PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR 12th SEPTEMBER 2002 (EAST) Page No. 1 MC2000/1754 Hempstead & Wigmore Retention of barn Little Knox Farm, Capstone Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 3JF 3
2 MC2001/2039 Hook Meadow Outline application for construction of two rows of 4 terraced houses including demolition of part of existing building on site 237, Walderslade Road, Chatham, Kent, ME5 0NQ 8
3 MC2002/0838 Hempstead & Wigmore Construction of single storey side and first floor front extensions with new canopy to front and side 30, Foulds Close, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0QF 13
4 MC2002/1074 St Margarets Change of use from Doctor Surgery to residential bungalow. 90, Silverspot Close, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 8JT 17
5 MC2002/1126 St Margarets Application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country ( General Planning Regulations ) 1992 for the construction of a single-storey extension to form 4 classrooms. 21 St. Margarets C Of E Voluntary Controlled Junior School, Orchard Street, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 9AE
6 MC2002/1206 Rainham Mark Outline application for the construction of a detached bungalow; two flats in a 2 storey building; associated amenity areas and car parking together with single storey rear extension to existing building at 48 Hoath Lane. Rear of 48 Hoath Lane, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0SW 24
7 MC2002/1252 Gillingham South Installation of three dual polar & four dish antennae on existing tower with two cabinets & a feeder gantry NTL Transmitting Station, Longhill Avenue, Gillingham, Kent 30
8 MC2002/1283 Walderslade Part change of use to day care nursery for a maximum of twenty five children between the ages of 0-6 years between the hours of 7:30 am and 6:00 pm Mondays to Fridays. 118 Dargets Road, Lords Wood, Chatham, Kent. 34
9 MC2002/1378 St Margarets Construction of a single storey rear extension 6, Shelden Drive, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 8JX 37
DC0902MW 1 10 MC2002/1416 St Margarets Construction of a single storey rear extension together with loft conversion incorporating rear dormer window 67, Arthur Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 9BU 40
11 MC2002/1581 Brompton Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development including 38 flats and commercial units Land at the corner of High Street & Briton Street and land at the corner of High Street & Arden Street, Gillingham, Kent. 43
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The relevant background papers relating to the individual applications comprise: the applications and all supporting documentation submitted therewith; and items identified in any Relevant History and Information section and Representations section with a report.
Any information referred to is available for inspection in the Planning Offices of the Council at the Compass Centre, Chatham Maritime, Chatham.
DC0902MW 2
1 MC2000/1754
Date Received: 27th November 2000
Location: Little Knox Farm, Capstone Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 3JF
Proposal: Retention of barn
Applicant: Mr M Daly C/o Charter Planning Limited 9 Main Road Hextable Swanley Kent BR8 7RB
Agent: D Oliver Lakeland Joinery and Developments Redwood House Forge Lane Bredhurst Gillingham Kent ME7 3JW
Ward: Hempstead & Wigmore
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
(as amended by letter dated 16th August 2002)
1 The open sided building shall be used for the dual purpose of agricultural implements, equipment and materials storage when there is an agricultural seasonal requirement for hay production and distrubution and for the storage of plant and machinery, spare parts and materials as required in connection with the adjacent lawful civil engineering plant storage and maintenance operation at all other times of the year and when spare capacity over and above any seasonal agricultural storage requirements exists.
Site Description
This application relates to an approximately rectangular parcel of land located off Capstone Road in the rural area of Hempstead, Gillingham known as Little Knox Farm, being 1.10 square hectares in overall area. The land comprises of a residential house and two groups of buildings that have an associated concrete hardstanding area. The remainder of the site comprises an extensive area of pasture. This area bounds onto woodland to the north and east, Capstone Road is to the west and to the south there are large detached residential properties. The land levels rise from the west (Capstone Road) to the higher ground in the east. The site of the proposed barn is in the south-eastern corner of the land.
Proposal
This application is to retain an open sided metal framed and clad pitched roofed barn in the south-eastern corner of the of the land. This building is 18 metres long by 9 metres wide by 5 metres high at the central roof ridge point. The roof and three sides are clad in dark brown PVC coated steel cladding. The capacity of the building to the eves is in the region of 650 metres cubed. It is proposed by the applicant to use the building for a dual storage use. During the periods of the year when the landholding is used more intensively for agricultural
DC0902MW 3 operations, principally hay cropping, it is proposed to use the building’s capacity to store the hay crop before it’s transfer off site and the required ancillary agricultural equipment and materials. At other times, when agricultural operations are not occurring to any marked extent the building is proposed to be fully utilised for the storage of items related to the lawful commercial civil engineering plant storage and maintenance operation. This use on the landholding was granted a Certificate of Lawfulness on the 12 April 2002.
Relevant Planning History
94/0068/70/0208GL Retrospective application for the retention of a pitched roof over a building; Refused 8 August 1994
Section 174 Notice Enforcement notice required the removal of pitched roof over building; subsequent appeal dismissed 20 July 1994
Section 215 Notice Required the removal of all rubble, sand, hardcore, building materials, pallets, plastic containers, metal compound, oil drums, canisters and portable building Served 20 March 1995
95/0270/70/0208GL Change of use of wood store to office use Approved 16 June 1995
MC2001/1229 Certificate of Lawful Use (Existing) for the continued use of land and buildings for civil engineering plant depot, plant maintenance and repair building, open hardstanding area for plant storage and an open storage area for civil engineering plant materials and office use. Approved 12 April 2002
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: Moorcroft, Capstone Road; 1, 2, 4 The Old Carriageway; 7 to 21 (odds) Barncroft Drive; Gillingham and Mr Richman 18 Mulberry Close, Hempstead.
Hempstead Residents Association have written to object on grounds that the proposal represents illegal use of the land and is for storage of materials and equipment unrelated to a small holding.
One letter has been received not objecting subject to the unit being used solely for agricultural storage.
DC0902MW 4 Development Plan Policies
Kent Structure Plan 1996
Policy ENV1 (Built Environment) Policy RS1 (Rural Settlement) Policy RS5 (Development in the Countryside)
Medway Towns Local Plan 1996
Policy C1 (Rural Areas) Policy C5 (Area of Local Landscape Importance) Policy B16 (New Development)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for New Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE26 (Development in the Countryside) Policy BNE 35 (Area of Local Landscape Importance)
Planning Appraisal
The main issues for consideration arising from this retrospective proposal relate to whether it is acceptable in principle on grounds of an agricultural and commercial storage justification, and whether there are any unacceptable impacts on the landscape and local amenities.
Matters of Principle
The site is in the rural area and within an area of Local Landscape Importance. Structure Plan Policy RS5 presumes against development in rural Kent unless it, amongst other matters is demonstrated to be necessary to agriculture. Policy C1 of the Medway Towns Local Plan 1992 (the adopted plan), similarly, presumes to not normally permit development in rural areas unless it is demonstrated necessary for agriculture. Policy C5 strongly presumes against permitting any development in Areas of Local Landscape importance, which might in any way prejudice the particular landscape function of the area. Policy BNE 26 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 (the emerging plan) states that development will only be permitted if, amongst other matters, it demands a rural location such as agriculture. Policy BNE 35 of the same plan states that development will only be permitted when it does not prejudice the open character and particular landscape function of the area. Also, development in these areas should be designed, sited and landscaped so as to minimise any detrimental impacts on the open character and inherent landscape qualities of these areas.
The proposal is for a dual storage use building a type of barn to store agricultural machinery, implements and a crop during the hay making time of the year. The applicant contends that the building would allow for the storage of such equipment as grass/hay-cutting and baling machines, fertiliser spreader, hedge trimmer four-wheeled drive vehicles and trailers and an occasional water bowser vehicle during the agricultural season. Also, cut hay from the landholding would be bailed and stored in the building prior to removal from site.
DC0902MW 5
The area available for agricultural operations is limited to 0.8 ha (2 acres). This area is grassed and potentially can provide a yearly hay crop. This would yield some 250 small bales of hay, which would occupy approximately 50 metres cubed, or some 12.4 metres cubed by 4 metres in height. The building’s capacity, to the eaves, is some 650 metres cubed.
Clearly the building, with this capacity, cannot be justified on an agricultural need ground alone for the productive area of landholding.
The applicant has a lawful use certificate to use adjacent land for open storage. He has agreed that when the building is not being used for agricultural storage then the remaining capacity for storage will be taken up by the engineering storage which will reduce the amount of equipment being stored in the open. As the agricultural use is fairly limited this will mean that the area will be substantially tidied up.
Amenity and Landscape Impact Considerations
New buildings in this locality have the potential to give rise to adverse impacts on the open character and function of the landscape and local residential amenity due to visual intrusion. Policies B16 and C5 of the Adopted Plan and policies BNE2 and BNE 35 of the Emerging Plan require development to respect the amenities of the locality and safeguard the site’s sensitive landscape designation that is based on the distinctive landscape character of the area. Structure Plan Policy RS5 similarly seeks the protection of the distinctive characters of rural Kent from inappropriate development.
The proposed retrospective building is located in the south eastern corner of the site well screened from the residential properties in Bancroft Drive (the beginning of the urban area), that are some 100 metres in the east, by the woodland that bounds the site. To the south the nearest property is some 130 metres away and several mature conifer trees help screen views in this direction. To the west in the direction of Elm Court the structure is not visible as the other buildings within Little Knox Farm provide an effective screen. The dark brown PVC coating of the external steel cladding greatly reduce the visual impact of the structure to longer distance views to the high open land to the north west.
