PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 Page no. 1 MC2007/0924 Twydall Demolition of hall & construction of 3 blocks comprising 9 houses and 15 flats together with the provision of on-site parking (resubmission of MC2006/1941) Land at the junction of Featherby Road and Beechings Way, Gillingham, Kent 3
2 MC2007/2222 Strood South Outline application for demolition of buildings and construction of 145-165 residential units and provision of 5300-6300m3 employment space B1/B8 uses, with associated open space, roads, parking and infrastructure Former Alloys Wheels Priory Road Strood Rochester ME2 2BE 13
3 MC2008/0890 Strood Rural Change of use from Retail (Class A1) to Cafe (Class A3) 47 Wainscott Road Wainscott Rochester ME2 4LA 30
4 MC2008/0968 Rochester West Outline application for construction of 9,500 to 12,000 square metres of floorspace for B1 use; new vehicular access to the public highway, internal roads and vehicle parking; services and ancillary development Land to the west of Maidstone and Rochester Road, Rochester, Kent 36
5 MC2008/1050 Hempstead & Wigmore Construction of 2 dwellings (Amendment to MC2008/0444) Land rear of 128 Bredhurst Road Wigmore Gillingham ME8 0QU 46
6 MC2008/1083 Princes Park Construction of a first floor extension to the side over existing garage 2 Ryegrass Close Chatham ME5 8JY 52
7 MC2008/1152 Rochester South & Horsted Restrospective application for construction of two storey and single storey front extensions and raising of roof height and insertion of dormers to front and rear to facilitate loft conversion (revision to MC2007/1677 ) 278 Maidstone Road Chatham ME4 6JL 56
8 MC2008/1166 Rainham North Reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide a total of 27 spaces including new ambulance bay and relocation of cycle parking spaces and refuse store Rainham Healthy Living Centre 103-107 High Street Rainham Gillingham ME8 8AA 61
9 MC2008/1182 Gillingham North Conversion of dwelling into two dwellings together with construction of a single storey rear extension and new entrance door to front elevation 36 The Ridgeway Gillingham ME7 1JN 65
10 MC2008/1225 Watling Construction of single storey building for use as pre-school Star Meadows Sports & Social Club Darland Avenue Gillingham ME7 3AN 70
DC0902MW Page 1
11 MC2008/1273 Strood South Construction of single storey front and side extension 41 Northbank Close Strood Rochester ME2 2NL 76
12 MC2008/1302 Rochester South & Horsted Application for prior approval under Part 24 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) for installation of a 12m high telegraph pole containing 3 antennas; 1 equipment cabinet and ancillary equipment City Way Roundabout (Opposite Mid Kent College) Horsted Way Chatham Kent ME1 2XQ 79
13 MC2008/1311 Gillingham North Construction of one detached 3-bedroomed and one pair of 3-bedroomed semi-detached houses with six associated car parking spaces Land rear of 91-93 Grange Road Gillingham ME7 2RJ 83
14 MC2008/1361 Peninsula Re-siting of boundary fence 5 Drayton Close High Halstow Rochester ME3 8DW 89
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The relevant background papers relating to the individual applications comprise: the applications and all supporting documentation submitted therewith; and items identified in any Relevant History and Information section and Representations section with a report.
Any information referred to is available for inspection in the Planning Offices of the Council at Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham.
DC0902MW Page 2
1 MC2007/0924
Date Received: 31st May 2007
Location: Land at the junction of Featherby Road and Beechings Way, Gillingham, Kent
Proposal: Demolition of hall & construction of 3 blocks comprising 9 houses and 15 flats together with the provision of on-site parking (resubmission of MC2006/1941)
Applicant: Town & Country Housing Group High Weald House Monsoon Way Tunbridge Wells TN1 1LQ
Agent: Mr D Lakeman Jenner Jones 3 Victoria Works Fairway Petts Wood Orpington BR5 1EG
Ward: Twydall
Recommendation - Approval subject to:-
A The applicant entering into and agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure:
i) A contribution of £36,000 towards the provision of educational facilities in the locality; and ii) A contribution of £16,655 towards the provision of open space and play facilities in the locality
B The following conditions:
(and as amended by letter and plan received on 7th July 2008)
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally and any means of enclosure shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
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 development within Part 1 Classes A, B, C, E, F and H and Part 2 Classes A and B of the Second Schedule to the Order shall be carried out on the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
DC0902MW Page 3 4 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures. 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 A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.
6 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 to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. 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 submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.
7 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from road traffic noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and thereafter maintained.
8 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 the approved details.
9 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, vision splays of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access points and no obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the splays thereafter.
10 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking, disabled persons parking and secure cycle parking shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.
DC0902MW Page 4
For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report
Site Description
This application relates to the site of the Featherby Sports and Social Club, which is located at the junction of Featherby Road and Beechings Way. The site was occupied by a pre- fabricated building constructed in the 1960’s and used as a social club. However, this building has now been demolished and the site is now empty.
The site is surrounded on all sides by highways. To the east is Featherby Road, but this road is separated from the side by a strip of grass 8 – 12m wide, which is owned by the Council and does not form part of the application site. However, the proposed vehicular access would cross this strip; this has been included in the application site and notice has been served on the Council under Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act. On the opposite of Featherby Road side are two storey dwelling houses. To the north is Beechings Way with the industrial site opposite. Along both these frontages there is a planting strip. To the west, the site is bounded by the footbridge over the Gillingham Northern Link Road. There are mature trees along this boundary, some of which are within the application site. To the south it is bounded by a rear service road, serving nos. 342 – 354 (even) Broadway.
Proposal
This application is the latest application in a series of applications for the demolition of the meeting hall and the residential development of the land. The current proposal is for the construction of three blocks comprising 9 houses and 15 flats, with the provision of parking. It is a re-submission of the scheme which was originally approved on 21 December 2004 under reference MC2003/1555. A subsequent application for three blocks comprising 9 houses and 15 flats was refused on 19 January 2007 under reference MC2006/1941.
The development would comprise 9 three storey houses, including rooms in the roof space. These houses would be in three blocks of three, two fronting onto Featherby Road, separated by the site entrance road and one block facing Beechings Way. The block facing Beechings Way would be attached to the Flats. Each house would have a living room and kitchen/dining on the ground floor; two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor; and a third bedroom in the roofspace. The development would also comprise 14 two bedroom flats and a one bedroom flat. These flats would also front onto Beechings way, with a return frontage towards footbridge crossing Ito Way. The flat block would step up from the houses rising initially to three storeys in the centre, then to four storeys along the Ito Way frontage. The proposed development would enclose the site on three sides: north, east and west, leaving the south side of the site facing Broadway open.
29 car parking spaces, including two disabled persons spaces would be provided in a parking area to the rear of the proposed buildings. A cycles store with a capacity for 16 cycles would also be provided. Some small landscaping areas would be provided within this car park. Access to these parking areas would be across the grass strip onto Featherby Road.
The two blocks of houses fronting Featherby Road would have their pedestrian entrances from that Road with small rear gardens. The block facing Beechings Way would not have any garden areas and would have pedestrian accesses both from Beechings Way and from within the site. The flats would derive their accesses from within the site. The scheme has
DC0902MW Page 5 also been amended in terms of providing adequate bin storage capacity to service the proposed development.
Site Area/Density
Site area: 0.24 hectare (0.6 acre) Site density 100 d.p.h. (40.47 d.p.a.)
Relevant Planning History
NK3/61/208 Change of use from light industrial to club premises. Approved 3 November 1961
14461A Details of club premises. Approved 10 July 1963
NK3/61/208B Outline – 10 terraced dwellings. Approved 18 December 1980
NK3/61/208C Outline – one dwelling. Approved 4 November1982
NK3/61/208D Renewal of outline for 10 dwellings. Approved 7 June 1984
NK3/61/208E Beer store extension to licensed premises. Approved 25 April 1986
GL/90/294 Renewal of outline approval for 10 terraced houses. Approved 7 June 1990
GL/93/233 Single storey extensions to social club. Approved 26 July 1993
GL/95/0188 Proposed erection of a 24 bed care home and associated parking Approved 16 June 1995
MC2001/0396 Outline application for residential development. Resolution to approve subject to S106 agreement 4 June 2001
MC2002/1068 Demolition of meeting hall and erection of four 3-4 storey blocks comprising seventeen 3-bedroom, ten 2-bedroom and two 1-bedroom residential units with garages and car spaces. Refused 16 April 2003
MC2003/1555 Demolition of meeting hall and construction of 2 blocks comprising 9 houses and 15 flats together with the provision of on-site parking. Approved 17 December 2004
DC0902MW Page 6 MC2004/2647 Outline application for demolition of meeting hall and construction of 9 blocks comprising 43 apartments with 43 parking spaces. Refused 16 February 2005 Appeal dismissed 5 August 2005
MC2005/1715 Outline application for demolition of meeting hall and construction 9 blocks comprising 36 apartments with associated parking Refused 7 December 2005
MC2006/0874 Outline application for the construction 26 x one bedroom and 24 x two bedroom flats with associated parking Refused 26 June 2006
MC2006/1941 Demolition of hall and construction of 3 blocks comprising 9 houses and 15 flats together with on site parking Refused 19 January 2007
Representations
The application has been advertised on site and in the press as a Major Development. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of 222-234 (even) Featherby Road and 342-354 (even) Broadway. Letters have also been sent to Mr and Mrs Miller of 6 Hackington Road, Tyler Hill, Canterbury; and to the owner/occupier of 105 First Avenue, Gillingham. Letters have also been sent to Sport England (South East), Medway NHS Primary Care Trust, EDF Energy, Southern Gas Networks and Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
Two letters have been received objecting on the grounds of:
• Over-development, our of character with its surroundings; • Inadequate parking would result in additional parking in Featherby Road; • The proposal would result in overlooking and visual intrusion from the footbridge into the proposed flats; • There has been no change in the number of units from the previous application.
Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer has written making the commenting that the amendments over the previous application are relatively minor and the representations in respect of that application still stand. In addition the positioning of the refuse stores could be potential crime generators. The comments made previously were:
• The proposal appears to incorporate potential improvements over previous applications in terms of density, scale mass and parking; The lack of detail with regard to boundary treatment and landscaping limits the opportunity to comment at this stage; • The access is satisfactory and the layout should ensure a high level of surveillance; • Suggestions are made which could improve surveillance.
Medway NHS Primary Care Trust has written stating that based on an assumption of 2.5 persons per unit the development would give a population increase of 60 people. Based on the HUDU model a developer contribution of £116,304 is sought. (This Council has not
DC0902MW Page 7 adopted the HUDU model and this does not meet the guidance set out in the adopted Developer Contributions Guide. The PCT has been requested to justify the contribution requested but has failed to provide the necessary evidence)
Sport England has written advising that the proposal would not affect recreational facilities and therefore does not wish to comment.
Southern Gas Networks has written with a plan showing the location of gas mains in the vicinity.
All consultees and objectors were notified of the receipt of revised plans. Two further letters have been received re-iterating the previously raised concerns regarding parking. (As one of the letters received following re-consultation was from a different address to the first letters, three objections have been received in total).
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise) Policy H3 (Affordable housing) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H5 (High density housing) Policy T2 (Access to the highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
The principle of the development
The application relates to the redevelopment of a vacant site, which was previously occupied by a social club. The site was identified as a housing commitment, under Policy H1 of the former Local Plan (GL071), but does not appear as a commitment in the current Local Plan. However, the principle of residential development has long been accepted with previous grants of planning permission, including the permission for 24 units granted on 17 December 2004, which is still extant. The proposal amounts to the re-development of a site within the urban area and is in accordance with Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan.
There have been five recent refusals of planning permission on this site; three of these were on the grounds of overdevelopment, the other two being on design grounds. No applications have been refused on the basis of an objection to the principle of development.
The proposed development is therefore acceptable in principle and should be assessed under the following criteria:
DC0902MW Page 8
• The number of units and the density of development; • The design and appearance of the proposal and its effect on the character of the area; • Its impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and loss of outlook; • Parking and traffic generation; and • The need for infrastructure contributions.
Regard should also be paid to the decisions on the previous applications for development of the site.
The density of development
The site is in an important location in terms of its prominence and land use. It forms part of Twydall which comprises moderate density 1950’s former Council houses, the predominant form of which is two-storey terraced housing, although there are three/four storey blocks of flats in the locality. Two storey terraced houses lie immediately to the east and south of the site. To the north is the Beechings Way Industrial Estate, whilst to the west is the A289 Gillingham Northern Link road, beyond which is a golf course and playing fields.
All recent applications have been assessed having regard to Government Advice, as contained in PPG3, the Town and Country Planning (Residential Density) Direction 2002 and now PPS3. It was considered the site should be developed to a density higher than that of the neighbouring housing to the east and hence 24 units were allowed in 2004. The current proposal is for 24 units and in terms of density is acceptable. Furthermore, the site’s prominence on a main through route means that a substantial building should be erected which would make a positive design statement. In this regard a three/four storey building is considered appropriate.
Apart from MC2003/1555, the densities of the schemes that were refused are as follows:
29 units (MC2002/1068) (Refused): 120 d.p.h. (48.9 d.p.a.)
36 units (MC2005/1715) (Refused): 150 d.p.h. (60.7 d.p.a.)
43 units (MC2004/2647) (Refused): 179 d.p.h. (72.5 d.p.a.) (Appeal dismissed)
50 units (MC2006/0874) (Refused): 208 d.p.h. (84.3 d.p.a.)
24 units (MC2006/1941) (Refused): 100 d.p.h. (40.46 d.p.a.)
No objection was raised in terms of density to any of these applications, although concern was, however, expressed with regard to achieving an appropriate balance between the amount of site covered by buildings, parking and amenity space. On previous schemes it was considered that this balance was not achieved due to inadequate provision of amenity space.
Affordable housing
Policy H3 of the Local Plan states that within urban areas, affordable housing will be sought as a proportion of residential developments of 25 or more dwellings. The proposed
DC0902MW Page 9 development of 24 units would fall short of this threshold. Notwithstanding, the applicants are a housing group and well known provider of affordable housing. Accordingly, no objection is raised under Policy H3 of the Local Plan.
The design and appearance of the proposal and its effect on the character of the area
In terms of design and appearance, the proposal falls to be assessed under Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. Regard must also be paid to current Government Advice as contained in PPS1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ 2005.
PPS1 states that ‘Good design ensures usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development’. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. ‘Design which is inappropriate in its context or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted’.
In considering the impact of the scheme in terms of design, appearance and the effect on the character of the area, regard should be paid to the following: character and local distinctiveness; continuity and enclosure; quality of the public realm; ease of movement; inclusive design; legibility; adaptability; diversity; sustainability; and boundary treatment.
The locality has a varied character with post war, moderate density Local Authority housing to the east, more recent private housing to the south, a former industrial site to the north, which has recently been re-developed, and a major highway and open land to the west. The site is in a prominent location and having regard to its surroundings, could develop its own distinctive identity if developed to a high quality of design.
The design and layout of the scheme, as submitted is the result of protracted negotiations with the applicants and their agents, and takes account of the constraints of the site, particularly the need to minimise the impact on the houses in Broadway, to the south, the position of the footbridge to the west, the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by highway and access constraints. In addition, it is necessary to pay careful attention to the details of the proposal, but it is considered that a scheme has been submitted that achieves a satisfactory design solution and produces a building of a quality that is acceptable on this site.
Accordingly, the proposal, as amended, is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, character and street scene and no objection is now raised under the provisions of Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan still stands.
Amenity considerations
The impact of the proposal on the amenities of both neighbouring properties and other units in the development, in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and loss of outlook falls to be assessed under Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan. As with previous proposals, there is no development immediately behind the houses in Broadway and the rear of the proposed building would be approx. 42m from the rear of these houses. There would, therefore, be no immediate difficulties in terms of overlooking, loss of light or loss of outlook. The front of the proposed houses would be over 30m from the existing houses fronting Featherby Road and therefore, there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy to those properties. Under some of the previously refused schemes, an objection was raised on account of the proximity of the proposed properties to the public footbridge and the
DC0902MW Page 10 poor amenity that would result to the prospective occupiers from overlooking and intrusion. The revisions to the current application have addressed this issue. Accordingly, in terms of light, outlook and privacy to both neighbouring and the proposed properties, no objection is raised in this regard under Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan.
Highway considerations
The submitted drawing shows the vehicular access to the proposed development onto Featherby Road, approx 27m from the junction with Beechings Way. No objection is raised to the current proposal in terms of the vehicular access under Policy T2 of the Local Plan.
The submitted drawings show 29 car parking spaces two of which are disabled persons’ spaces. This equals one space per unit for the flats plus 1.5 spaces per unit for the houses. In addition, secure storage facilities are provided for 16 cycles. It is considered that this level of parking would not raise any highway safety issues and is acceptable. The scheme has been amended to address previously raised concerns regarding the provision of pedestrian footways and access to the refuse store, which has been re-located.
No objection is, therefore raised to the proposal, as amended, in terms of highway safety and parking under Policy TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policy T1 and T13 of the Local Plan.
Infrastructure contributions – Education and Greenspaces
The proposed development is in an area of identified school roll growth, with little or no spare capacity in local schools and the proposed development would add a further demand upon school places in the area. The submitted layout shows 14 two bedroom units and 9 three bed houses. Applying the pupil product standard ratios of 0.25 for primary school spaces to these units, the development would generate a need for 6 places, resulting in a contribution of £36,000.
Policy L4 of the adopted Local Plan requires residential schemes to make open space provision where there is a proven deficiency. This policy applies the National Playing Field Association (NPFA) standards of: 1.6 hectares per 1,000 people for formal recreation space; and 0.8 hectare of children’s play space and casual recreation space. Applying The Occupancy ratios specified in the adopted Local Plan would require a contribution of £16,655. There is an operational play area in Beechings Way, within easy access of the site and it is suggested that any contribution be used for the improvement to that facility.
The applicants’ solicitor has submitted a Unilateral Planning Obligation under Section 106 in respect of these contributions. The Obligation was submitted on 22 February 2008, pre- dating the adoption of the Council’s Developer Contributions Guide.
Noise
As the site lies adjacent to the A289 Gillingham Northern Link it is considered that any dwellings on this land could be exposed to significant levels of road traffic noise. In accordance with Policy BNE3 of the emerging Local Plan, it is, therefore recommended that a condition be attached to any planning permission requiring an acoustic appraisal to be undertaken.
DC0902MW Page 11 Waste storage and collection The proposed scheme has been amended to ensure adequate facilities are provided on site for the storage and collection of refuse. Accordingly, no objection is raised in this regard.
Conclusions and Reasons for recommendation of approval
Having regard to the sites location within the urban area and the previous decision to allow a development of 15 flats and 9 houses, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle. Following discussions with the applicants’ agent the proposal is considered to be acceptable in design terms. The proposal is also considered to be acceptable in terms of neighbour amenity, parking and landscaping. The developer has agreed to contributions towards the provision of educational facilities, play facilities and open space. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
The application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers, but is being referred to the Committee for determination in view of the number of letters of representations received contrary to the Officers’ recommendation.
