rd july 2008 page no. - medway · mc2006/1952 construction of 18 x 6 metres high posts with fixed...

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR 23RD JULY 2008 Page no. 1 MC2007/0553 Rochester West Details pursuant to condition 7 (lighting) of planning permission MC2007/0553 for the construction of five 2-storey accommodation blocks to create 300 additional prison places with ancillary buildings (sports centre, training and education facilities, extensions to existing kitchen and segregation facilities), additional car parking and reception facilities, security lighting and fencing HMP, Rochester, Kent ME1 3LU 4 2 MC2007/0553 Rochester West Details pursuant to condition 3 (landscaping) and 4 (landscape management) of planning permission MC2007/0553 for the construction of five 2-storey accommodation blocks to create 300 additional prison places with ancillary buildings (sports centre, training and education facilities, extensions to existing kitchen and segregation facilities), additional car parking and reception facilities, security lighting and fencing HMP, Rochester, Kent ME1 3LU 9 3 MC2008/0702 Gillingham North Construction of a link building between the southern and central buildings, formation of an all weather 8 lane athletics track incorporating football pitch, formation of sculptured mound to form a spectator embankment, erection of a new multi purpose sports hall with changing facilities and disabled access link to reception Black Lion Leisure Centre Mill Road Gillingham ME7 1HL 13 4 MC2004/1883 Rainham Central Construction of extension to existing class A1 foodstore to form an additional 2,475 sqm gross floor area, relocated petrol filling station, revised service yard, new site access arrangements, reconfigured and enlarged shoppers car park, new store elevations, landscaping and surface treatments and ancillary plant equipment Tesco, Courteney Road, Gillingham, Kent 38 5 MC2004/1681 Rainham Central Outline application for demolition of buildings and construction of 8 industrial units and 11 trade units with associated parking Crest Packaging Site, Courteney Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 61 6 MC2004/1214 Gillingham North Outline application for the redevelopment of former industrial works to provide 808 residential units, live/work units, retail use (class A1), restaurant (class A3), hotel (class C1) with ancillary pub and restaurant (ancillary class A3), doctors surgery (class C1), harbour masters and chandler, 93 bed student accommodation, new access arrangements, associated landscaping and car parking (demolition of all existing buildings). Berkeley Homes (Eastern) Ltd, Berkeley House, 7- Oakhill Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13, 1NO. 75

DC0902MW

Page no. 7 MC2008/0223 Rochester West Outline application for construction of a 4 storey block comprising 24 flats with associated access road and car parking with replacement of jetty and moorings Safety Bay House Warwick Crescent Rochester ME1 3LE 80 8 MC2007/1498 Strood North Demolition of buildings and construction of a part two part three storey block comprising two 1 bedroomed flats and eight 2 bedroomed flats and two storey building comprising two 1 bedroomed flats with provision for 12 associated parking spaces Land at and to the rear of 109 Frindsbury Road Strood Rochester ME2 4JD 95 9 MC2008/0798 Rochester East Increase in roof height to form additional level to accommodate four 1-bedroomed flats with external escape stair case to rear (Resubmission of MC2007/0165) 80-86 John Street, Rochester, Kent ME1 1YW 106 10 MC2008/0548 Peninsula Construction of a two storey block comprising five 2-bedroomed self-contained flats with associated parking Land adjacent to Bells Lane and Kingsnorth Close Hoo Rochester Kent 111 11 MC2008/0714 Rainham North Construction of a detached double garage to side/rear with door canopy attaching to existing dwelling Chapel Cottage 367 Pump Lane Gillingham ME8 7TJ 118 12 MC2008/0715 Rainham North Listed Building Consent for construction of a detached double garage to side/rear with door canopy attaching to existing dwelling Chapel Cottage 367 Pump Lane, Gillingham, Kent ME8 7TJ 125 13 MC2008/0749 Rainham Central Outline application for demolition of outbuildings and construction of one pair of semi-detached dwellinghouses with parking Land Rear of 343 & 343A Maidstone Road (fronting Tanker Hill) Rainham Gillingham ME8 0HU 126 14 MC2008/0793 Strood Rural Stationing of three caravans and one WC/laundry portacabin, new path and associated plant for agricultural workers Newlands Farm Station Road Cliffe Rochester ME3 7RU 131 15 MC2008/0828 Strood Rural Construction of a detached house with integral garage (resubmission) Land rear of Lingley House, Elm Avenue, Chattenden, Rochester, Kent ME3 8LZ 139

DC0902MW

BACKGROUND PAPERS The relevant background papers relating to the individual applications comprise: the applications and all supporting documentation submitted therewith; and items identified in any Relevant History and Information section and Representations section with a report. Any information referred to is available for inspection in the Planning Offices of the Council at the Gun wharf, Chatham.

DC0902MW

1 MC2007/0553

Date Received: 4th April 2007

Location: H M P, Rochester, Kent ME1 3LU

Proposal: Details pursuant to condition 7 (lighting) of planning permission MC2007/0553 for the construction of five 2-storey accommodation blocks to create 300 additional prison places with ancillary buildings (sports centre, training and education facilities, extensions to existing kitchen and segregation facilities), additional car parking and reception facilities, security lighting and fencing

Applicant: Stocks Her Majestys Principal Secretary of State for the Home

Department c/o National Offenders Management Service (NOMS) Abell House, John Islip Street London SW1P 4LH

Agent: Ms V Finch Jacobs Ltd 1 City Walk Leeds West Yorkshire LS11 9DX Ward: Rochester West Recommendation - Approval details pursuant to Conditions 7 (lighting) of planning permission MC2007/0553 dated 9th November 2007 The lighting details, submitted under cover of letter dated 17th March 2008 pursuant to Condition 7 of planning permission MC2007/0553, and amended by letters received on 19th May 2008 and 20 June 2008, be approved. For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.

Site Description This submission of details relates to approximately 4 hectares at HMP Borstal covered by application MC2007/0553 for the “construction of five 2-storey accommodation blocks to create 300 additional prison places with ancillary buildings (sports centre, training and education facilities, extensions to existing kitchen and segregation facilities), additional car parking and reception facilities, security lighting and fencing”. The site comprises the secure prison area, enclosed by 5.2 metres high security fencing, together with the surrounding land in ancillary uses: car parking, associated offices, visitors centre, staff mess farm buildings etc. and open land. Construction of buildings, both within the secure prison area and outside is already underway. Background Condition 7 of the planning permission stated that:

DC0902MW

“No external lighting shall be installed on any part of the development site hereby permitted unless it forms part of a lighting scheme which has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained.”

When the application was considered, Members specifically requested that the lighting details be referred back to the Committee for determination. Prior to the submission of these details, a public meeting was held on 4th March 2008 for local residents and Ward Councillors. In addition, the scheme has been the subject of informal discussions with the Council and with a Lighting Consultant acting on behalf of local residents. Proposal As originally submitted, the drawings showed a total of 124 lights; however, this drawing did not include any lights attached to the buildings. The submitted details have now been amended and now include the lights attached to the building; the total number of lights now shown is 219, of which 133 are external and 86 attached to buildings. These details relate only to that part of the prison complex to which the application relates and which are subject to this condition. The different types of light shown are: External lighting

1 Luminaire HQIT – 250w lights on 6 metre high columns to illuminate the car park (11) and the inner road (11);

2 Luminaire HQI-T – 250w lights on 10 metre high masts to illuminate the sports field (4);

3 Luminaire Flat glass– 150w SON P-T lights on 8 metre high columns to illuminate the perimeter fence. These would be positioned approximately 8 metres in from the south-west and part of the north-west perimeter fences (26);

4 Lantern flat glass 50w SON P-T lights on 6 metre high columns to illuminate the road to the south-west of the prison wall and internal roads (31);

5 Thorn piazza 11 70w lights mounted on fence at 4.5 metres above ground level. These lights would be positioned on the south-east and remainder of the north-west perimeter fences and one internal fence and would illuminate the open area of land, within the prison, to the north-east of the new development (44);

6 HQI-T 70w lights mounted on fence at 5 metres above ground level. These lights would illuminate the prison entrance, loading area and exercise yard (6);

Building lights

7 External bulkhead 70w wall mounted lights at 2.2m to staff facilities building (3), visitors’ reception (3), gatehouse (6), visits building (13), and administration (5);

8 External luminaire Pantheon 42w lights mounted at 2.3m to Sports Hall (10); 9 Emergency bulkhead lights mounted over doors mounted at 2.1m to staff facilities

building (1), visitors’ reception (1), gatehouse (5), visits building (8), healthcare (2), education (4), houseblock 1 (4), houseblock 2 (4), houseblock 3 (4), super houseblock (5), sports changing (2), sports hall (3) and administration (3).

DC0902MW

It is also stated on the submitted drawing that the existing fence lighting columns are to be removed. The building lights would operate 24 hours a day. The drawing also shows eight existing columns to be removed.

