13 week date application no. date of meeting report no. former

13 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No.

02.06.2010 GR/2010/0184 26 May 2010

Former Power Station (Site B), Land south of Crete Hall Road, Northfleet Renewal of planning permission reference number 20051110 for erection of distribution centre (Class B8) with ancillary waste management unit and offices; formation of new vehicular accesses onto Crete Hall Road and onto Rosherville Way; erection of refuelling and vehicle wash facilities; formation and laying out of 69 no. trailer parking spaces, 201 no. car parking spaces and overspill car parking area. Lidl UK GmbH Recommendation: Planning permission be granted subject to conditions and legal agreement 1. Description of the Site and Surroundings

The application site, also known as Red Lion Wharf, comprises part of the site of the former Northfleet Power Station, long since demolished, in Crete Hall Road. The Power Station site is made up of three areas;

Site A The actual site of the former power station, on the north side of

Crete Hall Road. It has a frontage to the River Thames with an existing deep water jetty and an area of 6.43 hectares.

Site B Located on the south side of Crete Hall Road and was used for the storage of coal and oil. This is the application site.

Site C Located on the south side of the A226 London Road and which was used for the tipping of power station waste.

The application site comprises an area of open land extending to 9.5 hectares on the south side of Crete Hall Road. It is currently unused and waste ground. There are the remains of some old bund walls on the site. Oil storage tanks, which were originally located on the site, have however been removed. The site extends up to the cliff face of a former chalk quarry, with the A226 London Road at the top of the cliff. Rosherville Way, which links Thames Way to Crete Hall Road, is on the eastern side of the site. The site is roughly rectangular in shape but it also includes a narrower strip of land on the western side that runs at the rear of the Kimberley Clarke paper mills up to the back of the cliff face.

The site is located between the existing paper mills of Kimberley Clarke to the west and the formerly engineering works operated by AEI Cables (TT Group) to the east. Many of the buildings on the AEI Cables (TT Group) are in the process of being demolished in advance of future redevelopment. Immediately to the east of the site, across Rosherville Way, is a yard area

recently vacated by a builder’s merchant who operated there on a temporary basis. To the north of the site (on site A of the former power station site) is a sand, gravel and aggregates shipping depot operated by Stema Shipping UK Ltd along the deep water wharf facility. That part of the site adjacent to Crete Hall Road is being currently used for storing waste timber. To the south of the site and beyond the chalk spine of the A226 the land (site C) has been developed as a new housing estate by Bellway Homes (Maritime Gate).

2. Planning History of the Site and Surroundings

History relating directly to the application site

The appeal site was used for storage from the late 1950’s as part of the Northfleet Power Station site. The power station was converted in the 1970’s from a coal to an oil fired station. It closed in 1991. Planning permission was granted for the use of part of the site for the storage of mobile cranes in 1990 and also for parking of trailers in 1990. The site was the subject of an application to a waste to energy centre in 1992 but this was subsequently withdrawn. An application was submitted in 1997 by National Power plc for development to provide not more than 73,670 m2 of B8 (storage and distribution), B2 (general industrial) and B1 (c) (light industrial) uses on the whole site of which not more than 70% would be for B8 (warehousing) use. However this was also subsequently withdrawn. Planning permission was granted in 1998 for an application by Globe International Stevedoring and National Power plc for the change of use of the whole of the National Power site to full port operational use, comprising the erection of warehouse buildings and office, erection of cargo handling equipment, the use of land as a container yard and the provision of car parking on site A; and the use of land for open storage and trailer parking on Site B. That permission was not implemented and has now expired. An application for a Regional Distribution Centre for Kimberly-Clark (Tissue Paper Manufacturers) on the western part of Site ‘B’ was withdrawn. A planning application (reference GR/1999/861) was submitted in 1999 by Red Lion Wharf Ltd, National Power plc and Lidl UK GmbH for the erection of a distribution centre on Site ‘B’. The proposal was for the construction of a warehouse building with ancillary offices with a gross area of 40,114m2. The building was shown to be single storey measuring 285 metres long by 130 metres wide and 17.5 metres high with a single storey attached building on the west side 31 metres by 40 metres as a waste management unit for the handling of packaging waste arising out of the distribution centre. Linked to the eastern side of the distribution centre

was a two storey ancillary office element 17.5 metres by 41 metres. The structure was of a modern and innovative design. The application provided for 182 car parking spaces accessed from a new vehicular access on the east side of the site from Rosherville Way. Access for lorry traffic was from Crete Hall Road. 69 spaces for trailer parking were indicated on the submitted plans together with manoeuvring areas and marshalling lanes. In terms of employment the application would provide about 250 jobs on the site split amongst office staff, drivers, manual staff and others. The intended occupant of the distribution centre was the food retailer, Lidl. The use would operate on a 24 hour basis 7 days a week. The application was supported by a Traffic and Travel Assessment (TIA) and other supporting statements. The application was reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 12 April 2000. The application was deferred for further information and negotiations on the following issues:-

• Full and proper assessment of the Traffic Impact Assessment.

• Detailed consideration of any necessary highway improvements.

• Noise assessment.

• Relocation and redesign of the office building.

• Details of lighting. The application was reported back to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 21 June 2000 following various amendments to the scheme and the submission of additional information. Permission was recommended subject to conditions and the applicants entering into a legal agreement to secure the following:- (i) a financial contribution of £150,000 towards off site highway improvements in

Springhead Road.

(ii) the implementation and monitoring of a Green Travel Plan.

(iii) off site highway works in Rosherville Way and Crete Hall Road to form the

necessary access arrangements and to include the provision of new footway and cycle lanes around the perimeter of the site.

The application was further considered at the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 18 October 2000 following a request by the applicants to vary conditions. Agreement was given to vary some of the wording of the various conditions. Following completion of the legal agreement planning permission was granted on 23 February 2001. An application was submitted in 2005 for the renewal of the planning permission reference GR/1999/0861, for the erection of a distribution centre (Class B8) with

ancillary waste management unit and offices; formation of new vehicular accesses onto Rosherville Way; erection of refuelling and vehicle wash facilities; formation and laying out of 69 trailer parking spaces, 201 car parking spaces and overspill car parking area. The applicants confirmed that they were re-committed to compliance with the previous planning permission, including all conditions, supporting documentation and the associated section 106 agreement. The application was reported to the Borough Council’s Regulatory Board on 15 March 2006 and, pending the receipt of legal advice, it was resolved that a decision be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to issue a refusal on the grounds that;

1. In view of the changed circumstances since the Gravesham Local Plan First Review was adopted in 1994 and since the previous planning application for the development of this site was determined in 2001 including,

- the adoption for development control purposes of the Deposit Version of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan September 2003 wherein area based policy NK1 (Dartford and Gravesham) supports mixed use developments planned on a comprehensive basis of previously used land,

- clear support arising from public consultation undertaken in respect of the early stages of the Local Development Framework to the principle of mixed use regeneration, and