DC0902MW Page 12
2 MC2007/2222
Date Received: 7th December 2007
Location: Former Alloys Wheels Priory Road Strood Rochester ME2 2BE
Proposal: Outline application for demolition of buildings and construction of 145-165 residential units and provision of 5300-6300m3 employment space B1/B8 uses, with associated open space, roads, parking and infrastructure
Applicant: Helvig Limited C/o Agent
Agent: Mr F Whyte Strand Harbour Development Management Ltd Heaton House Cams Estate Fareham Hampshire PO16 8AA
Ward: Strood South
Recommendation - Refusal
1 The proposal would result in an unacceptable form of piecemeal development within the Strood Action Area and fails to demonstrate that it would maximising the potential for securing the regeneration of the whole Action Area; provide a high standard of design and landscaping; achieve a high quality mix of development; and secure the provision of good transport links. As such the proposal would conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy S10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
2 The proposal would be premature pending the publication and adoption of a Development brief for the Strood Action Area and as such would be contrary to Policies S10 and ED2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003
3 The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land or potential employment land and as such would be contrary to Policy EP1 and Policy EP2 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006, which seeks to increase the provision of employment land in Medway and to retain sites that are well suited to employment use.
4 The proposal would be contrary to Policy RE2 of the Draft South East Plan which requires the provision of employment sites in locations which are accessible to the labour supply and within urban areas.
5 The proposal would result in residential development on land within an established employment area, surrounded by non-residential uses, and still required for its existing use. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
6 There is currently sufficient land within Medway to meet the housing requirement over the five year period 2007 to 2012 and no need to release additional land for housing. The proposal would result in the release of additional housing land that is not required and as such would be contrary to the aims of PPS3 'Housing'.
DC0902MW Page 13
Site Description
This application relates to a site covering 4.09 hectares (10.1 acres) of industrial land in Strood. It is bounded to the west by the London (Victoria)-Chatham-Dover Railway line, which is on an embankment and at a higher level than the site. To the north the site is bounded by Priory Road, whilst to the east and south there is other industrial land. To the east the buildings are occupied by Swain’s - a haulage firm. This land, although not forming part of the application site, is identified on the indicative drawing as ‘Phase 2’ of the proposed development. To the south are more recent industrial units, known as Knight’s Park, built under the Enterprise Zone scheme in the 1980’s. The application site also includes a smaller parcel of land on the north side of Priory Road (0.24 hectares), currently vacant, but last used for parking. This land is bounded by the rear gardens of houses in Priory Road to the west, industrial buildings to the north and east, and a small building fronting Priory Road, now occupied by the Samaritans.
The main part of the site is occupied by five large industrial buildings. Together with ancillary offices and storage areas, these buildings cover a floorspace of 24,442 square metres. It is within a long established industrial area and the present buildings would appear to date back to the 1930’s. The premises were last occupied by Alloy Wheels which closed some years ago. At the time of closure 180 people were employed at the premises. A small part of the site is still occupied, by a company known as Quartic Engineering, which currently employs 16 people. This company is looking to relocate.
Proposal
The submitted application is in outline for a development comprising 145-165 residential units and the provision or 5,300-6,300 square metres of employment space for Class B1/B8 uses. The application also includes associated open space, roads, parking and infrastructure. The application is in outline form with all matters (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping) reserved for future consideration. An illustrative layout drawing, known as the Site Masterplan has been submitted as part of the application together with the relevant documents. This Masterplan has been developed by the applicants, according to principles which, in their opinion, comply with local development strategies. The key elements of this Masterplan are as follows:
Site layout
Two access/egress points onto/off Priory Road are shown, serving the main part of the site: one opposite the junction with Smith Street and the other opposite that part of the site to the north of Priory Road. A third access point serves the small area of land. From these access points the road layout roughly follows a grid pattern, reaching to all parts of the site.
Residential
The residential component of the proposed development would occupy an area of 2.98 hectares, including 0.24 hectares to the north of Priory Road. The bulk of the residential development would be located to the south of Priory Road, in three grid blocks, with the fourth block to the south of the central block. Most of the units would be three storeys, including those fronting Priory Road, although there would be some 2.5 storey development deeper into the site. A prominent corner building is indicated as a feature in the north-west
DC0902MW Page 14 corner of the site, adjacent to Darnley Arch. The layout drawing shows these residential blocks broken up by landscaped parking areas. The western block would be open on one side to provide an area of open space with play area.
Assuming a total of 145 dwellings, the development would comprise 20 x one bedroom and 60 x two bedroom apartments; and 9 x two bedroom, 48 x three bedroom and 8 x four bedroom houses.
Employment
The employment uses would cover an area of 1.11 hectare. This would comprise the retention of an existing building, with a floorspace of 1,956 square metres for Class B8 use. It is submitted that this unit would provide 39 jobs. 3,276 square metres of proposed employment use are shown, in three units in the south-west corner of the site. These would be in Class B1 use and the number of employees (according to the application) could vary between 103 and 173 depending upon the balance between office and small scale industry.
Amenity
The illustrative drawing shows proposals for landscaping and open space. These include planting along the Priory Road frontage, to the rear of the houses in Smith Street and along the roads within the proposed development. There would be enhanced buffer planting along the railway embankment and along the southern boundary to Knight’s Park. The plan also shows private garden areas for the houses, landscaped parking areas and an area of open space, which includes a play area.
Site Area/Density
Total site area: 4.09 hectares (10.1 acres) Employment site area: 1.11 hectares (2.74 acres) Residential site area 2.98 hectares (7.36 acres) Residential site density: 48 - 55 d.p.h. (20-22 d.p.a.)
Representations
The application has been advertised in the Press and by the placing of 2 notices on site, as Major development under Article 8 (4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of: 63-71, 71a, 73, 83- 87, 91, 93 & Medway View, Cuxton Road; 4-26(even) & 37-59 (odd) Smith Street; Units 1b, 1c, 1h, 2, 2b, 2e, 2h, 3, 3e, 4a, 4c, 4f, E3 & H1 Knights Park; and to Ryder Distribution Services, Speedlink, Alpine UK Ltd., High Lex, Imperial Vending Services, Southern Installation Ltd., Tarmac/HMB and Vectair International Ltd., Knights Park; Quartic Engineering Ltd., Atwal Fashions, Holbourn Eaton Ltd., Holbourn Engineering Ltd., Dorabridge (Wemyss) Ltd., Clutch International, Cheema House, Dartford Metalcrafts Ltd., Cheema House, The Samaritans and 1 &2 Global House, Priory Road.
Letters have also been sent to: Environment Agency; Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer; Medway NHS Primary Care Trust; Network Rail South East; Southern Gas Networks; Southern Water Services Ltd.; EDF Energy; the Fire Safety Officer, Medway Fire Station; Natural England; and English Heritage.
DC0902MW Page 15
The Environment Agency has written making the following comments:
Flood Risk: The site is within a Zone 1 Flood Risk Area and that the finished floor levels are acceptable as they take into account climate change against the lifetime of the development. Conditions to this effect are recommended.
Groundwater and Contaminated Land: The site is within a highly sensitive area in terms of groundwater protection and public water supplies are at risk from activities at the site. Precautions must be taken to prevent discharges and spillage to ground both during and after construction and conditions to address this are recommended.
Removal of material: Contaminated material that is excavated, recovered or disposed of is controlled waste and its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation: Duty of Care Regulations 1991, Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005, Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended), Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (England and Wales) 2000, and Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002.
Drainage: EA would object to any discharge to ground within Source Protection Zone 1, due to potential risks of contamination, except for roof water. There are restrictions on roof water drainage and conditions to address this are recommended.
Fuel/chemical storage: Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres of any type of oil it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage)(England) Regulations 2001. Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure all fuels, oils and other potentially contaminating materials are stored so as to prevent accidental/unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas storage should not drain to any surface water system.
The Medway NHS Primary Care Trust has written seeking a contribution of £746,170 based on the HUDU model. (If members are minded to approve this application the PCT will be asked for a revised figure based on the adopted Development Contributions Guide)
Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer has written raising no significant objection to the application, but expressing concern at the ability of the highway network to cope particularly at peak times. He adds:
• Consideration may need to be given to re-alignment of the network, particularly at the Darnley Road/Cuxton Road junction; • The employment area (B1/B8) in the south-west corner will need to be accessed via the residential area, which could have a potential impact on residential amenity. The B1/B8 use should not operate at time that would adversely affect residential amenity; • Parking in accordance with Council standards is encouraging but parking forecourts should be well lit, overlooked by dwelling and not too large; • A developer contribution towards enhancing community safety would be welcome; • It may be useful to investigate whether the alleyway adjoining the site north of Priory Road could be extinguished or gated to reduce opportunities for crime.
DC0902MW Page 16 Southern Water has written advising that it can provide foul sewage to serve the proposed development, but a formal application must be made to connect to a public sewer. A condition to this effect should be attached to any planning permission.
Five letters have been received supporting the application on the grounds that: • The site is derelict and an eyesore and the proposal would significantly improve the local environment; • Manufacturing should be located outside Strood in areas such as Kingsnorth, Grain and Sittingbourne; • Housing and modern employment is the best use for the site; • Development of this site for housing would relieve pressure on sites in the countryside; • A memorial commemorating the areas strong history of engineering should be incorporated into the development; • A condition should be imposed to ensure that the landscaping is carried out.
Two letters have been received objecting to the application on the grounds that:
• The site has been used for employment and is still designated as employment land in the Local Plan; • The site is surrounded by storage and commercial uses including residential unfriendly uses; • Employment uses should be retained in such locations for reasons of sustainability; • Residents of the proposed units would be subject to a poor environment; • The development will cause further traffic congestion in and around Strood – major improvements should be made to improve traffic flows through and around Strood Town Centre.
The City of Rochester Society has written objecting on the grounds that:
• The proposal is contrary to Local Plan policies; • There is no need for additional land for residential development; • The site is not indicated for residential purposes in the Local Plan; • The proposal represents a further loss of valuable employment land; • Too much employment land has been used for non-employment related uses in recent years; • Although the land presents a poor appearance and is in need of improvement, it must not be at the expense of local employment facilities.
One letter has been received enquiring as to whether the development will be for houses or flats, whether they are to be privately owned and when they will be completed.
Development Plan Policies
National Planning Policies
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (January 2005) PPS3 Housing (November 2006) PPS25 Development and Flood Risk (December 2006)
DC0902MW Page 17 PPG4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms (November 1992) PPG13 Transport (March 2001) PPG24 Planning and Noise (October 1994)
Regional Planning Guidance
RPG9 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (March 2001) RPG9a The Thames Gateway Planning Framework (1995)
Creating Sustainable Communities – Delivering the Thames Gateway
The Draft South East Plan (2006)
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy SP1 (Conserving and enhancing Kent’s environment and ensuring a sustainable pattern of development) Policy SS4 (Priority for previously developed land) Policy SS6 (Enhancing existing communities) Policy ME1 (Area Policy – Medway) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL5 (Mixed uses on sites) Policy EP1 (Land, Workforce, Education and Skills) Policy EP2 (Employment Land Provision) Policy HP1 (Housing provision) Policy HP2 (Housing provision; phasing; assessment and sequential approach to location) Policy HP3 (Contribution of previously developed land and previously used buildings to housing provision) Policy HP4 (Housing: quality and density of development) Policy HP6 (Range and mix of housing provision) Policy HP7 (Affordable housing provision) Policy TP1 (Integrated transport strategy) Policy TP3 (Transport and the location of development) Policy TP11 (Facilities for pedestrians and cyclists) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards) Policy NR8 (Water Quality) Policy NR9 (Water supply and wastewater treatment) Policy NR10 (Development and flood risk) Policy NR11 (Flood protection)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy S1 (Development Strategy) Policy S4 (Landscape and Urban Design Guidance) Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy S10 (Strood Waterfront Action Area) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise Standards) Policy BNE4 (Energy Efficiency)
DC0902MW Page 18 Policy BNE6 (Landscape Design) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated Land) Policy ED2 (Employment in Action Areas and Mixed Use Areas) Policy H1 (New Residential Development) Policy H2 (Retention of Housing) Policy H3 (Affordable Housing) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H5 (High Density Housing) Policy H10 (Housing Mix) Policy R9 (Retail Provision in New Residential Developments) Policy L4 (Provision of Open Space in New Residential Developments) Policy L5 (Open Space in Employment Areas) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T3 (Provision for Pedestrians) Policy T4 (Cycles Facilities) Policy T6 (Provision for Public Transport) Policy T11 (Development Funded Transport Improvements) Policy T13 (Parking Standards) Policy T14 (Travel Plans) Policy CF2 (Community Facilities) Policy CF3 (Sites for Local Healthcare Facilities) Policy CF12 (Water Supply) Policy CF13 (Tidal Flood Risk Areas)
Medway Regeneration Framework 2006 - 2016
Planning Appraisal
Matters of principle
In terms of principle, there are three policy areas to consider:
• General/strategic policies, • Employment policies and • Housing policies.
In each of the policy areas the proposed development falls to be assess against both national and local planning policies.
Strategic Policy Considerations
Structure Plan Policy SP1 seeks to protect the Kent countryside, reduce reliance on Greenfield sites to accommodate all forms of built development and using and re-using land and buildings more efficiently, whilst Policy SS4 requires development to be provided firstly, on previously developed land before using Greenfield sites. In general terms, as this is previously developed land, no objection can be raised to the principle of development on this land. However, if the proposed development were allowed, the loss of employment land or potential employment land, could have a knock on effect which would increase pressure on Greenfield sites.
DC0902MW Page 19 Local Plan Policy S10 identifies 73 hectares (180 acres) along the Strood Waterfront as an Action Area where regeneration will be sought in accordance with a development brief to be prepared by the Council. The Action Area is expected to include, inter alia:
• The development of approximately 100 dwellings including affordable housing; • A possible alternative route for the A228 avoiding Darnley Arch; • Appropriate employment uses falling within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8; and • Other uses appropriate to the location.
All new development will be expected to comply with the following principles;
(i) Comprehensive redevelopment to maximise the potential for securing the regeneration of the whole Action Area; (ii) A high standard or urban design and landscaping, establishing it as a new quarter of the urban area; (iii) High quality developments, appropriate to the location of this area close to both the riverside and opposite historic Rochester; (iv) The provision of good public transport pedestrian and cycle links within the site and to Strood Town centre and to the wider public transport network including Strood railway station.
The implication of this policy is that piecemeal development would not be contemplated. It is considered that the proposed development which, if approved would, result in the piecemeal development of part of the Strood Waterfront Action Area, fails to demonstrate that it would maximising the potential for securing the regeneration of the whole Action Area; provide a high standard of design and landscaping; achieve a high quality mix of development; and secure the provision of good transport links. As such the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would accord with the principles of Policy S10.
Although a development brief has been adopted for the Temple Waterfront, this only covers part of the Action Area and does not include the application site. Further development briefs will be required to deal with the remainder of the Action Area before the appropriate development mix is established.
It should be noted that paragraph 4.5.4 of the Local Plan states that the extent of the existing employment area to be retained will be determined in conjunction with local companies through the preparation of the Action Area Plan, but it is likely to be substantial. In advance of the Action Area Plan being prepared planning permission will be granted for employment uses, providing it can be demonstrated that the comprehensive development of the area would not be compromised. The application fails to demonstrate that the employment area would not be compromised.
Section 6 of the Medway Regeneration Framework (2006-2016) states that both Strood Riverside and Temple Waterfront development sites are close to Strood Town Centre. An Area Action Plan is in hand to establish areas for mixed use, employment and residential, together with a reworking of the road network. This Action Area Plan is a separate plan from that identified in Policy S10. This Action Area Plan is listed as a Priority Action for Medway Renaissance. Strood Town Centre Area Action Plan overlaps with the northern part of the Strood Waterfront Action Area. It is now proposed that the regeneration of Strood Town centre will be incorporated into the Core Strategy for the LDF rather than an Action Area
DC0902MW Page 20 Plan. However, it would be premature to permit development on individual sites in the absence of a plan for the regeneration of Strood Town Centre.
Employment policies
Structure Plan Policy EP2 has a requirement for 575,000 sq. m. of employment land to be provided in Medway for the period 2001 to 2021. This policy also states that existing employment sites that are well located and otherwise well suited to employment use should be retained for this purpose. The site is well suited to employment being close to the Town Centre and its associated services, close to public transport and close to, but not immediately adjoining residential areas, apart from the houses in Smith Street to the north. This makes it a very sustainable location for future employment uses and it is part of a wider employment area. The policy also states that existing commitments may be reviewed through local development documents and unsuitable sites may be replaced by alternative, better locations providing these don’t conflict with other structure plan policies.
The site is well located and well suited for employment development as demonstrated by the applicants who propose to retain some employment on the site. The Council regards this employment site as an existing commitment which should only be reviewed through the LDF process. The Annual Monitoring Report for 2007, identifies a shortfall in employment land supply in Medway and the release of any additional greenfield land to replace existing employment land would conflict with Structure Plan Policies SP1 and SS4. Given this shortfall, it is necessary to retain existing urban, employment sites, such as this site and in this regard an objection is raised under Policy EP2.
In addition, regard should be paid to Structure Plan Policy EP1 which states that sufficient land and floorspace will be provided to sustain full employment and reduce the need to travel. Proposals which would result in the loss of this floorspace would be contrary to the aims of this policy.
As an emerging development plan document, the Draft South East Plan is a material consideration in determining this application. This plan has been subject to an Examination in Public and Inspector’s Report, but the publication of the proposed changes to the Plan is awaited. Therefore, whilst it is not an adopted document, it does carry a certain amount of weight, though this is not greater than the adopted policies within the Structure and Local Plans. Policy RE2 effectively continues the policies in the Structure Plan. This policy requires the provision of a range of sites in locations which are accessible to the labour supply, efficiently use existing and underused sites and premises and focus on urban areas. The Alloy Wheels site meets these criteria and its loss, all or in part would be contrary to the aims of this Policy.
Local Plan Policy ED2, which deals with employment in Action Areas, allows for B1, B2 and B8 development at Strood Waterfront, the location and extent of which will be determined in the development brief for the area. Development in advance of the preparation of the brief will be permitted providing the comprehensive development of the area would not be compromised. Given the absence of a brief for the remainder of the area, development of individual sites at this stage could compromise the eventual comprehensive development of the area. Furthermore, the development of the Alloy Wheels site could set a precedent for the ad hoc development of other sites in the absence of an overall brief for the area. In this regard, an objection is raised to the scheme as a whole, not just to the residential element of the proposed development.
DC0902MW Page 21 Housing policies
Structure Plan Policy HP1 makes provision for 11,500 dwellings in Medway to be provided between 2001 and 2016. This will consist of 3,500 dwellings from 2001 to 2006; 3,900 dwellings from 2006 to 2011; and 4,100 dwellings from 2011 to 2016. Paragraph 7.12 states that land releases must be managed to ensure that land is not released unnecessarily or prematurely, particularly in the early years. Thus, if there are sufficient sites available to meet the 5 year housing requirement, it will not be necessary to release additional sites. Medway’s Annual Monitoring Report identifies sufficient housing commitments to meet the 5 year requirement and accordingly there is no need to release additional land, such as the application site, to meet the housing provisions set out in this policy.
Site Suitability.
The site is located within the Temple Industrial Estate which contains no other residential areas. It is bounded to the west by the railway line which is elevated on an embankment. The site is affected by noise from the railway and from busy traffic on Priory Road to the north. Industrial sites are located to the east and south. Consequently, the surrounding environment would detract from the character and amenity of a new housing area.