Relevant Planning History MC2001/2037 Circular 18/84 application for erection of a new 5.2 metre high security

fence around sports field Local Authority objection 1 March 2002 MC2002/0865 Circular 18/84 application for erection of a new 5.2 metre high security

fence around sports field together with a 2.4 metres high boarded timber fence to residential side

Approved 31 December 2003 MC2002/1502 Consultation under Circular 18/84 for installation of 8 security cameras

on 12 metres high columns No objection 29 October 2002 MC2005/1244 Circular 18/84 application for construction of 5.2m high security fencing

to boundary, Approved, 22 August 2005.

MC2006/1952 Construction of 18 x 6 metres high posts with fixed lighting, 5 x 12m high

masts with fixed CCTV cameras Approved 18 December 2006

MC2006/1884 Construction of 100m section of 5.2m high mesh fencing between steel

posts with coiled wire topping; two sets of access gates and four pedestrian gates.

Approved 16 January 2007 MC2007/0553 Construction of five 2-storey accommodation blocks to create 300

additional prison places with ancillary buildings (sports centre, training and education facilities, extensions to existing kitchen and segregation facilities), additional car parking and reception facilities, security lighting and fencing

Approved 9 November 2007 MC2007/2292 Change of use of open space to additional garden land with 2 metre

fencing and gates to the properties 1-28 Sir Evelyn Road, Rochester Approved 14 February 2008 Representations Consultation letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of 1a, 1b, 1-28 (consec), Hill View, North View, South View and Harbour View, Sir Evelyn Road; and 1-61 (odd) St. John’s Way. Letters have also been sent to Natural England and the Kent Wildlife Trust 49 letters have been received making the following comments:

• The lighting would have an adverse effect on home life;

DC0902MW

• There are too many lights; • Fence must be fully clad to stop light spillage and improve security; • Excessive lighting can result in sleep deprivation; • The lighting could impact on bats and insects; • More subtle lighting could be used; • Adverse effect in night skies; • Level of lighting proposed is beyond that required for this category of prison; • Landscaping will not reduce light spillage; • Fast growing trees should be planted; • No lights should face away from the prison; • Excessive number of lights wastes energy and increases carbon footprint; • Excessive lighting will infringe human rights; • Lights should be subject to a sensor system only coming on when required; • If the proposed lighting scheme goes ahead, houses will need blackout blinds. • Lights have been installed which are not shown on the application.

All consultees and objectors have been notified of the receipt of revised plans, resulting in a further 42 letters.

• Additional lights would affect quality of life and bats feeding areas; • The additional lights should have been shown at the public meeting and when

the scheme was first submitted and not added later; • No need for this number of lights; • The security fence should be clad to reduce glare and increase security,

reducing the need for this number of lights; • The level of lighting will affect sleep patterns and health; • Lighting should be trialed first before being given consent; • Security cameras should not face towards houses; • Members are asked to visit the site.

Cllr Mark Reckless has written stating that Members should visit the site after dark to see the impact of the lights, the M of J should give an assurance that the level of lighting is the minimum consistent with operational security and the perimeter fence should be clad. 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 (Neighbour Amenity) Policy BNE5 (Lighting) Planning Appraisal The lighting proposals, submitted pursuant to this condition fall to be assessed under the above-mentioned policies in terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the area

DC0902MW

and the effect on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties. In this context, regard should be paid to both the appearance of the lights and columns themselves and the impact of the lights when illuminated. Local Plan Policy BNE5 states that external lighting schemes should demonstrate that they are the minimum necessary for security, safety and working purposes. Development should seek to minimise the loss of amenity from light glare and spillage, particularly effecting residential areas, areas of nature conservation interest and the landscape qualities of countryside areas. The proposed lighting scheme, both as originally submitted and as amended, has been assessed by both the Council’s Street Lighting Engineer and a Lighting Consultant engaged by local residents. As can be seen from the Planning History of the site, there have been several planning applications in the past in relation to fencing, lighting and security cameras. Some of these relate to that part of the prison outside the current application site. Lighting installed under these earlier applications was very strong and has resulted in complaints from local residents. In response to these complaints, this lighting has been switched off and where it relates to the existing prison replaced by Thorn Piazza 11 70w lighting mounted on the fence, similar to that shown under the current proposals. The submitted details show a lighting impact assessment of the site both as existing (i.e. with previously approved lighting switched on) and as proposed. This assessment shows that as existing, a light level of 5 lux would extend towards and effect the rear of 20-23 Sir Evelyn Road and a light level of 2 lux would extend towards and effect 3-9 and 14-28 Sir Evelyn Road and would also effect part of the cricket ground on the north side of the road. Under the proposed scheme, the 5 lux contour would be contained within the enclosed area of the prison with 1 and 2 lux contours overspilling the fence slightly, but not extending more than 5 metres beyond the fence. Essentially there are three potential impacts of lighting: glare, sky glow and light spillage. The submitted details show that light trespass has been minimised under the proposed scheme, especially when compared to the “existing situations”. Glare occurs when light is emitted directly from a source and occurred when the previous lighting was installed. By positioning the lights so that they do not shine directly towards nearby houses and reducing the intensity of lighting, glare can be minimised. The details show that every attempt has been made to position the lights so that they do not shine towards houses. Sky glow occurs where light spills upward. The drawings show that all lights would be capped and would shine downwards, thereby minimising sky glow. Conclusion and reasons for recommendation of approval of details pursuant to Condition 7 The details are considered to be acceptable in terms of appearance and impact on nearby properties, having regard to operation needs of the establishment and the need to minimise the impact whilst maintaining the required level of security. Accordingly, the details are recommended for approval.

DC0902MW

2 MC2007/0553


Location: H M P, Rochester, Kent ME1 3LU Proposal: Details pursuant to condition 3 (landscaping) and 4 (landscape

management) of planning permission MC2007/0553 for the construction of five 2-storey accommodation blocks to create 300 additional prison places with ancillary buildings (sports centre, training and education facilities, extensions to existing kitchen and segregation facilities), additional car parking and reception facilities, security lighting and fencing

Applicant: Stocks Her Majestys Principal Secretary of State for the Home

Department c/o National Offenders Management Service (NOMS) Abell House, John Islip Street London SW1P 4LH

Agent: Ms V Finch Jacobs Ltd 1 City Walk Leeds West Yorkshire LS11 9DX Ward: Rochester West Recommendation - Approval details pursuant to Conditions 3 (landscaping) and 4 (landscape maintenance) of planning permission MC2007/0553 dated 9th November 2007 The revised landscaping details, submitted under cover of letter dated 4th June 2008 pursuant to Condition 7 of planning permission MC2007/0553, and amended by letter received on 20th June 2008, be approved. For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report.

Site Description and background These aspects have been set out on the preceding item on this agenda relating to the lighting details Proposal Details were first submitted on 12 March 2008 with minor revisions received on 28 March 2008. To address issues raised following consultation with residents on the first scheme, a further revision has now been received. The submitted details identify 4 areas to be landscaped:

1 Triangular area to rear of St. John’s Way show an area of rough grass to be retained for bat habitat, a meadow to be seeded with wild flower seed and a 2m high bund. To be planted with 1,263 trees and 3,750 shrubs, plus quickthorn hedge. Small area at NW corner of prison by junction to be planted with climbers.

DC0902MW

This area is the only part to be amended, under the latest proposals which show 16 x 7-8 metres high and 2 x 5-6 metres high Austrian Pine trees.

2 Triangular area to rear of 1-22 Sir Evelyn Road show an area of lawn grass with a mown grass path. A 1m high (10m wide) earth bund along southern boundary to prison wall to be provided and planted with pedunculatte oak, ash, hazel, field maple, horn beam, bullace plum and taxus baccata. An orchard with 14 fruit trees to be planted to rear of 23-28 Sir Evelyn Road.

3 Area of structured planting along south-west boundary to site, along top of ridge overlooking Nashenden Valley. Area of structured planting (1,610 sq. m.) with 438 trees and 1,284 shrubs. Existing trees to be retained and bat boxes added. Wild flower mix to be planted on grass areas.

4 Continuation of area 3 with another structure planting zone to rear of new reception and staff buildings and car park. 1,312 sq. m. with 287 trees and 1,061 shrubs. There will also be some planting within the proposed car park and additional planting on grassed areas. Again, bat boxes to be added to existing trees.