- the emerging master planning strategy being prepared by a steering group led by SEEDA that identifies a clear consensus for transforming the character of the area through the creation of new mixed-use communities within Northfleet Embankment whilst retaining a core of industry that has a need for and could take advantage of the riverside location,

the Borough Council considers that it should take a different approach to this site and that the options available should be fully considered in the preparation of the Local Development Framework. The Borough Council therefore considers that the proposals are premature to the emerging planning policy and would prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of Northfleet Embankment for mixed use purposes. The decision notice was issued on 23 March 2006. The legal advice that the Borough Council sought enabled the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to conclude that it was appropriate to consider that the development was premature and to issue refusal. The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services recorded as follows in a supplementary paper added to the application file to justify the delegated decision to refuse permission:

The advice obtained in relation to The Heritage Quarter dated 09 March was not directed to the situation of determining a planning application in the context of emerging policy. In the absence of directly relevant advice, the opinion of the Head of Legal Services was sought, and together with the contents of the Regulatory Board report and relevant material considerations, it is considered

that this is sufficient to comply with the requirements of legislation, and the terms of the Regulatory Board decision. The legal advice obtained from the Head of Legal Services is that although there are points of similarity with the Clarendon hotel case, in the present case it is different, in particular because of the emerging LDF proposals, and the need to move away from the old proposals of the Local Plan. Therefore it is safe to consider the application is premature. An appeal was lodged against the refusal and following a public inquiry in May 2007 the Secretary of State’s Inspector ALLOWED the appeal on 13 June 2007 and granted planning permission subject to conditions. The Inspector concluded that, The proposal is in clear compliance with the Local Plan. Whilst there is an apparent clash with the thrust of the Structure Plan towards mixed use developments, the Structure Plan makes it clear that an appropriate mixed use can be achieved in conjunction with the existing development. The proposal is for an indivisible single use that would be compatible with the existing housing development on site C and would not prevent the formation of an appropriate mix with future development in the area. The SEEDA master plan for Northfleet Embankment East, although intended to inform the LDF process and representing a material consideration in this appeal, can be given no more than moderate weight. Whilst the proposed development would result in the loss of some of the intended housing, the remainder of the scheme could co-exist with the proposed development. No substantive evidence was presented to demonstrate that the potential loss of housing would critically compromise the viability of the scheme or its Fastrack element. The LDF is at an early stage with little prospect of the Site Specific DPD being adopted before late 2010. In these circumstances, The Planning System: General Principles makes it clear that refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified. Although consultation to date favours mixed uses for the area, the proposed development would only affect the ‘grain’ of mixed use, not the principle. Although the scheme is substantial of itself and would affect the allocation of this particular site, it would not be so substantial as to prejudice the DPD as a whole. Although housing provision in Gravesham is running ahead of the Council’s allocation, the potential loss of housing weighs against the proposal. However, this is balanced by bringing employment to the area and avoiding undue delays in determining the future beneficial use of the land. In my view, whether taken separately or together, the other material considerations would not outweigh the fact that the proposed development would comply with the development plan. There is no justification for refusal on grounds of prematurity and the proposed development would not prejudice the proper planning of the area. I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed.

A copy of the appeal decision is appended to this report. A costs application by Lidl at the inquiry to seek a partial award of costs against SEEDA, on the basis of having incurred extra cost as a result of the late submission of SEEDA’s evidence to the Inquiry failed and no award of costs was made. The planning conditions were not entirely the same or necessarily as comprehensive as those imposed on the original grant of planning permission.

Approval of Conditions Some applications have been made to discharge the planning conditions imposed by the Inspector in the appeal decision. This included approval of condition15 (a) for a ground contamination desk top study on 8 January 2009 (reference GR/2009/1021) and approval of condition 15 (b) and (c) for a ground contamination generic risk assessment and remediation strategy (reference GR/2009/0436) on 20 August 2009. There are also two undetermined applications which have only recently been submitted for discharge of the conditions. Firstly an application (reference GR/2010/0337) being for approval of conditions 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21 and 22 attached to planning application reference 20051110 allowed on appeal reference number APP/K2230/A/06/2026940 relating to the material samples, external lighting scheme, boundary treatments, details of junctions between vehicular entrances and exits and Crete Hall Road and Rosherville Way, cycle storage and facilities, protection of public sewer, cliff stability details, wheel cleaning measures and noise and dust control schemes and hard and soft landscaping scheme. Secondly an application (reference GR/2010/0393) being for approval of condition 14 attached to planning application 20051110 allowed on appeal reference number APP/K2230/A/2026940 relating to the control of noise. In 2009 the applicants were seeking to vary the terms of the legal agreement in particular to either reduce the amount of transport contributions or the phase the contributions by instalments. However this was never progressed.

Other relevant history relating to surrounding sites

A planning application was submitted in May 2001 (reference GR/2001/288) by Stema Shipping (UK) Ltd and Red Lion Wharf Ltd on the northern part of Site A of the former power station site and being for change of use to full port operational use including the unloading, loading, storage, trans-shipment and distribution of aggregates together with the erection of ancillary offices, associated parking spaces, cargo handling equipment and a boundary wall and construction of access to the property.

That application related to the river frontage of the site and covered over a third of the site (2.779 hectares). Up to 85,000 cubic metres of aggregates was to be stored with stock piles to a maximum height of 10 metres. The materials stored included single sized aggregates, sub/base and sharp sand. Aggregates would be delivered to the site by ships and distributed both by road haulage and

transhipment by barges. A two storey office building (296m2) and a weighbridge (12m2) were proposed for the site. The use would employ 12 staff. The operating hours were stated as being 0700-1900 hours on weekdays, 0800-1400 hours on Saturdays with no working on Sundays and Public Holidays.

Stema had operated on the site since March 1997 on an area including the jetty of 1.42 hectares and had used the easternmost access for vehicle movements of aggregates. The application by Stema was supported by a visual impact assessment and an assessment of contamination.

The application was considered at the meeting of the Council’s Regulatory Board on 28 November 2001 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

A planning application (reference GR/2001/279) was also submitted a month earlier than the Stema application in April 2001 by Red Lion Wharf Ltd for the larger part of site A and being the southern part of the site adjacent to Crete Hall Road (3.98 hectares). The proposal was for a B8 warehouse with a gross internal floor area of 18,580m2 (200,000 sq ft) plus ancillary offices of 929m2. The building proposed measured externally 204 metres wide by 91 metres deep and 17 metres high. It was proposed to provide 62 lorry parking spaces and 120 car parking spaces.

No specific occupier was intended for the warehouse and therefore the application was speculative but it was stated that the use would be a 24 hour, seven day a week operation. Lorry parking was to be located in front of the building with car parking at the western end. A new access arrangement was proposed for the site involving the closure of an access at the eastern end of the site with a new access at the western end of the site serving both the Stema aggregate wharf and the proposed warehouse. The proposals included the provision of a cycleway to the east of the site adjacent to an existing public right of way.