Local Policy H4 supports the use of vacant or derelict land within the urban area for of residential development, providing the land or buildings are no longer required for non- residential use. As stated above, the future use of this site is still uncertain pending the publication and adoption of a Development Brief. However, it is likely that such land will have an important strategic function in the development of this part of Strood and is well suited for future employment use. Accordingly, an objection is raised to the proposed development under Policy H4.
Halling Cement Works.
Member will recall the application for the redevelopment of the Cemex site at Halling Cement Works for mixed uses, including 550 dwellings, which was recommended for approval. It needs to be asked whether that application would create a precedent for supporting the development of this site?
The key difference between the cases for each site relates to housing provision. Policy H1 of the Draft South East Plan requires the provision of 16,300 dwellings in Medway for the period from 2006 to 2026. However, Policy KTG1 requires the provision of 15,700 houses within the that part of Medway which lies within the Thames Gateway, Namely, that area lying to the north of the M2. The remaining 600 houses are to be provided to the south of the M2. Given the constraints on development in the Green Belt and the AONB, this provision will be restricted to the Medway Valley. Essentially, this means that housing requirements of the South East Plan can be met within that part of Medway north of the M2, and there is no need to bring additional land forward, but cannot be met within that part of Medway south of the M2, based on current allocations. Accordingly, additional land must be found.
The only substantial previously developed site where that number of dwellings could be accommodated is the Cemex site at Halling. Given the Government’s priorities to bring forward housing development and the need for the Council to meet the South East Plan housing targets, housing has to take precedence over other uses at Halling.
DC0902MW Page 22 Affordable housing
In accordance with Paragraph 5.5.12 and Policy H3 of the adopted Local Plan, 25% of the proposed development would need to comprise affordable housing. In the event of planning permission being granted, the exact breakdown as to the various types of affordable housing could be assessed post decision. The applicants, in their Design and Access statement, state that consideration has been given to providing a mix of housing types and indicate that they would be agreeable to the provision of affordable housing through a Section 106 agreement.
Street Scene and Design
As the application is outline form, matters of design and appearance would fall to be assessed at the reserved matters stage, in the event of planning permission being granted, in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. In their Supporting Planning Statement, the applicants stress the importance of high quality design, quoting PPS1, Regional Planning Guidance, Structure and Local Plan policies. There is emphasis on maintaining views across the site, providing a mix of building heights and types, with a strong sense of vertical emphasis, landmark buildings, open space and permeability. In street scene terms, an important part of the proposed development would be the Priory Road frontage, this being an important through route in Strood. The illustrative layout indicates that this would be improved with boulevard style planting. Any planting would soften the impact of the proposed development, but nevertheless, a high quality design along this frontage is essential.
It is accepted that the site at currently presents a poor image to the street scene and is in need of improvement. However, in the context of the planning policy considerations outlined above, it should be asked whether the proposed development is the most appropriate means of achieving this improvement.
Amenity Considerations
Amenity considerations, including light, privacy and outlook, would also fall to be assessed at the reserved matters stage, in the event of planning permission being granted, in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan. Much of the concern with regard to neighbour amenity would related to the relationship between the proposed houses and flats themselves, within the proposed development and would not have a significant impact on any existing residential properties. The only houses close enough to the proposed development to be directly affected are those in Smith Street. Nevertheless, these have long gardens and the illustrative layout drawings show that any development could be design to meet the minimum privacy distances specified in Kent Design.
Another consideration in terms of amenity is the impact of neighbouring uses and activity on the amenities of the occupiers of the proposed houses and flats. Immediately adjoining the site is a haulage yard (Swain’s), whilst the site is also adjoined by a busy main road and a railway line. All of these uses have the potential to cause noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the proposed units. This matter is addressed under ‘Noise’ below.
Traffic generation
The Transport Assessment has used data within the TRICS traffic generation database to ascertain the likely number of vehicular movements generated by the proposed development, which comprises up to 165 residential units and 6,500 square metres of commercial use. The
DC0902MW Page 23 residential units are expected to generate 53 and 59 vehicle movements during the morning and evening peak periods respectively. Traffic generated by the commercial use has been determined by reference to data for the business park category. This includes office developments, which are generally the highest generators of traffic within this category, and is therefore considered to provide a robust assessment. On this basis, the proposed commercial use is expected to generate in the region of 120 and 82 vehicle movements during the morning and evening peak periods respectively.
The previous permitted use of the site is a material consideration in the assessment of the traffic impact of the current proposals. Some 30,000 alloy wheels were produced per week on the site, and the company employed several hundred people on a shift basis that ensured the site was operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The site also generated a significant number of HGV movements. Whilst no traffic data relating to the previous use of the site is available, the transport assessment again uses the traffic generation database in order to determine the likely number of vehicle movements. This has been conservatively estimated at 97 and 121 movements during the morning and evening peak periods respectively.
When the residential and commercial uses are combined, the proposed development will generate an additional 76 vehicle movements during the morning peak period and an additional 20 vehicle movements during the evening peak hour when compared with the previous use of the site. The transport assessment contains traffic count data for Priory Road that indicates total two-way flows of 1009 vehicles during the morning peak period and 1195 vehicles during the evening peak. On this basis, the net increase in movements on the local road network will be modest and will not have a significantly detrimental impact on highway capacity. Therefore, in this regard, no objection is raised under Policy T1 of the Local Plan.
Access arrangements
The illustrative master plan for the development indicates that two junctions on to Priory Road will serve the main development area. The smaller area to the north of Priory Road will have an individual access. This application is in outline form with details of the access arrangements to be considered as part of a reserved matters application. At that stage, the design of the access points will be subject to a road safety audit in order to ensure that the proposals will provide a safe means of access that is not detrimental to the safety of vehicle occupants, cyclists and pedestrians. Subject to these details being satisfactory, no objection is raised under Policy T2 of the Local Plan.
Accessibility Improvements
The site is approximately 500 metres south of Strood Town Centre and therefore in close proximity to local amenities and public transport. Notwithstanding this, it is appropriate for the sustainable accessibility of the site to be enhanced in association with the development proposals. The design of the site frontage along Priory Road will enable the footway to be widened in order to improve facilities for pedestrians, and to connect with existing cycle routes on Knight Road and Darnley Road. The existing zebra crossing by Cuxton Road will be upgraded to a pelican crossing, and a financial contribution towards pedestrian improvements at Darnley arches is sought. The widened footway will also facilitate an upgrade to bus infrastructure on Priory Road adjacent to the site through the provision of a high-specification shelter equipped with a real time information display. There are four local primary schools in the east central Strood area, the closest of which is approximately 500 metres from the site. The site master plan indicates that 125 residential units will be suitable for family accommodation, and therefore it is appropriate for the development to make a
DC0902MW Page 24 financial contribution towards Safer Routes to School initiatives in the area that aim to reduce the impact of the school run on the highway network through improvements to pedestrian/cycle routes. It is also appropriate for the development to contribute towards the Council’s costs in updating, implementing and monitoring the local schools’ travel plans to ensure that the development is fully incorporated into any future initiatives.
Travel Plans
Travel Plans for all proposed uses of the site will be required to complement other sustainable measures accompanying the development. Managed by a travel plan co- ordinator, it will be required to raise awareness of the impacts of travel decisions and deliver sustainable transport objectives with reductions in car usage (particularly single occupancy journeys) and increased use of public transport, walking and cycling. This will be delivered through the introduction of various initiatives such as a car-sharing scheme within the site, cycle loan scheme, the distribution of travel packs to all new residents providing information on non-car modes of travel and the provision of discounted bus season tickets to all new households and employees.
In light of the above, and subject to a section 106 agreement securing measures to improve the sustainable accessibility of the site, it is considered that the proposed development will not prejudice conditions of highway safety and capacity and makes an acceptable provision for pedestrians and cyclists. On this basis, no objection is raised in respect of Policies T1 and T11 of the Structure Plan and Policies T3, T4 and T6 of the Local Plan.
Parking
As the application is in outline form, parking details are not shown, such matters falling to be considered at the reserved matters stage. Notwithstanding, the submitted drawings show that on site parking would be provided. This would fall to be assessed in accordance with Policy TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policy T13 of the Local Plan, having regard to the proximity of the site to Strood Town Centre, shopping facilities (i.e. Morrison’s) and public transport facilities.
Flood risk assessment
As stated in the letter from the Environment Agency, the site is within a Zone 1 Flood Risk Area and that the finished floor levels are acceptable as they take into account climate change against the lifetime of the development. The Agency recommends that appropriate conditions are attached to any planning permission. Subject to the imposition of these conditions, in the event of planning permission being granted, no objection is raised in terms of flood risk under PPS25, Policies NR10 and NR11 of the Structure Plan and Policy CF13 of the Local Plan.
Contamination
Being a brownfield site, in long established industrial use, the development of this site raises significant issues in terms of contamination. To address these, the applicants have produced an Environmental Risk Assessment. The Environment Agency has made several observations on this assessment which are summarised in their letter of representation. These essentially relate to: the need to protect water supplies during and after construction; the removal of contaminated material; drainage and the storage of fuels and chemicals. In accordance with the advise of the Agency, it is considered that all these matters could be
DC0902MW Page 25 addressed by the imposition of appropriate conditions and accordingly no objection is raised under PPG23, Policies NR8 and NR9 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE23 and CF12 of the Local Plan.
Noise
There are three issues relating to noise: road traffic noise rail noise and industrial noise. A noise assessment has been produced. This is satisfactory in terms of road and rail traffic noise, but raises further issues in respect of industrial noise. If members are minded to approve the application, further assessment would need to be undertaken and then built into conditions to ensure that the development can comply with the relevant policies in the Development Plan.
Air quality
The site adjoins the Cuxton Road Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and any traffic associated with the development that passes through the AQMA would worsen air quality in the area. To address this a contribution is sought from the developer towards the cost of maintaining and improving the Council’s roadside air quality monitoring equipment. In accordance with the Council’s Developer Contributions Guide a contribution of £25 per dwelling and £10 per square metre of employment use would be sought by means of a Section 106 agreement should the application be considered acceptable.
Children’s service (schools)
The Council’s Developer Contributions Guide identifies Pupil Product Ratios (PPRs) for two or more bedroom houses of 0.11 for Nursery provision; 0.27 for Primary schools; 0.19 for Secondary Schools and 0.05 for Sixth form provision. The corresponding PPR’s for flats with two or more bedrooms are: 0.3 for Nursery provision; 0.09 for Primary schools; 0.06 for Secondary Schools and 0.02 for Sixth form provision. At this stage it is unclear as to what proportion of the proposed development could comprise flats and what proportion would comprise houses. Based on the maximum number of units and all of them being houses, the maximum no. school places required and the corresponding contributions sought would be as follows:
Nursery schools – 18 places at £8,320 = £149,760; Primary schools – 45 places at £8,320 = £374,400; Secondary schools – 31 places at £11,960 = £370,760; Sixth form – 8 places at £11,960 = £95,680;
Total £990,600
This is a maximum level of contribution based on the worst-case scenario in terms of housing mix; in the event of an approval, the actual contribution that comes forward will be formula based to take into account the final housing mix approved through reserved matters applications.In the event of planning permission being granted, it would be recommended that all these contributions are sought by means of a Section 106 agreement.
Leisure and Recreation
The proposed development would create a need for recreation and leisure facilities to serve future occupiers. The illustrative masterplan proposes an area of public open space to
DC0902MW Page 26 include a Local Areas for Play (LAP). The Design and Access statement states that there would be a clear division between public and private spaces with the provision of private amenity space for all properties (7.3). No indication is given as to whether or not this play area would be equipped. The National Playing Fields Association Standard require the provision of 1.7 ha for outdoor formal sports provision; and 0.7 ha for children’s play space, of which 0.2 ha should be for equipped play areas and 0.5 has for informal open space per 1,000 persons.
The extent of any contribution required for open space, play facilities and sports provision would depend upon the final number and size of the proposed dwellings, and the extent of any provision within the proposed development.
Applying the formulae in the Developer Contributions Guide and assuming a development of the maximum 165 units and the breakdown set out in the supporting statement of 23 x one bedroom, 78 x two bedroom and 64 x 3 and 4 bedroom units, the occupancy and contributions would be as follows:
Occupancy
23 x one bedroom units at 1.33 persons per unit = 31 persons 78 x two bedroom units at 2.44 persons per unit = 190 persons 64 x three bedroom units at 3.59 persons per unit = 230 persons Total occupancy = 451 persons
This would require the provision of 0.77 ha of formal sports provision; 0.22 ha of informal opens space and 0.09 ha of children’s play space. Alternatively, if this provision is not made the Council would be seeking contributions of £158 per person for outdoor equipped play areas (two and three bedroom units only); £113 per person for informal open space; and £506 per person for formal sports provision.
In the event of no provision being made the Council would seek the following contributions:
Outdoor equipped play space £63,360 (maximum) Informal open space £50,963 (maximum) Formal sports provision £228,206 (maximum) Total £342,529 (maximum)
It is recommended that in the event of planning permission being granted this provision/contribution is sought by means of a Section 106 agreement.
Heath
The PCT initially sought a contribution of £746,170 based on the Health Urban Development Unit (HUDU) model. No justification has been made for this sum in terms of local need and no account has been taken of the inclusion of a surgery within the proposed development.
However, the Council’s Developer Contributions Guide (adopted for development control purposes on 2 May 2008) applies the HUDU model to Medway demographics and establishes a figure of £191 per dwelling and an occupancy of 2.45 per dwelling. Based on a development of between 145 and 165 units a contribution of between £67,852 and £77,211 would be sought. It is recommended that in the event of planning permission being granted this contribution is sought by means of a Section 106 agreement.
DC0902MW Page 27
Section 106 obligations
To summarise, in the light of the above-mentioned planning considerations, in the event of planning permission being granted, the Council would seek the following in the way of infrastructure contributions, by means of a Section 106 agreement:
Affordable housing
i) The provision Affordable housing in 25% of the total number of units;
Transport
ii) £68,500 contribution towards enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities on Priory Road. (Method of calculation: signals £35k, street lighting £8k, surfacing £10k, fees £7.5k: cost estimate obtained from Road Safety Manager);
iii) £36,300 contribution towards pedestrian improvements at Darnley Arches. (Method of calculation: £220 per unit, as per Medway Council’s Guide to Developer Contributions - Table T2);
iv) £16,000 contribution towards bus infrastructure improvements on Priory Road. (Method of calculation: cost of Landmark Bay Shelter (£12k), installation of real time information display (£4K);
v) £9,000 contribution towards Safer Routes to School initiatives. (Method of calculation: £72 per unit as per Medway Council’s Guide to Developer Contributions (excludes 1 bed units)).
vi) £4,000 contribution towards the Council’s costs in updating, implementing and monitoring the travel plans for local primary schools in the vicinity of the site. (Method of calculation: see Medway Council’s Guide to Developer Contributions).
vii) The provision of residential and employment travel plans, including a contribution of £4,000 towards monitoring costs incurred by the Local Authority. (Method of calculation: see Medway Council’s Guide to Developer Contributions).
Air quality
viii) A contribution of £25 per dwelling and £10 per square metre of employment use (Method of calculation: see Medway Council’s Guide to Developer Contributions).
Education
ix) A contribution of up to £149,760 towards the provision of nursery school facilities in the locality (to be determined on a formula basis taking into account the final housing mix agreed through reserved matters applications);
x) A contribution of up to £374,400 towards the provision/improvement of primary
DC0902MW Page 28 school facilities in the locality (to be determined on a formula basis taking into account the final housing mix agreed through reserved matters applications);
xi) A contribution of up to £370,760 towards the provision/improvement of secondary school facilities in the locality (to be determined on a formula basis taking into account the final housing mix agreed through reserved matters applications)
xii) A contribution of up to £95,680 towards the provision of sixth form facilities at in the locality (to be determined on a formula basis taking into account the final housing mix agreed through reserved matters applications)
Open space/play facilities/sports provision
xiii) The provision of 0.77 ha of formal sports facilities; 0.22 ha of informal opens space; and 0.09 ha of children’s play space, or a contribution of up to £342,529 in lieu of the provision of these facilities
Health
xiii) A contribution of between £67,852 and £77,211 based on the formula of an occupancy of 2.45 per unit and a contribution of £191 per person based on Medway Council’s Guide to Developer Contributions.
Total contributions sought (maximum) £1,615,265 Cost per dwelling (based on 165 units) £9,407 Cost per square metre of employment floorspace £10
Conclusions and reasons for recommendation of refusal
The application site is of strategic importance with the Strood Waterfront Action Area and has the potential to make a positive contribution to the regeneration of Strood, particularly in terms of the provision of employment land. The loss of this employment land or part of this employment land could prejudice future proposals for the regeneration of Strood. Accordingly an objection is raised to the proposed development on the grounds of it conflicting with to Policies EP1 and EP2 of the Structure Plan; Policies S10, ED2 and H4 of the Local Plan; Policy RE2 of the Draft South East Plan; and PPS3 Housing. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.
The application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers, but is being referred to the Committee for determination due to its scale and sensitivity and in view of the number of letters of representations received contrary to the Officers’ recommendation.
DC0902MW Page 29
3 MC2008/0890
Date Received: 28th May 2008
Location: 47 Wainscott Road Wainscott Rochester ME2 4LA
Proposal: Change of use from Retail (Class A1) to Cafe (Class A3)
Applicant: Mr A Hodja 3 Sherbourne Road Strood Rochester Kent ME2 3LX
Agent: Mr J Liddiard 14 Wentworth Drive Cliffe Woods Rochester Kent ME3 8UL
Ward: Strood Rural
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the extraction and treatment of cooking fumes, including details for the control of noise and vibration from the system, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is first commenced and thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.
3 The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 0800 and until 2200 Mondays to Saturdays inclusive with no opening on Sundays or National Holidays.
4 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of refuse storage, disposal and collection arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented at all times that the development hereby approved is in use and thereafter maintained.
5 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted the frontage of the site shall be marked out for car parking spaces, including one space suitable for use by the disabled, in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These car parking spaces, together with access thereto shall thereafter be kept available for parking in connection with the use hereby permitted.
6 The Class A3 use hereby permitted shall be limited to the ground floor area of the premises only.
DC0902MW Page 30 For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see the Planning Appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.
Background
The application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 13th August 2008 when it was determined to defer the decision for further information regarding the acceptability of sharing a commercial kitchen with a residential flat, with the potential for cross-contamination. This matter has now been addressed in the ‘Other Matters’ section at the end of the Planning Appraisal below.
Site Description
The application site appears as a fairly large single dwelling although the ground floor, now vacant, was last used for Class A1 retail purposes. The building is two storey, rendered with a slate roof, and has an open, hardsurfaced forecourt that has a drop kerb onto Wainscott Road in front. The building is attached to the Co-op retail store to the south. To the north is Hills Motors, the car repairs building being set back with a parking area in front. There is a bus stop in front of the Co-op, the associated bus stop road markings also protruding in front of part of the application site, the remainder of the frontage being covered by ‘Keep Clear’ marking in association with site and adjacent garage access. The surrounding area primarily comprises of terraced houses although there are also a number of other non-residential uses scattered along the street. As few properties have off-street parking facilities levels of on- street parking are generally high, including opposite the site in Wainscott Road.
