MC/15/2939

Date Received: 14 August, 2015

Location: 371-375 Maidstone Road, Rainham, Gillingham, ME8 0HX

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved for the construction of a first floor extension with dormer windows to form three 1- bedroomed flats including rear land balcony, stairway and parking

Applicant: Mrs D Kaur

Agent: Mr R A Clayton Robert A Clayton Building Plans 32 Watling Street Gillingham Kent ME7 2YH

Ward Rainham South

______

Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 16 December, 2015.

Recommendation - Refusal

1 The proposal, as submitted, fails to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the shops within this Local Shopping Centre, as no clear workable alternative arrangements for the servicing of those shops has been sufficiently demonstrated. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policy R10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and of Paragraphs 17, 21 and 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Proposal

This application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the construction of first floor extension with dormer windows to form three 1-bedroomed flats including rear land balcony, stairway and parking. Detailed drawings have been submitted with the application, although as the application is in outline form, these drawings are illustrative.

The proposal is to add another two storeys to the existing building, to provide 3 x one bedroom flats. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement and Air Quality and Noise Protection Statement.

The proposed flats would be accessed via an external stairway to the rear, leading to a landing and all three flats would be accessed off this landing. The accommodation in each flat would comprise a kitchen and bathroom at the rear and a sitting/dining room at the front. A bedroom for each flat would be provided in the roofspace with rooflights at the front and dormers at the rear.

The application proposes three additional car parking spaces, plus cycle parking at the rear, accessed via the existing drive. To achieve this level of parking, a storage building would be demolished and the vegetation and small trees to the rear would be removed. Two garages and a store would remain. Three bin stores, one for each flat, are shown on the area currently occupied by the parcel locker.

Site Area/Density

Site Area: 0.05 hectare (0.123 acre) Site Density: 60 dph (24 dpa)

Relevant Planning History

MC/14/1697 Outline application with some matters reserved (landscaping) for the construction of first floor extension with dormer windows to form three 1-bedroomed flats including rear land balcony, stairway and parking Refused 11 September, 2014 Appeal dismissed 16 March 2015

MC/14/0540 Siting of parcel locker (retrospective) Approved 22 April, 2014

MC/14/0014 Outline application with some matters reserved (landscaping) for the construction of first floor extension with dormers to form 3 one bedroom flats including rear land balcony and stairway, bin and cycle storage Withdrawn by Applicant 26 February, 2014

GL/59/166J Outline application for erection of one bungalow. Refused 24 June 1988

GL/59/166 Erection of shops with flats over Approved 20 October 1959

Representations

The application has been advertised on site and by individual neighbour notification to the owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Wigmore Community and Residents Association has also been consulted.

One petition (246 signatures) and 20 letters have been received from 18 households and owners/employees of shops raising the following objections:

 Overdevelopment and poor design;  Proposed development would dominate street scene;  Loss of trees and shed;  Location of proposed stairway adjacent to shop toilet would result in loss of privacy;  Residents of the proposed flats would park at front not back, thereby affecting trade;  Proposal would add to existing parking problems and congestion in area;  One parking space per unit is inadequate;  Proposal would add to congestion in area;  There will be overspill parking in Woodpecker Glade;  The rear access is too narrow;  Concerns regarding servicing of shops;  Opening up of rear access would add to security risks;  Concern at disruption to existing businesses during building work;  Specific concerns relating to the operation of the florist's shop. The florist states that she uses the rear service area for loading/unloading throughout the day, with up to six vehicles and deliveries taking up to 30 minutes to load. Although the shop opening hours are 08:00 - 18:00 staff can be working any time between 06:00 and midnight preparing deliveries, particularly during busy periods such as Valentine's Day, Mothering Sunday and Christmas, when there can be up to 40 deliveries a day.

One letter has been received supporting the application on the grounds that:

 The building is attractive and would improve the neighbourhood;  The building would provide more housing;  Shop owners should not park in front of shops allowing these spaces to be used by customers.

Development Plan

The Development Plan for the area comprises the Medway Local Plan 2003. The policies referred to within this document and used in the processing of this application have been assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012 and are considered to conform.

Planning Appraisal

Background

This application is a re-submission of application MC/14/1697, which was refused by the Committee on 11 September 2014 on the grounds that:

"The development, by virtue of the contrived nature of the car parking proposed to the rear that is unlikely to be readily and easily used, would result in competition for the off street parking spaces to the front of the shops which would have the knock on impact of either being detrimental to the viability and vitality of the shops within this Local Centre or causing potential customers to the shops or prospective residents or visitors to the proposed flats to park in an inappropriate location to the detriment of highway safety in this location close to a busy roundabout junction. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies H4, R10, T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012."

A subsequent appeal against the refusal of planning permission was dismissed on 16 March 2015.

Under the latest application, changes have been made to the layout at the rear of the site, including re-positioning the external stairway to leave more space at the rear for parking, turning and for bin storage. The issue for consideration in determining this application is the extent to which the changes address the previous ground of refusal and the reasons the Inspector dismissed the appeal.