The warehouse application was also considered by the Council’s Regulatory Board on 28 November 2001 and it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions but subject to the applicant entering into a section 106 agreement to secure a financial contribution of £60,000 towards off site highway improvements. The legal agreement was signed and planning permission issued on 15 March 2002. However that permission was never implemented and has now expired. Planning permission was granted for residential development by Bellway Homes on National Power land (known as site C) to the south of the former National Power Station site on the south side of the A226 London Road and which was used for the tipping of Power Station waste. The original outline planning permission (GR/97/110) was granted permission on 29 January 1999 for 218 units and was subject to a legal agreement. Detailed approval was given for 202 units and a further permission was given for a further 25 units on a strip of land adjoining the former power station land. A revised detailed approval involved a net increase of 13 units to make 240 units on the entire site. That development has now been completed. Planning permission was granted on 11 February 2005 to an application by Kimberly-Clark (reference GR/04/1030) for the erection of a high bay warehouse, pulp barn and sub-station to replace premises destroyed by fire which occurred

on 19 July 2004. The site is on the north side of Crete Hall Road, immediately west of Site A of the power station site and to the north of the western half of the appeal site. The building proposed was a substantial structure, the main building being 180m long by 58m wide and with an overall floor area of 13,880m2 and some 37m in height. However it was a replacement for an equally substantial building only some 5m lower in height. SEEDA were consulted and raised no objection commenting: “SEEDA supports this application within Kent Thameside. Regeneration in this area is a regional and national priority and critical to achieving the Government’s aims. However, as this area has been identified in the emerging Masterplan for Northfleet Embankment as a whole for high quality mixed use, particular attention should be paid to the appearance of the building and the use of materials in order to minimise the impact on the surrounding area. I would also draw your attention to the sustainability checklist produced by SEEDA”.

That development has now been completed.

3. The Proposal

This application is for renewal of the extant planning permission reference number 20051110 for erection of distribution centre (Class B8 of the Use Classes Order) with ancillary waste management unit (to deal with packaging materials), and offices; formation of new vehicular accesses onto Crete Hall Road and onto Rosherville Way; erection of refuelling and vehicle wash facilities; formation and laying out of 69 no. trailer parking spaces, 201 no. car parking spaces and overspill car parking area (providing a future car parking area for some 54 cars). The distribution centre would be of some 40,000m² in area. The distribution centre would lie on an east-west axis, roughly parallel to and between the cliffs and Crete Hall Road. The main good entrance would be off Crete Hall Road whereas the entrance for cars would be off Rosherville Way. The facility would operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week and would create some 250 jobs. Internally the warehouse would comprise pallet and bulk storage areas and chiller and freezer areas. The office area is two storeys and located on the eastern side of the building. The height of the building is a maximum of 17.5m high and the roof has a curved profile. The materials to be used in the building are coloured panels and a brick plinth. The original application, which was for full planning permission, was first granted in February 2001 subject to a number of planning conditions and implementation within five years from the date of the permission. This was renewed on 13 June 2007 as a result of a planning appeal as referred to earlier in this report. The applicants advise that they are re-committed to compliance with all the conditions and a revised legal agreement (s106 of the 1990 Planning Act) is also requested by the applicants.

4. Development Plan and Planning Policies The Development Plan comprises:-

• The Regional Spatial Strategy, South East Plan (2009)

• The Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994)

There are a number of other un-adopted planning documents (e.g. The Gravesham Local Plan Second Review) which are of some relevance to the consideration of this planning application and which are also referred to in this section together with national planning advice and guidance.

Regional Planning Guidance

South East Plan The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East of England (known as the South East Plan) sets out the long term spatial planning framework for the region over the years 2006-2026. The Plan is a key tool to help achieve more sustainable development, protect the environment and combat climate change. It provides a spatial context within which Local Development Frameworks and Local Transport Plans need to be prepared, as well as other regional and sub-regional strategies and programmes that have a bearing on land use activities. These include the regional economic and housing strategies as well as strategies and programmes that address air quality, biodiversity, climate change, education, energy, community safety, environment, health and sustainable development.

The Plan includes spatial policies for:

• the scale and distribution of new housing • priorities for new infrastructure and economic development • the strategy for protecting countryside, biodiversity and the built and historic

environment • tackling climate change and safeguarding natural resources, for example

water and minerals In the South East Plan Kent Thames-side Core strategy policy is as follows:-

POLICY KTG1: CORE STRATEGY Local and central government, and all parties concerned with service provision and infrastructure, will co-ordinate their policies and programmes to:

i. as a first priority, make full use of previously developed land before

greenfield sites, except where there are clear planning advantages from the development of an urban extension that improves the form,

functioning and environment of existing settlements or a new community

ii. locate major development in order to exploit the potential of the

regional hubs at Ebbsfleet and the Medway Towns and locations served by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and locate housing, employment and community services where they are accessible by a choice of transport

iii. ensure that the benefits of new services and employment are

available to existing communities, and that new development is carefully integrated with them

iv. raise the standards of education and skills in the workforce,

including support for higher and further education, and achieve economic development and inward investment at an accelerated pace

v. greatly increase the supply of new housing, and affordable housing

in particular vi. set high standards for the design and sustainability of new

communities, and for improvement of the existing urban areas, reflecting the riverside and historic character of the area

vii. create higher density development in the main urban areas, linked by

public transport to one another and to London viii. review local planning and transport policies to manage the forecast

growth in car traffic related in particular to employment in the area and encourage greater use of sustainable modes

ix. make progress in the transfer of freight from road to rail and by

water, by improving the links between international gateways and the regions, including freight routes around London

x. protect from development the Metropolitan Green Belt, the Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty and avoid coalescence with adjoining settlements to the south, east and west of the Medway urban area and to the west of Sittingbourne.

There are a number of other Area and General policies in the South East Plan that are of relevance including, Policy KTG2: Economic Growth and Employment Policy KTG3: Employment Locations Policy RE3: Employment and Land Provision Local Planning Guidance Gravesham Local Plan First Review

The appeal site is shown as a major site, for which Proposal PM12 states:

Proposal PM12: Northfleet Power Station, Northfleet

The Borough Council will not oppose in principle the redevelopment of the Northfleet Power Station site, to provide the following:- (i) Employment uses (in the case of Dover Road Pit, the Borough Council will expect these to be compatible with adjacent residential uses).

(ii) Continuation of wharfage facilities on the River Thames frontage. The Borough Council will expect a development brief or briefs, to be prepared to provide fuller guidance for this important site. Particular attention will need to be given to the mix of development between and within Use Classes, and the protection of residential amenity, ground conditions and the existing of fill material.

The Borough Council will also expect the redevelopment to contain a high proportion of industrial uses in Use Classes B2 and B8 and will wish to restrict the proportion of the development used for Class BI (other than light industry).

In addition the Borough Council will enter into an agreement with developers to control these matters. The local plan further highlights the development of the appeal site for employment uses in Proposal PE1; Proposal PE1 Sites for New Employment (B2 or B8) The following sites are shown for employment use on the Proposals Map but are likely to be most suitable for development falling within Class B2 (General Industrial Use) or Class B8 (Warehousing).