Relevant Planning History MC2007/0553 Construction of five 2-storey accommodation blocks to create 300

additional prison places with ancillary buildings (sports centre, training and education facilities, extensions to existing kitchen and segregation facilities), additional car parking and reception facilities, security lighting and fencing

Approved 9 November 2007 MC2007/2292 Change of use of open space to additional garden land with 2 metre

fencing and gates to the properties 1-28 Sir Evelyn Road, Rochester Approved 14 February 2008 Representations Consultation letters have been sent to the owners/occupiers of 1a, 1b, 1-28 (consec), Hill View, North View, South View and Harbour View, Sir Evelyn Road; and 1-61 (odd) St. John’s Way. Letters have also been sent to Natural England and Kent Wildlife Trust. Kent Wildlife Trust has written supporting the proposals and welcoming the focus on habitat creation and biodiversity enhancement. Natural England has no comment. 18 letters have been received from residents of Sir Evelyn Road supporting the landscaping proposals and making the following comments:

• The tree planting will provide a screen that will soften the impact of the prison buildings;

• The meadow garden will encourage wildlife and give something back to the community;

• The area should be a dog free zone to encourage children; • The work should be done as soon as possible.

5 e-mails have been received from residents of 3 properties in St. John’s Way making the following comments:

DC0902MW

• Ash trees lose their leaves in winter and the proposed planning is of insufficient

height to provide any sort of screen; • Either evergreen trees should be planted or the fence height raised; • There should be strong provision for maintenance; • Windows from buildings overlook the rear of houses in St. John’s Way and

even with landscaping there would be no privacy; • The land has always been fenced and private. If the area becomes open it

could attract anti-social behaviour. The land should remain fenced. All consultees and objectors have been notified of the receipt of revised plans resulting in 19 letters objecting to the revised landscaping proposals on the following grounds:

• The intended re-instatement of the ‘L3’ land on the south-west side of the prison falls short due to the use of inappropriate materials and is not being restored to its original condition;

• There is limited data on how bats respond to the change in habitat and foraging around;

• The loss of the bat foraging ground; • The original earth should have been stockpiled and used; • The landscaping and mitigation works are behind schedule; • The landscaping work already carried out is not being properly watered or

maintained; • The works have done nothing to soften the impact of the prison; • The visual mitigation is ineffective and the whole site should be clad; • The larger trees only provide partial screening and do not benefit all properties; • Waiting 10 years for adequate screening to be established would affect

properties; • Residents in St. John’s Way have not been given land to extend their gardens

(as have residents in Sir Evelyn Road); Development Plan Policies Medway Local Plan 2003 Policy BNE6 Landscape Design Planning Appraisal Landscape assessment Assessing each element of the scheme in turn: Rear of St. John’s Way Substantial planting on top of a 2m high bund would provide a substantial screen which, when established would significantly soften, but would not necessarily totally screen the development. The scheme has been enhanced by additional planting as shown on the revised plans, particularly the Austrian Pines. This part of the scheme is important in view of the proximity of the proposed accommodation block to the houses in St. John’s Way. The proposed planting falls short of leylandii, suggested by some residents which would, if

DC0902MW

established, totally block out any views of the development, but would also block out existing views, restrict light and be out of character with native planting. Rear of Sir Evelyn Road A scheme that residents appear to be pleased with, will provide bunding and planting which will considerable soften the impact of both the proposed development and the existing prison buildings and wall. Planting will also enhance appearance of the area of land and turn it into a valuable amenity. Planting along south-west boundary Shown as two areas on submitted drawings. Substantial planting along top of ridge would improve screening. Currently, prison buildings are visible from several locations in Medway Valley. Also planting within proposed car park and existing grassed areas will enhance appearance of this side of the prison. L3 land In response to the concerns raised by local residents regarding the L3 land, the applicants’ agent advises that this will be restored to its original condition following completion of building works. Conclusion and reasons for recommendation of approval of details pursuant to Conditions 3 and 4 The landscaping proposals are considered to be acceptable. The species are considered to be acceptable and the planting would enhance the appearance of the locality and soften the impact of the development, increasingly so as the planting becomes established. Accordingly, the details are recommended for approval.

DC0902MW

3 MC2008/0702


Location: Black Lion Leisure Centre Mill Road Gillingham ME7 1HL Proposal: Construction of a link building between the southern and central

buildings, formation of an all weather 8 lane athletics track incorporating football pitch, formation of sculptured mound to form a spectator embankment, erection of a new multi purpose sports hall with changing facilities and disabled access link to reception

Applicant: Ms Upton Medway Council Assistant Director Corporate Services Agent: Ms A Bloomfield Bloomfields Limited 66 College Road Maidstone

Kent ME15 6SJ Ward: Gillingham North Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. 2 Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place until there

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before any part of the development is brought into use and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally and any means of

enclosure (to include the materials to be used on the athletics track) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4 Notwithstanding the approved plans no development shall take place until full

details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. external furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc). Soft landscape works shall include details of a green wall, 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

DC0902MW

implementation programme. 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.

5 No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a

minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

6 Prior to the 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 provided and approved in writing by the Authority prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

7 No development shall take place until an event management plan has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The management plan shall be updated peridoically as and when conditions arise or yearly, whichever is the earlier. The mangement plan shall include the number of visitors proposed, their method of travel etc. The management plan shall thereafter be implemented as set out in the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8 No development shall take place until the developer has secured the

implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the Local Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written programme and specification which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Authority and shall thereafter be implemented as approved.

9 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a construction

code of practice that describes measures to control noise and dust impacts arising from the construction phase of the development shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing.

10 Prior to the first use of the athletics track or football pitch details of any outside

tannoy systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the shall be implemented in accordance with the approval unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

11 No tannoy system shall operate other than between the hours of 09:00 to 22:00

Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 20:00 Sundays and National Holidays.

DC0902MW

12 No external lighting shall be installed for the athletics track and football pitch hereby permitted unless it has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including approval of hours of use and intensity and direction of illumination.

13 Prior to the commencement of development, details shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing measures to protect retained trees from damage during construction works. These measures shall comply with BS5837:2005. The approved measures shall be installed prior to the commencement of development or the bringing onto site of any plant, materials or other equipment in connection with the development, and shall be maintained until development is complete and all plant, materials and other equipment have been removed from the site.

14 Notwithstanding the approved Arboriculture Impact Assessment, no development

shall take place until details of the trees shown for retention/removal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

15 Prior to the commencement of develeopment details shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the proposed site compound/storage area. The compound/storage area shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing.

16 Access to the site by site traffic and for deliveries of materials shall be agreed in

witing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development and shall thereafter be the only access to the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

17 Details of a parking management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The parking strategy shall include:-

• measures to manage and control non-leisure centre parking, both short-and long-stay.

• measures to manage and control staff parking • measures to provide and control a limited time drop-off zone • details of overspill car parking facilities, both in terms of the existing

provision and the proposed provision following completion of the development

• details of existing coach parking facilities and details of arrangements to provide for overspill coach parking following completion of the development

• details of how the parking demand will be monitored once the development is operational

• a list of actions in respect of the above for completion before and after the opening of the development, to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority

The parking strategy shall then be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

DC0902MW

18 Prior to the first use of the development, a Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including measures for effecting a "modal shift" to modes of transport other than the private car. An updated Plan shall thereafter be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval at intervals no more than 3 years from the date of the previous approval by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as part of the Plan.

19 No tree felling or vegetation clearance in connection with this development shall be

undertaken within the bird breeding season of March to August (inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should tree felling or vegetation clearance be agreed within the bird breeding period, a check (by a qualified person/group agreed in writing in advance by the local planning authority) for the presence of breeding birds shall be carried out no more than 24 hours prior to the felling or clearance, and felling or clearance shall not be undertaken if breeding birds are found to be present.

20 The recommendations in section 5.4.1 of the ecological survey report submitted by

the landscape partnership and received on 11th March 2008 regarding the installation of deadwood piles and the installation of hedgehog domes shall be carried out within a timescale to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

21 Prior to the felling or removal of any mature tree, an inspection (by a qualified

person/group agreed in writing in advance by the local planning authority) shall be undertaken to establish whether the tree is used for bat roosts. Should bat roosts be found, then an equivalent number of bat boxes shall be installed in a suitable location close to the site of the removed tree prior to its removal.

22 Prior to commencement of the development, details of improvements to pedestrian

access to the leisure centre from Mill Road, Jeffrey Street and Brompton Road including marked pedestrian priority routes across the car park, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented prior to first use of the development.

23 Prior to the commencement of the development details of the Sedum roof system

to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include the species, method for laying, timescale for laying and ongoing maintainence programme. The approved details shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved implementation programme and maintained thereafter.