Conclusion
The proposed retrospective barn structure is out of proportion with the agricultural potential of the unit. The total possible volume of hay crop and the equipment reasonably required for the 0.8 ha agricultural unit when compared to the building’s useable capacity is not matched; the buildings capacity far exceeds the possible agricultural use parameters for the unit. These circumstances would normally give rise to a recommendation for refusal. However, the amendment to use the building for storage of the materials associated with the lawful adjacent commercial activity. Giving the building a dual use, has the advantage of reducing the incidence of storage of such items as JCB blades and buckets, oil drums and spare parts in the open; as permitted by the certificate of lawfulness. Moreover, the full utilisation of the building’s capacity is in the interests of the locality by reducing the level of open storage of materials which, thought lawful, are not considered as an acceptable use in a rural location.
The development is accordingly recommended for permission subject to conditions.
DC0902MW 6 [This application was considered by Members at the Area Development Control Sub- Committee East on the 27th March 2002 when it was deferred at Officers’ request.]
DC0902MW 7
2 MC2001/2039
Date Received: 4th December 2001
Location: 237, Walderslade Road, Chatham, Kent, ME5 0NQ
Proposal: Outline application for construction of two rows of 4 terraced houses including demolition of part of existing building on site
Applicant: King & Johnston Dev. Ltd. 380 New Hythe Lane Larkfield Kent
Agent: Mr R A Clayton 32 Watling Street Gillingham Kent ME7 2YH
Ward: Hook Meadow
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
(as amended by plans received on 20th March 2002)
1 Approval of the details of siting, design and external appearance and the 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 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 the buildings are first occupied and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; and hard surfacing materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.
5 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The approved planting stock shall be maintained for a minimum period of five years following its planting and any of the stock that dies or
DC0902MW 8 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.
6 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until that part of the service road which provides access to it has been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7 The details to be submitted in pursuance of Condition 01 shall show adequate land, reserved for the parking or garaging of vehicles and upon approval of the details, no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the reserved vehicle parking area.
8 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the dwellings herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
9 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 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.
10 Prior to the commencement of development (including any demolition) details of the proposed means of treating the exposed flank of the adjacent property at 239 Walderslade Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved works shall be undertaken prior to the commencement of any construction work on the proposed dwellings or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Site Description
The site originally comprised one half of a pair of semi-detached bungalows which front onto Walderslade Road just north of its junction with Sussex Drive. The property is set within a substantial garden area. The half of the semi-detached bungalow within the application site has recently been substantially damaged by fire and has now been demolished although the other half (to the south) appears relatively unharmed and is still occupied.
To the north there are two rows of terraced properties fronting west onto Walderslade Road and east towards the Primary School. These terraces are separated by a spur road leading from Bleakwood Road which provides access to the rear of those properties and their garages. The hammerhead serving this spur adjoins the northern boundary of the site. To the east is a school and grounds.
DC0902MW 9 Proposal
The application is in outline with all matters other than means of access reserved for subsequent approval. Notwithstanding this the applicant has submitted an illustrative plan which shows the demolition of one half of the semi-detached bungalow and the construction of 2 rows of 4 terraced properties (8 dwellings in total). The proposed properties are illustrated as continuing the alignment of the 2 rows of terraces to the north. The terrace fronting onto Walderslade Road is proposed to gain its vehicular access from that road utilising the existing 2 access points which formerly served the bungalow. The row to the east is proposed to front onto an extension of the spur road to Bleakwood Road.
This application was originally considered by Members at the Area Development Control Sub-Committee East on the 29th May 2002 when it was determined to defer a decision to enable further consultation. The application was then presented to the June meeting where it was resolved to defer consideration to allow a site visit to take place. Following the site visit Members expressed a number of concerns with the scheme and asked negotiations take place to secure the following amendments:
1. The development to be served by a single access drive via Walderslade Road and not via Bleakwood Road with the properties fronting Walderslade Road to be served by a parking court to the rear.
2. The footpath shown adjacent to no. 239 Walderslade Road to be deleted from the scheme.
The applicant’s agent was invited to amend the application. However, he has declined and asked that it be determined on the basis of the plans currently submitted.
Site Area/Density
Site area: 0.136 ha (0.336 acres). Site density: 58.8 d.p.h (23 d.p.a)
Representations
The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Southern Water Services and the Electricity Board have been advised of the application along with the Owner/occupiers of the following neighbouring properties; St. Thomas More RC. Primary School; 12 Bleakwood Road and 235 and 239 Walderslade Road.
14 letters of objection were received in relation to the application as originally submitted raising the following concerns: -
- the use of this access will lead to severe highway congestion;
- the use of the access will lead to problems for residential car parking;
- the road is not Bleakwood Road but is a service road leading from Bleakwood Road;
- loss of privacy to gardens;
- up keep of boundary wall;
DC0902MW 10
- loss of trees; and
- overdevelopment of the site;
Most of these letters do not raise a fundamental objection to the principle of some form of development but are concerned regarding the use of the service road.
Following re-consultation on amended plans which showed a foot path link from Walderslade Road to the proposed properties to the rear, a further 10 letters of objection have been received. These reiterate the above concerns and advise that the foot path now proposed will raise issues of concern regarding security and safety. In addition the application prperty has been badly damaged by fire and this is of concern to the elderly occupant of the adjacent property.
Southern Water Services has written to advise it has no objections to the development as proposed.
Development plan policies
Medway Towns Local Plan 1992:
Policy B16 (New Development) Policy B18 (New Residential Development) Policy H4 (Retention of Housing Stock) Policy H6 (Windfall Housing) Policy H8 (Residential Development and Infilling) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999:
Policy BNE1 (Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H3 (Retention of Housing) Policy H5 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H6 (High Density Housing) Policy T12 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
Principle
The site is located within the recognised urban area in both the adopted 1992 and emerging 1999 Local Plans. Accordingly there is no objection to the principle of such development.
Although in outline the main issues are whether, from the information submitted, it is considered that a development of 8 houses could be satisfactorily achieved on site with respect to matters of the character of the area, amenity and highway safety and access.
DC0902MW 11 Character of the Area.
Although the existing property on site is one half of a semi-detached bungalow the character of the area is quite mixed with terraced properties to the north and detached and semi- detached properties to the south. The illustrative plans indicate a possible development which reflects the character and layout of the terraced properties to the north, while there will be a minimum separation from the other half of the bungalow (which will become detached) of 1.8 metres which will protect the setting of that property.
Accordingly a development of 8 terraced properties can be achieved which would be in keeping with the character of the area.
Residential amenity.
The illustrative plan indicates a layout which would respect the privacy and amenity of adjacent properties. The western most plots will have vehicular access onto Walderslade Road and only 4 dwellings will derive their vehicular access from the spur road. It is not considered that such limited usage will cause an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the properties which back onto the spur. Due to the lack of any protected footpath provision on the spur the amended plans detail a new footpath link between plot 1 and 239 Walderslade Road (the remaining half of the semi). The residents are concerned regarding the implications for security and safety with the introduction of this footpath, however it will only serve 4 properties and is not an unusual feature within such development.
No objection is therefore raised on amenity grounds.
Highway Safety
This was a particular area of concern for residents as the spur is used as a service road for the garages for the properties to the north and for refuse vehicles. It has no protected footpath. The comment is made that the road is used by children playing and Bleakwood Road itself serves the Primary School and gets very busy. The proposal is for only 4 properties to derive vehicular access from the spur. Pedestrian access to the rear properties will, as stated, be achieved by a new footpath link to Walderslade Road and it is not considered that the limited additional movement will exacerbate concerns regarding highway safety.
The proposed layout indicates a parking provision averaging 1.5 spaces per property over the site and this reflects the advise contained in recent PPG advise and the Council’s own maximum standards. No objection is therefore raised on parking grounds.
Although the applicant was unwilling to amend the application as requested by Members, for the reasons set out above it is considered that the scheme remains acceptable in planning terms and as such it is recommended that permission be granted.
DC0902MW 12
3 MC2002/0838
Date Received: 23rd April 2002
Location: 30, Foulds Close, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0QF
Proposal: Construction of single storey side and first floor front extensions with new canopy to front and side
Applicant: Mr R S Davie 30 Foulds Close Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 OQF
Agent:
Ward: Hempstead & Wigmore
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the proposed new works 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 flank wall(s) of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Site Description
Foulds Close comprises a relatively quiet cul-de-sac characterised by predominantly two storey detached households of varied designs constructed in the 1960/70s. The application site comprises a two storey detached house fronted with a gable elevation and projecting single storey flat roof design feature which incorporates a lounge and garage. The house is set back from the road with parking for vehicles to the front with a garden that is laid to lawn and bounded by planting. Nos. 31 and 32 Foulds Close are further set back from the highway and are of the same original design. No. 29 Foulds Close is set back further from the highway than the application site but of a varied design.
Proposal
The application proposes the extension of the first floor bedroom accommodation to the front above the existing lounge and garage, construction of new front roof canopy at ground floor level to the front and southern side together with enlargement of existing entrance porch to the side.
DC0902MW 13 Relevant Planning History
MC2002/0280 Erection of first floor front extension, decorative canopy incorporating enlargement of porch Refused 9th April 2002
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: 22, 29 and 31 Foulds Close.