Proposal
It is proposed to use the ground floor of the premises as a Class A3 café. There would be no external alterations. The floor plans show 6 tables sitting 4 people each. It is stated that the opening hours would be 8am to 10pm Monday to Saturday with no opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays and that there would be 2 full-time and 2 part-time employees. The first floor is to be retained in residential use, providing a two bedroomed flat that shares the kitchen with the ground floor use.
Relevant Planning History
6/57/66 Additions Approved 8 May 1957
ME/75/632 Proposed extension to form a kitchen, bedroom, toilet and washroom Approved 26 August 1975
94/0570 Part single and two storey rear extension Approved 15 September 1994
MC2005/2307 Lawful Development Certificate (existing) for the use of the two ground floor front rooms in the property as a hair salon Approved 13 December 2005
DC0902MW Page 31
Representations
The application has been advertised on site by the posting of a site notice. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupier of 41, 43-45, 49, 51 and 14-22 (even) Wainscott Road.
Frindsbury Extra Parish Council have conformed that they have no objection to the application.
Three letters of concern have been received, in summary raising the following issues:
• lacking of parking, there is already a parking problem in the area, this would worsen, café visitors would need park for sometime, the road is congested with parked vehicles, buses have difficulty passing lorries and Co-op delivery lorries park at the bus stop, the cafe will need deliveries too; • hours of opening – teenagers collect at the bus stop outside the Co-op in the evenings causing a disturbance; and • no need in this residential area.
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP3 (Transport and the Location of Development) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise Standards) Policy R10 (Local Centres, Village Shops & Neighbourhood Centres) Policy R18 (Take Away Hot Food Shops, Restaurants, Cafes, Bars and Public Houses) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
Principle
Although the ground floor of the premises is currently vacant the authorised/historic use is for Class A1 retail purposes. Policy R10 of the Local Plan applies to all shops within Wainscott and says that development involving the loss of existing shopping facilities (including uses within Classes A1, A2 and A3) will not be permitted unless an improvement to local amenity or the provision of community facilities occurs that outweighs the loss. The change of use of the current premises from Class A1 to Class A3 would be acceptable with regard to this policy.
DC0902MW Page 32 Policy R18 of the Local Plan provides more specific advice on hot food and drink uses. It says that such uses will be permitted outside core retail areas provided certain criteria are met. It is not considered that the proposed use would result in an unacceptable concentration of such uses in the locality. There is a public house, the Stag Inn, at no. 65 and the Wainscott Institute Club is located on the corner of Wainscott Road and Hollywood Lane. There are also hot food takeaways at 1 Wainscott Road (the Golden Fish Bar) and 113 Wainscott Road (Dynasty, Chinese). The other assessment criteria relate to amenity and access/parking matters and will be addressed in detail below.
Amenity Considerations
There is already an authorised use of the premises for retail purposes (which has no hours of use control) and the site is located between the Co-op retail store and a car repairs garage. Although Wainscott is primarily a fairly tight-knit residential village the site is positioned within the small concentration of commercial uses within it. In these circumstances it is not considered that the proposed change of use from retail to café use would result an unacceptable impact on the amenities of local residents. However it is clearly important to control the hours of use of the cafe to avoid nuisance late at night. The proposed hours of opening are 8am to 10pm Monday to Saturday with no opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The adjacent Co-op is open from 7am-10pm Monday to Saturday and 9-8pm on Sundays. The nearby public house and Chinese takeaway are open for longer hours although the fish bar closes at 8:45pm. In this context the proposed hours of opening are considered acceptable, the closing time being 10pm, the same as the adjacent Co-op.
It is important that any café/restaurant use includes the implementation of a suitable scheme for the extraction and treatment of cooking fumes. No details have been provided with the application and this matter will therefore need to be dealt with by a suitably worded planning condition. Similarly details of facilities for the storage, disposal and collection of refuse in connection with the proposed use will also be required by planning condition.
In summary the impact of the development on amenity is therefore considered acceptable including with regard to the advice given in Policies BNE2 and BNE3 of the Local Plan.
Highways and Parking
The forecourt of the premises is hardsurfaced with a drop kerb across the frontage and can realistically provide parking for 3 cars, 1 of which could be designated specifically for the disabled. At times access onto the road in front may be blocked, for example when there is a bus at the bus stop, but this is likely to have a relatively small impact on use of the frontage by café users. This level of parking would not exceed the maximum provision of 13 spaces specified by the adopted standards. The site frontage could also be used for deliveries to the café.
It is recognised that there are generally high levels of on-street parking in Wainscott Road. However, as stated previously there is a historic and authorised use of the premises for Class A1 retail purposes. In this context it is not considered that the proposed café use, would necessarily result in the generation of a significant increase in traffic/parking demand in the area. The café use may result in some longer stays but it is noted that the café would be small, with only 6 tables shown on the proposed plans.
With regard to highway safety the accident database indicates that there was one accident outside 49 Wainscott Road in 2006 where a bus, unable to use the bus stop because of a
DC0902MW Page 33 parked car, mounted the pavement and knocked down a pedestrian resulting in slight injury. Whilst it is possible to associate this accident with parking pressures in Wainscott Road, one accident in three years does not suggest an over-riding safety problem, particularly as the adjacent Co-op is likely to generate a higher parking demand than the proposed café use.
In summary the highways and parking impact of the proposed development are considered acceptable including with regard to the advice given in Policies TP3 and TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies T1, T2 and T13 of the Local Plan.
Other Matters
Members have raised concerns regarding the acceptability of the proposed sharing of a commercial kitchen with a residential flat, with the potential for cross-contamination. This has been raised with colleagues in Environmental Health who have confirmed the following:
‘Environmental health have no objection to this arrangement in principle. In fact it is a set up that exists in many food businesses including pubs where management/owners live on site and caterers running businesses from home. In addition there are many set ups where kitchens are shared such as in community centres and church halls. Ultimately it is the food business operator's responsibility to ensure the facilities they use are adequate. In the case of a shared kitchen with domestic arrangements we would recommend keeping personal effects to a minimum, avoid the use of the washing machine and the bringing in of dirty laundry into the kitchen during commercial food preparation and of course keeping pets out of the kitchen.’
In these circumstances there is no objection to the proposed shared kitchen arrangement in this case. Members should note that the EHO recommendations above are matters controllable under separate legislation and not matters that can or should be controlled by planning condition.
A concern was also raised regarding the possibility of a hot food take away use and the need for controls to avoid this. Members should be advised that changes to the Use Classes Order now mean that take aways fall into a separate use to a restaurant. Accordingly if the applicants wanted to sell hot food to take away this would require planning permission. If they did begin to sell, this would be a breach of planning control against which the Council could take Enforcement action.
Conclusions and reasons for approval
The continued use of the premises for shopping purposes is supported by Policy R10 of the Local Plan and the change of use to a café does not conflict with the provisions of Policy R18 of this Plan. Subject to conditions the impact on amenity is considered acceptable and there would not be significant harm from the parking and highways impacts. Approval subject to appropriate conditions is therefore recommended as the development would accord with the guidance given in Policies QL1, TP3 and TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE2, BNE3, R10, R18, T1, T2 and T13 of the Local Plan.
The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being referred to committee due to the number of representations received that hold a view contrary to the Officer recommendation.
DC0902MW Page 34 The application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 13th August 2008 when it was determined to defer a decision for further information regarding the acceptability of sharing a commercial kitchen with a residential flat, with the potential for cross-contamination.
DC0902MW Page 35
4 MC2008/0968
Date Received: 12th June 2008
Location: Land to the west of Maidstone and Rochester Road, Rochester, Kent
Proposal: Outline application for construction of 9,500 to 12,000 square metres of floorspace for B1 use; new vehicular access to the public highway, internal roads and vehicle parking; services and ancillary development
Applicant: TBH Developments Ltd Regus House Victory Way Admirals Park Dartford Kent DA2 6QD
Agent:
Ward: Rochester West
Recommendation - Refusal
1 The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of appropriate development in the countryside, and would represent an inappropriate development in the open countryside, and a significant incursion into the Nashenden Valley Area of Local Landscape Importance and the Strategic Gap, which would be visually obtrusive with a consequent erosion of the local landscape character and countryside function of the area, which would be contrary to the provisions of Policies SP1, SS3, SS8, EN1, EN3, and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies S1, BNE1, BNE25, BNE31, and BNE34 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
2 In the absence of any sequential assessment of alternative sites to demonstrate that no sites are available within or on the edge of town centres or elsewhere within the urban area, and that a site in the countryside is therefore necessary, overriding any need to protect the countryside, the proposal fails to justify the setting aside of relevant Development Plan policies. The development is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies SS4, SS8, EN1, EN3, EP2, EP3 and EP7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies S1, S2, BNE25, BNE34, and R11 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Site Description
This application relates to a site that falls within Medway Council’s jurisdiction, on the boundary with the borough of Tonbridge and Malling. The site lies between the M2 to the south-west, and Rochester Road to the north-east. The site extends to 2.8ha in area. Stony Lane separates the northern part of the application site. The application site is currently a parcel of land that forms part of the very steep embankment from the M2 motorway up to Rochester Road and Maidstone Road. The urban area lies to the north-east of the site, including existing employment areas and Rochester Airport. The site lies within the designated open countryside, a Strategic Gap that aims to maintain the separation of Maidstone and the Medway Towns, and within the Nashenden Valley Area of Local
DC0902MW Page 36 Landscape Importance (ALLI). The Channel Tunnel Rail Link safeguard route also runs through the site. Land to the west of the M2 is largely unspoilt and scenically attractive countryside that is part of the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Proposal
The application proposes the construction of 9,500 to 12,000 square metres of floorspace for B1 use; new vehicular access to the public highway, internal roads and vehicle parking; services and ancillary development
The application is in outline, with all matters except means of access reserved for future consideration.
It is proposed to create two vehicular accesses onto Maidstone Road and Rochester Road. It is envisaged that a series of five modern office type buildings with car parks will be spread across the site within a landscape setting. The buildings will be approximately 15m wide and will be a mix of two and three storey high structures.
The applicant has submitted an array of supporting documents relating to such matters as highways statement, landscape appraisals, noise assessments, flood reports. The Planning Statement sets out the sub regional need for additional employment development within the Kent Thames Gateway. The main thrust of the applicant case is summarised as follows from the conclusion in their Planning Statement:
There is an overriding justification in terms of assisting the economic development of the Medway Towns and attaining strategic economic objectives for granting planning permission to this application for high quality B1 development. The development will not prejudice the integrity or purpose of the Strategic Gap between Maidstone and Medway Towns. Neither will there be any significant adverse effect or impact on landscape, wildlife or cultural heritage. On balance, planning policy and other material considerations weigh in favour of grant of planning permission for this application.
Relevant Planning History
MC2008/0214 Consultation under Article 10 of The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 for change of use and provision of B1 development comprising of 12,000 to 15,000 sq m of floorspace with associated landscaping, vehicular access, internal roads, parking, services and ancillary development Objections raised 25 February 2008
MC2008/0404 Outline application for construction of 12,000 to 15,000 square metres of floorspace for B1 use, landscaping, new vehicular access to the public highway, internal roads and vehicle parking services and ancillary development Withdrawn
Rochester Bridgewood, Maidstone Road, Rochester
MC2004/2797 Outline application for the 3 motor vehicle servicing, repairs, showrooms and ancillary offices Dismissed at appeal 31 July 2006
DC0902MW Page 37
Representations
The application has been advertised on site and in the press. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to adjoining and surrounding owner/occupiers on Lankester Parker Road, Rochester Airport Industrial Estate, Maidstone Road, Forward Way, Laker Road, and Rochester Airport. Consultation letters have also been sent to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council; Southern Water Services; Southern Gas Networks; EDF energy; Open Spaces Society; Environment Agency; Kent Wildlife Trust; KCC Archaeological Officer; Natural England; and Dickens Country Protection Society; Letters have also been sent to 14 Wentworth Drive, Cliffe Woods; Strood Yacht Club; Medway Countryside Forum; 68 Halgstead Road, Maidstone; and Medway View, Cuxton Road, Strood.
Eighteen representations have been received from neighbouring properties and from local groups including the Meopham & District Footpaths Group, the Medway Countryside Forum, the Luddlesdown & District Rights of Way Group, Luddlesdown Parish Council, the West Kent Badger Group, and the West Kent Downs Countryside Trust, objecting on the following grounds:
• The site overlooks an AONB; buildings would be very visible from this protected area, including from the North Downs Way, a national long distance footpath • The site is within a Strategic Gap; the proposal would not fit with the purpose of this • Light pollution from the development would have unwelcome implications • The development would increase traffic and its associated hazards • Use of the site for the development would not be in the public interest • The development would result in an unwelcome encroachment and a visual intrusion into the ALLI • The proposal would be a damaging extension of development onto a visually prominent area • The views from public rights of way will be completely spoilt • The area contains many badger setts and foraging areas that would be harmed • The site is the most inappropriate place for any development • The hedge should be preserved in its own right; to protect views of the neighbouring industrial sites; and as a haven for wildlife • The character of the bridleway, Stoney Lane, should not be lost to become an industrial road • There appears to be no demand for this kind of development in this area; units across the road and in other industrial/office sites are not let • The site is not previously developed land; any temporary usage linked to the M2/Channel Tunnel Rail Link is now defunct.
Five letters of support have also been received, though two are from the same company and one is anonymous. They contain the following comments:
The proposal represents a good opportunity to bring new businesses into the area The development will have good motorway links with the M2 and M20 The site is a disused area of land that has suffered from fly tipping and needs a use that would improve its appearance A high quality development of this site will improve the look and feel of the whole area
DC0902MW Page 38 The Medway Towns are short of high quality business floorspace The development will establish this area as a modern employment zone with many advantages for local businesses The access proposals will help calm traffic speeds and make it easier for Laker Road industrial traffic to turn in and out The Council should release land for business development The proposal will deliver new jobs to the area.
Councillor Reckless states that this development would potentially provide valuable employment opportunities on a piece of land that is presently not used for anything of value. The development will not negatively impact on the purpose of the Strategic Gap given that the land directly abuts the M2.
Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer and has requested that an informative is attached to any planning consent. They also objected on the grounds that it appears that there is limited opportunity to divert the existing water apparatus crossing the site, though recommended that the applicant considered an amended layout. However, the applicant confirmed to Southern Water that they would be agreeable to amending the layout in line with their comments, as the layout of the site is not for determination at this point. Southern Water then confirmed they would be content with the proposal subject to the imposition of a condition related to securing measures to protecting the public water supply on any permission.
Natural England would recommend further surveys to ascertain the possible impact of the development on birds, bats, badgers and reptiles. There may also be opportunities to incorporate features into the design that are beneficial to wildlife, and measures to secure such features should be considered if planning permission were to be granted.
The Open Spaces Society objects on the grounds that the development would fail to protect the Strategic Gap, ALLI or AONB; the site is not previously developed land; there are other employment sites that are unused; trees and hedgerows will be destroyed to create the vehicular entrances; extensive lighting and reflective materials will harm visual amenity; Stony Lane will be used to access the development, which will create a risk for horse riders, cyclists and walkers.
Frindsbury and Wainscott Community Association object on the grounds that the development overlooks an AONB; is within the Strategic Gap; is in an ALLI; will visually impinge on the Pilgrim’s Way from Wouldham to the North Downs; vacant office space is already available on the other side of the road.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England objects to the development on the grounds that it is not allocated for development; it is outside the urban area and within the countryside; it is in the Strategic Gap and is an ALLI; it contravenes policies related to these designations; and the site is not previously developed land.
The Dickens’ Country Protection Society objects on the grounds that the impact of the development will be far reaching taking into account its location on top of the escarpment; it will cause a significant visual intrusion into the landscape; it is within an area of Local Landscape Significance; it will have a detrimental effect on outlook from the adjoining AONB; and it is likely to cause a loss of amenity for the users of the North Downs Way. The need for development is also questioned.
DC0902MW Page 39 The Environment Agency does not object provided a condition is attached to any planning permission requiring a full drainage strategy. Further conditions are also recommended.
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy SP1 (Conserving and Enhancing Kent’s Environment and Ensuring a Sustainable Pattern of Development) Policy SS3 (Strategic Gaps) Policy SS4 (Priority for Previously Developed Land and a Sequential Approach to the Location of Development) Policy SS8 (Development in the Countryside) Policy EN1 (Protecting Kent’s Countryside) Policy EN3 (Protecting and Enhancing Countryside Character) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy EP2 (Employment Land Provision) Policy EP3 (Location of New or Replacement Employment Land) Policy EP7 (Development of Employment Uses in Rural Areas) Policy TP3 (Transport and the Location of Development) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy S1 (Development Strategy) Policy S2 (Strategic Principles) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE25 (Development in the Countryside) Policy BNE31 (Strategic Gap) Policy BNE34 (Areas of Local Landscape Importance) Policy R11 (Town Centres and the Sequential Approach) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
Principle
As all matters except access are reserved for subsequent consideration, it is mainly only the principle of the development in this location that is open for deliberation at this stage.
On 31 July 2006 an appeal was dismissed on an adjoining site to the north-east (MC2004/2797: Rochester Bridgewood, Rochester Road), where the same designations listed in the above Site Description section apply. The development proposed was three motor vehicle showrooms with servicing, repairs and ancillary offices. The Inspector considered that the proposal amounted to a significant expansion of the urban area into a Strategic Gap and was not convinced that the urban area should expand onto land that is subject to such a designation and included within an ALLI. It was concluded that the cumulative effect of even small-scale developments could seriously undermine the purposes of the Strategic Gap. It is important to consider this decision in assessing this application.
DC0902MW Page 40 The proposed development under this application clearly falls outside the categories of land use that are normally acceptable in the countryside. Structure Plan policy SP1 seeks to conserve and enhance Kent’s environment. Structure Plan policy SS8 states that there has to be a demonstrable need for development in the countryside and policy EN1 supports this, asserting that development that adversely affects the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for it that outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. Local Plan policy BNE25 identifies the main categories of development that would normally be acceptable in the countryside.
Structure Plan policies SS4, EP3 and EP7 and Local Plan policies S1, S2, prioritise investment in the urban fabric and require the consideration first of previously developed land or buildings within or on the edge of urban areas for development before Greenfield land is even contemplated for development.
Structure Plan policy EN3 and Local Plan policies BNE34 and R11 also require development proposals to demonstrate that there is an overriding need for a particular proposal that outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. There should also be appropriate mitigation or compensation for developing on such land, which this application has failed to consider.
Structure Plan Policy Q1 and Local Plan policy BNE1 seek to ensure a high quality of design that will enhance the character of an area.
The Local Plan allocates various specific sites for B1 uses, none of which have been properly addressed as to their acceptability or otherwise for the proposed development. There is also a lack of evidence that the development of the application site meets a ‘need’ for this location that first is demonstrable and, second, has been shown not to be capable of being addressed within the existing built up areas.
As the site lies within the Medway Towns side of the M2 motorway it is also subject to the specific policies of the Kent Thames Gateway Sub Region part of the South East Plan. This plan has been subject to an Examination in Public and Inspector’s Report, but the publication of the proposed changes to the Plan is awaited. Therefore, whilst it is not an adopted document, it does carry a certain amount of weight, though this is not greater than the adopted policies within the Structure and Local Plans.