Sites for development starting in the period up to mid 1996

East of Canal Road, Denton * (1.33 hectares) (3.3 acres)

Denton Wharf, Mark Lane, Denton * (4.0 hectares) (10.0 acres)

Lennox Road Pit, Northfleet (4.4 hectares) (10.8 acres)

East of KSB Engineering, Wharf Road, Denton* (0.5 hectares) (1.2 acres)

North of Comma Oil (See PM9)* (1.7 hectares) (4.2 acres)

Sites for development starting in the period mid 1996 to mid 2001

Northfleet Power Station, Northfleet (See PM12) (13.5 hectares) (33.3 acres)

North East Gravesend (See PM9)* (6.0 hectares) (15.0 aces) However the Board is advised that neither Proposal PM12 or Proposal PE1 are saved policies under the Local Development Scheme (LDS) of July 2007.

The riverside policies in the adopted Local Plan are also a relevant consideration. Policy R1 (The commercial riverside – maintenance of the river frontage for water transport) of the Local Plan supports development adjacent to the river which requires a riverside location and makes use of the river as a means of transport. The policy also supports the provision of a public riverside walkway or riverside access, where appropriate. Policy R2 (The commercial riverside – wharves) supports applications for the expansion of port traffic at the existing wharves fronting the commercial riverside, subject to the surrounding road system being able to deal adequately with additional traffic. The following other policies are also relevant;

Policy E0 General Employment Policy The Borough Council will make provision for:-

(i) A range of industrial and commercial development, taking into account the guidelines set out in the Approved Kent Structure Plan.

(ii) The improvement and modernisation of existing employment areas.

(iii) An increase in the quantity of job opportunities within the Borough. Policy TC0 General Townscape, Conservation and Design The Borough Council will give priority to conserving and enhancing the

built environment in both the urban area and the countryside. Particular importance will be attached to:-

(i) The design of new development.

(ii) The safeguarding and enhancing of conservation areas.

(iii) Environmental improvement schemes.

(iv) The preparation of a landscape strategy for the Borough.

Policy TC1 Design of New Developments

The Borough Council will not normally permit proposals for new development which cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

Applications will be considered in accordance with the following design principles:-

(i) The scale and massing of the buildings should normally be in keeping with their surroundings.

(ii) The design of new developments should accord with the principles of the Kent Design Guide and in the case of residential development, with Housing Policies H2 and H3 of this Plan.

(iii)The design of any alteration or extension shall respect the character and appearance of the existing building and safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents.

(iv) Materials used should be of good quality and sympathetic to the

area concerned. Policy T1 Impact of Development on the Highway Network The Local Planning and Highway Authorities will consider the impact on

the transport system and on the environment of traffic generated by new development and will wish to ensure that all proposed developments are adequately served by the highway network identified on the Proposals Map.

Policy T5 New Accesses onto Highway Network

The formation of new accesses or the intensification of use of existing accesses to the roads forming the highway network shown on the Proposals Map, will not normally be permitted, except where no danger would arise and where a properly formed access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the Local Planning and Highway Authorities.

Policy P3 Vehicle Parking Standards

The Borough Council will expect development to make provision for vehicle parking, in accordance with the Kent County Council Vehicle Parking Standards, as interpreted by Gravesham Borough Council, unless justified as an exception. All vehicle parking provision should normally be made on the development site. In the case of proposals for development in Class B1, as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, the Borough Council will expect car parking provision to be made at the standard for offices and will also require lorry parking and manoeuvring areas to be provided, unless the applicant is willing to enter into an agreement to restrict the uses to which the permission relates. The Board is advised that Policies E0, TC0, TC1, T1, T5 and P3 are all saved policies under the Local Development Scheme (LDS) of July 2007.

Gravesham Local Plan 2nd Review (Deposit Version) 2000 The Gravesham Local Plan 2nd Review (Deposit Version) was adopted for the purposes of development control on 8 March 2000. The first period for public consultation ran from 8 June to 21 July 2000. With the introduction of reforms under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Borough Council resolved to suspend work on the Local Plan Second Review in November 2004 in order to concentrate on the preparation of the Gravesham Local Development Framework (GLDF). In the interim, the Gravesham Local Plan 2nd Review (Deposit Draft) remains a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and planning and enforcement appeals, albeit that the weight which may be accorded policies therein is limited. The weight which may be accorded policies contained in the Gravesham Local Plan 2nd Review (Deposit Draft) may be increased where such policies coincide with saved policies contained in the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First Review, the approved South East Plan, and/or with current Government planning guidance. In the Gravesham Local Plan 2nd Review the policy approach to Northfleet Embankment is set out in Policy MDS2 (Former Northfleet Power Station). The preamble states: Site B is separated from the residential area to the south by the A226 London Road, which runs along a chalk spine some 30 metres above the site B ground level. A river-related use is not essential on site B. Use Class B2 or B8 employment uses would be the most appropriate use of the site. However, as an alternative, a leisure-related use may be acceptable, subject to consideration of the sequential test. The policy states; Policy MDS2 Former Northfleet Power Station

The Borough Council will permit the development of sites A and B at the Former Northfleet Power Station, subject to compliance with the following criteria:-

In the case of Site A:- i. proposals should be for port-related employment uses, which fully

utilise the riverside jetty along the River Thames frontage. In this respect, preference will be given to schemes which maximise the flow of goods and materials into and out of the site by river, in order to reduce lorry movements on the surrounding highway network;

ii. the extent of any contamination on the site needs to be identified and proposals for remediation agreed by the Borough Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency;

iii. the design of any buildings proposed and the quality of materials used should enhance the appearance of the site. In this respect, the Borough Council will expect a landscaping scheme to be prepared; and

iv. public access to the riverside should be maintained and improved via the existing public footpath (NU5), which runs from Crete Hall road along the eastern boundary of the site.

In the case of Site B:-

i. proposals should be for employment uses, principally within Use Classes B2 or B8 but also Use Class B1;

ii. as an alternative a built leisure use may be considered, subject to there being no suitable site in Gravesend Town Centre, as established by application of a sequential test;

iii. the extent of any contamination on the site needs to be identified and proposals for remediation agreed with the Borough Council in consultation with the Environment Agency;

iv. the design of any buildings proposed and the quality of materials used should enhance the appearance of the site. In this respect, the Borough Council will expect a landscaping scheme to be prepared;

v. shared footway/cycling facilities will be required for the entire frontage of the site, along both Crete Hall Road and Rosherville Way and

vi. proposals for Sites A and B will be considered either on an individual basis or in terms of a joint scheme for both sites together.

All proposals will be subject to Policies T1 (Location of Development), H9 (Affordable Housing), LT3 (Green Grid) and SC1 (Social and Community Infrastructure). Other relevant policies in the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review are Policy E4 New Employment Areas, Policy TR3 Public Access to the Riverside, Policy BE12 Design of New Development Extensions and Alterations, Policy T1 Location of Development, Policy T12 New Access on Highway and Public Transport Network, Policy T14 Freight, Policy T16 Car Parking Standards, Policy NE23 Tidal Flood Risk and Policy LT2 Development of Green Grid Sites. Local Development Framework The Council has been in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework (LDF) for the Borough since 2005. Progress to date on this document has focussed on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which was adopted in March 2007 and the Core Strategy. The Local Development Scheme (LDS), which sets out the programme for taking forward the LDF, was reviewed in order to address deficiencies in the evidence base and the changes introduced by PPS12 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. The revised LDS was approved by GOSE on 16 January 2009.