Six letters have been received from or on behalf of the occupier of 29 Foulds Close. One of these included a letter from a construction company making comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the occupiers of number 29. The letters raise objection on the following grounds:
- loss of early morning light to a lounge, hall and bedroom;
- loss of outlook;
- there has been a breach of human rights as a result of the applicant talking to officers without the neighbour being present;
- existing columns cannot take the weight of the first floor extension;
- the proposal is a dominant form of development resulting in a loss of outlook; and
- increase in noise generated from side extension.
The letter from the construction company advises the occupier of 29 that the extensions will be in breach of the BRE guidance regarding good design, breaching a 45 degree line to their windows and will therefore have an unacceptable impact on their outlook while causing overshadowing in the early morning.
Development Plan Policies
Medway Towns Local Plan 1992:
Policy B16 (New Development) Policy B19 (Residential Extensions)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999:
Policy BNE1 (Built Environment) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection)
DC0902MW 14
Planning Appraisal
The main issues for consideration are its impact upon the street scene and the character of the area and whether the development would adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Street Scene and Design
With regard to the visual impact of the development on the street scene, it is concluded that due to the varied character of the building design within the vicinity and the design retaining a similar theme to the original frontage, no objection is raised in terms of impact to the street scene.
Neighbour Amenities
Consideration here needs to be given to what impact the development would have in terms of the 1.65m projection to the front at first floor level and the impact of the ground floor element compromising canopy and extension to porch. When viewed from the southern side at 29 Foulds Close, the development would be seen from a lounge and bedroom to the front of this property. There would be some increased shadow caused to these rooms during the early morning. In addition, in terms of daylight and outlook the extensions would have an impact. BRE guidance does make reference to the 45 degree issue referred to by the construction company. This clearly is a consideration. However, it must be factored together with other considerations including width of the property, general outlook, and openness of the setting. On balance, due to the limited projection at first floor and the element of the alterations being closer to this household of single storey configuration at ground floor, no objection is raised with regards to outlook and dominance or daylight. There would be very limited sunlight loss in the very early morning period and some loss of outlook. However in view of the general outlook from the windows referred to and the movement of the sun in relation to the property it is not considered that the impact of the development would be so significant as to cause significant harm to the amenities of this resident which would justify with holding consent. Indeed the greatest impact in terms of loss of sunlight on the amenities of the occupier of number 29 is caused by the 2 large trees within his own front garden.
To the north, the adjacent neighbour at no. 31 would be affected by the front projections at ground and first floor level. Due to the limited extension at both levels, it is concluded that whilst the development would be seen from this side, no objection would be raised in terms of dominance, outlook and daylight. An element of late morning/early afternoon sunlight would be lost within the front garden but not to such a degree as to cause significant harm to residential amenity.
With regard to privacy, it is considered appropriate to remove permitted development rights to control further windows from being installed.
In terms of Human Rights the neighbour has been advised that it is not uncommon for applicants to talk directly to officers and to meet with them in relation to concerns. While it is encouraged that applicants talk to their neighbours it is not breaching any human rights to have a meeting without them being there, provided that a record is made of the meeting and
DC0902MW 15 the discussion that took place. Such a record should be placed on file and is a publically available document.
In addition his concerns regarding his human rights to the enjoyment of his home are essentially covered within the assessment of the application on its planning merits. As stated above there will be some impact upon his amenity but not to such an extent as to warrant a refusal of consent.
Highways
The proposal would not increase the need for further parking to be provided in view of no further bedrooms being provided.
Conclusion
Overall, the application is therefore viewed as being in accordance with the provisions of Policies B16 and B19 of the adopted Plan and Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999.
The application is acceptable in all regards and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
[This application would normally fall to be determined under Officers’ delegated powers but is reported for Members’ consideration at the request of Councillor Rodney Chambers due to the concerns raised by the objector in terms of amenity considerations.]
[This application was considered by Members at the Area Development Control Sub- Committees East 31st July 2002 when it was determined to defer a decision at Officers’ request and 21st August 2002 when it was deferred for a site visit.]
DC0902MW 16
4 MC2002/1074
Date Received: 21st May 2002
Location: 90, Silverspot Close, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 8JT
Proposal: Change of use from Doctor Surgery to residential bungalow.
Applicant: Mediproperty Limited 8, Overcliffe Gravesend Kent
Agent: Mr J Scannell Watson Day Chartered Surveyors 77 High Street Chatham Kent ME4 4EE
Ward: St Margarets
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
2 Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed plans for the existing car park area which should include the retention of two car parking spaces to serve the new property, with the remaining land reinstated to garden land, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation for residential purposes.
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 south west roofslope of the dwelling herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
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 the building is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained for the duration of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Site Description
The site is occupied by a single storey building with a pitched roof, in surgery use, with an area of open parking immediately abutting. Access is onto Silverspot Lane, a short distance south of the access with Mierscourt Primary School which lies along the east site boundary. There is residential development immediately abutting the southern site boundary
The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character.
DC0902MW 17
Proposal
It is intended to carry out minor internal alterations to facilitate the change of use of the premises into a two bedroom dwelling. No external changes are proposed. The applicants have submitted detailed supporting statements which can be summarised as follows:
“The current practitioner retired earlier this year without making any provision for a successor or to renew the lease of the property which expired in March 2001.
The Medway Primary Care Trust has entered into a 6-month lease of the premises expiring on the 24 September 2002 in order to enable the transfer of any remaining patients to other practices to take place. An agreement has been reached with the GP Practice in Station Road Rainham to take over the complete patient list, while the local Parkwood surgery will take any patients who do not wish to transfer to the Rainham Practice.
The Trust has no plans to continue use of the premises as a surgery after the above date.
In recent years there has been a relatively high proportion of medical services being transferred to purpose built surgeries. These aim to improve services by providing an extensive range of functions including increased security, better provision for the disabled, carrying out minor operations and generally much wider range of functions.
The existing surgery fails to comply in all significant respects with current requirements with only a single consulting room with waiting and reception areas of disproportionate size. Furthermore it has an internal gross floor area of approximately 78 sqr. metres whereas a modern purpose built surgery is normally between 205 and 278 sq. metres.
The decision not to continue use of the premises as a surgery is therefore based principally on the view that it does not meet any of the current criteria for surgeries/medical centres.
Regarding marketing for other uses, it is clear from experience gained elsewhere that the size and siting of the building makes it entirely unsuitable for other similar surgery uses such as a dental surgery or vets practice. In addition the property is too small for it to be a viable proposition for an Osteopathic or chiropody clinics which quite often are a combination of residential and consulting room.
However the design and siting of the property lends itself well to residential conversion. “
Relevant Planning History
GL74/1015A Erection of 4 dwellings and a doctors surgery Approved 18 January 1980
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 2, 2a, b, c and d Harvesters Close and 1 and 2 and 25-30 (consecutive) Silverspot Close. The head of Mierscourt CP School and the Primary Care Trust have also been advised of the application.
DC0902MW 18 A petition signed by 274 patients who currently use the surgery has been received objecting to closure on the following grounds:
§ Built at same time as houses within the area as one of the essential supporting amenities;
§ Closure would be particularly hard for the elderly, expectant mothers and mothers with young children as many of these groups do not have access to a car while any new provision may not be easily accessible by public transport; and
§ Understood that majority of local surgeries are full and turning away new patients – loss of a purpose built surgery with no alternative provision is unacceptable.
2 letters have been received raising the following objections:
§ With further houses being built within the area the property should remain as a surgery particularly as two local surgeries no longer taking patients; and
§ Is a purpose built surgery with regular ante natal clinic and nurse.
Development Plan Policies:
Medway Towns Local Plan 1992:
Policy U1 (Community Services)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version 1999)
Policy CF1 (Community facilities)
Planning Appraisal
Policy background:
Policies contained both within the adopted and emerging Local Plans presume against the loss of community facilities. However the Primary Care Trust’s position set out in the application, is that the building no longer meets the requirements for a modern multi-purpose local health care facility nor is the site capable of being upgraded to meet these standards.
A key factor in consideration of this proposal however is that that no planning or other restrictions were attached to the building requiring it to be used solely as a doctors surgery. A doctors surgery falls within Class D1, which in effect means that the building can be used for a wide range of uses without seeking planning permission from the Council.
Consequently, notwithstanding the objectors concern over the loss of this local surgery, in practice there is no planning mechanism that can be brought to bear to prevent its immediate change of use to any of the purposes specified in Class D1 or to require its continuation in surgery use.
Furthermore the Primary Care Trust have made quite clear that the site and buildings no longer meets their requirements and reflects the acknowledged trend for larger more
DC0902MW 19 centralised practices providing a wide range of services and medical procedures. In the past many of these would once have only been carried out at hospitals.
If the site were to be upgraded to meet current multi practitioner requirements then this would be likely to be accompanied by an increase in the size of the building, parking and general levels of activity. However it would need to be demonstrated that the site is physically capable of taking such additional demands. Given its small size and constrained location in close proximity to nearby houses and a school access, which could also give rise to highway safety and amenity objections, this is a debatable proposition
In all the circumstances there are no planning objections to loss of this doctors surgery.
There is the wider issue of whether there is a case for retaining any type of surgery provision at all on this site. Policy CF1 sets out the requirement that where community facilities are to be lost that it first needs to be demonstrated that they are no longer needed. It has already been conceded that this is accepted for the existing use but this also needs to be demonstrated for any other similar users.
The applicants have advised, due to the small size of the building and location within a residential area, that it is also no longer suitable for the current needs of other medical practitioners such as dental, vetinary or osteopath practices, all of which tend to be multi practitioner, or if sole practitioners working from home. This view is accepted.