Principle

The site is within the urban area, as identified on the Proposals Map to the Local Plan. Policy H4 contains a presumption in favour of residential development within the urban area, including the use of upper floors above commercial premises. In this instance, this is not a conversion, but the creation of flats above commercial premises, but nevertheless the proposal would comply with the objectives of Policy H4.

The site 371 - 377 Maidstone Road is identified as local shopping centre under Policy R10 of the Local Plan and the proposal raises concerns, which are examined under the highways section below. Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 51 states that Local Planning Authorities should normally approve applications for change to residential and any associated development from commercial. Although not an application for a change of use, the same principle could apply, as the application relates to the area above shops.

Design

The application site measures approx 18m wide by 26m deep and is currently occupied by a single storey block of three shops. Immediately to the south is a two storey building with a gabled roof fronting the highway, with another shop on the ground floor (377 Maidstone Road). There is a drive between the three shops and this property, which forms part of the application site, leading to a small yard and a block of three garages at the rear of the shops. This drive has gated access. The land slopes gently from front to rear.

The shops are set back 7m from the back of the footpath and there is a hard surfaced area in front of the shops, which is used for the parking. There is a layby in front of this parking area. A parcel locker has been installed at the northern end of the hardstanding.

To the rear (east) of the site, are the rear gardens of properties in Woodpecker Glade. The rear garden of 9 Woodpecker Glade has been extended into land behind the application site and which formerly was part of the application site. This was the subject of a planning application which was approved on 27 September 2013 (MC/13/1502). To the north is a large detached building (369 Maidstone Road), which is set back 16m from the highway and is used as a nursing home.

The existing single storey block of three shops has little design merit. The proposal to introduce a first floor over the existing building, should, therefore enhance the character and appearance of the building. The resultant development would have the appearance of a typical row of shops with flats over, which is found in many local shopping centres and as such would be acceptable. However, in order to provide bedrooms in the roofspace, the ridge shown on indicative plans would be higher than the ridge of the gable-ended property to the south (377 Maidstone Road). The property to the north (369 Maidstone Road) has a more bulky appearance, but being set back 16m from the footpath would not appear as prominent as the proposed development. The proposed building as shown on the illustrative drawing, would appear more bulky at the rear, due to the fall in the level of the land to the rear, the dormers in the rear roofspace and the complex arrangement of stairways, landings and balconies at the rear.

However, having regard to the variety of development in this part of Maidstone Road, no objection is raised to the proposal in terms of design and the character and appearance of the area under Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan, subject to the submission of reserved matters.

Residential Amenity for future occupants

When the previous application was considered, it was assessed against Medway Council's Interim Housing Design Standards (MHDS) and had a gross internal floor area (GIA) of 84 sq m, which clearly exceeded the 50 sq m minimum GIA specified in MHDS. The Department for Communities and Local Government's Technical Housing Standards specify a minimum GIA of 58 sq m for two storey dwellings, which would apply in this case and would be clearly exceeded by the proposed development. No objection is, therefore raised in terms of residential amenity for future occupants under Policy BNE2, based on the indicative plans.

Residential amenity for neighbouring occupants

There would be no windows in the flank walls of the proposed development and there would therefore be no unacceptable overlooking to the neighbouring properties. To the rear of the site, the nearest property is 9 Woodpecker Glade, the rear wall of which is 48m from the rear of the proposed development. However, the garden of 9 Woodpecker Glade has been extended to the west, so that the boundary of the garden is 11m from the rear of the proposed flats. There are three outbuildings in the rear garden of that property, including a summer house close to the boundary. Planning permission was granted on 26 November 2013 (MC/13/2533) to extend that property, but this proposal would not move the dwelling closer to the western boundary than at present and would not, therefore result in any detriment to residential amenity. In her decision letter for the appeal, the Inspector concluded that "due to the physical separation of no 9 from the appeal site I consider that this would not be overbearing or unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no 9".

In terms of light and outlook, the only property that would be affected is the nursing home to the north. Due to the setback that property, the proposed development is likely to cause some overshadowing to the front of the nursing home during the early afternoon. However, this would not be significant and would only affect the car park and not the private area to the rear.

A concern has been raised regarding the potential loss of privacy, as the proposed stairway would be adjacent to shop toilet. Whilst this concern is noted, the toilet window is obscure-glazed and there should be no additional loss of privacy than at present from the rear service area. The applicant's agent has indicated that his client is willing to block up this window and install mechanical ventilation.

Accordingly, based on the indicatives plans, no objection is raised in terms of neighbour amenity under Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan.

Highways

Medway Council's Interim Residential Parking Standards require a minimum of one car parking space per flat for a one bedroom dwelling and a minimum of one cycle space per dwelling. Cycle storage is shown in a shed at the rear.

The previous scheme was refused and dismissed at appeal on account of the fact that the car parking layout to the rear was such that it would be difficult to manoeuvre vehicles in the confined space that was available and as such it was unlikely that this parking would be readily and easily used and in turn this would have an impact on the off-street parking spaces to the front of the shops.

In her decision letter, the appeal Inspector raised three concerns:

 The restricted layout of the rear parking area and the impracticability of the proposed parking arrangements;  The appellant's failure to demonstrate the number or type of other vehicles requiring access to the service yard; and  The appellant's failure to provide a survey of forecourt parking.