The applicant has submitted a case of special circumstances related to the overriding need for high quality B1 development in close proximity to the Rochester Airfield high technology hub. In particular, the applicant relies on policies KTG3 to KTG6 inclusive, which require the Kent Thames Gateway sub region to increase its employment land provision, provide some 58,000 jobs across this sub region by 2026 and provide high quality employment sites adjacent to Rochester Airport. However, policy KTG3 also states that development should not be sited in the Strategic Gap to the south, east and west of Medway. In addition, paragraphs 6.10.9 and 6.10.10 of the Regional Planning Guidance 9A: The Thames Gateway Planning Framework highlight the importance of the green hillsides and backdrops of the Medway Towns. It also indicates that development should be steered away from the urban fringe, which provides locally valuable countryside.
The applicant has also stated that they believe the site to be previously developed land and therefore it should be developed. They consider that the site was used as a temporary contractors’ yard during the CTRL and M2 widening works and therefore, it is now previously developed land. There does not appear to be any planning permission or reference to the
DC0902MW Page 41 contractors’ yard on this site from planning records; however, providing a contractors yard for a statutory undertaker adjacent to the site would be permitted development. Regardless of this, since the CTRL and M2 widening works were completed the site has been left to naturally slowly regenerate and forms part of the open countryside.
The proposed development is not for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, mineral working or any other countryside purpose. Unless a need for the development can be shown it would not be acceptable without grounds for an exception to policy being present, which is not the case in this instance.
The applicant has not submitted a sequential approach nor properly considered any alternative urban sites adjacent to the Rochester Airfield or indeed any other sites within the urban confines of the Medway Towns. The applicant simply states that, “there is no current industrial land availability survey for the Medway Towns against which to assess the adequacy of the available supply of employment land”. For the only sites that are mentioned in the supporting documents (the Isle of Grain and Kingsnorth) an assumption is made that there is an adequate supply of such land in these locations, and the applicant simply states that they do not provide a high enough environmental quality and are not appropriately located for the proposed use. Chattenden/Lodge Hill is the only other site mentioned, but is not considered to be acceptable to the applicant as it is not immediately available for development, unlike the application site.
It is considered the applicant has failed to identify an overriding need for the proposed development on this site over and above any other appropriate use, nor has it been shown that there are no alternative sites available for the development within the urban area. Therefore, the development would be contrary to those policies concerned with protecting the countryside.
In addition, the site is located both in the Strategic Gap and the Nashenden Valley Area of Local Landscape Importance. To an extent the open character of the landscape has already been compromised by the large buildings of the business park site nearby. However, this does not justify further developments on the upper slopes of the valley, since this would urbanise its character still further.
Whilst development can take place within Strategic Gaps, the guiding principle set out in Structure Plan Policy SS3 and Local Plan Policy BNE31 is that any development that takes place should not significantly extend settlements at the expense of the open land that adjoins them.
In this case, the illustrative drawings indicate a conventional ‘urban’ built form similar to conventional business park locations and with no concessions in terms of the intensity of development to its location and setting. The creation of new build development within the countryside will be visually intrusive and will be particularly harmful from wider views of the site and the wider landscape. Given the significant change in ground levels of the site, it will be difficult to adequately screen the development to wider views. Therefore, the proposal will detract from the visual amenity of the locality and wider landscape.
It is clear therefore that the proposed development would be and appear as an uncompromising urban extension into the Gap and the ALLI, and this together with the visual prominence of the site would combine to form a significant extension of built development into the countryside.
DC0902MW Page 42 There is no evidence that land within the defined built-up area, and in particular within existing employment areas, has been considered to locate the proposed development, and in the absence of such information together with a failure to demonstrate that a rural location is necessary for the proposed development, there is no justification to set aside the above mentioned Development Plan policies and permit the proposed development.
Amenity
There are no nearby residential properties and given the nature of the proposal, i.e. B1 light industrial uses, the proposed development will not be likely to result in any adverse amenity impacts.
The applicant has submitted a series of reports relating to flood risk, ecology, landscape and visual impact, and noise. There are no particular concerns relating to the conclusions of these reports and if the Council was minded to grant outline planning permission, the majority of the matters raised within these reports could be controlled by condition.
Transport Considerations
Traffic Generation and Impact
The Transport Assessment identifies the potential level of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development by reference to traffic data for similar sites contained within the TRICS database. It is calculated that the proposed floorspace of 15,000sqm of B1/business park use will generate 212 arrivals and 28 departures in the morning peak and 24 arrivals and 171 departures during the evening peak period. It is estimated that 37% of the vehicle movements will be from the north and 63% from the south of the site. This is derived from an interrogation of 2001 Census data for the existing industrial/commercial uses near the site and the origins of the car driver trips. The north/south distribution of traffic is very similar to that derived from a traffic survey of turning movements at the Lankester Parker Road/B2097 junction, and is therefore considered to be a robust calculation.
The Transport Assessment contains traffic count data obtained from Medway Council. These counts were undertaken on the B2097 south of Laker Road in 2005 and 2006 and indicate that the peak hour two-way flows range between 1,750 and 1,950 vehicles per hour. The total weekday daily flows along the B2097 amount to around 18,700 vehicles. On this basis, the percentage impact of the development traffic on the existing traffic on the B2097 has been calculated at 4.6% to the north and 7.8% to the south during the morning peak and 9.8% to the north and 7% to the south during the evening peak. Over a 24-hour period, the development traffic will have a relatively small 3.2% impact to the north and 5.5% impact to the south.
The impact of development traffic on Bridgewood Roundabout, an important junction linking Chatham, Rochester, Walderslade and Maidstone, has been carefully assessed. Traffic generated by the Medway Innovation Centre has been included in the assessment as it represents a committed development not yet constructed. The assessment of the roundabout indicates that, whilst 63% of the development traffic will impact upon the B2097 arm of the junction, it will continue to operate within capacity in the future.
DC0902MW Page 43
Access arrangements
It is proposed that the site is served by three accesses comprising a priority -staggered junction with Rochester Trade Park to the north, a signalised crossroads at Lankester Parker Road and a priority T-junction to the south. Capacity analysis demonstrates that the priority junctions will operate well within capacity. Clearly, the introduction of a signalised junction at a point where traffic is currently uncontrolled will impact upon the free-flow of traffic. However, this is considered to represent an appropriate form of access based on the traffic distribution associated with the development, the maximum predicted queue length during the peak periods will amount to only 12 vehicles, and the proposed traffic signals will have a practical reserve capacity of 10% and 17% in the two peak hours. In addition, there will some benefit for existing motorists emerging from Lankester Parker Road during peaks periods. A safety audit has been undertaken on the proposed highway works, and whilst a number of issues have been raised, it is considered that these amount to points of detail, such as the provision of high mounted signal heads, the regrading of the bund near Stirling Park, and an extension to the 40mph speed limit, which can be resolved as part of the detailed design/section 278 process.
Sustainable Travel
Pedestrian and cycle facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site are currently poor, and the improvements offered as part of this development are welcomed. A shared cycleway/footway will be provided along the frontage of the site and towards the northern end of the site a crossing facility will link to a widened section of footway on the eastern side of Maidstone Road. The applicant does not propose to continue the off-road cycle facilities beyond the Comet store to the north due to land ownership issues, however the transport assessment acknowledges that measures to link the cycle route with the existing National Cycle Route 17 at the Tideway are appropriate, and has indicated a willingness to provide a financial contribution via a section 106 agreement. To maintain an adequate cycle link northwards would mean encroaching on to the privately owned business park, the cost of which is likely to be prohibitive. It is likely that cycle users would just use the privately owned road in the business park that runs parallel to the B2097. Beyond this, it is possible that some amendments can be made to widen the footway, provide an easier access for cyclists at The Stirling Sports Centre and improve facilities for cyclists at the Maidstone Road/Warren Wood Road junction. To facilitate this a financial contribution of £20,000 is sought, which would also provide for improved signing and carriageway markings where appropriate.
The site is located between 0.7 km and 1.5km from local bus service 145, which operates to a ten-minute frequency throughout the day to Chatham and Rochester. Local bus service 142 provides a direct link between the site entrances and Chatham/Rochester, however this is currently limited to outside the peak hours. The proposed footway/cycleway provision, additional controlled and uncontrolled crossing points and financial contributions towards pedestrian/cycle facilities in the vicinity of The Tideway will enhance pedestrian links to service 145. Taking this into consideration, and given the employment uses associated with proposed development, the walking route to service 145 is considered acceptable. That said it is appropriate for the development’s travel plan to investigate with the bus operator a possible extension to the service during the peak periods, whereby the service operates along Maidstone Road directly in front of the site. This would further facilitate the use of public transport by offering a more convenient service to employees.
DC0902MW Page 44
A travel plan for the development will be required in order to encourage staff to travel by sustainable modes and minimise single occupancy car trips. The transport statement submitted in support of the application contains a possible framework travel plan; however, it is appropriate for its development, implementation and monitoring to be agreed with the Local Authority. It is recommended this be secured by condition, with the Travel Plan to be agreed prior to first use of the development, and implemented upon first occupation.
On this basis, there are no objections on transport grounds, subject to conditions and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies TP3 and TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies T1, T2 and T13 of the Local Plan.
Environmental Health Considerations
Conditions are recommended relating to contamination, and to noise from the operation of the development to safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area, and to protect the proposed development from transport related noise.
This development would have a direct impact on air quality due to the volume of traffic associated with the use of the development and the potentially high number of the more polluting heavy goods vehicles.
The location of the development is approximately 550 metres from the Maidstone Road, Chatham Air Quality Management Area and it is likely that traffic going from and to the development site will go through this AQMA. This will have a negative affect on air quality, as it will worsen the air quality within this area. A Section 106 contribution has therefore been requested towards the maintenance or improvement of the Council’s roadside air quality monitoring network, and other initiatives that contribute to local air quality management.
Conclusions and Reasons for Refusal
The Local Planning Authority does not consider that there is any justification in the circumstances of the present application for overriding the planning policy objections. As such the proposal is not considered to be acceptable and the application does not accord with the provisions of Policies SP1, SS3, SS4, SS8, EN1, EN3, EP2, EP3, EP7 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies S1, S2, BNE1, BNE25, BNE31, BNE34, and R11 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. The application is accordingly recommended for refusal.
This application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers, but is being reported for Members consideration due to the number of representations received contrary to the recommendation.
DC0902MW Page 45
5 MC2008/1050
Date Received: 25th June 2008
Location: Land rear of 128 Bredhurst Road Wigmore Gillingham ME8 0QU
Proposal: Construction of 2 dwellings (Amendment to MC2008/0444)
Applicant: Mr Wilkinson Antler Homes Ltd Brewery House High Street Westerham Kent TN16 1RG
Agent:
Ward: Hempstead & Wigmore
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings herein approved the boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with drawing number 43707/SE/PL3/01/A revision A and shall be retained thereafter.
3 Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings herein approved the landscaping shall be completed in accordance with drawing number 1537/1A and the soft landscaping specification herein approved and maintained for a period of five years thereafter.
4 The development shall be constructed using the materials specified for plots 5 and 6 in the external materials schedule herein approved.
5 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 to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. 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 submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.
DC0902MW Page 46 For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.
Site Description
The application site relates to a parcel of land located within a predominantly residential area and close to a local shopping centre in Fairview Avenue. This application site previously formed part of a larger plot. However, this larger plot was subsequently divided into two parcels following officers’ concerns that the original proposal for 14 dwellings (MC2006/0719) would have resulted in overdevelopment of the site.
The current application site is located to the rear of 128 Bredhurst Road but has a boundary fronting Foulds Close. The site is predominantly clear of development other than the existing outbuildings associated with the dwelling at number 128 Bredhurst Road. Access to the entire site is currently gained from two vehicular crossovers in Bredhurst Road, each sited adjacent to the side boundaries of the site. At present, there is no vehicular access point to this application site from Foulds Close. The accommodation type within Foulds Close is predominantly two-storey detached properties although there is a bungalow at number 2.
Proposal
This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 2 dwellings.
This application has been submitted as there are changes proposed to the design of two of the dwellings that were previously approved at outline and then at reserved matters stage (plots 5 and6). This current application would amend the external design of two of the dwellings approved under reference MC2008/0444.
The design of plots 5 and 6 have changed since the reserved matters application by the inclusion of an additional single storey element to the side and a first floor element being included over what was previously a single storey lean-to at the rear.
The footprint of the main dwelling would measure approx. 7.5m in width or approx. 9.7m including the single storey side element. It would be approx. 13.5m in depth and two-storeys in height measuring approx. 8.6m high to the ridge of the pitched roof. At ground floor level the accommodation would comprise a living room, dining room, kitchen/breakfast room. At first floor level the accommodation would comprise four bedrooms (one with en-suite facilities) and a bathroom. Parking would be provided by way of an integral garage and driveway.
Site Area/Density
Site area: 0.12 ha (0.29 acres) Site density: 16 d.p.h (6.9 d.p.a)
Relevant Planning History
MC2006/0719 Outline application for demolition of dwelling and construction of 14 dwellings. Withdrawn
DC0902MW Page 47 Originally, there was an intention to develop the site as a whole but following discussions with the case officer and the subsequent withdrawal of the original scheme (MC2006/0719), the site was split into two with one scheme fronting onto Bredhurst Road and the other fronting onto Foulds Close.
MC2006/1472 Outline application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of seven 4-bed detached houses. Refused, 15 September 2006. Dismissed at appeal on 21 May 2007.
MC2007/0087 Outline application for construction of six 4-bedroomed detached dwellings with semi integral garages. Refused, 05 April 2007 Approved at appeal on 20 December 2007
MC2007/1408 Construction of 5 four-bedroomed detached dwellings with integral garages and access onto Foulds Close (demolition of existing buildings). Refused, 21 September 2007
MC2007/2035 Construction of four 4-bedroomed dwellings with integral garages and one 5-bedroomed detached dwelling with detached double garage and access onto Foulds Close (demolition of existing buildings). Approval, 03 January 2008
MC2008/0444 Application for reserved matters (appearance and landscaping) pursuant to outline planning permission MC2007/0087 (construction of six 4- bedroomed detached dwellings with semi integral garages). Approval, 22 May 2008
The scheme fronting onto Bredhurst Road for four five-bedroomed houses was approved by the development control committee on 28 September 2006 (MC2006/1471). The reserved matters of design, external appearance and landscaping were approved on 14 November 2007 (MC2007/1373).
Land rear of 128 (Plot 2) Bredhurst Road Wigmore Gillingham ME8 0QU
MC2008/1227 Construction of a dwelling (Amendment to MC2008/0444) Currently under consideration
Land rear of 128 (Plot 4) Bredhurst Road Wigmore Gillingham ME8 0QU
MC2008/1228 Construction of a dwelling (Amendment to MC2008/0444) Currently under consideration
Representations
The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 Foulds Close; 122a, 122b, 122c, 122d, 124a, 124b, 124c, 124d, 128, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 159, 163, 165, 167, 173 and 175 Bredhurst Road and 184, 186, 188, 190, 192, 194a, 194b, 194c,
DC0902MW Page 48 194d, 196a, 196b, 196c and 196d Fairview Avenue and the Wigmore Community and Residents Association at 18 Hoath Lane.
Four letters of objection have been received. The following concerns have been raised:
• Overlooking and privacy issues • Overdevelopment • Parking problems • Highway safety hazard • Traffic congestion • Access for emergency services and refuse storage • Lack of character • Lack of quality and style • Loss of daylight
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP1 (Integrated Transport Strategy) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
Having regard to the provision of the Development Plans, it is considered that the main issues arising from the proposal are as follows:
• Principle • Street Scene and Design • Residential Amenity • Highways
Principle of development
The principle of residential development on this site has already been considered when an outline application was submitted in 2007 for the construction of six 4-bedroomed detached dwellings with semi integral garages. Following the refusal of the application and the subsequent appeal, planning permission was granted on 20 December 2007. A reserved matters application followed and was granted permission on 22 May 2008. This application is not for further dwellings but an amended design for two of the dwellings already approved.
DC0902MW Page 49 Street scene and design
The site is located so that the frontage would be in Foulds Close. The site is irregularly shaped and is located where the pattern of development in Foulds Close is typically of detached dwellings situated within relatively small plots. The layout, scale and access of the proposed development were considered as part of the original outline application. As such, the size of plot and the footprint of dwellings are considered to respond to the characteristics of the area and has been approved as part of MC2007/0087.
Foulds Close is mixed in terms of the design and appearance of the properties. However, the area comprises predominantly detached two-storey properties.
The boundary treatment, landscaping and external appearance of the two plots would be as previously approved.
The design of plots 5 and 6 is proposed to change from that previously approved by the inclusion of an additional single storey element to the side and the addition of a first floor element over what was previously a single storey lean-to at the rear.
Despite the proposed changes to the existing permission, the proposal would still respect the mixed character and appearance of the street scene and is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Residential amenity
Due to the siting and orientiation of the proposed dwellings and the siting of the habitable room windows within the elevations, it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact on residential amenity in terms of loss of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy.
The proposal would be in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. Highways
Both properties would still have an integral garage and space to the front for parking. This would be a provision of two off-road spaces per dwelling which is considered acceptable for 4-bedroomed dwellings in this urban context.
In relation to the proposed vehicular accesses to each property, it is considered that the development would not result in an increased danger to vehicular or pedestrian safety.
The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies TP1 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2003 and Policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
DC0902MW Page 50 Conclusion and Reasons for Approval
The proposed application for the two four-bedroomed detached houses would not detract from the character and appearance of existing and proposed development within the area. Due to siting of the proposed dwellings, the arrangement of fenestration and their relationship with neighbouring properties, the proposal will not cause any unacceptable harm to the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policies QL1, TP1 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1, BNE2, T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and the application is accordingly recommended for approval.
This application would normally fall to be considered under the officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ consideration because of the number of representations that have been received which are contrary to the officer recommendation.
DC0902MW Page 51
5 MC2008/1083
Date Received: 26th June 2008
Location: 2 Ryegrass Close Chatham ME5 8JY
Proposal: Construction of a first floor extension to the side over existing garage
Applicant: Mr D Sahota 2 Rye Grass Close Chatham Kent ME5 8JY
Agent: Mr B Saunders C & B Designs 12 St. Margarets Drive Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0NR
Ward: Princes Park
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the development herein approved shall match those used on the existing dwelling.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be installed in the western flank wall of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.
Site Description
2 Ryegrass Close is situated in a residential part of Chatham. The land slopes down to the east and there is on street and off road parking available. The surrounding dwellings are detached two storey properties which are mixed in design with varied spacing between plots and a random layout pattern. All of the properties have some off road parking and most have garages.
The application site is a two storey detached property with a double garage to the eastern side and a conservatory to the rear. The front garden is mainly open planned. To the rear is a patio area with the remainder of the garden laid to lawn. The boundary treatment to the east is approx. 1.5m high close boarded fencing and high conifers reaching approx. 4m.
DC0902MW Page 52
Proposal
The submitted application is for the construction of a first floor extension to the side over the existing garage. The proposed extension will project approx. 4.9m to the side above the existing garage and will be approx. 6.9m deep. It will be approx. 6.6m high with a pitched gable roof.