This leaves whether or not any of the other uses falling within Class D1 are likely to locate or, if they did, whether this would cause amenity or highway problems.
Use Class D1 contains a number of potentially unneighbourly uses, all of which could have a similar or greater impact on the locality than the current surgery use. It is considered that the interests of the locality would be best served if, in the absence of a replacement surgery type use, which the applicants considers to be highly unlikely, if the use of the site reverted to one in keeping with the residential character of the surroundings.
Given the character of the surroundings and that of the building and the site in general, there is no objection to the use of the building for residential purposes. However in order to prevent loss of privacy to dwellings lying in close proximity to the southern site boundary that ’permitted development’ rights to install windows in the south west facing roof slope be withdrawn.
The application is accordingly recommended for approval.
DC0902MW 20
5 MC2002/1126
Date Received: 29th May 2002
Location: St. Margarets C Of E Voluntary Controlled Junior School, Orchard Street, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 9AE
Proposal: Application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country ( General Planning Regulations ) 1992 for the construction of a single-storey extension to form 4 classrooms.
Applicant: Medway Council Compass Centre
Agent: Mr S Gilberthorpe Design & Surveying Manager Annex B Civic Centre Strood Rochester, Kent ME2 4AU
Ward: St Margarets
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
2 The materials to be used in the construction of the extensions hereby permitted shall be as specified on the approved plans.
3 Prior to occupation of the classrooms approved hereunder, the 3 mobile classrooms identified on the plans shall be permanently removed from site.
4 Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted an investigation shall be undertaken to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. The results of the investigation together with a risk assessment by a competent person and details of a scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and a completion report issued by the competent person referred to above, stating how remediation has been completed and that the site is suitable for the permitted use, shall be provided to the Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.
Site Description
The school complex is within a residential area and is bounded on three sides by the rear gardens of properties fronting Maidstone Road, Broadview Avenue and Thames Avenue. The original school fronts onto Orchard Street behind which there are a number of extensions and prefabricated classrooms.
DC0902MW 21
Proposal
The proposal involves the demolition of an old aircraft shelter and to extend an existing flat roofed classroom at the rear of the school with a further flat roofed classroom to the rear while also extending down the side of the existing school building to provide 4 classrooms. The new building will be set at a lower level then the existing playgrounds to the rear of the school and houses backing onto Broadview Avenue. It is intended to replace three existing movable classrooms on site, which are located just to the west of the proposed extension, in order to enhance accommodation and will not result in an increased number of pupils or staff.
It will also be necessary to fell two trees that lie on the rim of the upper playground in order to make space for the flank extension.
Representations
The application has been advertised by means of a site and press notice. Neighbour consultation letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 70, 70a and 75-81 (odds) Orchard Street, 13-51(odds) and 35a Broadview Ave and 43 – 53 (odds) Maidstone Road.
No representations have been received.
Development Plan Policies
Medway Towns Local Plan:
Policy B16 New Development
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999:
Policy BNE1 General Principles for built development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection
Planning Appraisal
General Considerations:
The proposed additions to the rear of the existing school buildings will enlarge an existing flat roofed classroom already seen in the context of the varied roof lines of the existing school building. However given the low profile of the proposed classroom, which will remain clearly subordinate to the main building and its relatively well screened location, there is no design and siting objection to what is now proposed.
The flank extension is to set at a lower level while being separated from houses in Broadview Avenue by a play area. Taking these factors into account it is considered that there is no design or siting objection to this extension either. It will however result in loss of two trees. Though this is regrettable it is considered that the balance of issues comes down in favour of extending the school which will enable an upgrade of existing facilities and removal of unsightly prefabricated classrooms to take place.
DC0902MW 22 Regarding highway and parking matters, as no increase in the school roll is proposed the development is unlikely to bring about any material change in movement or parking patterns requiring any response as part of this application.
In conclusion the impact of both additions will be contained well within the existing school grounds while bringing about a beneficial upgrade in facilities and are to be welcomed.
DC0902MW 23
6 MC2002/1206
Date Received: 30th May 2002
Location: Rear of 48 Hoath Lane, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0SW
Proposal: Outline application for the construction of a detached bungalow; two flats in a 2 storey building; associated amenity areas and car parking together with single storey rear extension to existing building at 48 Hoath Lane.
Applicant: Mr G Singh 48 Hoath Lane Gillingham Kent
Agent: Mr R A Clayton 32 Watling Street Gillingham Kent ME7 2YH
Ward: Rainham Mark
Recommendation - Refusal
1 The proposed development will result in additional vehicle manoeuvres at a location on the highway network where highway safety is likely to be compromised. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy T2 of the Medway Towns Local Plan 1992 and Policy T2 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999.
2 The proposal will result in an unacceptable level of amenities for the occupiers of the proposed flats by an unacceptable level of domination, enclosure, overlooking and loss of privacy from the adjacent buildings at 46-48 Hoath Lane. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies H8, H9 and B18 of the Medway Towns Local Plan 1992 and Policies BNE2 and H10 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999.
3 The proposal will result in an unacceptable level of amenities for the occupiers of the proposed bungalow by an unacceptable level of domination, enclosure, overlooking and loss of privacy from the existing adjacent maisonettes at Hoath Mews and the proposed two storey development in front of the proposed bungalow. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies H8, H9 and B18 of the Medway Towns Local Plan 1992 and Policies BNE2 and H10 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999.
4 The proposed development by virtue of the number of units proposed and the indicative siting, design, scale and height of the units would represent an over- development of the site contrary to Policies B16, B18, H8 and H9 of the Medway Towns Local Plan 1992 and Policies BNE1, BNE2, H5 and H10 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999.
5 The proposed development by virtue of blocking of sunlight to the rear garden of Hoath Mews will have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of existing residential properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies H8, B16 and B18 of the Medway Towns Local Plan 1992 and Policies BNE2 and H10 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999.
DC0902MW 24
Site Description
This application relates to a two-storey end of terrace, large flat-roofed building on the western side of Hoath Lane, opposite the junction with Woodside & situated within a small parade of 3 shops, the other 2 buildings being single storey and flat roofed. To the north, No.46 is used as a shop, No.44 an estate agents. Beyond this is Hoath Mews with 4 residential maisonettes, 2 other shops, a commercial premise, a garage and car sales building. To the South is a vehicular access to the rear car park, No.2 Wigmore Road is a 2- storey building with a ground floor newsagent, No.4 is a bungalow. Directly opposite is a residential dwelling at 43 Hoath Lane & The Spyglass & Kettle PH at No2 Woodside. The surrounding area is mainly residential in character. Directly outside the parade of shops is a designated car parking area for approx.7 cars. Hoath Lane & Wigmore Road is a busy through road to Hempstead.
The building is currently used as a fish & chip shop with ancillary uses on the ground floor & residential accommodation above. The opening hours are Mon. – Sat 11.30am-2pm & 4- 10pm. Sunday closed.
A side access, having a width of 3.7 metres and reducing to 3 metres is located on the south side of the building and leads to a large concrete paved yard at the rear of the premises. This paved area was formerly used for the display of garden pools and equipment associated with the former use of the premises. Beyond the yard, the rear portion of the site falls in a westward direction by approximately 1 metre covered in undergrowth together with several semi-mature trees. These trees are protected by TPO 43/1982 which is an Order covering a large area of woodland to the west of the aplication site and neighbouring properties.
The site is bounded along the south side by a 1.8 metre high fence. A number of fir trees extend along the east part of this boundary. A fence extends along the west boundary and a large area of the protected woodland (TPO 43/1982 W1) lies beyond this boundary. The woodland is a relatively dense mix of ash/beech/birch and oak semi-mature trees, standards and coppice. The northern boundary is bounded by a 1.8 metre high fence where it adjoins the rear gardens of Hoath Mews and the remainder is bounded by the side wall of a single storey building used for office/light industrial purposes.
Hoath Mews is a two storey building accommodating four maisonettes. Its south facing wall, which does not contain any windows, is located on the boundary with the application site. The rear gardens of 3 and 4 Hoath Mews are located to the rear of the building.
No.2 Wigmore Road has two first floor windows within its northern elevation facing onto the rear of 48 Hoath Lane.
Proposal
The proposal is in outline form for the erection of a detached two storey building adjacent to the northern boundary to accommodate two one bedroomed flats. Two car parking spaces are proposed to the south of this building along with two separate private garden areas for each flat. The illustrative plans indicate ground and first floor windows within the western and eastern elevations.
DC0902MW 25 Behind this building and on the lower western part of the site within the area of protected woodland it is proposed to construct a three bedroomed bungalow with an integral garage and an additional car parking space in front of it. A further car parking space and private amenity space is proposed adjacent to the southern boundary for the occupier of the existing first floor flat above 48 Hoath Lane. Remaining areas around the bungalow are to be garden. A number of trees are indicated to be removed.
The plans submitted reserve external appearance, landscaping and design for future consideration by identify means of access and siting.
Relevant Planning History
MC1999/5342 Outline application for erection of detached bungalow and garage together with associated parking and access including demolition of existing extension to side of 48 Hoath Lane Refused 28th September 1999 Appeal dismissed 28th April 2000 (on ground of future residents would suffer harm by way of overlooking and loss of privacy from the adjacent maisonettes as well as noise and disturbance over extended hours from vehicles visiting the shop).