For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report. Introduction The primary objective of this development is to create top quality training facilities for a London 2012 pre-games training camp, while providing a long lasting legacy for the residents of Medway. It is intended that this development will put Medway on the national and

DC0902MW

international map, while having the additional benefit of delivering an asset to be used by all Medway residents for many decades to come and forming an integral part of Chatham’s bid to become a World Heritage Site. Medway Council has submitted a bid to the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) and Sport England for its facilities to be considered as potential pre games training camps in the run-up to 2012. Works to the interior of the centre have already commenced at Medway Park to create a regional centre of sporting excellence. It was announced in early March 2008 that this venue, together with Jumpers Rebound Centre, have both now been approved as training camps and will be included in a special guide to be distributed to athletes during the Beijing Games. Site Description The application relates to the Black Lion Leisure Centre and associated land. In total the site comprises some 6.69 ha located to the north of Brompton Road and west of Mill Road. The site is situated within the Brompton Lines Conservation Area and the area proposed for the Great Lines City Park. The Public footpath linking Khyber Road and Prince Arthur Road forms its northern boundary. To the west is the King Charles Hotel. The centre of Gillingham is located some 400m to the south east, with Chatham town centre some 1.2m to the south west. The site comprises a collection of buildings – to the south the “wet” side buildings that house the swimming pools, in the centre the “dry side” buildings which comprise the sports hall, gym, reception, squash courts and offices, and to the north the most recent addition to the complex the Jumpers Rebound Centre a national trampolining centre which is accessed and operated separately to the Black Lion Leisure Centre. Associated car parking is sited to the north and east of the buildings with vehicular access from Mill Road. To the west of the buildings is a large area of grass laid to football pitches. The site boundaries are made up of lots of mature trees, which in part screen the buildings. Proposal This is a full application and proposes:

• Erection of a link block between the southern and central buildings. • Formation of an all-weather 8-lane athletics track with football pitch in the centre. • Sculptured mound to form a spectator embankment. • New multi purpose sports hall, with changing facilities and disabled access link to

reception. The proposed mulit-purpose sports hall has been designed and set out to Sport England guidelines for a 12 court Multi-purpose sports hall (overall clear dimensions 33m x 54m x 9.1m high) set on the lower ground floor level with the existing Main Hall (with its proposed use to be changed to a Gymnastics Hall).

DC0902MW

The proposed link building provides access via a series of internal ramps to the multi-purpose sports hall, which is set approx. 2.24m below the existing entrance reception floor level. This building is proposed to contain male and female-changing rooms designed to Sport England standards for accessible changing rooms. A plant room is proposed at roof level above the changing rooms to house the mechanical and ventilation plant to the adjoining sports hall. This can be accessed via a door on the roof located at first floor level within the re-sited Health and Fitness Suite. Access into the site would remain as existing and the car park would largely remain unchanged; although circulation would be improved though signage. The submissions also contained a Statement of Community Involvement, which advised that the applicant undertook community consultation regarding the development of Medway Park. These public consultations included:

• Special briefing of the Local Strategic partnership held on January 16, 2007. • All-member briefing of the council held on January 16, 2007. • Presentation to Medway Youth Parliament held on February 23, 2007. • Presentation to Medway Sports Council held on February 23, 2007. • National Governing Bodies consulted include gymnastics, athletics and judo. • Presentation at launch of World Heritage Partnership on June 14, 2007. • Consultations with businesses on the Gillingham Town Centre Development

Framework • A stand at the Black Lion Leisure Centre from 6-8 June 2008

Relevant Planning History NK3/67/80 Erection of sports stadium, sports hall, swimming pool and

ancillaries. Approved 24th October 1967.

NK3/67/80(1) Erection of sports stadium, sports hall, swimming pool and

ancillaries. Approved 8th August 1968.

NK3/67/80B(1) Erection of sports stadium, sports hall, swimming pool and

ancillaries. Approved 4th June 1971.

GL/67/80C Details of swimming pool.

Approved 24th June 1971. GL/67/80D Details of Phase 2 sports hall, subsidiary halls, squash courts,

club rooms and ancillary facilities for storage, changing rooms and office accommodation. Approved 16th June 1977.

GL/67/80E Temporary permission for construction of skateboard park

including portable toilets, shop and café. Approved 20th June 1978.

DC0902MW

GL/67/80H Three floodlights and first aid caravan. Approved 22nd December 1978.

GL/67/80K Conversion of Skateboard Park to BMX Park and placing two

temporary buildings for club hut and toilet. Approved 21st March 1985.

GL/67/80M Erection of building for use as reception and refreshment/sales

area and for storage of equipment together with the erection of fences, structures and landscaping in connection with laying out and use of site as BMX park. Approved 3rd November 1987.

GL/67/80N Addition of an entrance lobby and replacement glazed screen to

front and rear. Approved 5th December 1989.

GL/93/0093/67/0080 New trampoline centre, changing rooms and associated car

parking. Approved 7th April 1993.

GL/97/0181/67/0080 Provision of all weather pitch, lighting columns, new access road

and extension to sports centre to provide changing facilities. Approved 20th May 1997.

MC2007/2095 Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999 for a

screening opinion to determine the need for an environmental statement to accompany a planning application for: erection of a new link block between the southern and central buildings to create a new reception area and "street" on two levels; enhancements to the leisure centre entrance; formation of an 8-lane running track with football pitch in the centre; semi-covered viewing area to athletics track and new gymnastics hall

Full Environmental Impact Assessment is not necessary 7th December 2007

Representations The application has been advertised on site and in the press. Consultation letters have been sent to Medway Fire Service, Brompton Conservation Association, Kent County Constabulary, Kent County Council Archaeological Officer, Kent Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Medway Towns Sports Council, Sport England, English Heritage, Consultation letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of numbers :- 2, 3, 4, 4a, High Street, 3-7, 8, 9, flat A 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28a, 29, 29a, 30, 30a, 31, 31a, 32, 33, 33a, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 41a, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 46a, 47, Flats 1 to 6 (inclusive) 47a, 48, 48a, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 57a, Flat A 57a, Flat B 57b, 58, 59, 60, Flats 1 to 9 (inclusive) 61, Mill Road, Urchins Kindergarden Marlborough Road, Royal School of Military Engineering, Dock Road, King

DC0902MW

Charles Hotel, Staff Accommodation and the Subaqua Club at the King Charles Hotel, Brompton Road, Indoor Bowling Centre Prince Arthur Road, 18, 82 Medway Road. 15 Letters have been received making the following comments:

• Should remain as an open space • Green area used by adults and children 7 days a week for recreation and would be

lost, departure from policy L3 of the local plan and direct contravention of national Planning Policy Guidance 17

• Cutting down of trees is unacceptable, need mature trees for birds and a healthy environment

• Lack of parking already in the area for residents exacerbated by the building of Mid Kent College

• Protected open space and should not be fenced in • Concern over lack of notification and consultation • This field is the last and only field in North Gillingham serving thousands of people

in the local communities • May only be used by a limited number of Olympians • Will not improve the quality of life or give any benefit to local residents • Another sports facility in Strood which is under-used and a running track at

Brompton Barracks • Once the Olympic Games are over the facility would be under-used and a burden

to rate payers • Increase the already heavy traffic using Medway, Prince Arthur and Mill Road • Increase the need for parking • Part of the important Fields of Fire flanking the Scheduled Ancient Monument

Fortifications. The historical interest of the Fields of Fire would be damaged and its importance lost forever and damage the World Heritage Bid

• Out of keeping with the character and surroundings of the architecture of the Brompton Conservation area particularly with a high wire netting fence surrounding it

• Have a degrading affect on the findings of the Local Area Agreement • Have a negative impact on Gillingham High Street through the removal of visitor

parking • Proposed Green Travel Plan will not be tested until development is complete and

will put additional unsustainable pressure on local public transport which would conflict with the Green Travel Plan for the new Mid Kent College

• Object to any more traffic being introduced to Medway Road • Cumulative effects of other surrounding major development yet to be completed in

the area has not been taken into account. The Medway Council plans for Projects 2 and 3 of the Medway Park Scheme as illustrated in the Sep/Oct 2007 edition of Medway Matters have not been revealed or taken into account in this application

• Concerns over the validity of the supporting documents with regard to section 6.1 of the Transport Assessment

• No further development should be allowed in the area until the consultation on the Controlled parking Zone for the area has taken place

• When the Olympic Games are over who are the intended users of this additional facility

• Flood lights would be a nuisance to those houses facing the site

DC0902MW

• Speaker systems carry sound a long way and events have the potential to become noisy and a disturbance to the houses nearby

• Council are breaking their own policy Kent Police have written with the following comments:

• Suitable access control should be incorporated internally to restrict unauthorised access and segregate parts of the centre dependant on visitor usage requirements

• Review and enhance CCTv coverage of the site to enhance user safety and the sustainability of the facilities

• Trees should be thinned or have canopies raised and borders maintained under 1m to reduce vehicle crime

• Re-define parking bays along with better signage and circulation • Link pay and display facilities in the car park with parking attendant enforcement

patrols • Security gates proposed should be of a similar height and composition to the

security fencing it will be adjoining • The existing 1.5m fencing to the front boundary is vulnerable to relatively easy

climbing which may then leave the new external sports facilities vulnerable to damage or similar, recommend high fencing