The proposal would provide for two further bedrooms and one bathroom. This represents an increase overall of 2 bedrooms.
Representations
Neighbour consultation letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 1, 3, 5 and 29 Ryegrass Close, 44 and 45 Barleymow Close, Chatham , Kent.
Three letters of objection have been received. The main issues raised from these objections are:
• Overdevelopment of the site setting a precedent • Parking problems could be created by the extension • There are restrictive covenants on the land (not a material planning consideration)
One letter received from the applicant in response to the objections stating the following:
• The properties who have objected are not close to the application site • There are three parking spaces on the driveway • There are no parking restrictions in the street • Vehicles used for construction would use the driveway
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
Street scene and design
The proposed first floor extension will be situated above the existing attached double garage and therefore will be visible from the street. The properties in the area are mixed in design and spacing and therefore the proposal will not result in any loss of uniformity. The proposed
DC0902MW Page 53 extension will be situated approx. 2.5m away from the boundary and is therefore considered to retain sufficient spacing between this and the neighbouring properties and avoid any terracing affect. In terms of scale and proportion the proposal is considered in keeping with the original dwelling by being subservient to the main house. In terms of design the pitched roof at a lower level (approx. 0.8m lower) will complement the dwelling.
It is therefore considered the proposal accords with the provisions of Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Kent & Medway Local Plan 2003.
Neighbour Amenities
Number 3 is situated to the east of the application site and is set further into its rear garden. The proposed extension. The proposed extension is to the west side of the property and will not therefore impact on number 3 in terms of privacy, outlook or loss of light.
Number 1 is situated to the west of the application site and is sited at a different angle to the highway. There are high conifers of approx. 4m in height along the boundary. There is a bedroom window in the southeastern flank approx. 7m away from the proposed flank wall however, due to the angle of view from this window and the presence of the high conifers which are evergreen the proposal is not considered to cause any significant additional impact on this neighbour in terms of loss of outlook or daylight. No windows are proposed in the western flank of the extension and therefore there will be no loss of privacy. If windows were to be installed at a later date there may be concerns of overlooking to the rear of the garden. Therefore a condition is recommended to ensure that any additional windows require planning consent. Due to the path of the sun there will be no detrimental impact in terms of loss of sunlight or daylight for this neighbour.
Number 45 Barleymow Close is situated to the rear and northwest of the application site. There is close boarded fencing between 1.5 and 1.8m along this boundary and high conifers over 3m in height. These conifers screen the rear garden of this property and therefore no concerns are raised with regard to loss of privacy for this neighbour from the rear bedroom window. Due to the distances between the dwellings of approx. 19m there are no concerns with regard to loss of daylight, sunlight or outlook from the proposal.
No other neighbours will be affected in terms of loss of outlook, privacy, sunlight or daylight.
Therefore the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 in terms of its impact on the amenities of the neighbours and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Highways
The current proposal would increase the number of bedrooms in the property from 4 to 6 but at least two car parking spaces on the drive and a further two within the garage will remain. It is considered that 4 car parking spaces is sufficient to serve a property of the size as extended, in this location. No objection is therefore raised in this regard.
Conclusions and reasons for Approval
Although there are no similar extensions visible in the street the proposal is not considered to cause any detrimental impact on the street scene or the amenities of any neighbouring dwelling. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the above mentioned policies
DC0902MW Page 54
The application would normally be considered under officer’s delegated powers but has to be reported to Members due to the number of representations received contrary to the recommendation
DC0902MW Page 55
7 MC2008/1152
Date Received: 14th July 2008
Location: 278 Maidstone Road Chatham ME4 6JL
Proposal: Restrospective application for construction of two storey and single storey front extensions and raising of roof height and insertion of dormers to front and rear to facilitate loft conversion (revision to MC2007/1677 )
Applicant: Mr A S Kharira 278 Maidstone Road Chatham Kent ME4 6JL
Agent: Mr J Keeley C K Designs The Mariners Hamstead Lane Yalding Kent ME18 6HG
Ward: Rochester South & Horsted
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
(and as amended by plans received on 25 July 2008)
1 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally and elevation drawings showing the use of a brick plinth and the location of any other external material shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of the date of this decision and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
2 Within 1 month of the date of this decision details of the level of glazing obscurity to be used in first floor bathroom windows shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The windows shall be installed in accordance with the approved details, shall be non opening other than a top hung fanlight and shall thereafter be retained as such.
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 shown on the approved plans) shall be installed at first floor level in any flank walls and in the roof planes of the extended property herein allowed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.
Site Description
278 Maidstone Road is a detached bungalow, set well back from the road behind neighbouring properties, in a large plot. There is a detached double-length garage, also set back from the road within an extensive front driveway. Boundary treatment to the rear garden
DC0902MW Page 56 is close board fencing, approximately 2m high adjacent no. 280 and approximately 1.8m high elsewhere.
The property is located in a residential area, with a very mixed street scene consisting predominantly of individually designed detached properties. Many of these are large and set within substantial plots. The adjacent property no. 276 is a detached bungalow with various single-storey extensions and a conservatory to rear, and has a detached garage adjacent to the shared boundary, set behind both properties. The adjacent property no. 280 is a large, two-storey detached property, with a conservatory to the rear (to the side of the application dwelling) and a detached double garage to front.
Proposal
This application is for an increase in the height of the dwelling roof by approximately 2.2 metre to a proposed ridge height of about 7.45m; the installation of three dormers into the rear roof plane (measuring about 2.5m wide each and each with a pitched, hipped roof) and one dormer of the same size and design into the northern side of the front roof plane; the construction of a two storey front extension (with gabled roof) to the southern side of front elevation (with an eaves height of about 3.5 metres, a ridge height of about 5.25 metres, width of about 5.1metres and a projection of about 5 metres); and a ‘conservatory style’ of porch measuring about 2.75 metres width by 3 metres projection.
This application differs from that approved under MC2007/1677, which has been implemented, in that the roof trusseshave been contructed at a pitch a few degrees steeper resulting in the roof pitch being 1.2m above the height originally approved. All other aspects remain the same.
Relevant Planning History
MC2007/1677 Construction of two storey and single storey front extensions and raising of roof height and insertion of dormers to front and rear to facilitate loft conversion Approved 24 January 2008
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of: 179, 181, 276, 280 and 282 Maidstone Road, 75, 81 and 119 Wilson Avenue and Synergy Windmill Business Centre Wrotham.
4 letters from three addresses have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:
• Building overwhelms the adjacent bungalow and ‘spoils the presentation’; • Property overlooks the adjacent bungalow and affects the privacy; • Development ill conceived; • Development not beneficial to the surrounding area; • Increased overshadowing of garden of no. 276; • Increased loss of light to windows of no. 276; • ‘The increase in the ridge height of the roof of the main dwelling now allows room for another storey’;
DC0902MW Page 57 • Property out of character with surrounding properties; • Loss of privacy to no. 276; • Pproperty oppressive from site of no. 276; • Backland development; • ‘When viewed from Maidstone Road will be incongruous and effect the perception of depth’; • The front extension looks out of proportion; • Concerns regarding the reduced parking/turning area as a result of the front extension;
Various comments are also made regarding building regulations matters.
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)
Planning Appraisal
Background
Conditional planning permission was granted at this property in January 2008, following a committee members’ site visit, for increase in the height of the dwelling roof by approximately 1 metre to a proposed ridge height of about 6.25m; the installation of three dormers into the rear roof plane and one dormer into the front roof plane; the construction of a two storey front extension (with an eaves height of about 3.5 metres, a ridge height of about 5.25 metres) and a ‘conservatory style’ of porch.
However, works started at the site but have now stopped as the roof trusses have been constructed at a pitch a few degrees steeper than were permitted under the approved application.
This has resulted in the roof ridge being at a height about 1.2m above the height of the approved development. (About 2.2m above the ridge height of the original bungalow.) This has also led to the dormers being built at a slightly higher level within the roof plane.
The considerations in the determination of this application solely relate therefore to the impact of the increase in the ridge height. All other matters remain unaltered and as approved by committee under the earlier, implemented, permission.
DC0902MW Page 58 Street Scene and Design
This area has a very mixed street scene, a staggered building line and many properties have been extensively extended. Properties are also of a variety of ages. The property immediately to the south of the application property is a recently built two-storey detached dwelling of a generous scale that was given planning permission in 1998 and replaced a smaller two storey property. This property has since been extended by a conservatory to the rear, on the northern side of the rear elevation. The property to the north is a bungalow that has been significantly extended over time. Further to the north, the south and on the opposite side of the street dwellings are both two storey and bungalows and many have undergone considerable alteration from their original form.
In terms of design the increased height of the main dwelling roof the ridge will be around 2.2m above that of the original dwelling. The roof will remain of a balanced appearance to the house and will not dominate it. The proposed dormers are not over large and will not dominate the main roof and are of an appropriate scale. Overall, the increased roof height is not considered to result in a dwelling that is out of scale or otherwise out of place within this very mixed street scene.
Due to the complete variety of dwelling designs in this street and the acceptable design, the proposed development is not considered to harm the street scene or character of the area and is therefore considered to comply with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan.
Amenity Considerations
It is appreciated that the increased height of the dwelling roof will result in a greater impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, most particularly in terms of outlook and overshadowing, however it needs to be considered if the additional impact will be of a level that will warrant the refusal of the application on that basis. Due to the separation of the dwellings a significant loss of daylight to neighbours windows or the conservatory at number 276 will not result from this proposal.
In terms of outlook the proposed increase in roof height will add additional height and bulk to the dwelling, which is located close to both the northern and southern boundaries shared with adjacent dwellings.
The site to the south, number 280, is situated in a particularly wide plot and the proposed increased height and bulk of the application dwelling will not result in an overbearing impact when seen from the property or site of no. 280.
The dwelling to the north, no. 276, has a double garage located so that the front elevation of the garage is close to the rear elevation of no. 278. The outlook from the rear window of no. 276, on the southern side of the rear elevation, is across the property’s parking area to the front of the garage and at the garage itself. The existing flank of no. 278 is already very apparent in the outlook from this window and the increased height and bulk of no. 278, over the existing dwelling and approved scheme is not considered to result in an unacceptably oppressive structure within this outlook. To the northern side of the rear elevation of no. 276 is a conservatory. Due to the distance of the conservatory from the southern boundary of the site and that the main outlook from the conservatory is into the garden the increased height and bulk of the proposed dwelling is not considered to be harmful to the outlook from the conservatory.
DC0902MW Page 59
In terms of overshadowing the application dwelling is to the northern side of no. 280 and as a result will not cause significant additional overshadowing.
The application property is located to the south of no. 276 and as such there will be additional overshadowing of the garden of no. 276 over and above that of the previously approved structure. However, given the generous scale of the garden of no. 276 and that the area immediately to the north of the application property is a car parking area the additional height and bulk of the proposed dwelling is not considered to result in a level and duration of overshadowing of the site of no. 276 that would warrant the refusal of the application.
Overall the proposed increase in ridge height is considered not to harmfully affect the amenities of neighbouring properties, and is therefore considered to comply with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan.
Conclusions and Reasons for Approval
It is not considered that the increase in the ridge height of the proposed dwelling from that approved will unacceptably harm the appearance of the property and the street scene nor the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of the Councils Development Plan Policies and is accordingly recommended for approval.
The proposal would normally be determined under officer delegated powers but is being referred for committee determination due to the extent of representations received expressing views contrary to the recommendation and following the request of Cllr Clarke who considers that the increase in the ridge height will impact on neighbours.
The application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 3rd September 2008 when it was determined to defer for a site meeting to take place.
DC0902MW Page 60
8 MC2008/1166
Date Received: 9th July 2008
Location: Rainham Healthy Living Centre 103-107 High Street Rainham Gillingham ME8 8AA
Proposal: Reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide a total of 27 spaces including new ambulance bay and relocation of cycle parking spaces and refuse store
Applicant: Rainham Healthy Living Centre C/o Agent
Agent: Mr M Chivers Ryhurst Ltd Rydon House Station Road Forest Row East Sussex RH18 5DW
Ward: Rainham North
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
(as amended by plans received on 6 august 2008)
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include; means of enclosure and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials, refuse or other storage units. 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.
3 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.
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.
DC0902MW Page 61 5 Prior to commencement of the development, details of measures to prevent indiscriminate vehicle parking on the access road and all other areas within the site boundary outside of the designated parking bays, including signage and means of enforcement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local authority. The approved measures and means of enforcement shall be implemented upon completion of the revised parking area.
6 Prior to the commencement of the development details of all bollards including location shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bollards shall be installed within 1 month of the reconfiguration of the car park and shall thereafter be retained.
For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.
Site description
The application site is the car parking area for the Rainham Healthy Living Centre, which is a detached 3-storey building providing a range of medical services along with a café. The building is to the east of the main Centre of Rainham. The car park is located to the north of the building and accessed from the A2 and is surfaced in tarmac. In addition to the 24 car parking spaces there is also a cycle store, refuse store and some landscaping.
Proposal The proposal is for the reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide a total of 27 spaces including new ambulance bay and the relocation of cycle parking spaces and refuse store.
The proposal includes the provision of 7 disabled parking spaces and the installation of an access barrier restricting access to 25 of the spaces provided. There would also be two parking space bollards across the entrance to spaces 26 and 27 on the plan. These bollards and the access barrier will be coloured white and red. The plans also show the landscaping on site will be adjusted to suit the proposed layout.
Relevant Planning History
MC2004/0721 Construction of a new community medical health centre with vehicular access via High Street, car parking spaces, cycle parking and associated landscaping part demolition of ground floor of 6c Station Road and external alterations to provide a new pedestrian walkway, Approved with conditions, 03/08/04. Representations
The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners / occupiers of 95, Flat A 95, 107a (Sawyer), 107a (Medway Out Boards), 109, 109a, 113 and St Margaret’s Church High Street, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 and 54 Maplins Close, 6, 6a, 8, 10, 14, 16 Station Road and Units 1-4 and Flats 1-10 Stanford House 2-4 Station Road.
DC0902MW Page 62 3 letters of representation have been received raising the following concerns:
• Plans are incorrect in the Northeastern corner. • Barrier will cause a bottleneck and cause vehicles to reverse onto the A2. • The barrier will restrict the potential to do a three point turn • Delivery lorries and vans will also have to reverse out of the site. • How will the refuse lorry reach the refuse store with an ambulance in the ambulance bay? • The cycle store is never used. • The control box will restrict access to the DS Fabrications space. • Relocation of the refuse collection point will result in increased noise and disturbance for the occupiers of 38 Maplins Close when the refuse is collected. • Illegal parking on the access road results in restricted access.
1 letter received asking general questions about the application but not expressing an opinion.
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2003
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development & Design) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T13 (Parking Strategy)
Planning Appraisal The determining issues in relation to this application relate to:
• Street scene and design; • Amenity Considerations; and • Highway matters
Street scene and design
The site is located to the rear of the healthy living centre and is currently used as a car park. In visual terms the alterations will have little public impact. The bollards and barrier will also have a very limited impact while the alterations to the landscaping will assist in softening the impact of the car parking area.
Therefore the proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
DC0902MW Page 63 Amenities Considerations
The proposal will retain the existing use of the site as a car park and the addition of 3 parking spaces along with the ambulance bay would not result in a significant increase in the vehicle movements on site. As such the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact with regard to the noise and disturbance experienced by the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. As such there would be no detrimental impact with regard to residential amenity.
Therefore the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of amenity considerations and is in accord with policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Highways
The proposal would involve the increase in the number of spaces on site from 24 to 27 along with the provision of the ambulance bay. This increased provision of off road parking on site along with the access barrier would increase the level of parking on site and help to ensure the spaces are used for people using the Healthy Living Centre and not Rainham Town Centre in general. It would therefore have a positive impact for the users of the facility.
The installation of a barrier restricting access to the car park will reduce the level of manoeuvrability on the site, particularly for vehicles that travel down the access and cannot gain admittance to the car park. The position of the barrier is such that cars are likely to be able to turn in the area adjacent to it, however this will require indiscriminate parking and waiting to be prevented in the vicinity of the barrier and the cycle parking area. Therefore it is recommended that parking is prevented on the access road and the bollards protecting the ambulance bay are located further into the bay, in order to provide more manoeuvrability on the access road for vehicles passing. Large vehicles will have to be permitted access in to the car park in order to turn. It may be appropriate to review the signage in the vicinity of the site access in order to advise vehicles that parking is for staff and disabled motorists only.
Ultimately, it is very unlikely that the limited manoeuvrability on the site will impact upon the A2, given the length of the access road. However, in order to secure the safety and convenience of users of the access and the car park, and those associated with adjoining businesses, an appropriately worded condition is recommended.
The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the impacts on the highway and is in accord with policy TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and policy T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Conclusion and Reasons for Approval
The use of the site will not change and the proposal will increase the number of spaces for the healthy living centre, which currently has limited off road parking. The visual alterations that are proposed are minimal and as such the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of design, amenity and highway issues. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policies QL1 and T19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan and the application is accordingly recommended for approval.
This application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers, but is being reported for Members’ consideration due to the number of letters of representation received expressing views contrary to the officers recommendation.
DC0902MW Page 64
9 MC2008/1182
Date Received: 15th July 2008
Location: 36 The Ridgeway Gillingham ME7 1JN
Proposal: Conversion of dwelling into two dwellings together with construction of a single storey rear extension and new entrance door to front elevation
Applicant: Mr M S Cavanaugh 60 Grasmere Road Chestfield Kent CT5 3MA
Agent:
Ward: Gillingham North
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
(as amended by plans received on 24 July 2008)
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the extension herein approved shall match those used on the existing dwelling.
3 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
5 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking and garaging shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.
DC0902MW Page 65 For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.
Site description
The application site is located within the urban area of Gillingham as defined in the Medway Local Plan 2003. The Ridgeway is a cul-de-sac with on street parking. Generally the land slopes down to the east. The dwellings in the street are mixed in terms of design and include 2-storey terraced and semi-detached properties. The application site is the curtilage of an existing end of terrace 2-storey property. The dwelling has been extended with the addition of a 2-storey side and single storey rear extension. The land to the south and west and the properties in St Georges Road and Strover Street are set at a higher level resulting in earth banks and retaining walls on these boundaries of the application site. The remainder of the rear is domestic garden with close- boarded fencing approximately 1.8 metres in height on the northern boundary. To the front of the dwelling there is a parking area providing off road parking for up 4 cars and there are gates across the entrance to the site. Proposal The proposal is for the conversion of the dwelling into two dwellings together with construction of a single storey rear extension and new entrance door to the front elevation.
The proposal would involve the sub division of the plot and dwelling to create one 2-bedroom dwelling and one 3-bedroom dwelling. The extension would be single storey and would project 2.4 metres from the rear of what would be the mid property and would be for the full width of that property (approx6 metres) with a pitched roof. The plans show the provision of two car parking spaces for the 3-bedroom property and one off road space for the 2- bedroom.
Site Area/Density
Site area: 0.08 ha (0.2 acres) Site density: 25 dph (10dpa)
Relevant Planning History
MC2005/2453 Outline application for the construction of a pair of semi-detached houses with parking spaces and extension to existing property, Refused, 3 March 2006.