MC2000/0798 Outline application for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling and a detached double garage and two parking spaces Refused 31st October 2000 Appeal allowed 2nd April 2001 (noted the proposal was for a more centrally positioned dwelling)
MC2001/1076 Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling and detached double garage (revised scheme to MC2000/0798 to remove reference of demolition of existing two storey side extension) Approved 4th September 2001.
MC2002/1076 Construction of a single storey rear extension to buildings north-western corner to be used as a preparation room and removal of existing temporary store extension in south western corner. Approved 25th July 2002
Representations
A site notice has been erected and notification letters sent to the owners and occupiers of 1 to 4 Hoath Mews; 1, 2, 412 and 43 and 32 to 46 (evens) Hoath Lane; 2 Woodside, 2 Wigmore Road and Mr Dunn, 14 Wigmore Road.
One letter of objection has been received on the grounds of over-development, loss of a mature oak tree; and overlooking into the proposed bungalows bedrooms.
Development Plan Policies
Kent Structure Plan 1996:
Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy ENV16 (Urban Open Space and Town Cramming)
DC0902MW 26 Policy T17 (Parking) Policy T18 (Development and Traffic) Policy T19 (Development, Highway Safety and Delays) Policy H3 (Housing in Urban Areas)
Medway Towns Local Plan 1992:
Policy B16 (New Development) Policy B18 (Design Standards for New Residential Development) Policy T1 (Impact of New Development on the Highway Network) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway Network) Policy T13 (Parking Standards) Policy H9 (Backland development) Policy H8 (Residential Infilling)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE44 (Trees on Development Sites) Policy H5 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H10 (Backland development) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T12 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
Policy Outline
The principle of the application falls to be assessed against the provisions of Policies H3 of the Kent Structure Plan and H8 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy H5 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999 (the emerging Local Plan). These policies indicate a presumption in favour of the residential infilling of sites within the urban areas.
The principle of residential development for a two storey detached dwelling has been established by the historical granting of planning permissions on the site.
Density & Design
Policies ENV15 of the Kent Structure Plan, B16 and B18 of the adopted Local Plan and BNE1 of the emerging Local Plan set out criteria for the assessment of proposals in terms of their impact on the built environment and design quality. However, in addition Policies H8 and H9 of the adopted Local Plan require new development to leave adequate space between buildings and to have acceptable design standards; and to provide adequate private amenity space. Policy H5 of the emerging Local Plan permits residential infilling providing that a clear improvement in the local environment will result.
DC0902MW 27 Although planning permissions have previously been granted on the site, they are for a single detached two storey dwelling. An appeal for a detached bungalow was dismissed on 28th April 2000 on the grounds that future residents would suffer harm by way of overlooking and loss of privacy from the adjacent maisonettes. The approved scheme for the two storey dwelling shows a centrally positioned dwelling with adequate surrounding garden areas. The plans also included the provision of a private amenity space for the occupiers of the existing first floor flat above 48 Hoath Lane.
The dwelling had been designed with no windows within the eastern elevation in order to avoid overlooking of the interior of the proposed house from the rear first floor windows of Hoath Mews. The Inspector at that appeal considered the centrally positioned siting of the proposed dwelling as particularly important.
This current application removes the provision of an external private amenity space for the occupiers of the existing first floor flat above and replaces it with a two storey building for two flats. The proposed private garden space for each flat is comparable to the garden space existing at Hoath Mews. A larger bungalow than that refused on appeal is proposed but has been angled and designed in such a way as to provide private amenity spaces. However, such amenity spaces will be heavily shrouded by adjacent protected trees. A replacement amenity garden space is proposed for the existing first floor flat occupiers. However, this is situated across the car parking and turning area and will be overlooked by the first floor windows in the proposed two storey flat development.
On balance the proposed scheme is considered to be an over development of the plot.
Impact on Amenities
Policies B16, B18, H8 and H9 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the emerging Local Plan deal with the amenities of future occupiers and occupiers of existing neighbouring properties.
The proposed two storey development although situated adjacent (but not attached) to the Hoath Mews maisonettes does not project beyond the rear or front elevations of Hoath Mews. There are no side elevation windows within Hoath Mews to be affected. The siting of the two storey development is such that direct sunlight would be blocked between 8am and 11am and very little overbearing would result. However, although the proposed bungalow will have no impact upon the occupiers of Hoath Mews in terms of overlooking, the proposal will block sunlight to the rear gardens from 3pm onwards.
The combination therefore of both dwellings results in the rear garden of the adjacent Hoath Mews dwelling being overshadowed for most of the day. This situation will have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of Hoath Mews.
The distance of only 1.5 metres in between the proposed two storey flats and the existing single storey elevation of 46 Hoath Lane is considered unacceptable in terms of an over dominating and loss of light impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of the proposed flats. A distance of 7.5 metres in between the rear first floor windows of 48 Hoath Mews and the proposed flats is also considered unacceptable in terms of over domination and loss of privacy.
DC0902MW 28 The distance of only 10 metres (at its closest point) between the front of the proposed bungalow and the rear of the proposed flats is considered unacceptable in terms of domination and overlooking from the bedroom and sitting room windows of the first floor flat and therefore consequent loss of privacy. There would also be unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to potential occupiers of the bungalow from Hoath Mews (one of the reasons for the first dismissed appeal).
Highways Impact: Traffic and Parking
Policies T18 and T19 of the Kent Structure Plan, T1 and T2 of the adopted local plan and T1 and T2 of the emerging 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. Policy H9 of the adopted Local Plan also requires there to be no problems with vehicular access.
This proposal has its access close to a busy T junction. Whilst there are no reported accidents at the junction in the last three years monitored, there are many conflicting movements at the junctions, including drivers emerging from the parking area adjacent to the access. These movements are associated with adjoining retail and takeaway uses, which are relatively intensive, particularly at certain times of the day. Therefore, the potential for accidents with the existing arrangement is high and further vehicular movements will only exacerbate this situation.
The proposed access is of insufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass, which could potentially result in drivers waiting on Wigmore Road to allow another vehicle to exit. Furthermore, visibility from the access is restricted, due to the presence of parked vehicles on the existing lay by parking on Wigmore Road/Hoath Lane.
In terms of parking provision, Policies T17 of the Kent Structure Plan, T13 of the adopted local plan and T12 of the emerging local plan set out parking standards. The Sustainable Development Committee on 17th May 2001 adopted a parking standard of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling a maximum on average across residential developments in urban areas. This is in line with central government policy in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing (PPG3) which states that provision of more than 1.5 spaces per property is unlikely to support policies of environmental sustainability.
The proposed scheme allocates 1 off-street parking space for each proposed flat, an integral garage and 1 car parking space for the proposed bungalow and 1 car parking space for the existing first floor flat. Existing frontage parking remains for the customers of the hot food takeaway. The four dwellings require 6 spaces whilst a total of 5 will be provided. This level of provision complies with the standard, being below the 1.5 per unit maximum and, bearing in mind the size of the units proposed, the car parking provision is considered acceptable.
Conclusion
The proposal is viewed as representing over development of the site and on balance and in view of the above the application is considered contrary to the provisions of Policies B16, B18, H8, H9 and T2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, H5 and T2 of the emerging Local Plan. Therefore the application is recommended for refusal.
DC0902MW 29
7 MC2002/1252
Date Received: 6th June 2002
Location: NTL Transmitting Station, Longhill Avenue, Gillingham, Kent
Proposal: Installation of three dual polar & four dish antennae on existing tower with two cabinets & a feeder gantry
Applicant: NTL Crawley Court Winchester Hampshire SO21 2QA
Agent: Mr M Smith B & R Property NTL Crawley Court Winchester Hampshire SO21 2QA
Ward: Gillingham South
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
(as amended by revised plan received on 1st July 2002)
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be removed from the mast upon which it is situated as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for telecommunication purposes.
Site Description
The application site is the existing NTL transmission tower situated on the Great Lines in Gillingham. To the south of the mast are residential semi-detached dwellings. The closest to the mast compound being about 27 metres. To the east of the site are the premises of Medway Maritime Hospital. To the north and west is the Brompton Lines area of open space. The current mast stands at a height of about 35 metres and includes a compound enclosed by metal railings.
The mast is situated on the edge of the area designated as the Brompton Lines Conservation Area. The area is also designated as an Area of Local Landscape Importance, an Area of Informal Open Space and an Area of Local Nature Conservation.
Proposal
This proposal is for the installation of 3 no. polar antennas and 4 no. dish antennas to the existing tower at a height of between 12.8 metres and 14.5 metres. Also proposed is the installation of 2 no. ancillary equipment cabinets (each 1.9m x 0.9m x 1.3m) into the existing compound and a feeder gantry.
DC0902MW 30
Representations
The proposal has been advertised by means of a site notice and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: 27, 28, 29, 30a, 30, 31a, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 Longhill Avenue and to the Medway Maritime Hospital.
Four letters have been received raising the following objections:
- possible interference with the hospital instrumentation;
- possible health hazards from emissions;
- encouraging additional traffic to street; and
- noise nuisance to residents from the equipment “humming”.
A letter has been received from the Medway Maritime Hospital Estates Manager raising concern over a lack of technical information provided and therefore possible interference with hospital equipment. (The agent is now in contact with the Medway NHS Trust and is in discussion concerning technical matters).