• Footpath to the north of the site linking Prince Arthur Road with Mill Road is relatively well used and the proposals may see this footpath widened at points or the creation of a more enclosed feel with slightly reduced surveillance due to the proposed landscaping or gabion retaining wall. The provision of lighting columns along this route and ensuring planting is thinned to maximum surveillance may aid user safety and reduce potential for a fear of crime here. Strategically placed bollards or cycle restrictions to prevent motor vehicles using this path may enhance the route and amenity of those using it or the sports facilities

• Retained storage sheds have graffiti and artwork over them at present, these may be better painted a single colour to improve visual look

• Consideration should be given to using security lighting around build lines of the centre to deter criminal activity

Chatham World Heritage Steering Group have written with the following comments:

• In support of the principle of enhancing the facilities at the existing Black Lion Leisure Centre

• Proposals appear to have minimised the loss of the perceptible open space and the proposed new building has been sensitively positioned

• Medway Park must be perceived as a benchmark for design and quality for future enhancements to the Great Lines City Park, and indeed to our centres (Gillingham in particular). Whilst the building must, by its very nature appear somewhat utilitarian, there are a variety of landscaping improvement measures which could be implemented to mitigate this utilitarianism, and which we would most strongly urge the developers to incorporate

Natural England have written with the following comments:

• The ecological survey report highlights the potential for bats to be roosting within some of the trees on the application site and using the wider application site for foraging and commuting. The survey report recommends further surveys for bats

DC0902MW

along with an assessment of the potential impacts resulting from increased lighting and the loss of possible roosts. Natural England generally recommends that this information is provided before determination of the application in accordance with ODPM Circular 06/2005. However should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application we recommend the imposition of a condition

• Site is known to support populations of breeding and resident bird species and the bird interest is likely to be focussed on the trees round the application site. The mitigation, in respect of timing tree clearance works outside of the bird breeding season and the use of native species in the landscaping along with the provision of artificial nest boxes appear appropriate to mitigate the potential impacts of this proposal on breeding birds. Therefore we recommend that should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application, such measures are secured through an appropriately worded condition

• The site has the potential to support hedgehogs and the stag beetle. Natural England supports the recommendations contained within Section 5.4.1 of the ecological survey report regarding the installation of deadwood piles and the installation of hedgehog domes and recommend that should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application, such measures are secured through an appropriately worded condition

• Natural England supports the creation of a wildflower meadow, the use of native species in the landscaping, the installation of bumble bee boxes and the creation of areas of rough grassland as an integral part of this development should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application, such measures are secured through an appropriately worded condition

• Draw Councils attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006)

• Where habitats are created as mitigation or enhancement for a development, these habitats should be subject to long-term management and monitoring to ensure that the populations of species affected are conserved and wherever possible enhanced. Natural England recommends that a management plan and monitoring programme should be produced for all habitats and species affected by this application, such a strategy is secured from the applicant through an appropriately worded condition. In addition, funding should be secured from the implementation of the management plan in perpetuity

• Applicant should ensure that any activity they undertake on the application site must comply with the appropriate wildlife legislation

Sport England have written with the following comments:

• The inclusion of the athletics track will result in the reconfiguration of the playing pitches, decreasing from two football pitches to one

• The proposed location of the sports centre does not impinge on any playing field land

• Given the significant overall potential of the scheme to increase participation in sport and active recreation, Sport England are satisfied that the proposed development complies with exception E5 to the above policy in that “The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sport facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields”

• Consequently Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to the proposed development and supports the planning application

DC0902MW

KCC Archaeological Officer has written with the following comments:

• The site is in an area of archaeological significance relating to prehistoric remains as well as the use of the site by the Royal Engineers as a Fieldwork Practice Grounds in the nineteenth Century

• The site lies close to a deposit of the 3rd Terrace River Gravels, such gravels have the potential to contain important remains relating to early prehistoric occupation of the area

• The Black Lion Field formed part of the “field of fire” of the Brompton Lines. The Brompton Lines fortification is a Scheduled Monument

• The present submission includes a suggested archaeological method statement. The general approach is one of a careful ground reduction under archaeological control to enable features to be mapped and sample excavated. This is an acceptable approach and is one that has recently been successfully used on the nearby Mid Kent College development.

• The present method statement needs to include greater provision for the mitigation of any pre-military archaeology on the site and provision for early prehistoric archaeology to the River Terrace Gravels.

• Should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application, such measures should be secured through an appropriately worded condition

English Heritage have written with the following comments:

• Are pleased to welcome the principle of enhancing the sporting and leisure facilities as a step in the regeneration of Medway

• Compatible with the aspiration for WHS status and an essential part of the emerging proposals for the Great Lines City Park

• The slight loss of existing open space to this project is justified in the context of the benefits it will bring although we are somewhat disappointed that the quality of the new building is not higher. In our view it is too similar to the existing large buildings on the site and thus makes little pretence at reducing its bulk. We think that more could be done to achieve a solution that in its external appearance befits this location and a prestige project.

• Enhancement of the sports facilities at Black Lion Field has been fully discussed with English Heritage by Medway Council in terms of the emerging proposals for the Great Lines City Park (GLCP) as a future component of a possible World Heritage Site at Chatham. The master plan for the GLCP is about to be commissioned and the brief for this includes the Black Lion area as a focus for improved sports and leisure facilities.

• Do not believe that this application is significantly at odds with the aspiration for WHS status. In terms of the GLCP we see it as a key component. It has been suggested to us that existing MOD sports facilities could be shared with the general public and thus avoid the need for the athletics track and football pitch. We acknowledge this as a possibility but are mindful of the proximity of the application site to both the existing Black Lion facilities, Gillingham as a town centre and the sites for the universities at Medway.

• In terms of the historic environment two types of impact from the proposal were identified at pre-application stage. These were:

o impact on buried archaeological remains, o impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area.

DC0902MW

• In terms of archaeological impacts a method statement is provided with the

application. I have contributed to the production of this and can confirm that it is appropriate for what we understand the archaeological potential of the site and the impact of the works to be. I suggest that a programme of archaeological works condition would be appropriate and the team at Kent CC might wish to suggest precise wording.

• In relation to the conservation area I think the supporting statement by Anna Bloomfield appropriately deals with the character of the conservation area and hence the impacts upon this. Within this I would include impacts upon the setting of the scheduled Chatham Lines. Site inspection has confirmed that although the application site is within the former field of fire of the fortifications there are no significant views of it from these, by virtue of the development that has taken place on the intervening land since the fortifications ceased to be functional.

• Openness is a key characteristic of the application site, both now and in the past. The connectivity of green space is a feature of the Great Lines part of the conservation area that derives from its former military function. The existing Black Lion Leisure Centre has already removed much of the former open character of Black Lion Field, as it existed during the period of military use. Thus for this application I find the issue is to determine whether this process should be allowed to continue to a marginal extent. Loss of two informal grass football pitches is a reduction in overall green space but replacement by a running track with a grass football pitch in its interior will still mean a high degree of openness. The space will be more formally ordered as an athletics ground but views across it will remain. The construction of the sports hall represents a loss of some further green space but it is a new increment to an already substantial complex of buildings and this in my view renders it acceptable.

• This project is important to Medway in many ways but from the position of care for the historic environment that English Heritage is charged with we think the new works need to be of the highest possible quality to reflect their location within a conservation area, a proposed major area of public park and a future World Heritage Site. Some of the design quality of the proposal appears to have been reduced since we first became aware of it and this is disappointing.

• Use of gabions for retaining walls is proposed around parts of the running track. This is a technique with a secure military heritage but it is not I suggest a solution usually adopted for very visible public places. My experience of such gabion structures is that they deteriorate quickly, trap litter and permit vegetation to grow amongst them. I am in particular concerned about the boundary with Church Path as a public footpath that has its origins in a route taken by the dockyard labour force from the direction of Gillingham. The visualisation of this provided in the application does I am sure not do justice to what the applicant intends but the gabions create a temporary feel beside what is a well used path and one from which a clear view of the enlarged complex is to be had. It would be preferable to adopt one of the commercially available systems of interlocking concrete blocks to create a retaining wall that is designed to facilitate growth of vegetation so as to soften the appearance.

• The new sports hall is by its nature a large volume building and in this it replicates the bulk and character of the existing Black Lion buildings. This is regrettable as these are very box like. It was to be hoped that more could be done to disguise the mass of the new addition to the complex. For example a more interesting shape to the roof might draw attention away from the size of the new building. The view of the end wall (NW side of new building) will be most prominent from the footpath discussed above and yet this elevation appears to be very bland to the point of plainness. It is

DC0902MW

understandable why there may not be any fenestration but there is seemingly very little variation in the materials to break up the expanse of this wall. Screening by planting will not in our view fully mitigate this.