A number of public consultation exercises have been carried out to identify the key issues and priorities for consideration in the Core Strategy.

A draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Regulation 25 document – Issues and Options) was considered by the Council’s Cabinet in December 2009 who approved the document for the purposes of public consultation. A six week consultation period was undertaken between 28 January and 11 March 2010 to enable residents, local businesses and stakeholders to have their say in the future planning for the Borough.

It is anticipated that this will be examined by an independent Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate in March 2011 for adoption in August 2011.

The most relevant core strategy policies are, Core Strategy Policy 2: Urban Areas, a broad ranging policy which includes, amongst other things, new mixed communities to be introduced, inclusive and sustainable communities and high standards of urban design. Core Strategy Policy 5: Design and Development Principles which indicates the requirement for high quality design for all development Core Strategy Policy 10: Economy and Employment This particular policy states: The Borough Council will seek, in conjunction with the private sector and its regeneration partners, to secure the delivery of 10,000 net new full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs (in all sectors) over the LDF period, on the basis of an approximate relationship of one new FTE job per new dwelling. As part of this process, support will be given to the development of Ebbsfleet as a major new South East office centre and Regional Hub. The potential to grow an ancillary niche office market based on the locational advantages of Gravesend town centre due to the introduction of a high speed train service to London and its waterfront and heritage assets will also be exploited. In addition to the development of Ebbsfleet, the Borough Council will seek to strengthen and diversify the local economy by requiring sufficient B class floorspace and associated employment land supply to meet the ‘Fast Ebbsfleet Development scenario’ as set out in the Gravesham Economy and Employment Space Study (May 2009) and described above. The contribution to be made toward this total by the major development sites will be expected to reflect the figures set out elsewhere in this DPD in relation to Strategic Site Allocations.

Proposals for new B class premises should be of high quality sustainable design and incorporate ICT and other features to facilitate ‘smart growth’, reflecting the need to attract higher value activities and facilitate a step-change in the economic profile of the area. Particular support will be given to schemes incorporating small and flexible industrial and/or office workspaces intended to support the start-up and expansion of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

All proposals for new residential development will be expected to demonstrate that they incorporate sufficient space within the domestic environment and the

ability to install ICT features (such as telephone/ broadband) to facilitate flexible home working.

Subject to the policies set out elsewhere in this DPD (including the Strategic Site Allocations), the retention, expansion and upgrading of existing industrial/commercial uses will be supported, and a range of business activities will be encouraged to avoid overreliance on any one sector.

Subject to the policies set out elsewhere in this DPD (including the Strategic Site Allocations), development resulting in the loss of B class floorspace will not be supported unless: 1. the proposal will deliver at least an equivalent number of new jobs on site or elsewhere within the borough; or

2. the existing premises are no longer suited for employment purposes or are incapable of being made suitable at reasonable cost; and it has been shown that there is no demand for it through an appropriate marketing exercise; or

3. the existing premises have an unacceptable environmental impact on the area within which they are situated and this is incapable of reasonable mitigation or the environmental benefit that would arise from the existing use stopping would outweigh the potential loss in employment.

Subject to the policies set out elsewhere in this DPD (including the Strategic Site Allocations), provision will be made for the continued presence and expansion of viable river-related employment uses, especially where this is related to the use of the river for transport or for the continued support of the River Thames as a major commercial waterway.

Subject to Green Belt policy and the need to protect the essential qualities of the countryside and settlements within which they are located, the Borough Council will support proposals that promote the appropriate economic diversification of the rural area. This will particularly be the case where such diversification can be shown to improve the vitality and functioning of existing settlements; is designed to achieve a high degree of sustainability; and will provide direct employment benefits to people living within the immediate locality.

The Borough Council will work with its regeneration partners to enhance that will arise as a result of the policies above by improving the skills base of the local workforce and by ensuring that the physical and social infrastructure necessary to enable such access is put into place. The application is specifically referred to in Core Strategy Policy 16: Strategic Sites within the larger Northfleet Embankment East site. The overview is that Northfleet Embankment East will provide approx 1500 dwellings and approx 20,000m² now employment and 40,000m² committed employment (B1, B2 and B8) and 33,000m² other development (D1 and D2). The most relevant development management policies include, Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design Development Management Policy 14: Maintaining Employment Capacity Development Management Policy 15: New Employment

Development Management Policy 32: Transport Network and Accesses Development Management Policy 33: Vehicle Parking Standards.

Development Management Policy 14: Maintaining Employment Capacity states: The Council will seek to sustain and enhance employment capacity (land, floorspace, and/or jobs) in line with the approach set out in the following table and by: 1. Safeguarding existing employment floorspace throughout the Borough by protecting against changes of use to non-commercial uses. Development that improves the quality and quantity of existing provision will be encouraged.

2. Employment sites identified on the Proposals Map will be retained and enhanced.

3. Employment floorspace identified in employments sites at (ii) which is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in terms of its type, size and affordability will be protected.

Planning applications for alternative uses on sites with an existing employment use, or on sites that were last used for employment uses, will normally be resisted unless the applicant can provide robust and credible evidence that the site has been actively marketed unsuccessfully for its existing permitted employment use for a period of 12 months, or that there are other exceptional planning reasons that would justify a change from employment use. Developers seeking to develop employment sites for alternative uses will be required to prove to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the wider social and environmental benefits of a change of use outweigh the economic cost associated with the loss of employment land. The Policy approach to the Northfleet Embankment site within this Development Management Policy is stated as, Preference is for comprehensive residentially led mixed-use development, with B1 employment buffers to Kimberley Clark. Current uses at Red Lion Wharf would require relocation but would still wish to see a more compatible river related use introduced as part of redevelopment. Should Lidl site not come forward for B8 distribution uses, would support expansion of mixed-use but to include significant B1 class employment component with buffer to residential or other sensitive uses. Flood risk would require mitigation through design.

5. Reason for Report

The site has been the subject of previous reports to the Regulatory Board.

6. Consultations and Publicity

Consultations

Regulatory Services, GBC (Environmental Health) No additional comments Kent Highways There are no highway objections in principle to these proposals subject to:

1) The securing of required off-site highway works, the scope of which has been previously agreed, through an appropriate Agreement with the Highway Authority, KCC.

2) The securing of a previously agreed contribution of £150,000 toward additional highway works via a Section 106 Agreement which should be index linked to an appropriate index of highway works costs from the date of the Agreement.

3) The securing of a travel plan and contribution of £5,000 towards the administration costs of any such plan via a Section 106 Agreement as previously agreed.

It should also be noted that the route over which the additional highway works contribution of £150,000 should be used will alter from that which was previously agreed in order to reflect recent changes in the highway network link between the site and the A2 Trunk Road. However, due to consequent changes to local road classifications to reflect these network alterations, there will in fact be no need to change the wording of the appropriate definition in the Section 106 Agreement from that which was included in the previous Section 106 Agreement.