Planning History
NK/3/60/75A TV receiving station, relay exchange siting Approved 24th January 1961
NK/3/60/75B Cabin housing transmitting equipment fence and aerials Approved 28th April 1988
91/265 Alterations to security fence and installation of cabin and antennae Approved 16th July 1973
94/348 Proposed erection of a 35 metre high lattice tower to replace existing 30m tower Approved 8th September 1994
95/0077 Resubmission for the proposed erection of a 35m high tower and reposition cabin Approved 10th March 1995
MC1999/6039 Installation of antennae on existing tower together with a new equipment cabin at ground level Approved 24th February 2000
MC2000/0417 Application for prior approval under part 24 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 for the installation of 3 no. cross polar panel antennaes accompanied by 1 no. equipment cabin and 1 no. electric meter cabinet Prior approval not required 25th April 2000.
DC0902MW 31 MC2000/1900 Installation of 3 no. antenna on an existing telecommunications mast Approved 5th February 2001
MC2001/1917 Installation of 6 no. antenna onto existing tower together with associated equipment cabinets at ground level. Approved 31st December 2001.
Development Plan Policies
Medway Towns Local Plan 1992:
Policy B4 (Development in Conservation Areas) Policy B16 (New Development) Policy C5 (Areas of Local Landscape Importance) Policy C8 (Areas of Nature Conservation Interest) Policy C9 (Local Nature Reserves)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999:
Policy CF14 (Telecommunications) Policy BNE35 (Areas of Local Landscape Importance) Policy BNE37 (Strategic and Local Nature Conservation Sites) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development)
Planning Appraisal
The main considerations in the determination of this application are the appearance of the development in the area; the appropriateness of the siting and that the development would not cause harm to the wildlife interest of the area.
Appearance
The tower onto which the apparatus is proposed to be erected is existing. It is 35 metres high and is used by various other operations (ITV1; BBC1; BBC2; Channel 4; Transcomm UK Ltd; Thales Telecommunications Services Ltd; Mm02 (formally BT Cellnet); BT paging, Pageone Communications Ltd; T-Mobile UK Ltd (formally One 2 One) and Orange PCS Ltd). The ancillary equipment cabinets are to be contained within the existing compound.
The visual impact of the proposed installation on the surround area is considered very minor.
Siting
The proposed equipment is required to enable the operator, Hutchinson 3G, to establish a national coverage. Capacity issues are relevant in deciding where new equipment is needed as each structure has limited call handing capacity and the use of mobile phones continues to grow. The applicant has provided coverage information which demonstrates a need for apparatus in this vicinity as part of their strategic planning to achieve coverage of the Medway Towns.
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG8: Telecommunications) and Local Plan Policy CF14 expect the utilising of spare capacity on existing masts before alternative sites should be considered.
DC0902MW 32 As such, this proposal meets with policy regarding the siting of telecommunications equipment.
Effects to Wildlife
The site is existing as a site for telecommunication purposes. The likely additional affects of this proposal to wildlife in this Nature Conservation Area is negligible.
Other matters
Concern has been raised in respect of the potential adverse health effects of mobile phone masts and equipment. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 8 “Telecommunications” states that ‘… it is the Government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government’s responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government’s view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and any concerns about them …’
The agent has confirmed that the proposals will comply with the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure. It is also confirmed that the cumulative radio frequency output of all the equipment at this site meets ICNIRP precautionary levels. Accordingly objections to the siting of the equipment on health grounds cannot be substantiated as a planning reason for refusing prior approval.
Conclusion
With reference to the above assessment it is therefore considered to be acceptable within the context of the adopted and emerging Local Plan Policies listed above in the Policy section of this report.
It is therefore recommended that approval be granted.
DC0902MW 33
8 MC2002/1283
Date Received: 19th June 2002
Location: 118 Dargets Road, Lords Wood, Chatham, Kent.
Proposal: Part change of use to day care nursery for a maximum of twenty five children between the ages of 0-6 years between the hours of 7:30 am and 6:00 pm Mondays to Fridays.
Applicant: Mrs E Gibson 54, Kellaway Road Lordswood Chatham Kent ME5 8BX
Agent:
Ward: Walderslade
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30th September 2003 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
2 The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 0730 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays inclusive and at no time on Saturdays, Sundays or National Holidays.
3 No more than 25 children shall attend the nursery at any one time.
4 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.
5 No more than four children shall be in the garden area at any one time.
6 The day care nursery shall only be managed and operated by the person(s) living and permanently residing at 118 Dargets Road.
Site Description
This application relates to a semi-detached property on the corner of Dargets Road and Kellaway Road. It comprises a lounge, dining room and kitchen on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. The front garden is open plan with a hardstanding to the front capable of accommodating two/three cars. The rear garden is bounded by 1.8 metres high fences on both sides with a row of conifers, about 1.5 metres high along the boundary to 1/3 Kellaway Road. There is an oak tree in the rear garden.
DC0902MW 34
The surrounding area is residential comprising a mix of single household accommodation and two storey purpose built maisonettes.
Proposal
The proposal is for a part change of use of the property to a day care nursery between 0730 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays. A maximum of 25 children between the ages of 0 – 6 would attend. There would be two full time and four part time staff at the premises. It is also submitted by the applicant that only four children would be allowed to play in the garden at any one time.
Relevant planning history
MC2002/0574 Change of use from residential to day care nursery. Withdrawn 13th June 2002
Representations
A Notice has been placed on site and letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of 120, 121, 122 and 123 Dargets Road; 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 Kellaway Road; and 1 Hornbeam Road.
3 letters have been received objecting on the grounds of:
- inadequate parking; - a business should not be allowing in a residential area; - the parking of vehicles by parents outside the premises would cause congestion in the area, and be detrimental to residential amenity traffic hazard.
Development Plan Policies
Kent Structure Plan 1996:
Policy T17 (Parking)
Medway Towns Local Plan 1992:
Policy H5 (Residential amenity) Policy T13 (Car parking)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999:
Policy BNE2 (Amenity protection) Policy T12 (Vehicle parking standards)
Planning Appraisal
The issues in the determination of this application relate to:
- the principle of the proposed part change of use; - the impact on residential amenity; and - the impact on car parking.
DC0902MW 35
Principle
The application is for the part change of use to a day-care nursery and is tantamount to a re- submission of application Mc2002/0574 which was withdrawn on 13th June 2002. That application was to convert the whole of the premises to a day care nursery and it was recommended for refusal on the grounds, inter alia, that it would result in the loss of a dwelling, still capable of being used as single family accommodation, contrary Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy H3 of the Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999 (the emerging Local Plan). The current proposal retains the property in residential use and it will remain as a dwelling and be occupied as such outside the permitted hours of the nursery. There is, therefore, no objection to the proposal on the grounds of residential accommodation.
Residential amenity
The current proposal, for a maximum of 25 children, compares with a maximum of 30 children under the previous scheme. The main impact on the amenities of nearby residents will be the potential noise and disturbance from children at the premises and the noise disturbance and inconvenience caused by parents delivering and collecting their children from the premises. The noise from children should not be unduly detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents, and would be confined to the hours specified in the application. Any disturbance would be further minimised the applicant’s assurance that no more than four children would be allowed in the garden at any one time. The impact on residential amenity from vehicles calling at the premises is likely to be concentrated into a short period of time in the mornings and evenings, and it is considered that the proposal would not be contrary to Policy H5 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy BNE2 of the emerging Local Plan.
Highways
In terms of highways/parking, it is considered that the provision of three spaces on the hardstanding would be sufficient to accommodate the needs of the applicant and staff. Some children will be walked to the site while with the relatively limited number of children and likely staggered arrival times the arrival and departure of cars is not likely to a highway safety concern. It is, therefore considered that there is adequate parking to serve the proposal and therefore it would comply with Policy T17 of the Structure Plan, Policy T13 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy T12 of the emerging Local Plan
The application is, therefore recommended for approval.
DC0902MW 36
9 MC2002/1378
Date Received: 4th July 2002
Location: 6, Shelden Drive, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 8JX
Proposal: Construction of a single storey rear extension
Applicant: Mr & Mrs B & J Ingram 6 Shelden Drive Rainham Gillingham Kent ME8 8JX
Agent: Phillips Designs Victoria House 14 New Road Avenue Chatham Kent ME4 6BA
Ward: St Margarets
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
2 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally and any means of enclosure shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
3 The roof of the extension hereby approved shall not be used as a balcony or for any other purpose ancillary to the enjoyment of the occupants.
Site Appraisal
The area is residential in character of predominantly detached bungalows and chalet bungalows. The site comprises a purpose built chalet bungalow which is gable ended and has a first floor level within its steep pitched roof. The property has an attached garage to its eastern side and is enclosed by 2m high fencing on this side. The fencing to the western boundary is level with gardens at 2 and 4 approx. and 1.5m higher than the garden level of the applicants property. No 8 to the east is set at a lower level than the application site. The rear gardens of 2 and 4 are relatively small compounded by extensions to these properties.
Proposed works
The proposal comprises the erection of a single storey pitched roof extension to the rear of the property to comprise enlargement of lounge and formation of dining room area. A pitched roof around a flat roofed area is proposed above.
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of the following properties:- 1a 2,4 8 17 17a Sheldon Drive and 14,16 Cherry Tree road.
DC0902MW 37
Four letters of representation (two from one household) have been received objecting to the scheme on the following grounds:-
- the development would give a feeling of enclosure and tunnelling affect from surrounding rear gardens; - loss of natural daylight and sunlight; - loss of view; - loss of privacy from a window within the roof; and - potential impact on value and sale of surrounding homes.
One letter has been received from a householder in the vicinity raising no objection to the scheme.