• At present the new building may have world-class facilities inside of it but on the exterior it does not rise above the appearance of many other sports halls in less prominent locations. We would urge you to consider how far the design might be improved to soften the box shape. If the elevation has to be effectively blank different and more subtly varied materials might help. I suspect that such a wall could become a target for graffiti and this might be pre-empted by using the wall to announce the enhanced sports facility through some form of graphic display.

• Finally in earlier advice we commented that floodlighting of the facility could have an adverse impact on the character of this part of the conservation area and be seen from long distances in and around the Great Lines. It is noted that no such floodlighting is currently proposed but that a subsequent application will be made for lesser lighting around the athletics track.

• We support the principle of enhanced facilities at Black Lion Field but think that more could be done to achieve a solution that in its external appearance befits this location and a prestige project. We would urge you to continue to work on refinement to the design and choice of materials so to enhance the product should you be minded to accept the principle of this proposal.

Development Plan Policies The following Central Government guidance is relevant:

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) PPG13 (Transport) PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning) PPG17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation) PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) PPG24 (Planning and Noise) RPG 9 (Regional Planning Guidance for the South East) RPG9a (Thames Gateway Planning Framework)

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy SP1 (Sustainable pattern of development) Policy SS1 (Spatial priorities for development (including Thames Gateway &

North Kent) Policy SS4 (Previously developed land and sequential approach to

development) Policy SS6 (Enhancing existing communities) Policy ME1 (Medway) Policy EN8 (Protecting, conserving and enhancing biodiversity) Policy EN9 (Trees, woodland and hedgerows) Policy QL1 (Quality of development and design) Policy QL2 (Priorities for the public realm) Policy QL6 (Conservation Areas) Policy QL7 (Archaeological sites) Policy QL11 (Protecting and enhancing existing community services)

DC0902MW

Policy QL12 (Provision for new community services and infrastructure) Policy QL14 (Provision for major sporting venues) Policy QL15 (Formal and informal recreation/sport facilities) Policy TP1 (Integrated transport strategy) Policy TP3 (Transport and the location of development) Policy TP11 (Facilities for pedestrians and cyclists) Policy TP12 (Development and access to the primary/secondary road network) Policy TP19 (Vehicle parking standards) Policy NR1 (Development and the prudent use of natural resources) Policy NR5 (Pollution impacts)

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy S1 (Development strategy) Policy S2 (Strategic principles) Policy S4 (Landscape and urban design) Policy BNE1 (General principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise standards) Policy BNE4 (Energy efficiency) Policy BNE5 (Lighting) Policy BNE6 (Landscape design) Policy BNE7 (Access for all) Policy BNE12 (Conservation Areas) Policy BNE21 (Archaeological sites) Policy BNE22 (Environmental Enhancement) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated land) Policy BNE34 (Area of Local Landscape Importance) Policy BNE37 (Wildlife habitats) Policy BNE 39 (Protected Species) Policy BNE43 (Trees on development sites) Policy L1 (Existing leisure facilities) Policy L2 (New leisure facilities) Policy L3 (Protection of open space) Policy L8 (Dual use of recreational facilities) Policy T1 (Impact of development) Policy T2 (Access to development) Policy T3 (Provision for pedestrians) Policy T13 (Parking standards) Policy T14 (Travel Plans) Policy CF2 (New Community Facilities)

The site falls within the Brompton Lines Conservation Area and is the subject of the Brompton Lines Conservation Area Appraisal (2006). It also lies within the boundary of a candidate World Heritage Site (WHS) and proposed Great Lines Park. The Gillingham Town Centre Development Framework 2007 is also of indirect relevance to the proposed development.

DC0902MW

Planning Appraisal Sequential test The Black Lion Leisure Centre was chosen as the ideal site for this development for the following reasons:

• It is the largest facility of its type in Medway, being the only Regional Sports Centre.

• It is centrally placed within the Medway Towns as a whole and has good transport links to the wider catchment area.

• The Centre is between 29 to 34 years old and in desperate need of modernisation.

This work can be achieved, in part, by the proposed development.

• The adjoining trampoline centre – Jumpers Rebound Centre – offers a unique facility that is already of international importance being Europe’s only full specification trampoline centre.

• The site is very well related to the “Education Quarter” being developed immediately to

the north, with three Universities located in the immediate vicinity and Mid Kent College currently being constructed on neighbouring land. Students will therefore also benefit from having a wide range of sporting facilities on their doorstep. In addition, the University of Kent are stakeholders in the proposed redevelopment, with access to a dedicate Sports Science Suite and a Sports Therapy area which will be used as a teaching facility for students.

• Associated land is not only of adequate size, but also the correct proportions, to

accommodate an athletics track and hall.

• The site is located within the Activities Zone of the proposed Great Lines Park, so the proposed uses are wholly compatible with that designation.

These significant advantages are not found at other Leisure Centre or activity centre locations in Medway. There are no other regional centres, the next tier being that of district sports centre. The only centre that falls into this category is at Strood but this is not capable of accommodating the development because the 'footprint' of Strood Leisure Centre is completely full, leaving no room for development of other sporting activities to produce a centre of sporting excellence. It is also too geographically remote from the University of Kent. Local sports centres include the Stirling Centre at Rochester, Lordswood Leisure Centre and the Priestfield Sports Centre. There is inadequate land available to accommodate a track at these sites and they are poorly located in terms of the universities and are not in the heart of the urban area. Indoor swimming pools are located at Hoo St Werburgh and Splashes in Rainham with other facilities being available such as the Chatham Ski Centre at Capstone and Gillingham Ice Rink. None of these locations would be suitable for the proposed developments. There is a six-lane athletics track at Deangate but this will not meet the brief for the pre-games training camp which requires eight lanes, nor is it associated with the necessary indoor training facilities.

DC0902MW

There is an Athletics track at Brompton Barracks but this has a Red-Gra surface which is not suitable for club competitions and there are concerns with regard to the security issues associated. Principle of Development; Loss of Open Space At a regional level draft policy TSR3 of the South East Plan requires that “opportunities should be sought to protect, upgrade existing and develop new, regionally significant sports facilities, particularly in Thames Gateway ...” Paragraph iii of this draft policy requires Local Authorities to be proactive in maximising the benefits to local communities of any major or expanded sporting facilities. Paragraph iv continues by emphasising the need to “identify and promote opportunities for new investment in sports facilities in the (South East) region which will be needed to underpin the London Olympics in 2012.” This approach is set out in paragraph 14.49 of RPG9 – Regional Planning Guidance for the South East and endorses advice embodied in paragraph 5.4.15 of RPG9A – The Thames Gateway Planning Framework. The proposed development is considered to fully accord with this approach. Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Structure Plan) policy QL11 requires existing “community facilities” (which include sporting facilities) to be protected in the county, while policies QL2(e) and QL12 encourage the provision (amongst other things), of sporting facilities through the provision or upgrading of facilities in response to a growth in demand from the community as a whole. Policy QL14 recognises the need to provide for major sporting venues in Kent and policy QL15 places a requirement upon such facilities to be accessible by a choice of transport and designed to avoid nuisance from traffic, noise and lighting. Paragraph 7.2.2 of the Medway Local Plan (Local Plan) acknowledges that the existing provision of indoor sports facilities within Medway falls short of Sports Council standards. However, paragraph 7.2.3 goes on to state that the Council will “seek to enhance and expand existing facilities and will support the development of new leisure facilities where appropriate.” In order to implement the above objective, Local Plan policy L1 aims to protect existing facilities, while policy L2 relates to the provision of new leisure facilities and encourages these on sites within or on the edge of town centres. It is submitted that the Black Lion Leisure Centre falls squarely within this category. The proposed development will also fully satisfy Local Plan policy L8, which requires dual use to be made of recreational facilities. The application site is designated as protected open space under Policy L3 of the Local Plan. Policy QL15 and government guidance in PPG17 also seek to protect areas of open space, and this protection applies whether or not the open space in question is publicly accessible, as it can also have functions in terms of visual amenity and other environmental benefits. PPG17 places particular emphasis on restriction of development that would result in the loss of playing fields, as would be the case here. However, it does state that one category of development which is allowable on playing fields is when “the proposed development is for an outdoor or indoor sports facility of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the loss of the playing field” (Para 15 iv.). A similar exception is given in Policy L3 part (i) where sports and recreation facilities can best be implemented or retained and enhanced through redevelopment of a small part of the site. Sport England have also given this as a reason for not objecting to the application stating that “given the significant overall potential of the scheme to increase participation in sport and active recreation, Sport England are satisfied that the proposed development meets with