MC2006/0736 Construction of a part single part two-storey side extension incorporating an extension to existing canopy to front (demolition of existing garage), Approved with conditions, 7 June 2006.
MC2006/1636 Construction of a two storey side extension with single storey to rear and dormers to rear to accommodate living accommodation in roof space and canopy to front (demolition of existing garage), Approved with conditions, 30 November 2006.
DC0902MW Page 66 Representations
The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners / occupiers of 3 and 34 The Ridgeway, 52 and 59 St Georges Road and 16 and 22 Strove Street.
9 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns: -
• Residents of The Ridgeway received limited notification of the application and all residents are affected. • During previous projects at the application site there has been disruption due to difficulties with access. • Is this application an attempt to gain consent for building works already denied? • Questions raised regarding the use of the dwellings as Houses of Multiple Occupancy and the level of parking provision. • As the street may be included in the new parking permit zone parking issues are particularly important. • Site not large enough to accommodate more extensions and dwellings. • Dwelling currently used as a House of Multiple Occupancy results in problems with parking and loud music. • Believe the previous consent has been broken as the attic space is being used as a bedroom.
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2003
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development & Design) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T13 (Parking Strategy)
Planning Appraisal
The determining issues in relation to this application relate to:
• Principle and Density; • Street scene and design; • Amenity Considerations; and • Highway matters
Principle and Density
The site is located within the residential urban area of Gillingham. The existing property is a large extended end of terrace dwelling, with a large rear garden area. The proposal is to
DC0902MW Page 67 convert the existing property into two dwellings, one being 2 bedroom and the other three bedroom. Other than a small extension to the rear ground floor of what would become the mid terrace property and a new front door to that property, the conversion does not require any other external alterations.
The density of the development equates to approximately 25 dwellings per hectare (dph) which is lower than the recommended 30-50 dph in government guidance. As this proposal is for the conversion of an existing property rather than new build, and other site constraints restrict further development, it is considered this level of development is an effective use of the land and the density is appropriate.
Therefore the proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with policy HP4 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and policy H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Street scene and design
The only external alteration visible from the street would be the addition of the front entrance door. The dwellings in the street are of a mixed design and this fairly minor alteration would not harm the character and appearance of the locality. The extension would be sited to the rear and thus not visible from the street. The extension is considered to be in keeping with the property in terms of scale and proportion and the pitched roof design would complement the dwelling.
The proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and BNE1of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Amenities Considerations
The rear extension would be sited close to the boundary with 34 The Ridgeway which has a small obscure glazed window and set of patio doors located close to this boundary. As the extension would only project 2.4 metres from the dwelling and be single storey it is considered there would be no detrimental loss of outlook, daylight or sunlight as a result of the application. No windows are proposed to face towards number 34 The Ridgeway in the extension and therefore there would also be no loss of privacy. A condition is recommended to control this.
The proposal would create two properties of an acceptable size to provide sufficient living space. Also the rear garden areas for both dwellings would provide ample amenity space for either a 2 or 3-bedroom property.
The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of amenity considerations and is in accord with policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Highways
The proposal would provide for 2 off road parking spaces for the 3-bedroom dwelling and one off road space for the 2-bedroom dwelling. On street parking is limited and therefore the provision of on site parking is important. It is considered this level of parking provision is considered acceptable for a site within walking distance of Gillingham Town Centre, Gillingham Railway Station and a number of bus routes.
DC0902MW Page 68 The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the impacts on the highway and is in accord with policy TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and policy T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Conclusions and Reasons for Approval
The site is located within the defined urban boundary and as such the principle of residential development is acceptable. The extension is of a modest size and the overall external alterations to the existing building are fairly minor. The proposal is acceptable in amenity, highway and all other material planning considerations. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policies QL1 and T19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, and T13 of the adopted Local Plan and the application is accordingly recommended for approval.
This application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers, but is being reported for Members’ consideration due to the number of letters of representation received expressing views contrary to the officers recommendation.
DC0902MW Page 69
10 MC2008/1225
Date Received: 18th July 2008
Location: Star Meadows Sports & Social Club Darland Avenue Gillingham ME7 3AN
Proposal: Construction of single storey building for use as pre-school
Applicant: Mrs T Jordan The Darland Pre-School 173 Sturdee Avenue Gillingham Kent ME7 2HH
Agent:
Ward: Watling
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 Prior to commencement of development on site, details relating to the the proposed textile canopy and play frames shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The canopy and play frames shall be provided and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.
3 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before before the building is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Details shall include boundary landscaping and planting. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
For the reasons for this recommendation for refusal please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report
Site Description
The site consists of a triangular section of land, currently left as rough vegetation, although some clearance work appears to have taken place recently. The site forms part of the Star Meadows sports field, clubhouse and car park. This area contains one full sized football pitch, which is primarily used at the weekends and also on some evenings. The clubhouse is a flat roofed sectional building, which was constructed, in the early 1980s. It accommodates a social club as well as sports changing facilities. A car park surrounds the clubhouse on its north, south and west sides and provides approximately 44 marked spaces. Access onto Darland Avenue is near the north west corner of the car park.
DC0902MW Page 70 The surrounding area accommodates a mix of uses. There are primarily residential properties to the west, facing the site across Darland Avenue, and also some distance to the east, across the sports ground. To the south is a Medway NHS nursing home and to the north is The Star public house, on the corner of Darland Avenue and Watling Street (the A2).
Proposal
The application is a resubmission of recently refused planning application MC2008/0283 and proposed the construction of a single storey building for use as a pre-school.
The proposed building will occupy the northern edge of the triangular development site, enabling space for play activities. The proposed building will be accessed from the west via an external waiting/gathering space. The building itself will be single-storey with a height of approximately 4.2m to the apex of the pitched roof. The proposed building will be 15 metres in length and 8 metres in width.
The principle material for all elevations is yellowstock brickwork, with coloured panels. The roof will be natural slate.
The proposed facility will contain internal and external play space, kitchen, office space and staff room, storage facilities, quiet areas and toilet facilities. The new external play area will be a mixture of soft play surface, tarmac and grass. New fixed play frames will be situated in the soft play area and a translucent textile canopy will provide a covered external space for children to continue to play during poor weather conditions.
The facility will share the car park of the star meadows social club. It is proposed that the car park will be used by staff and by parents to drop-off and pick-up their children.
The pre-school currently operates from the first floor of the Anchorians clubhouse on Darland Avenue. It employs 8 members of staff (1 full time and 7 part time) with 50 children attending 9 sessions a week, with an additional 2 sessions planned for September. They would also like to offer long hours and holiday clubs due to demand from local parents. For various reasons (stated in the application submission) the applicant considers that the current premises are not entirely suitable for use. They are also unable to accommodate the additional services, which they wish to provide from this existing site.
Relevant Planning History
GL/56/14D Replacement sports pavilion, social club and associated car park. Approved 9 April 1981
MC2008/0283 Construction of single-storey building for use as pre-school. Refused 8 April 2008
Representations
The application has been advertised on site and the individual neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of the Star Hotel, The Anchorians club, 4-28 (evens), and 29 Darland Ave; 88 Malvern Road; 307 Wislon Ave; and 74 Sunnymead Ave.
4 letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
DC0902MW Page 71 • Increased traffic as a result of the development. Increased traffic will only aggravate existing problems and the dropping off and picking up of children will cause chaos. • The development will result in the loss of recreational land, will this not set precedent for the loss of more open space. • The site is designated as an L3 protected open space for leisure facilities, use as a sports facility has already been eroded over time. • Having a school premises on a licensed site with drinkers and smokers outside in close proximity to the children is unacceptable. • Noise disturbance • Loss of outlook • The applicant’s would not have access to 49 car spaces as the application states. • Waste land should be used to provide additional parking spaces for the sports facility instead, overflow of cars park along Darland Ave, especially during events, causing problems for residents in the area.
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Local Plan, 2006:
Policy EN9 (Trees, woodland & Hedgerows) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development & Design) Policy QL11 (Protecting & Enhancing Existing Community Services) Policy QL12 (Provision for new Community Services/Infrastructure) Policy QL15 (Formal/Informal Recreation/Sports Facilities) Policy TP3 (Transport & the Location of Development) Policy TP11 (Facilities for pedestrians and Cyclists) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)
Medway Local Plan, 2003:
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE43 (Trees on Development Sites) Policy L3 (Provision of Open Space) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T3 (Provision for Pedestrians) Policy T4 (Cycle Facilities) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards) Policy T14 (Travel Plans) Policy CF2 (New Community Facilities)
Planning Appraisal
Principle
The site is located within an urban area however it is also designated as protected open space by the Local Plan. This open space designation covers the site and the adjoining sports field, clubhouse and car park as well as the larger sports grounds to the south east of the site. Policy L3 of the Local Plan provides guidance on the protection of open space,
DC0902MW Page 72 saying that development which would involve the loss of such land will not be permitted unless certain specified criteria apply.
In the current case it is not considered that any of the specified criteria for development on protected open space specifically apply to the proposed development. However the shape and location of the development site is not particularly suitable for formal sports purposes including being triangular, adjacent to the road and of limited size. In addition, the proposed building would only cover part of this area, adjoining the car park, leaving the rear of the site for external play.
The previous proposal under application MC2008/0283 included a small stretch of land to the south of the main sports field area. This element of the previous proposal was considered unacceptable under Policy L3 and as such has now been removed from the development proposal.
The above assessment, particularly the conclusion that the main part of the pre-school site makes a limited contribution to open space in the locality, also takes into account the guidance given in Policies QL11 and QL12 of the Structure Plan and Policy CF2 of the Local Plan. These relate to the protection of existing community facilities together with the provision of new such facilities. The existing facilities on the Star Meadow site would not be adversely affected and the development would provide for the improvement of local community facilities/services. The size and scale of the development would be appropriate to the site, there would be no significant detriment to amenity (to be assessed in detail below) and the site is accessible to the local population by a variety of means of transport. In these circumstances it is considered that the development would be in accordance with the advice given in these policies. In addition it is not considered that the development would result in any overriding conflict with guidance given in Policy QL15 of the Structure Plan. As the application complies with these policies and the site now only relates to the small triangular plot of land, the proposal is considered acceptable in spite of the technical conflict with Local Plan Policy L3.
Street Scene and Design
There is a mix of building styles in the area surrounding the application site, from the modular flat roofed clubhouse to the large well-established semi-detached houses facing onto the site and the more modern pitched roofed nursing home to the south and housing across the sports field to the east. Policies QL1 of the Structure Plan and BNE1 of the Local Plan say that all development should be well designed and of high quality, respecting the visual amenity of the surrounding area.
The previous application (MC2008/0283) was refused due to poor design (amongst other matters) and this current application has set out to address this issue. The proposed building now proposes a brick built (yellowstock bricks) single-storey building, with pitched roof and coloured panel detailing. This design is considered to be more appropriate. It is a permanent structure as opposed to the previous proposal for a flat roofed prefabricated building while its design and use of materials reflects the proposed use. It is not considered that the proposed building will be harmful to the street scene
The proposal is therefore considered to address the concerns of the previous application and is now in accordance with the provisions set out in Local Plan Policy BNE1 and Structure Plan Policy QL1.
DC0902MW Page 73
Amenity Considerations
Due to the size, height and position of the proposed building it is not considered that it would have any physical impact on the amenities of neighbours by reason of loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of privacy. The pre-school use would introduce further activity onto the Star Meadows site. However, as this will be within the daytime on weekdays, and not in the evenings and at weekends, it is not considered that the proposal will result in harm to neighbours by reason of noise and disturbance.
In summary the impact of the proposed development on amenity is considered acceptable including with regard to the advice given in Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan.
Highways
The site adjoins the car park for the clubhouse and sports field and would share its use with these existing facilities. The application submission states that there are 49 parking spaces although 44 marked spaces were counted on site. The need to keep the entrance to the proposed pre-school clear during its opening hours would reduce this availability by 1 space.
By their nature pre-schools and other education facilities have peak times of movement at the start and end of the day and to a lesser degree at lunchtime. Staff also create some traffic movements and parking needs. The proposed hours of use of the pre-school are 0730 and1800 hours Monday to Friday. Within these times the drop off and pick up will be staggered over the first and last hours of the day primarily, rather than at a specific time like a school. This will help to dissipate the impact. It is stated that there are 1 full time and 7 part time employees and 50 children attending 9 sessions a week, with an additional 2 sessions proposed for September. A lunch club is also available for 1.5 hours each day and 15 of the children stay all day.
On site observations (taken during the previous application submission) show that at times when the pre-school would be open the car park is currently in little use, with only a handful of vehicles usually present on site. It is therefore considered that there would be sufficient room for drop off/ pick up by carers and for any staff parking on site. The use is therefore unlikely to have any significant knock on effects in respect of parking on local roads above and beyond what is already experienced. The access from the car park onto Darland Avenue is considered acceptable for this additional use, being wide enough for two cars to pass each other.
In summary, the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development are considered acceptable including with regard to the advice given in Policies TP3, TP11 and TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T13 and T14 of the Local Plan.
Other Matters
A neighbour has raised concern regarding the shared use of the site with alcohol-licensed premises with a pre-school. This is not a material planning consideration but it is noted that although the clubhouse is open during the daytime its use at this time is very limited, the vast majority of activity occurring when the pre-school will be closed.
DC0902MW Page 74 As part of the consultation process of this application, correspondence has been received by North Kent Construction Skills Project. A request has been made in relation to Training and Workforce Development for a developer contribution towards training and development of employees of education. The request was made in accordance with the Developer’s Contribution Guide for Commercial Development at £1 per metre squared. The final sum in this case is £111.50. Nevertheless, the proposed pre-school is considered minor development and in this instance it is not considered necessary to proceed with the request.
Conclusions and Reasons for Approval
For the reasons given above this proposed pre-school building on the triangular plot of land within the Star Meadows Social Club and Sports Ground facilities is not considered to result in detriment to the designated open space, street scene, character of the area, residential amenity or highway conditions and as such is acceptable under the provisions set out within the Development Plan Policies referred to.
The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being reported to committee due to the number of representations received.
DC0902MW Page 75
11 MC2008/1273
Date Received: 28th July 2008
Location: 41 Northbank Close Strood Rochester ME2 2NL
Proposal: Construction of single storey front and side extension
Applicant: Mr A Martin 41 Northbank Close Strood Rochester Kent ME2 2NL
Agent: Mr J Clayton 40 Ashmead Close Lords Wood Chatham Kent ME5 8NY
Ward: Strood South
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the development herein approved shall match those used on the existing dwelling.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be installed in the east flank wall of the extension herein approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
For the reasons for this recommendation for refusal please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report
Site Description
The application dwelling is a two-storey semi-detached property located within a residential area. The street scene comprises of other two-storey semi-detached properties. To the front and side of the dwelling there is a small area of planting and lawn. Some of the other properties within the vicinity have small single storey projections and canopies. There is no uniform building line to the front of properties in the street due to the varying degree of set back of properties from the highway.
Proposal
The submitted application proposes the construction of a single storey front and side extension. The proposal would be L-shaped, wrapping around the front and side of the property and would create additional space to the hall, lounge and kitchen. The extension would project up to (approx) 1.5m and would extend to almost the full width and length of the property and be (approx) 3.45m in height
DC0902MW Page 76
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of 39, 43, 47, 50, & 52 Northbank Close
Three letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
• The proposal would not be in keeping with the street scene. • The proposal would obstruct the sight line of vehicles entering and exiting the residents’ car park. • Loss of light to neighbours hallway • Loss of outlook • Potential impact in terms of foundations and drains from the new development. • The proposal would increase anti-social behaviour
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T1 (Impact of Development)
Planning Appraisal
Street scene and design
The siting of the proposed front/side extension would be visible from the highway as well as neighbouring properties. The extent of projection would be (approx) 1.5m. As there is not a strong building line then the principle of the projection and the extent of projection would not be of concern in principle. In view of the mix character of the street in terms of siting it is not considered that the projection in itself would be harmful to the character of the street scene.
The design of the windows would reflect the existing property. The L-shaped design of the proposal necessitates a mono pitch roof to the extension, wrapping around the front and side. While the main property is gabled to the side and the roof of the extension will not reflect this, it is not considered harmful to the character of the property or the street scene in general. A condition is recommended to ensure that the materials used on the external surface match the existing dwelling.
As a result it is considered that the extension is of acceptable design and therefore in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
DC0902MW Page 77 Neighbour Amenities
Due to the limited projection of the extension the proposal would not have a detrimental impact in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. A condition is recommended to control the siting of any windows which maybe added to the east flank at a later due to the potential impact in terms of privacy. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Highways
The proposal will not impact on existing parking provision and as no additional bedrooms are proposed, will not result in any increased demand for car parking.
The extension would not impact on the necessary visibility for vehicles entering or leaving the adjacent parking area and therefore there would not be a detrimental impact in terms of highway safety.
The proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policy TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Conclusion and reasons for Approval
The proposed single storey front and single extension would have an acceptable impact on the appearance of the dwelling and street scene and would not impact unacceptably on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and is accordingly recommended for approval.
This application would normally fall to be considered under the officers’ delegated powers but has to be reported for Members’ consideration due to the extent of representations made contrary to the officers’ recommendation
DC0902MW Page 78
12 MC2008/1302
Date Received: 1st August 2008
Location: City Way Roundabout (Opposite Mid Kent College) Horsted Way Chatham Kent ME1 2XQ
Proposal: Application for prior approval under Part 24 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) for installation of a 12m high telegraph pole containing 3 antennas; 1 equipment cabinet and ancillary equipment
Applicant: Vodafone Limited Vodafone House The Connection Newbury Berkshire RG14 2FN
Agent: Mr J Barter Savills Wessex House Priors Walk East Borough Wimborne Dorset BH21 1PB
Ward: Rochester South & Horsted
Recommendation
A. Prior approval be required
B. Prior approval be granted subject to the following conditions:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2 The equipment cabinet and electricity pillar shall be painted or powder coated fir green as specified in the submitted application on or prior to their first installation, and thereafter maintained in such form, unless any variation is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3 The mast hereby permitted shall be of telegraph pole design as specified in the submitted application and the antenna shall be concealed within a GRP shroud coloured to match the mast, unless any variation is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
For the reasons for this recommendation for approval, please see planning appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.
Site Description
The application site is within an area of open space adjacent to the busy road junction of City Way, Horsted Way and Maidstone Road. The open space overall is approx. 0.1ha in size and triangular in shape. There is a line of mature trees and close board fencing (approx. 1.8m height) separating it from the residential area to the north, which generally features large individual properties in spacious plots. To the south is the main roundabout of the gyratory
DC0902MW Page 79 system, to the east is the Mid Kent College campus and Fort Horsted, and to the west beyond the gyratory is Rochester Airport. There is some signage and other structures in the area associated with the gyratory, and lamp columns around the edge of the open space.
The application site itself is approx. 7.5m back from the edge of the highway, behind a substantial area of shrub planting (approx. 2m high). There is an informal pedestrian route across the back of the open space
Proposal
This is a prior approval application where only external appearance and siting are to be considered. The proposal involves erection of a 12m high telegraph pole style mast (13.5m to the top of the antennae), an equipment cabinet of 1.6m by 0.4m and 1.4m high, and an electrical pillar.
Representations
The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notifications have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 257a, 259, 580, 584, 586, 588 City Way, 30 Horsted Way, 12 Primrose Close, Rochester Airport and Mid Kent College.