Highways Agency Views awaited Planning Policy In the appeal decision in 2007, the Inspector in paragraph 18 onwards highlights that parts of the Local Plan that he thinks are most relevant including Proposal PM12 and Proposal PE1 and he goes on to say in his final sentence of paragraph 19 that PM12 is one of the policies that the Council has applied to the Secretary of State to save beyond September 2007. However policies PM12 and PE1 were not saved in the direction. The Inspector makes the point in paragraph 26 that the “proposed development is in accord with PM12 and PE1”.

Also we now have the South East Plan rather than the Kent & Medway Structure Plan and PPS4 which replaces PPG4. Section 19 of the South East Plan is concerned with Kent Thames Gateway. Policy KTG1 includes the following: i. as a first priority, make full use of previously developed land before greenfield sites, ii. locate major development in order to exploit the potential of the regional hubs at Ebbsfleet and the Medway Towns and locations served by the Channel Tunnel

Rail Link, and locate housing, employment and community services where they are accessible by a choice of transport iii. ensure that the benefits of new services and employment are available to existing communities, and that new development is carefully integrated with them v. greatly increase the supply of new housing, and affordable housing in particular, viii. review local planning and transport policies to manage the forecast growth in car traffic related in particular to employment in the area and encourage greater use of sustainable modes ix. make progress in the transfer of freight from road to rail and by water, by improving the links between international gateways and the regions, including freight routes around London.

Policy KTG2 is concerned with economic growth and employment and fundamentally it advocates that the development of the economy in Kent Thames Gateway will be dynamic and widely based, to provide employment for the community as a whole.

There is not much in the KTG policies that would oppose the renewal of the permission for Lidl apart from the transport issues e.g. exacerbating road-based vehicle movements.

PPS4 however takes a far broader approach as to what constitutes economic development.

The relevant tests in PPS4 are set out in the Development Management policies section.

• EC10.1 provides a general presumption in favour of planning applications that

secure sustainable economic growth and requires LPAs to adopt a positive and constructive approach toward them.

• EC10.2 sets out a range of assessment criteria (a - e) for all planning applications for economic development:

o b. the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured

o c. whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions

o d. the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives

It is noted from paragraph 62 of the appeal decision, that the Council raised no concerns about the transport agreement and therefore it is assumed that transport can not be a reason for non-renewal now. Policy EC10.2.(d) of PPS4 is more of an issue and in paragraph 77 the inspector makes the point that the potential loss of housing weighs against the proposal and this is still an issue. However we have no particular evidence for housing proposal at this location. The draft SLAA has had regard to the extant planning permission at this location, which nobody has objected to, and some responses to the reg. 25 stage of the Core Strategy and DM Policies DPD have raised issues about having sufficient flexibility in the LDF to ensure that housing is delivered, even in this uncertain

economic climate, and their perceived concerns that we have an over-reliance on PDL sites.

The site is complex and the Council’s longstanding desire for mixed-development on North Embankment East is going to be harder to realize with the current proposals for landraising, but only in parts of the site (partly because of the retention of some of the existing AEI Henley buildings). The industrial core of Northfleet Embankment has been in industrial use for decades and is expected to continue as such and care will be needed to ensure that proposals for mixed development has due regard to operational / noise issues and the development of a quality environment for potential new residents. As part of their representation to the Regualtion 25 LDF Kimberley Clark have advised that “it is crucial that Kimberly-Clark retain the ability to operate with optimum efficiency without the constraint of potential objections for perceived environmental nuisance including road traffic from the introduction of residential and non industrial occupiers”.

In conclusion it is not considered that we can justify not renewing the permission despite these concerns.

The current position is that the LDF treats the Lidl site as an extant planning permission and therefore makes no proposals for it directly. It is difficult to see how we could object in policy terms to a renewal of the current permission given the planning history including the appeal. SEEDA Views awaited Environment Agency Views awaited

Southern Water Views awaited Publicity The application has been advertised as a major development proposal. Notification has also been sent to five adjoining properties. No representations have been received to date. The expiry date for the receipt of representations is 25 May 2010.

7. Service Manager, Development Management Comments

Planning permission was originally sought towards the end of 1999 for this B8 warehouse for Lidl as their regional distribution centre and permission was granted in February 2001 following the completion of a legal agreement and agreement to amend some of the planning conditions. The application was considered in the context of the then planning policy framework, the Gravesham Local Plan First Review adopted in November 1994. The local plan at that time was relevant and relatively up to date although it should be noted that adoption of the local plan predated the regional planning guidance that was to follow in Regional Planning Guidance for the South East RPG9 (March 2001), The Thames Gateway Planning Framework RPG9a (June 1995) and Strategic Planning Guidance for the River Thames RPG9b (March 1997). A different approach to Northfleet Embankment was already being suggested as long ago as autumn 1995 with the publication of the Kent Thames-side document “Looking to the Future”. This document saw the potential of the area lying between the Gravesend and Northfleet Football Club in the west and the Imperial Business Park in the east for redevelopment for mixed use. However, that document was a “vision” and it had no status and was not a policy document or supplementary planning guidance. It also failed to recognise the continuing importance of the existing industrial operators as it indicated that residential development would predominate. At the time of the previous application work had also already progressed on the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review with the publication of the Main Issues Report (MIR) in July 1997. The MIR drew together the different policy and planning approaches postulated by the various documents together with the Port of London Authority’s stance on retaining existing wharfage facilities. It suggested that there could be a number of different approaches to the area ranging from complete redevelopment for housing to retention of existing employment uses and wharfage related uses. The matter was considered at the then Planning Committee on 15 October 1997 when a Briefing Note was considered. This acknowledged that neither the Kent Thames-side vision scenario nor the exclusively port related scenario (as postulated by the Port of London Authority) were, likely to provide an acceptable approach to policy formulation in the Draft Deposit Local Plan.

It was resolved that,

• further consultation be undertaken with firms in the Northfleet Embankment

area to ascertain whether they had medium to long term business strategies

• further work be undertaken on the combined scenarios to gauge their feasibility and development capacities

• any decision on proposals for employment/river related uses on the former

Northfleet Power Station should be contingent on the outcome of the work on the combined scenarios

• a further report be submitted to Committee

The Council’s Environmental Services Committee considered a further report on 4 February 1998. In terms of future business strategies of the immediate neighbours to the Power Station site it was reported that Kimberley Clarke intended to enhance their facilities on the site and had proposals for a new regional distribution centre and combined heat and power plant. A planning application for a distribution centre at their site was subsequently granted planning permission and was built. The Borough Council were also advised that the T.T. Group who owned the AEI/W.T. Henley site had proposals for a programme of large capital investment to modernise plant and develop new products and had no desire to move elsewhere. In the light of these development programmes it was suggested that it was not considered realistic or desirable at that time to contemplate a mixed use scenario with a significant residential component on the Red Lion Wharf site sandwiched between two major industrial concerns who were proposing to expand. It was therefore concluded that it was difficult to envisage a change of mixed use before 2011 (the end of the Plan period) and that the site should be identified for employment use including port related activity in the Draft Deposit Local Plan Second Review. This approach was agreed by the Borough Council and it was also agreed that in considering development proposals account should be taken of the new Environmental Standard for Thames Gateway. This was reflected in Policy MDS2 of the Local Plan Second Review. Therefore taking the adopted policy into account, the direction the Local Plan policy review was taking and the circumstances pertaining to existing land owners, planning permission for the original planning application by Lidl for its regional distribution centre could not have reasonably been withheld.