DC0902MW

exception E5 in that The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sport facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of port as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields” It is evident from preceding paragraphs that there is overwhelming support for the proposed development embodied not only in Central Government advice but also Regional Planning Guidance, the draft South East Plan, development plan polices and advice prepared by the Sports Council. It is therefore submitted that the proposed development is wholly acceptable in terms of the contribution it will make to leisure/sports facility provision with the Medway. Given this, it is considered that the benefit of the provision of new indoor sports facilities and an upgraded football pitch and 8-lane athletics track outweighs the loss of this area of open space. Accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with Policies QL11, QL12 and QL15 of the Structure Plan and Policies L2, L3, and CF2 of the Local Plan. It is also in accordance with government advice contained in PPG17. Impact upon Brompton Lines Conservation Area The Brompton Lines Conservation Area has been the subject of a comprehensive appraisal by officers, (April 2006). The Appraisal summarises: “The Chatham Lines … are part of a wider landscape that includes open ground in front of and within them as part of their design. The open Field of Fire is known as the Great Lines, whereas the extension to the original fortifications added after 1803 is known as the Lower Lines. This also had a field of fire. The main area of open land within the defences is known as the Inner Lines.” The Lines provide the backdrop to Chatham Dockyard – which is of international significance – and a key aspect of its setting. The key characteristics of The Lines are set out on page 12 of the Conservation Area Appraisal. While all are important, it is submitted that the most relevant features are:

• The survival of the historic landscape around the defences. • The dramatic setting of some parts of the defences. • The large areas of public open space. • The area’s function as a “green lung” and wildlife habitat in close proximity to

Medway’s urban area. In summary, these features all hinge upon the area’s openness and the need to ensure that its historic context is recognised. Within Conservation Areas, there is a requirement to “preserve or enhance” and the key to development on them is that the development should either make a positive contribution to the area’s character or appearance or leave it unharmed (paragraph 4.20 pf PPG15). The application site falls within the Lower Lines area and the plan on page 11 of the Conservation Area Appraisal shows that the Field does not contain any significant views either from within or outside. Two photomontages have been submitted with the application which graphically illustrate that the proposed development will have a minimal visual impact upon the Conservation Area in general. While the proposed hall is of significant size (both in terms of its dimensions and height) it has been designed and located so as to minimise its impact from public vantage

DC0902MW

points. The roof height reflects that of existing structures and its siting ensures that it will sit comfortably within the cluster of existing buildings. Furthermore, the vast majority of associated land will remain open and undeveloped (other than by the athletics track and football pitch). It is therefore considered that the open character of the Lower Lines will remain intact as a consequence and will be enhanced by a planting and boundary treatment scheme that is considered does not impinge visually upon the area’s openness but retains a sense of space, while providing screening as appropriate. The historical landscape and setting of the defences will therefore remain and the proposed sculptured land to the north and west of the new extension will also reflect the site’s former miltary uses. The application site also adjoins the Eastern Borders Character Area within the Brompton Lines Conservation Area. That area consists of a dense, tightly packed linear development, primarily residential in nature. The area closest to the Black Lion Leisure Centre is Mill Road which comprises mainly terraced dwellings, this character will remain wholly unaffected by the proposed development which is to the rear of existing buildings and wholly screened by them. It is therefore submitted that the fundamental character of the Brompton Lines Conservation Area (both the Lower Lines and Eastern Borders Character Areas) will remain unharmed as a consequence of the proposed development. As such it is therefore considered to be in accordance with the terms of structure plan policy QL6 and local plan policies BNE12 and BNE14. Impact upon the Great Lines City Park and proposed World Heritage Site Medway Council and local and regional World Heritage stakeholders are promoting the concept of developing the Great Lines as a new City Park. Work has already been undertaken in presenting this to local residents and the consultation feedback has informed the next stages of planning. The Council produced update dated September 2006 shows the Black Lion Leisure Centre and associated land as falling within a larger “Activity Zone”. It was felt that the Black Lion Leisure Centre was a good focal point and that its facilities could usefully be upgraded, with the range of outdoor activities expanded. This would then constitute the sporting and activities zone of the Great Lines City Park and it is therefore considered that the proposed development is compatible with the overall Great Lines City Park concept. The application site also falls within the much larger area that is being promoted as a candidate World Heritage Site. It is considered that through the careful location of the proposed building and the open nature of the athletics track that the fundamental concept of the openness of the fields of fire is not being jeopardised by the proposed development. It is therefore submitted that the location of the proposed development would sit comfortably within this area and not detract from the potential World Heritage Site. Impact upon Area of Local Landscape Importance The application site falls within the Great and Lower Lines Area of Local Landscape Importance. The location, character and function of the area is set out in paragraph 3.4.107(xiv) of the local plan. This explains its historical interest and its valuable open space function in contrast to the heavily built-up areas around. The local plan policy BNE34 allows for development in Areas of Local Landscape Importance where it does not materially harm the landscape character or function of the area or the

DC0902MW

economic and social benefits are so important that they outweigh the local priority to conserve the areas landscape. As set out by English Heritage in their letter of representation, openess is a key characteristic of the application site, both now and in the past. The connectivity of green space is a feature of the Great Lines that derives from its former military function. The existing Black Lion Leisure Centre has to some extent removed much of the former open character of Black Lion Field, as it existed during the period of military use. Taking this into account and the fact that the proposed building has been located within the existing cluster of development on the Field and the fact that although there is a loss of two informal grass football pitches and an overall reduction in green space the proposal to replace it with a running track and a grass football pitch will still mean a high degree of openness and it is therefore considered to retain the open character of this Area of Local Landscape Importance With regard to the second part of the policy it has been highlighted in the previous text that the proposed development would be significant on many levels from local to intenational. It would also leave a lasting legacy of improved sports faclities for the residents of Medway so there can be no question of its benefits. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with policy BNE34 of the local plan. Street Scene and Design The proposed scheme is formed from four main elements, namely:

• Erection of a link block between the southern and central buildings. • Formation of an all-weather 8-lane athletics track with football pitch in the centre. • Sculptured mound to form a spectator embankment. • New multi purpose sports hall, with changing facilities and disabled access link to

reception. The hall design and size has been formulated around the need to meet minimum height and floor space sizes. The hall requires a clear minimum height of 9.1m which has set the building at approx. 10.4m in height. The hall is proposed to slot to the rear of the existing hall which allows a ramped access to be built along the side of the existing main hall to allow for disabled access from the reception area to the new hall and changing rooms, this will also form the access to the athletics track and football pitch and will contain male and female changing rooms designed to Sport England standards for accessible changing rooms. A small plant room has been added above the changing rooms to house mechanical and ventilation, access will be from a door located at first floor level within the Health and Fitness Suite. The new hall is a very large structure which has evolved in design through the development process. Unfortunately the proposed curved roof (shown at pre application stage) has been lost from the scheme as the strategic brief for redevelopment was refined. Changes to the design of the proposed buildings and extensions have been taken from the external treatment of the existing leisure centre. To enable the design of the new hall with no internal projections to meet sport standards the steel columns that form the frame have had a major impact on the proposed exterior wall treatment of the hall. A deep masonry cavity wall is proposed to be set between columns which are encased in a brick cladding that project beyond the outer face of the cavity wall, creating a fair-faced brick elevation where the regular spacing of the brick clad columns is expressed with recessed brick panels set in between the columns. A deep profiled cladding fascia is proposed to be set approximately

DC0902MW

flush with the outer face of the brick columns coloured to match that of the brick. This detail allows for a concealed gutter to be run along the perimeter of the roof and down pipes to be run through the cavity between the brick cladding and the columns. The proposed structure that would be formed is somewhat of a large box with a monolithic structure, the architects have tried to alleviate this though the use of the brick columns but it is considered that this has still left the hall with a large and bulky mass. To try and alleviate the bulk a pergola has been added to the southern side which projects out from the building to add interest to the design, this combined with the proposed sculpted bank will draw the eye to the ground floor level and reduce the height and mass of the overall building. The sculpted bank has been enlarged through negotiations which undoubtably reduce the impact of the prominent view from the North West. The bank will also form important outside spectator space and the use of a good landscaping scheme will further enhance the development, it is recommended that this is a condition on any approval. In addition to this a green wall has been negotiated, this is likely to be formed from Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Boston Ivy) which is a self-clinging plant that does not require the need for wires or trellis. This plant sticks to the form of the building and through proper maintenance will not grow out of hand. It is a fast growing species that will thrive in sun or shade, with the leaves turning an attractive colour in the autumn. The green wall will also provide a new habitat for birds and insects. This growing, living green wall will provide interest to the building and to some extent will mask the voluminous bulk of both the proposed hall and to a certain extent the existing large bulky buildings of the Leisure Centre and Jumpers Rebound Centre. All the new roofs (with the exception of the plant store) will be formed from a built-up sedum roof system. It is considered that a green roof will provide an attractive and ecologically beneficial solution to the somewhat unattractive flat roof of the extension. Sedum is proposed to be used on this roof, which is favoured for its drought tolerance, and hardy low maintenance nature and beautiful flowers in summer. Installing the proposed green roof makes a positive step towards environmental health and will transform a previously dull rooftop into a striking feature. Both the green wall and green roof are considered to be in accordance with policy BNE22 of local plan. The athletics track has been sited to the west of the existing centre and proposed extension. Due to its size it has been carefully squeezed into the space, the orientation of the track and its relationship to the new hall suits the existing topography and will alleviate the removal of spoil from the site through the use of a cut and fill exercise which ensures that there is only a very minimum gradient to the site which meets Sports England Standards. The materials to be used on the track have not been specified and it is recommended that they are conditioned to ensure that there is careful control of the colour and materials used. The three storey extension sited to the rear of the reception area is proposed to contain a Health and Fitness Suite on the ground and first floor and a field sports changing room on the lower ground room which will contain 2 teams changing rooms designed to football association guidelines for 16 people plus a changing room for 3 match officials. The ground and first floors have been designed to contain substantial amounts of glazing which help to break up the bulk of the extension and will also provide a pleasant view for users of the fitness suite over the athletics track.