With regard to the first concern, the Inspector noted that the bin storage area for the middle shop would be enclosed by the rear of the shop, the proposed staircase and by parking space C, which would not be in the control of the operators of the shop and it would be difficult to move the bin. Parking space A would slightly overhang the proposed gate to the bin area of the shop at 371 and would leave only a 1m gap if the vehicle parked in space A did not overhang. She considered that the restricted layout would inevitably result in conflict between vehicles seeking to use the spaces and the commercial occupiers seeking to make deliveries or empty their bins within the rear service yard and there would be additional conflict in respect of access to the garage/store building to the rear. The Inspector also considered that parking space C would be tight to the rear wall of 375 requiring a 90 degree turn from the narrow access drive; spaces A and B would require at least a three point turn to access from them and the layout would restrict the manoeuvring of vehicles either making deliveries to the shops or serving the garage/store building. She considered that the proposed parking layout would be so constrained that it would be impractical. She added that the appellant had failed to demonstrate the number or type of other vehicles requiring access to the service yard. Under the circumstances, she considered that the application did not comply with the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Under the latest proposal, the proposed external stairway has been moved closer to the building, increasing the width of the rear service area at this point from approx 6.5m to 9.5m. Parking space B has been turned 90 degrees and parking space C has been re-located to the rear of the site, adjacent to parking space B, thereby increasing the area available for turning. The proposed bin stores have been re- positioned so that there would be no conflict between accessing the bins stores and parking.

With regard to vehicles using the rear service yard, the applicant's agent has advised that parking by existing tenants at the rear is not permitted under the terms of the lease and that they have no right to obstruct access to the rear. They can only use the rear service yard for loading/unloading. This has raised concerns with the florist, which are described in her letter of representation. In an attempt to address this, the applicant's agent stated that he would allocate the parking space in front of the florist's for their deliveries/parking during shop opening hours.

The agent was asked to confirm that agreement has been reached with the florist in this regard and also asked to explain how this would be enforced and to assess the impact of the allocation of this space to the florist in terms of the loss of a customer parking space. The agent was also advised of the Inspector's comment regarding the provision of a parking survey.

A parking survey was submitted on 8 October 2015. However, the applicant's agent stated that he had discussed the matter with the florist who said that this would not address her concerns and that the allocation of a parking space for the florist would reduce flexibility for parking.

Whilst no objection is raised in terms of traffic generation or parking under Policy T1 and T13 of the Local Plan, the application does raise a concern in terms of the failure to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the shops in terms of ensuring the provision of adequate servicing arrangements. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy R10 of the Local Plan and of Paragraphs 17, 21 and 28 of the NPPF.

Habitat Regulation Assessments (HRA)

In response to a consultation from Natural England to the North Kent Planning Officers' Group, the Local Planning Authority is seeking an appropriate financial contribution towards strategic mitigation measures within Special Protection Areas (SPA's), in relation to development within 6km of the access points to the SPA's. As an interim measure, contributions are sought in respect of all developments within this zone, as all dwellings would impact on the SPA's and the contributions should be spread proportionally and that a higher threshold should not be imposed on some development to cover the costs of excluded dwellings. The contribution sought is £223.58 per dwelling. This should be sought by means of a Section 106 agreement and the applicant would be required to pay the Council's Monitoring and Legal costs. The applicant's agent has advised that he is willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement. In the event of planning permission being granted, a Section 106 agreement would be sought under the HRA and Paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

Other Matters

An Air Quality and Noise Protection Statement were submitted as part of the application. The information contained in these statements is considered to be acceptable. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the measures contained in these statement and subject to these conditions, no objection is raised under Policies BNE2 and BNE24 of the Local Plan in terms of noise or air quality.

Three bin stores are shown, at the front of the site, adjacent to the parcel locker. In addition, a bin store would be provided on the balcony, adjacent to the entrance to the proposed flats as there is nowhere else where refuse can safely be kept without causing an obstruction to the footpath or vehicular access.

A concern has also been expressed regarding disruption during building work. To address this, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any planning permission regarding the submission and approval of a Construction Environment Management Plan.

Local Finance Considerations

There are no Local Finance Consideration raised by this application.

Conclusions and Reasons for Refusal

The principle of the proposed development is acceptable and in accordance with Policy H4 of the Local Plan and the NPPF and the proposal is also considered to be acceptable in terms of design, MHDS, neighbour amenity, noise, air quality and as such is in accordance with Policies BNE1, BNE2 and BNE24 of the Local Plan. The latest application addresses the concerns raised by the Inspector with the previous scheme, which was dismissed on appeal, in terms of parking under Policy T13.

However, the application fails to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the shops in terms of ensuring the provision of adequate servicing arrangements. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy R10 of the Local Plan and of Paragraphs 17, 21 and 28 of the NPPF.

This application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers but has been referred to committee on account of the previous planning decision, which was determined by committee. ______

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 Representations section within the report.

Any information referred to is available for inspection in the Planning Offices of Medway Council at Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham ME4 4TR and here http://publicaccess.medway.gov.uk/online-applications/