The original planning permission was however never implemented by the applicants. A renewal of the permission was therefore sought in late 2005. A different decision was taken in respect of the renewal application being refused for in summary • Prematurity to the Emerging Planning Policies

• Prejudice to the Emerging Planning Proposals

On the first reason the emerging planning policies at local, strategic and regional level were taking a different direction. At a local level the emerging Local Development Framework, whilst at a very early stage, was indicating general support for the principle of mixed use regeneration in the Northfleet Embankment area. At a strategic level Policy DG1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan adopted in July 2006 supported mixed use developments of previously used land, planned on a comprehensive basis and referred to Gravesend/Northfleet Riverside (which included the application site) as a strategic development location. Paragraph 3.10 of the approved Kent and Medway Structure Plan stated that, “Achieving development of the right form and quality here (in Kent

Thameside) will be one of the keys to ensuring the success of regeneration across the wider Thames Gateway.” The regional policy direction as contained in Regional Policy Guidance and what was at the time the emerging South East Plan further gave support to the need for a more dynamic and sustainable approach to regeneration and an intensive form of development for Kent Thameside and sites within it. The regional policy for the South East, both existing and emerging, was also reinforced by a series of vision documents from the ODPM/Department for Communities and Local Government – “Sustainable Communities buildings for the Future”, “Sustainable Communities in the South East”, “Creating Sustainable Communities: Making it Happen: Thames Gateway and Growth Areas” July 2003 and the “Thames Gateway Interim Plan Policy Framework and Development Prospectus” November 2006 which were further driving forward the regional policy and giving credence to the need to ensure that decisions taken on development proposals in the Thames Gateway make the best and most efficient use of land. The latter document provided a detailed analysis for Northfleet Embankment wherein it was indicated that in the whole of the Northfleet Embankment site the outputs/capacity was 2,800 residential units of which 840 would be affordable with 400 jobs retained and with 1800 units on the east site (the application site, Red Lion Wharf and AEI site) and with 25,000m² of new commercial space (east site) comprising leisure, offices, manufacturing and industrial. In respect of being prejudice to emerging planning proposals it was argued that the Lidl proposal was in conflict with the SEEDA indicative master plan and draft development framework plan for Northfleet Embankment which sowed the Lidl site for future housing and in turn could also have implications for the remainder of the master plan including Fastrack provision. The renewal application was therefore refused in March 2006. However as referred to earlier in this report the Inspector in determining the planning appeal in June 2007 took the view that the adopted policy in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 which shows the site for employment should prevail and that there were no grounds on reasons of prematurity or prejudice to future development plans to refuse the application and that future development plans were not at an advanced stage such that a different view should be taken. It should however be noted that following the appeal decision the local planning policies/proposals (PM12 and PE1) that the Inspector relied on in deciding that the adopted development plan policies should prevail and as such that the development was not in conflict, have not been saved as part of the Local Development Framework process. Therefore those policies are of little or no weight now in the consideration of the current planning application. There are however more general policies in the adopted plan which are still applicable. Policy E0 requires a range of industrial and commercial development to be provided and an increase in job opportunities. The Kent and Medway Structure Plan which had been adopted in July 2006 was abolished on 6 July 2009 and superseded by the policies of the South East Plan. In refusing the previous renewal application significant reliance had been placed on Policy DG1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan which

supported mixed use developments of previously used land, planned on a comprehensive basis. In respect of other planning policy changes since the appeal decision the South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) has now been adopted. This does not contain any relevant site specific policies but again in general terms encourages full use of previously developed sites and for major sites in Thameside with access to the M25 motorway and the national rail network to be developed for a mix of employment uses, including offices, regional distribution and manufacturing. Work is also now advancing on the Local Development Framework to the stage of the Core Strategy and Development Management Polices DPD and Regulation 25 (Issues and Options) document. This envisages a preference for a comprehensive residentially led mixed-use development, with B1 employment buffers to Kimberley Clark. It assumes that the site will be developed by Lidl but should Lidl site not come forward for B8 distribution uses, there would be support for expansion of mixed-use but to include a significant B1 class employment component with a buffer to residential or other sensitive uses. Therefore the current policy position is still that the site would be preferable as an employment or part employment site. Government guidance in PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) has also been issued (December 2009) which requires all applications for economic development to be judged against certain tests such as accessibility, the quality of design, the impact on economic and physical regeneration and the impact on local employment. Demolition of the AEI/GEC Henley site has progressed and SEEDA have been master planning the development of the site on the basis of excluding the Lidl site. However no planning application has been submitted by SEEDA or others for the re-development of the wider Northfleet Embankment area. Moreover a different approach has been taken to the future of the wider site with greater emphasis on retaining more employment including the retention of some of the existing buildings. In conclusion therefore whilst there is somewhat a policy vacuum at this point in time with no real site specific policy that can be relied on in the determination of this renewal proposal, having regard to the general planning policy in the Local Plan and the regional policy basis in the South East Plan (Policies KTG1 and KTG2) it is considered that there is no overriding planning policy objection to the renewal of the warehouse proposal by Lidl for this site. There is also no objection in highway terms to the development from Kent Highways. There are however some consultation responses that are still awaited including from the Environment Agency, Highways Agency and SEEDA.

Consultation expiry date: 25 May 2010 Recommendation Subject to any outstanding comments from the consultees, to any representations arising from the publicity given to the application and the completion of a revised legal agreement PERMISSION subject to the following conditions 1. The development hereby permitted relates must be begun not later than

the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. With respect to any condition that requires the prior written approval of the

Local Planning Authority, the works thereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with that approval and, where appropriate, operated in accordance with that approval once implemented, unless subsequently otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the details of the development are satisfactory.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in

complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 1110.P(0)1H, 1110.P(0)2, 1110.P(0)10.A and 1110.P(0)11A unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the building shall be operated as a single warehouse and shall not be divided without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that any subsequent alterations or subdivision of the building may be the subject of a separate planning application which the Local Planning Authority would wish to consider on its merits having regard to issues of amenity, traffic safety and the prevailing planning policies.

4. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used

in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

5. No plant or equipment shall be erected or placed on the roof of the warehouse building hereby permitted without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.


6. No external storage of materials shall take place outside of the building on

the open parts of the site.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 7. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of external lighting of the building and open parts of the site. The lighting scheme shall be completed before the building hereby permitted is occupied. Thereafter no additional lighting shall be erected on the site or building without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.


8. 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 approved boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied and thereafter be retained.