Development Plan Policies
Medway Local Plan 1992
Policy B16 New development Policy B19 Extensions to residential properties Policy T13 Parking standards
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999
Policy BNE1 General principles for development Policy BNE2 Amenity considerations Policy T12 Parking standards
Officer Appraisal
This application falls to be assessed against the above-mentioned planning policy.
Streetscene
In terms of impact on the streetscene, the roof design retains the same pitch as the main roof but is proposed to have a reduced ridge height approx. 2.2m lower than that of the main roof to the bungalow. Due to the extent of projection, roof-lights are proposed within this roof void to encourage light into the floorspace within the rear section of the extension.
Overall whilst the structure would be seen from surrounding gardens, no objection is raised to the design.
Amenity
With regard to neighbours, there are no privacy implications as the windows to the side are proposed within the roof level. In terms of dominance the site was viewed from the gardens of nos. 2 and 4 to ascertain the likely resultant impact. It is considered that whilst the development will be seen at roof level from the rear gardens of these properties in particular from the western side, the impact would not be overly dominant due to the siting from the boundary and difference in land levels. There would be an element of sunlight / daylight lost in the morning period until around 11.00 but not to an unacceptable level in view of the
DC0902MW 38 difference in ground levels, extent of ridge height and existing boundary treatment and the path of the sun.
Loss of view, house value and potential impact on later house sale are not planning considerations.
There are no highway implications.
Taking the above matters into consideration, the application is recommended for approval.
[This application would normally fall for determination under powers delegated by planning committee but is reported due to more than two letters of objection having been received.]
DC0902MW 39
10 MC2002/1416
Date Received: 12th July 2002
Location: 67, Arthur Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 9BU
Proposal: Construction of a single storey rear extension together with loft conversion incorporating rear dormer window
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Lovell 67 Arthur Road Rainham Kent ME8 9BU
Agent: Mr P Ritson 57 Harrison Drive High Halstow Rochester Kent ME3 8TF
Ward: St Margarets
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the extension herein approved shall match those used on the existing dwellinghouse.
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, other than those hereby approved, shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Site Appraisal
The area is residential in character of predominantly two storey semi detached housing of hipped roof design. Properties have been extended to the side and rear within the vicinity of two storey and single storey design. The application site comprises a semi detached house extended to the side (garage and utility room) and to the rear by a w/c and study of a flat roof design. The extended element lies on the western boundary of the house and forms in part the boundary treatment with no 65 Arthur road. The remaining boundary treatment to both sides is of 2-2.5m height.
The rear extension projects into the rear garden by 6.2m at present. The relatively long rear garden gradually slopes in a north easterly direction down to its rear boundary that is screened by mature dense planting.
Parking is provided within the curtilage for two cars.
DC0902MW 40 Proposal
The proposal comprises the further extension of the property at the rear in single storey flat roof form and an alteration of the roof of the main dwelling from hipped end to half hip incorporating rear dormer window. The proposal would provide for a ground floor bedroom at the rear with improved w/c shower facilities to aid the applicants who have a registered disabled member of the family. Within the roof space a further bedroom is proposed .making a total of five.
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties;- 65,69 Arthur Road, 46,48 Herbert road and 1 Norrys road.
No letters have been received from any adjacent resident.
Development Plan Policies
Medway Towns local Plan 1992
Policy B16 New development Policy B19 Extensions to residential properties Policy T13 Parking standards
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999
Policy BNE1 Design Policy BNE2 Amenity Policy T12 Parking Standards
Officer Appraisal
This application falls to be assessed against the above-mentioned planning policy.
Streetscene
In terms of impact on the streetscene, it is considered that the alteration of roof would respect the overall character of the street whilst retaining an element of hipped design . To the rear the flat roof dormer and extension would not be prominent within the streetscene but would be seen from surrounding rear gardens. In view of other flat roof extensions existing and the dormer design not overly dominating the main roof, no objection is raised to the scheme in this regard.
Amenity considerations
With regard to neighbours consideration has to be given to the overall scale and visual impact of the development and potential loss of daylight, sunlight, privacy and shadow cast.
In terms of scale and visual dominance, careful consideration is given to the extent of projection on the boundary with no 65 Arthur road. The proposal would amount to just under 11m of flank wall being set on this boundary as a consequence of the existing structure on site and the proposed extension of 4.8m approx. The structure would be more readily seen in
DC0902MW 41 terms of scale as the land level slopes down. Setting this to one side the existing structure already projects approx. 6m from the rear elevation on the side boundary and the special needs of the applicant have to be taken into consideration. Whilst the development does extend substantially along the shared boundary it is considered that the overall dominance of the structure would not be overbearing in the region of the protected private amenity space directly to the rear of 56 Arthur road as this 6m of space is affected already by the existing extension. This combined with the applicants desire to keep the roof level as shallow as possible and no objection received from the affected party leads to no objection being raised in this instance-this is further swayed by the special needs of the applicant. There are no privacy concerns to the western flank but a window restriction is recommended due to the difference in ground levels between gardens.
Existing boundary treatment is considered acceptable in terms of screening potential overlooking from the use of the side door on the eastern flank The extension to the rear would result in additional sunlight lost into the rear garden of no 65 in the early morning period but not to the detriment of this affected neighbour overall in view of the length of time the shadow would be cast. There are no daylight implications.
With regard to the roof alterations, the proposal would not be readily overbearing when viewed from surrounding properties. The works would amount to partial sunlight loss/shadow in the late morning to that already experienced but not to the detriment of the occupiers amenity. Due to the off set siting of the roof from the neighbours side, there are no concerns with regard to loss of daylight.
Highways
The site is served by two parking spaces that accords with the adopted parking standards and no objection is raised to the development in view of this.
Taking the above matters into consideration, the application is recommended for approval.
[This application is reported to planning Committee due to the applicant being an employee of Medway Council.]
DC0902MW 42
11 MC2002/1581
Date Received: 1st August 2002
Location: Land at the corner of High Street & Briton Street and land at the corner of High Street & Arden Street, Gillingham, Kent.
Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development including 38 flats and commercial units
Applicant: Beaver Housing Society C/O The Agent
Agent: Mr Cook W Cook Associates 1 Limes Place Preston Street Faversham Kent ME13 8PQ
Ward: Brompton
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
2 The development shall not commence until detailed plans and specifications of the proposed environmental improvements to the junction of Gillingham High Street and Briton Street, including the proposed on-street parking bays, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved works shall be completed before any flat is brought into use.
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 The work of demolition herein approved shall not take place before a contract for the carrying out of works of redevelopment of the site has been made and entered into and planning permission has been granted for such works covering the whole site and such a contract is capable of being implemented.
5 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include 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. 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.
DC0902MW 43 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 The commercial floorspace at the ground floor of the development hereby approved shall be used for the expansion of Gillingham Library or for A1 Retail or A2 Financial and Professional Services (as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987) and for no other use unless formally agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
8 Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted an investigation shall be undertaken to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. The results of the investigation together with a risk assessment by a competent person and details of a scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and a completion report issued by the competent person referred to above, stating how remediation has been completed and that the site is suitable for the permitted use, shall be provided to the Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.
9 Before the development hereby permitted commences a scheme of control for internal noise shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. All works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and thereafter maintained for the duration o fthe use.
10 Before the development hereby permitted commences, a scheme for protecting the proposed dwelling from road traffic noise shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and all works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and thereafter maintained for the duration of the use.
11 No deliveries or collections shall take place outside the hours 0700 to 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1800 Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.
Site Description
The application relates to two sites at the north-eastern end of Gillingham High Street, on the corners with Arden Street and Briton Street. The main part of the site consists of the former Vincents Public House and two further units adjacent to the library, along with the Briton Street car public car park. This part of the site wraps around the corner of Briton Street and the High Street. The smaller part of the site consists of the dry cleaners premises on the corner of the High Street and Arden Street.
DC0902MW 44 All of the buildings within the site are three stories in height, consisting of commercial uses at the ground floor and two further stories above, variously laid out as residential accommodation or ancillary storage space. The majority of the floorspace is currently vacant and the buildings are in a poor state of repair and decoration.
The site falls within the remit of the High Street/ Arden Street Development Brief, adopted in April 2000.
Proposal
Full planning consent is sought for the demolition of all existing buildings on the site and the redevelopment consisting of a mixed-use scheme incorporating commercial frontages at ground floor on the High Street elevations, with residential accommodation to the rear, on the southern end of the Briton Street frontage and on three further floors above. The commercial floorspace totals 241.5 sqm split over the two sites. The flats consist of 20 two-bed and 18 one-bed units of various sizes, designed to accommodate between two and four people according to housing association space standards.
It is also proposed to undertake environmental improvements to the junction between the High Street and Briton Street to create a shared surface, giving priority to pedestrians through the use of a raised table linking the main high street to the northern end. Landscaped areas are proposed to further improve the street scene.
Site Area/ Density
Site area: 0.132 ha (0.326 acres)
Site Density: 288 dph (116.6 dpa)
Relevant Planning History
Each of the properties has a separate history, but only the following relates directly to the current application;
MC2001/2102 - Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed-use development including 40 flats and commercial units – Refused 10-JUL-2002
Representations
The application has been advertised on site and in the local press as a major development. Southern Water Services and the Police Architectural Liaison Officer have been consulted and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and/ or occupiers of the following properties;
2, 4, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 8, 10, 18-20, 29, 29a, 29b, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38-40, The Viscount Hardinge PH, The Job Centre and Sommerfields High Street Gillingham, 1-23 (odds)
DC0902MW 45 Marlborough Road, 1, 12, 14, 16 & The Monarch PH Arden Street and 1-10 (all) Andrew Manor.
