the impact of additional traffic caused by development and seek to ensure that the Highway network is adequate in terms of capacity and safety.

The adopted vehicle parking standards (as maxima) allow for the provision of 1.5 spaces for each dwelling within the urban area well served by public transport, which is the case with this site.

In terms of access and parking, the development has previously been approved with a garage and one driveway parking space to the front of the garage. The council’s maximum parking standard is 1.5 spaces per property in the urban area, however due to the practicalities of using tandem parking spaces it is considered that the over-provision would not be harmful.

The current proposal for an additional floor and a further bedroom does not change the previous recommendation for approval as car parking and highway issues were considered to be acceptable and there have been no changes in policy since August 2003.

The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies TP1, TP3 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2003 and Policies T1, T2 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Recommendation and reasons for Approval

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.

It is considered that as condition No.6 of the previous consent relating to the submission of details showing existing and proposed ground levels has already been discharged and that as the building has already been started that it is not appropriate to repeat this condition. It is considered appropriate to repeat all other conditions.

This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ consideration at the request of Councillor Mr Esterson who is concerned about the impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent residential properties.

DC0902MW page 134

20 MC2005/0814

Date Received: 28th April 2005

Location: 2 Ash Tree Lane, Chatham, Kent, ME5 7BZ

Proposal: Details pursuant to condition 12 of MC2005/0814

Applicant: Wards Homes Limited 2 Ash Tree Lane Chatham Kent ME5 7BZ

Agent: Mr A Wakefield NC Architects Ltd 23 High Street Wroughton Swindon Wiltshire SN4 9JX

Ward: Luton & Wayfield

Recommendation : That the details pursuant to condition 12 of MC2005/0814 be approved

Background

At the Development Control Committee meeting held on 15 March 2006, two applications regarding 2 Ash Tree Lane were determined by Members. These were:

MC2005/0814 Application for approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition 1 of MC2003/1285 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of three blocks of flats comprising of 96 residential units, associated garaging and landscaping

MC2005/0704 Alterations to junction of site with Ash Tree Lane including provision of right turn lane to facilitate residential development of adjacent site

The application relating to the access was refused by Members for the following reason:

“The proposed junction arrangement taking into account queuing traffic during the morning peak hour across the junction is likely to result in vehicles turning right from the site access road being unseen by drivers approaching from the North, this being detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan.”

The application for the 96 residential units was approved, subject to three conditions (in addition to those already placed on the outline consent), the final one (condition 12) being as follows:

“No development shall commence on site until details of a satisfactory means of access for the development hereby approved, including junction arrangements, has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. None of the units shall be occupied until the access and junction improvements have been provided in accordance with the approved details.”

DC0902MW page 135 This condition was placed on the consent to ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the site could be agreed, bearing in mind that the application for the access arrangements had been refused earlier in the meeting.

Discharge of Condition

In order to respond to this condition, and seek its discharge so that development can commence, the applicants (Ward Homes) have submitted a Transport Assessment to the Council. This has been produced by WSP, a Highway Consultancy, on behalf of Ward Homes, and this document has been assessed by the Council’s Integrated Transport Team.

The document considers four different options for the access into the site – leaving the junction as it is; providing a ghosted right-turn lane; providing a mini roundabout; and providing a conventional roundabout. Preliminary Stage 1 Safety Audits have been undertaken for both the roundabout options - one by Medway Council and one by an Independent Traffic Safety Consultant. The roundabout options were considered an inappropriate solution and unacceptable in highway terms. As a result it has been recommended that a priority junction with right turn lane and pedestrian facilities would be the appropriate solution.

In order to discharge this condition therefore, the access arrangements proposed are the addition of a ghosted right-turn lane, improvements to pedestrian facilities and road markings and an extension of the 30mph speed limit. Such works will require the developer to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with the Highways Authority. The details are set out on drawing number 0641/GA/01 rev F.

In considering the information submitted the Integrated Transport Team have advised that the proposed residential development will generate less traffic than the existing use, whilst the proposed measures will improve the operation of the junction. On this basis it is considered that the proposed junction improvement details are considered to be acceptable, and it is recommended that the condition be discharged.

Normally the discharge of conditions would be dealt with by Officers, however this matter has been bought to Committee because of the history to the site, and the fact that Members previously refused the application relating to the access into the site. The proposed access arrangements in this earlier application were similar to that set out above, in that it sought to provide a ghosted right-turn lane, pedestrian islands and an extension to the 30mph speed limit.

DC0902MW page 136