9. The areas shown on the site layout drawing as vehicle parking (including

cars, lorries, trailers and motorbikes), and any vehicle access and manoeuvring space, shall be formed, surfaced, drained and marked out in accordance with the details in drawing no. 1110.P(0) 11.A before the warehouse building hereby permitted is brought into use; thereafter the vehicle parking, access and manoeuvring spaces shall be used for such purposes, and no development whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 shall be carried out on the site in such a manner or in such a position as to preclude the use of or access to the reserved vehicle parking, access and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: That the development without the provision of the vehicle parking area is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger by virtue of vehicles parking on the public highway.

10. The area shown on drawing no. 1110.P(0)1.H as car park overspill and

annotated as “space for 54 future spaces” shall be landscaped in accordance with condition 22 of this permission and shall not be brought into use for car parking; at no time shall there exist more than 201 car parking spaces on the site.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 11. No additional vehicular or pedestrian access points on the site beyond

those shown on the approved drawings shall be formed onto Crete Hall Road or Rosherville Way without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

12. Development shall not begin until details of the junctions between the

vehicular entrances and exits and Crete Hall Road and Rosherville Way have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied until those junctions have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, no structure, erection or other means of obstruction exceeding 600mm in height shall be placed within any visibility splays so provided.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety


approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for the storage of cycles and for shower and changing facilities for cyclists. The approved scheme shall be completed before the building hereby permitted is occupied and such facilities shall be available at all times when the premises are in use unless the written permission of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained to remove, alter or replace such facilities.

Reason: In the interest of sustainable planning principles and encouraging employees to use other means of transport to the motor car.

14. No development shall take place until a scheme has been agreed with the

Local Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The scheme should contain both physical and administrative measures for controlling noise and should include the means for measuring and monitoring noise at agreed locations. The scheme should cover the use of the vehicle wash bay, the use of audible warning systems, the surfacing of roadways and the use of speed ramps, the operation of loading bay doors, the erection of signs, the testing of generators and alarms and the use of loudspeakers. The scheme shall specify the noise levels to be achieved and the measures to be taken when there is no noise sensitive development adjacent to the site and any new or changed requirements in the event that there is noise sensitive development adjacent to the site.

Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of nearby residential dwellings

15. Before works commence on site, an assessment of potential site

contamination together with a scheme of remediation to be undertaken during the course of construction shall be submitted for the prior written

approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of remediation shall include a timetable for its implementation and the works shall be carried out in accordance with that timetable. The timetable shall include the submission of the closure report referred to below. The said assessment of potential site contamination shall include

a) A desk top study, including the history of the site and a proposal for the a site investigation strategy based upon the relevant information discovered by the desk top study; b) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology ; c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment and proposed remediation strategy to render harmless any identified contamination given the proposed end use of the site and surrounding environment (including any controlled waters). Upon approval, the scheme of remediation shall be carried out in full in accordance with the approved timetable under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If during any works, contamination is encountered which was not previously identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its prior approval. Any such additional remediation works shall be carried out in full as if part of the original scheme of the original scheme of remediation. Upon completion of the scheme of remediation approved pursuant to this condition, a closure report shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The said closure report shall include quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology, details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria and the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development in not commenced on a contaminated site.

16. No development shall commence until details of the proposed means of

protection of the public sewer, including a timetable for implementation of the means of protection, have been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

17 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on

impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10 per cent. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10 per cent. All filling

points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.


18. Prior to being discharged into any water course, surface water sewer or

soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Should the developer elect to drain roof water via an oil interceptor the design and construction of that interceptor shall be upgraded to provide an increased capacity to suit.


19. Material to be deposited on the site in connection with any levelling or site

preparation shall comprise clean builders rubble and other inert material only and no putrescible materials including timber shall be deposited.

Reason: In order to prevent further contamination of the site.


approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme showing details of any works that may affect the stability of the cliff and any necessary protection or stabilisation works. Any protection or stabilisation works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of the warehouse building on the site.

Reason: In order to ensure that the details of the development are satisfactory.

21. Before the development commences on site, full details shall be submitted

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show

a) details of wheel cleaning measures to be installed on site during construction operations

b) details of a scheme to control noise and dust during construction

operations.

Reason: In order to ensure that the details of the development are satisfactory and to ensure the disruption and environmental impact associated with site preparation and construction are kept to a minimum.

22. 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. All planting, seeding or turfing comprises in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation.


23. No parts of the site which are to be landscaped in accordance with

condition 22 above shall be subsequently used for other purposes without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained.


24. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall

be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 0730 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public holidays. The prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained before carrying out any work outside the permitted hours.

Reason: In order to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of nearby dwellings

INFORMATIVES INFORMATIVE: REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION 1. Having regard to all the relevant material planning considerations, permission has been granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, the development would not materially harm any interest of acknowledged importance. 2. The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals of the development plan and in particular Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994: Proposal PM12: Northfleet Power Station, Northfleet Proposal PE1: Sites for New Employment (B2 or B8) Policy R1: The commercial riverside – maintenance of the river frontage for water transport. Policy R2: The commercial riverside – wharves Policy E0: General Employment Policy

Policy TC0: General Townscape, Conservation and Design Policy TC1: Design of New Development. Policy T1: Impact of Development on the Highway Network Policy T5: New Access onto Highway Network Policy P3: Vehicle Parking Standards Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) Draft deposit Version 2000: Policy MDS2: Former Northfleet Power Station Policy E4: New Employment Areas Policy TR3: Public Access to the Riverside Policy BE12: Design of New Development Extensions and Alterations Policy T1: Location of Development Policy T12: New Access on Highway and Public Transport Network Policy T14: Freight Policy T16: Car Parking Standards Policy NE23: Tidal Flood Risk Policy LT2: Development of Green Grid Sites. South East Plan Policy KTG1: Core Strategy Policy KTG2: Economic Growth and Employment Policy KTG3: Employment Locations Policy RE3: Employment and Land Provision Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Regulation 25 document – Issues and Options) Core Strategy Policy 2: Urban Areas Core Strategy Policy 5: Design and Development Principles Core Strategy Policy 10: Economy and Employment Development Management Policy 3: Protecting Amenity Development Management Policy 4: Design Development Management Policy 14: Maintaining Employment Capacity Development Management Policy 15: New Employment Development Management Policy 32: Transport Network and Accesses Development Management Policy 33: Vehicle Parking Standards. 3. In addition the Local Planning Authority had regard to: The Borough Council’s adopted vehicle parking standards. Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998. Central Government Planning Policy Guidance PPS1, PPS4 and PPG13. INFORMATIVE: WORKS OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE

Code of Practice for construction/demolition sites within the Borough of Gravesham – append to decision INFORMATIVE: APPROVED DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS. For the avoidance of doubt the approved drawings/documents are: Red Line Plan Drawing No 1110 P(0)11A Proposed Warehouse Layout Drawing No 1110 P(0)10A Proposed Elevations Drawing No 1110 P(0)2 Typical Warehouse Section Drawing No 1110 P(0)1H Proposed Layout

13 week date application no. date of meeting report no. former

Documents