In addition, anyone who responded to the previous application was consulted.
Southern Water has written stating that the existing foul sewerage facilities are inadequate. The applicant has confirmed that this issue has been addressed in consultation.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer confirmed that the previous proposal meets the requirements of Secure by Design.
Development Plan Policies
Medway Towns Local Plan 1992:
Policy H8 (Residential Infilling and Redevelopment) Policy R7 (Town Centre Opportunity Sites) Policy B16 (New Development) Policy B18 (Design Standards for New Residential Development and Residential Extensions) Policy T15 (Pedestrian Access) Policy T16 (Improving Conditions for Pedestrians)
Medway Local Plan (Deposit Version) 1999:
Policy BNE1 (General Principle for Built Development) Policy H5 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy R11 (Mixed Use Schemes) Policy T3 (Provision for Pedestrians)
Planning Appraisal
Background and Principle
The site is part of the area covered by the High Street/ Arden Street Gillingham Development Brief, which aims to regenerate the urban fabric around the northern end of the High Street and the surrounding streets at Arden Street, Fox Street and Mill Road. The council owns much of the land covered by the brief (including the application site). Existing mixed-use schemes, triggered by the brief, are underway on the opposite corner of the High Street and Arden Street and on an adjoining plot running between the High Street and Fox Street (phases I and II). In addition, the two storeys above the former town centre manager’s office at 29 High Street are currently being refurbished to provide two flats. The proposal accords with the provisions of the development brief, which seeks to visually reinforce the corner sites to create an entrance to the High Street and enhance the vitality and viability of the area by increasing commercial and residential activity.
Within the Medway Towns Local Plan 1992, the application site is identified as a Town Centre Opportunity Site, within which Policy R7 provides that ‘…sympathetic consideration will be given to mixed use redevelopment incorporating environmental improvements…’. The general principle of redevelopment for a mixture of commercial and residential uses is accepted.
DC0902MW 46
Uses and Density
The proposal is for the provision of 38 flats and commercial floorspace. The scheme has been submitted by a housing association in order to meet a recognised need for small affordable housing units in the area, and follows extensive consultation with the Council in relation to housing need. The existing buildings on the site are underused as a result of a lack of investment and are in poor general state of repair. Extensive commercial floorspace is already provided, including the disused public house, and the upper floors of each building provide two stories of residential or storage accommodation.
In accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing (PPG3), local plan policies seek to make the most efficient use of previously developed sites in urban areas, resulting in increased residential densities, and promote mixed-use developments. The proposed development fully accords with this approach, providing residential accommodation over commercial floorspace, thereby resulting in a lively street frontage and purpose-built flats.
It is hoped that the part of the commercial floorspace immediately adjacent to the library will accommodate an extension of the library (a D1 use). This is subject to the property review of the service, and it is not certain that the library will use the floorspace, which would otherwise be suitable mainly for A1 retail or A2 financial and professional services.
Urban Design, Scale and Bulk
The application site is situated on either side of the northern end of the High Street, forming a prominent gateway to the core area of Gillingham. As such, the design of the scheme will have a lasting impact on perceptions of the Town Centre. Bringing forward both corners together, with a single design approach, gives an opportunity to create a unified street scene bridging the High Street.
The proposed design manages to achieve four stories of built form whilst respecting the scale of the neighbouring properties. The existing buildings are three stories in height, with pitched roofs either set behind parapet walls or with projecting eaves. The proposed design incorporates the fourth floor within a semi-attic design, with projecting bays splitting the eaves to provide headspace partly within the roof. The height and scale matches the library building well, with the eaves of the proposed building set at the same height as the bottom of the parapet wall over the library. Wrapping around the corner into Briton Street the building is of a similar height to the existing flats at Andrew Manor. The street scene on the Arden Street corner is more varied in height, and the proposed development would be somewhat taller than the immediately adjoining property at 34 High Street, but would form part of a progressive step down in height.
The scale of the proposed buildings steps up at the corners with the inclusion of two rounded towers. These make a strong statement on either side of the street and also complement the more contemporary tower feature at the corner of the phase I development and the traditional corner feature of 29 High Street.
The proposed development employs a post-modern design, but with links to the more traditional style of the existing street scene, including the library, through the traditional pitched roof set behind a raised parapet and the scale and dimensions of the windows. The articulated bays and corner tower features give the building an individual character, executed in a palette of traditional materials such as red brick and render with a slate roof. The
DC0902MW 47 fenestration and elevational treatments define the different uses, with modern shop fronts marked out by well-scaled fascias and the residential elements employing a more domestic scale of fenestration.
Environmental improvements to the street scene are proposed. This will include a scheme of planting at the end of the pedestrianised part of the High Street, which will soften the appearance of the area and improve user-friendliness for pedestrians.
Impact on Amenity
Whilst the principle of the development is acceptable, it is important that the scheme does not cause unacceptable detriment to the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, privacy, noise and disturbance etc. Members refused the previous application on the basis of the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. These concerns centred around the impact of the southern wing of the proposed block on the site of the Briton Street Car Park, where it would have been closest to Andrew Manor and would have projected rearwards in the site towards the properties in Marlborough Road. This element of the proposed building has now been deleted from the scheme by omitting part of the commercial floorspace (that part wrapping around the corner from the High Street into Briton Street), using that floorspace for flats and reducing the number of flats by two. This has the effect of reducing potential loss of light, overlooking and overbearing.
The relationship between the application property and the existing properties in the area would not be dissimilar to that found in many urban areas. Kent design states that as a general rule a distance of 21m between private rear windows is acceptable, but recognises that this varies with context. Greatly reduced privacy distances are often found in town centre locations. The proposed development achieves approximately 21m separation from the rearmost block to the rear of the properties in Marlborough Road, however these properties are set at a 60-degree angle from each other, and the effect of overlooking is therefore reduced. The rearmost element on the car park part of the site has been deleted, improving the relationship with existing properties in Marlborough Road and Andrew Manor. It is considered that there is a good degree of separation, and whilst the height of the proposed development may create the impression of overlooking, privacy levels would be appropriate to the town-centre location.
The smaller block of the proposal on the corner of Arden Street has fewer neighbours, and has been designed to create a smaller courtyard to the rear. It is considered that there would be no substantial loss of light or privacy.
The location of bin stores in relation to existing properties was an issue of conflict with regard to the previous application. This amended application shows the provision of bin storage facilities within a lobby area at the front of the property, thereby avoiding any potential impact on neighbouring properties.
In terms of the amenity of prospective occupiers, there is a shared amenity area to the rear of each part of the development, and some of the flats have balconies. The flats are designed around housing association space standards, giving good levels of living accommodation. Storage areas and cycle storage enable maximum use to be made of the internal floorspace.
DC0902MW 48 Security
The rear courtyard area is proposed to be private, accessed through the secured main entrance. The courtyard can therefore only be accessed by private residents, so the relationship with the neighbouring properties is the same as that between any private residential areas. The existing situation results in a public car park immediately adjacent to the rear of residential properties, which has led to various acts of vandalism and other antisocial behaviour. The footpath to the rear of the library also links into the car park site, and adds to the potential risk of antisocial behaviour at present. This not a public right of way, and its closure by the development of the car park site should reduce the potential for such occurrences.
Parking, Access, Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists
The development as amended shows the provision of three parking bays for use by drivers with physical disabilities to be located on Briton Street (an increase of 1 space since the previous application). No provision is made for off-street parking to serve the proposed flats and no replacement parking is proposed to compensate for the loss of the Briton Street car park. Council parking standards state that a maximum of 1.5 off-street parking spaces should be provided per residential unit in urban areas and provision below this level should be considered where the site is in a central location close to public transport, shops employment etc.
Transport consultants have been used to undertake a study with regard to car parks around the High Street area of Gillingham and to assess the impact of the proposed development on parking in the area. The Briton Street car park provides approximately 20 spaces, mainly used by shoppers on a short-stay basis. Studies of other car parks in the vicinity revealed that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the cars displaced from the car park at all times, although pressure was greatest in the mornings on market days. The loss of the car park would not cause unacceptable capacity problems.
Studies of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site split the area into two – one to the north side of the High Street and one to the South. The application site relates most closely to the area to the south, and it is considered that any residents who own cars are likely to park in Briton Street, Marlborough Road etc.
Applying the maximum standard of 1.5 spaces per unit and taking into account the size of the units (one and two-bed flats) no more than 38 spaces would normally be allowed (one per unit). As the site is considered to lend itself to car-free living, being close to good public transport facilities, jobs, shops and services, a lower rate of provision is considered appropriate. A national survey of car ownership shows that in the former Gillingham Council area only 31.2% of households living in housing association properties own cars. This would mean that up to 12 cars would be likely to be generated by the proposed development. It would appear that this level of parking could easily be catered for in the area without unacceptable pressure on existing residents. In addition, the housing association would give preference to residents who do not have cars.
Provision of cycle storage facilities is proposed in the private courtyard to the rear of each of the two blocks, and it is anticipated that these will be a valuable resource in such a central location. The proximity of the site to the centre of Gillingham lends itself to pedestrian journeys, and the proposed environmental improvements to the junction between the High
DC0902MW 49 Street and Briton Street improve the pedestrian environment by giving pedestrian priority and a raised path set within a greened streetscape.
In view of the above it is recommended that the application be approved.
DC0902MW 50