No responses have been received.
Relevant Planning History
MC2004/2489 Application for Prior Approval under Part 24 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2001 for installation of a 12 metres high slimline column with 3no. dual polar antennas; 1no. 600mm transmission dish and four supporting equipment cabinets. Refused 13/12/04
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (Built Development) Policy S4 (Landscape and Urban Design) Policy CF14 (Telecommunications)
Planning Appraisal
Operational Need
There are five mobile telecommunications operators in the UK. These operators run the various systems that make up the mobile networks and other telecommunications services. These services and networks are all subject to the conditions of the telecommunications systems and services licences. In April 2000, the Government auctioned five new licenses to
DC0902MW Page 80 third generation (3G) mobile operators and each operator was required to cover 80% of the population by December 2007.
Operators have generally based their 3G networks upon the existing 2G networks. However, there is a need for new sites because 3G antennae have a smaller network coverage than 2G bringing a requirement for further base stations.
The applicant has identified that there is an operational need for a mast in this locality and a site near the junction of Horsted Way and Primrose Close is shown on the 2008 rollout plan by Vodafone; this mast is proposed to cover that area.
Justification of Site
The applicant has considered a number of nearby sites. Site sharing was ruled out because installations in the area are generally single-operator installations which would require significant redevelopment to accommodate Vodafone’s proposal, and it was considered that this would not be preferable in technical or planning terms to the currently proposed site. Other sites including nearby streetworks installations were dismissed as they would be more prominent in the street scene. No buildings which could accommodate rooftop installations were found in the search area (Mid Kent College is opposite but is being redeveloped and has served notice to quit on current operators’ installations). Streetworks sites nearer Rochester Airport and other highway verge/roundabout locations nearer to it were considered but height restrictions related to the airport meant that these sites would not meet operational needs.
Based on the identified need and the above consideration by the operator, it is accepted that this siting is the most appropriate location in the vicinity.
Justification of Apparatus Choice
The proposed mast would be of telegraph pole design and the stated justification for this is that it would blend into the street scene.
This is an application for prior approval and therefore the only issues for consideration are the siting and appearance of the proposed mast in relation to the surrounding area.
Siting and Appearance
The proposed mast is of telegraph pole design, which is considered the most appropriate in this location as it is in an area where this type of street furniture would be expected and there is other street furniture nearby. The siting behind the shrubs would screen the equipment cabinet from users of the footpath, and although it would be visible from the informal route its scale and design are such that it would not be unduly prominent. The mast would be most visible from the approach from the south, but against a backdrop of trees and with other street furniture in the area would not have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area.
The previous refusal for a similarly sited mast is noted but the proposals have changed with the previous proposal being for a slimline monopole, and given also the additional information regarding site selection now provided it is considered that in size, design and siting terms the mast and associated equipment cabins will not result in an excessive loss of visual amenity to the area.
DC0902MW Page 81
Having regard to the character of the locality the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Government guidance on design and siting set out in PPG1 and PPG8, Policies BNE1 and CF14 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006.
Health concerns
Government advice set out in PPG8 confirms that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be a material consideration in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval.
However paragraph 98 of PPG8 states: “…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”
Furthermore when making an application for Prior Notification Approval there is now a requirement, amongst other things, that it should be accompanied by a statement confirming that a proposed mobile base station when operational, will meet the ICNIRP guidelines.
An ICNIRP certificate has been submitted with the application and taking into account the provisions of paragraph 98 above, the Council is not in a position to challenge the proposal on health grounds. In any case, the applicants have stated that the exposure levels would comply with the ICNIRP safety recommendations and given their evidence there would appear to be insufficient justification proving any adverse health effects as a result of the proposal.
Conclusions and Reasons for Approval
It is considered that the siting and design of the proposed mast and equipment cabinet is appropriate given the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the application is therefore in accordance with the above-mentioned Development Plan policies.
The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being referred to Committee at the request of Cllr Clarke.
DC0902MW Page 82
13 MC2008/1311
Date Received: 30th July 2008
Location: Land rear of 91-93 Grange Road Gillingham ME7 2RJ
Proposal: Construction of one detached 3-bedroomed and one pair of 3- bedroomed semi-detached houses with six associated car parking spaces
Applicant: Mr M Watts 91 Grange Road Gillingham Kent
Agent: Mr M Carter Mark Carter Design Design Studio Priestfield Stadium Redfern Avenue Gillingham Kent ME7 4DD
Ward: Gillingham North
Recommendation - Refusal
(as amended by additional plans received on 3 September 2008)
1 The additional traffic movements generated by the proposed development would amount to an unacceptable intensification in the use of an access with substandard visibility along Grange Road to the west that is likely to increase the risk of road traffic accidents. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies T1 and T2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Site Description
The application site relates to a piece of land, which currently forms part of the rear gardens of numbers 91 and 93 Grange Road. These houses are a pair of semi-detached dwellings which are located on the northern side of Grange Road, and which are set well back from the footpath and at a much higher level. The front of these houses has been laid to hardstanding and provides parking for the two houses.
The site forms the bottom of the rear gardens and backs onto a site which was formerly a garage court but which is now being redeveloped for housing, with construction nearing completion. The site has a length of approx. 32m and a width of between 18 and 24m – it gets wider further to the north, away from the semi-detached houses. The existing gardens are laid to grass with various shed style outbuildings.
Abutting the site along the western boundary are the rear gardens of the terraced houses fronting King Edward Road. This is separated only by a small alleyway which gives access to these rear gardens and which runs from Grange Road, alongside number 91, all the way to the boundary with Eastern Road to the north (although it is not very accessible in parts having become overgrown). Along the eastern boundary is an unmade access track that is at a lower level than 93 Grange Road and the application site. The track is single width and currently provides access to 6 semi-detached houses (95-105 Grange Road) and one house under construction (land adjacent 105 Grange Road). These existing houses are at a level with the track and therefore are lower than the application site.
DC0902MW Page 83
A row of leylandii trees and a mixed hedge form the boundary of the garden of 91 Grange Road with the King Edward Road gardens. The eastern boundary of the site is separated from the track by the remains of a very poor mixed hedge, which does not look to be well maintained.
Proposal
This is a full planning application for the construction of one detached 3-bedroomed and one pair of 3-bedroomed semi-detached houses with six associated car parking spaces.
The detached house would have a lounge, dining room, kitchen and cloakroom at ground floor level, and three bedrooms (one with en-suite) and a family bathroom at first floor level.
The semi detached houses would have the same living accommodation as one another namely a lounge, dining room, kitchen and cloakroom at ground floor level, and three bedrooms (one with en-suite) and a family bathroom at first floor level, while differing slightly in the external design. The houses would be of a traditional style, with a small two-storey projection at the front and a canopied porch over the front door. Plot 3 would have a slightly larger overall ground floor area than plot 2; the first floor accommodation would be identical but handed.
Each unit is shown with 2 parking spaces within the curtilage. For plots 1 and 2 these spaces would be in tandem down the side of the house, whilst plot 3 would be adjoining alongside the house. At the rear the houses would be provided with a private garden and amenity area in excess of 76m2.
Site Area/Density
Site area: 0.069 hectares (0.17 acres) Site density: 43.48 dph (17.65 dpa)
(The agent has stated a site area of 0.09 hectares, but this appears to be inaccurate following measurements of the plans submitted. The agent has confirmed in email on 8 August 2008 that he is happy with the measurement of 0.069ha).
Relevant Planning History
MC2003/0584 Construction of first floor rear extension incorporating alteration to roof Approved 18 June 2003
MC2004/0355 Construction of a two-storey rear extension (demolition of conservatory) Approved 30 March 2004
MC2007/1710 Construction of two pairs of 3-bedroomed semi-detached houses with assoicated parking Withdrawn
Land to the rear of 2-12 Eastern Road and 34-64 King Edward Road (site to the north)
DC0902MW Page 84 MC2004/1915 Construction of two terraces of five 3-bedroomed dwellings with associated parking Approved 8 June 2005
Representations
The application has been advertised on site by the posting of a site notice and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupier of 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 111, 113, 115 and 117 Grange Road; and 12-40 (evens) King Edward Road.
Seven letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
• Highway safety • Lot of new development in the area already • Problems with parking will be exacerbated • Pedestrian safety • Hard to see parked cars in the winter months • Query over water pipes and supply • Not suitable for 3 houses and their parking • Access blocked to existing houses during construction • Loss of 100 year old hedgerow • Private Road would be the access to the houses • Loss of view • Cramming houses in – people need space • Overlooking • Overshadowing • Noise pollution • Query over the access rights along the private road • Concern over the proximity to a swimming pool and the foundations of the proposed houses • Applicant has started to clear the land – has no regard for the planning process • Loss of light to gardens and will restrict what people can grow in their gardens • Outlook will not be pleasant • More people may use the alleyway and dump rubbish – the alley should be gated off if the development goes ahead • Blind spot on the pavement where the unmade road cuts across • No need for more development in the area
Kent Fire and Rescue Service have written with the following comments:-
• The turning head is insufficient for a fire appliance and thus access is not satisfactory. The design needs re-adjusting
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 Quality of Development and Design Policy HP4 Housing: quality and density of development Policy TP1 Integrated transport strategy
DC0902MW Page 85 Policy TP11 Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists Policy TP19 Vehicle Parking Standards
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 General Principles for Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy BNE6 Landscape Design Policy BNE43 Trees on Development Sites Policy H4 Housing in Urban Areas Policy T1 Impact of Development Policy T2 Access to the Highway Policy T3 Provision for Pedestrians Policy T13 Parking Standards
Planning Appraisal
Principle of Development
The application site lies within the urban area, as defined on the proposals map of the adopted Local Plan. Policy H4 of the Local Plan states that within the urban areas, infilling or redevelopment of existing residential areas should be permitted provided that a clear improvement to the local environment would result. The principle of development is considered to be acceptable, therefore the application falls to be determined on the siting and design of the dwellings; access to them from the highway and any parking implications; and any amenity issues for future occupiers and neighbouring properties.
Street Scene and Design
The proposed dwellings are considered to be of an acceptable design in themselves, being relatively simple with a projecting two storey feature on the front elevation and detailed front canopies. The windows are all shown with soldier courses and each property would have feature banding within the brickwork.
The units would be laid out with a stagger, which would provide a break in the frontage and lessen the perceived mass.
The houses would be sited fronting the access track and set back from this track by between 0.1m and 6m (the closest to the track being plot 1 and the furthest away being plot 3). The rear of the houses are virtually set along the same line and the rear gardens are in excess of 76m2 which is regarded as sufficient for 3-bedroom houses.
The existing properties would be left with a garden length of approx. 14m, which although vastly reduced from the original garden length would still be satisfactory to serve the needs of the occupiers of the properties for dwellings of this size in this location. The side elevation of plot 1 would be in excess of 15m away from the rear elevation of 93 Grange Road which is regarded as a reasonable separation between the existing houses and the proposed units. The flank of plot 3 to the flank of 10 Marlowe Close would be smaller at 7m however this would be flank wall to flank wall and is also considered acceptable.
DC0902MW Page 86 It is considered that while the level of development that would front the track on the western side would be greater than the existing houses on the eastern side it is not considered unacceptable. The Government aims of making the best use of land are acknowledged and it is considered that the introduction of an additional three units in this location would not represent an over development the site.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would accord with the aims of Policy H4 and BNE1 of the Local Plan.
Amenity Considerations
The design of the proposed houses shows the only windows at first floor level on the side elevation of plot 1 would serve the stairwell and therefore no direct overlooking would result back towards 91 and 93 Grange Road. In a similar way, although there are existing porthole style windows in the side elevation of the terrace to the north, the only window in plot 3 on this side elevation would again serve the stairwell. It is acknowledged that an element of overlooking would occur from 91 Grange Road into the rear garden of plot 1, however it is not considered so significant to refuse the scheme due to the width of the garden.
The set back of the houses from the access track would result in a separation of approximately 10m between plots 2 and 3 and 105 and 103 Grange Road. These distances would be similar to those found in other typical street scenes with development on both sides of a separating road.
Turning to the rear of the site, the submitted plans indicate a line that would be 21m away from the rear elevation of the houses in King Edward Road. If the existing boundary hedgerow treatment were to be retained it is considered that this would help address concerns of overlooking towards the rear.
Highways
Since the last withdrawn application, the access road from Grange Road has been improved. The verges on each side have been cut back and the boundary treatment with number 93 has been lowered to improve visibility. On this basis, it is considered that the access is of sufficient width to accommodate the additional vehicles associated with the proposed development, and provided it was properly surfaced there would be no objection in this regard. The addition of a turning head, which will benefit existing and future users of the access, is a further improvement over the previous scheme. The application proposes two parking spaces per dwelling, which is considered appropriate and in line with other similar sized dwellings in the vicinity.
That said the visibility from the access along Grange Road to the west is of concern. A sightline distance of 37m in this direction is considered to be inadequate to support the proposed intensification in the use of the track. Grange Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit and carries a reasonably high volume of traffic, including buses. There are two pieces of guidance in terms of determining an appropriate sightline from the access. Kent Design Guide (2000) indicates that an access on to a major access road such as Grange Road should have a 'y' distance sightline of 60m. More recent national guidance contained within Manual for Streets indicates that there should be 43m of visibility in each direction from the access, which is based upon research of stopping sight distances for vehicles travelling at 30mph. Clearly, visibility from the access to the west falls short of this guidance. There is no evidence submitted with the application that suggests vehicle speeds on Grange Road are
DC0902MW Page 87 lower than this, and observations on site are that many vehicles travel at a greater speed, partly due to the gradient of the road in the vicinity of the access. On this basis a relaxation of the 43m stopping sight distance is inappropriate even given the relatively small number of dwellings now proposed. On this basis, the application is not in accordance with policy T1 and T2 of the Medway Local plan.
Trees
The site has had a number of trees already removed, and those remaining are considered to be of low amenity value and not worthy of protection with a preservation order. The hedge along the front of the site (fronting the track) would need to be removed to accommodate the access and parking. The hedges along the western boundary of the site (the shared boundary between the site and the rear gardens of King Edward Road) are of low amenity value but provide an effective screen for the properties located in King Edward Road. The root protection area for these hedgerows would be 1.8m, and based on the proposed layout, with the houses being at least 5.5m away, the hedges could be retained provided they were adequately protected during the construction process.
Other Matters
The representations received claim that the applicants have no right of access onto the track, this is however a civil issue and not an issue that can be dealt with under this planning application.
Conclusions and Reasons for Refusal
The additional traffic movements generated by the proposed development would amount to an unacceptable intensification in the use of an access with substandard visibility along Grange Road to the west that is likely to increase the risk of road traffic accidents. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies T1 and T2 of the Medway Local Plan.
The application would ordinarily fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers, but is referred for Members’ consideration at the request of the Development Control Manager due to a suggestion by the agent that officers had been supportive of the principle of the proposal pre application.
DC0902MW Page 88
14 MC2008/1361
Date Received: 11th August 2008
Location: 5 Drayton Close High Halstow Rochester ME3 8DW
Proposal: Re-siting of boundary fence
Applicant: Mr W Curtis 5 Drayton Close High Halstow Rochester Kent ME3 8DW
Agent:
Ward: Peninsula
Recommendation - Approval with Conditions
1 Within one month of permission being granted the fence shall be re-sited to the location shown in the approved plans and thereafter maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Plan Authority.
2 Within one month of the date of approval a detailed plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of planting to be used in the landscape strip. Within three months of the decision being made the agreed planting shall be carried out and thereafter maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Plan Authority.
For the reasons for this recommendation for Approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report
Site Description
The application dwelling is a modern two-storey detached property located within a residential area. The street scene comprises of other two-storey detached properties. To the rear of the dwelling there is a conservatory which has reduced the size of the application garden area. The street scene is one which is a modern and open plan housing estate with large areas of planting. This has been carefully created in the design of the estate which has the dwellings set off the boundaries with areas of landscaping between the dwellings and the highway, creating an open landscaped setting.
Proposal
The submitted application is for the re-siting of boundary fence
The difference between this application and a recently refused scheme is that the shed has been relocated more than 5m from the house and no longer fronting a highway, and the fence is proposed to be relocated 1m from the footpath to allow for a landscape strip between the fence and the footpath
DC0902MW Page 89
It is noted that the fencing at neighbour 1 Drayton Close has been constructed and the Local Planning Authority is currently taking enforcement action.
Relevant Planning History
MC2000/0196 Re-siting of a boundary fence, Refused 6 April 2000
MC2004/0770 Re-siting of boundary fence, Refused 28 May 2004, Dismissed at appeal 10 February 2005
MC2007/0951 Construction of 2m high fencing located adjacent to Valentine Drive Refused 10 July 2007 (1 Drayton Close)
MC2008/ 0536 Retrospective application for the re-siting of boundary fence and construction of shed to side, Refused, 3 July 2008
Representations
Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 Drayton Close.
No representations have been received
Development Plan Policies
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design)
Medway Local Plan 2003
Policy BNE1 (General Principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T1 (Impact of Development)
Planning Appraisal
Background History
A planning application for the relocation of the fencing was made in 2000 (MC2000/0196) and was refused for the reason that it was considered to be detrimental to the appearance of the street.
A second planning application for relocation of the fence in much the same way was made in 2004 (MC2004/0770) and was also refused for the reasons that the fence would appear as a prominent feature in the street scene and would result in a hardening of the streetcene.
DC0902MW Page 90
The applicant then appealed that refusal. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the open plan front gardens and areas of shrub and grass planting in the street were among the attractive features that provided a coherent soft landscape framework and setting for the houses and ancillary buildings.
The most recent application (MC2008/0536) was a retrospective application for the re-siting of the boundary fence. This was refused due to the loss of a landscape strip, its impact on the character of the street scene and the unacceptable impact on the sight lines for the adjoining driveway.
Street scene and design
The re-siting of the fence would result in a section of the landscape strip being lost. The current location of the fence, as recently refused, has the fence hard up against the back edge of the footpath. This was considered unacceptable and harmful to the character of the area. The current proposal is to set the fence back by 1m to allow for some landscaping, while allowing for some increase in the size of the garden. This is considered to be an acceptable compromise and is reflective of other permitted fence relocations elsewhere on the estate. So while the proposal would have an impact on the overall character of the street scene, it is not considered to be so detrimental as to warrant a refusal and is therefore in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Kent and Medway Local Plan 2003.
Neighbour Amenities
Due to the extent of the alterations involved and the distance of neighbouring properties, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 in terms of its impact on the amenities of the neighbours and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
Highways
The resiting of the fence would provide sufficient sight lines for the driveway serving 4 Drayton Close and is therefore considered acceptable in terms of highway safety terms. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy T1 of Medway Local Plan 2003.
Conclusions and reasons for approval
The re-siting of the fence would result in a balance being struck in terms of retaining an acceptable area of landscaping and providing additional garden space for the occupiers of the dwelling. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
This application would normally fall to be considered under the officers’ delegated powers but has to be reported for Members’ consideration due to the fact that they have considered and determined recent applications relating to the fence.
DC0902MW Page 91 Members should be aware that following the refusal of the last application an Enforcement Notice was served, but then withdrawn pending the outcome of the determination of this application.
DC0902MW Page 92