DC0902MW

It is considered that due to the need for the basic design of the buildings to be enhanced the use of good quality materials is paramount. It is therefore recommended that conditions are added to any approval to ensure that this is achieved. On balance, while the extensions, as set out, would form a large bulky mass of development, the remediation in the form of the green roof, green wall, bank and pergola help to reduce the bulk and overall the extensions are considered to be in accordance with policy BNE1 of the local plan and QL1 of the structure plan. Amenity Considerations The closest dwellings to the Black Lion Leisure Centre are those located on Mill Road, opposite its entrance and front boundary. The only other “residents” in the locality are of a temporary nature, being guests at the King Charles Hotel to the west. Policy QL15 of the structure plan requires (amongst other things) sports facilities, to be “designed to avoid nuisance from traffic, noise and lighting.” Policy BNE2 of the local plan also sets out general principles for development in that it should protect the amenities enjoyed by nearby and adjacent properties. Policies BNE3 and BNE5 are more specific policies in the local plan that consider in detail noise and light disturbance. Have regard to policy BNE2 it is considered that no neighbouring dwelling will be affected with regard to daylight, outlook, sunlight or privacy due to the siting of the proposal and the distances involved. Policy BNE3 states “noise-generating development should be located and designed so as not to have a significant adverse noise impact on any nearby noise sensitive uses”. The proposed development has two potential noise sources namely from the operation of plant and through use of the outdoor pitch and athletics track. Taking the plant first, it is considered that there will be no adverse noise impact from plant operation. This is due to the fact that the proposed new plant will be of the latest design, thus being far less intrusive than older equipment. Furthermore the proposed new works are separated from the closest dwellings by existing buildings and the background road noise is in excess of anything likely to be generated by the proposed development. The closest part of the athletics track is situated some 175m away from dwellings in Mill Road and is also partially separated from them both visually and aurally by the existing and proposed buildings. The noise impact assessment dated January 2008 reference 556331BEE that accompanied the application assessed noise from the use of the athletics track, traffic noise and construction noise. The predicted worst-case noise impact from the athletics track will be 3dB at the King Charles Hotel due to crowd and tannoy noise. This is a slight negative impact, however, this is based on the assumption that the noise will be continuous. It is considered that noise from the use of the athletics track will not adversely affect the aural amenity of the surrounding area. It is however recommended that a condition is placed on any forthcoming approval requiring details of the tannoy system to be submitted for approval and restricting the hours of use of the tannoy system. Policy BNE5 of the local plan requires that “external lighting schemes should demonstrate that they are minimum necessary for security, safety or working purposes”. The proposed scheme does not include any flood lighting; it has been advised that this is not required for

DC0902MW

the initial pre-Olympics training period. Should lighting be required at a later stage a subsequent planning application would be required. In summary, it is considered that the proposed development will be in accordace with policies BNE2, BNE3 and BNE5 of the local plan and QL15 of the structure plan. Impact upon archaeology The site is in an area of archaeological significance relating to prehistoric remains as well as the use of the site by the Royal Engineers as a Fieldwork Practice Ground in the nineteenth Century. The field was home to artillery, batteries and an extensive series of trenches were excavated at that time, formed by timber, sandbags and gabions. The site lies close to a deposit of the 3rd Terrace River Gravels, such gravels have the potential to contain important remains relating to early prehistoric occupation of the area. The present submission includes a suggested archaeological method statement. The general approach is one of a careful ground reduction under archaeological control to enable features to be mapped and samples excavated. This is considered by the Kent County Council archaeological Officer and English Heritage to be an acceptable approach and is one that has recently been successfully used on the nearby Mid Kent College development. It is recommended that this is secured through the use of an appropriately worded condition In summary, it is considered that the proposed development will be in accordace with policy BNE21 of the local plan and QL7 of the structure plan. Ecological and nature conservation issues A desktop study was undertaken in December 2007 and January 2008 in order to identify any existing biological data and any wildlife designations relevant to the site and the immediate environment. While a large number of bird records are available for the local area the majority of them are associated with the river and mudflats. Of the remainder only common breeding species (blackbird, house sparrow etc) are likely to use the site and it is unlikely to be attractive to migratory species due to its urban location. A large number of bat records are available for the local area suggesting a strong local population and one, which commutes and/or forages with the site. Hedgehogs have been recorded and are likely to occur on the site. However, the site is unlikely to provide a suitable habitat for amphibians or reptiles due to the present intensity of the management regime and whilst Great Crested Newts have been recorded in the locality this is on land to the north east which is split from the application site by an urban area. A number of invertebrate species have been recorded from the locality. The Holly Blue butterfly has been recorded in the vicinity, however there is little vegetation on the site, which would be attractive to this species, and it is thought unlikely to occur there. Several solitary bee and wasp species are known from the area, however none of these are likely to occur at the site due to the lack of suitable habitat:

DC0902MW

While a number of plant species of note have been recorded in the local area (e.g. Lizard Orchid and Bee Orchid etc) the site is intensively managed and the grassland species is poor as a result of close-mowing and fertilisation application and therefore it is not considered that there is potential for uncommon plant species to occur on the site at the present time. The ecological study has provisionally assessed the application site as being of ‘Lower’ ecological value at the ‘District/Borough’ scale. The assessment is subject to the results of further recommended survey in respect of bats and may change as a result of such survey. Features of value are largely restricted to the woody vegetation present, which may act as part of a wildlife corridor, linking the southern part of the town to the river. In particular, this corridor is likely to provide an important fly-way for bats. The study concludes that the impact of the proposed development upon protected species should be assessed in the appropriate season before a definitive assessment is made of the site’s value. However, the provisional assessment of its impact is Minor Adverse. The mitigated impact of the scheme is considered to be Neutral or Minor Beneficial depending upon the extent to which mitigation recommendations can be adopted. It is therefore recommended that appropriately worded conditions are applied to any approval to ensure that the important habitats and their inhabitants are protected. In summary, it is considered that the proposed development will be in accordace with policies BNE37 and BNE39 of the local plan and EN8 of the structure plan. Trees and Landscaping The main principle underlying the approach to the landscaping of this site is the retention of as much of the open nature of the site as possible. The submitted landscape scheme and appraisal recognises the importance of this approach, however it is recommended that the landscape scheme is a condition on any approval to ensure that the treatment of the site is dealt with in an appropriate way to ensure that scheme respects the historical context of the open fields of fire. An Arboriculture Impact Assessment/Method Statement was submitted with the application which is broadly acceptable, however the report recommends some trees are shown for removal which are not considered appropriate for removal and should be kept due to their contribution to the site. It is therefore recommended that a condition is added to any approval to ensure that this can be adequately dealt with. In addition to this there are a number of trees, namely self sown Sycamores, along Brompton Road that are of very low amenity value and it is recommended should be removed and replaced with specimen trees. It is therefore suggested that this is dealt with by way of a condition on any approval. There are concerns about the timing of the works to the site with regard to the order of construction and vehicular access to the site. Due to the potential impact this may have on trees shown for retention it is recommended that this is a condition of any approval and that details of the area of storage of building materials and the proposed access onto the site are sent to the local planning authority for consideration. Subject to conditions the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy SS6 and EN9 of the structure plan and policies S4, BNE6 and BNE43 of the local plan.

DC0902MW

Contamination The applicant has submitted a desk top study as part of the application submission which includes a site history, site walkover, information on the geology and hydrogeology at the site. A conceptual site model has been developed for the site. The desk top study recommends that a site investigation is undertaken to support the conceptual site model. It is therefore recommended that an appropriately worded condition is applied to any approval to ensure that a site investigation is undertaken by the applicant and the results submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval with a remediation strategy if necessary. In summary, it is considered that the proposed development will be in accordace with policy BNE23 of the local plan and NR5 of the structure plan. Highways A number of pedestrian, cycling and public transport improvements were secured as part of the Mid Kent College development on Prince Arthur Road, and these will benefit the Leisure Centre proposals. Whilst adequate pedestrian access to the centre is provided from the south (Brompton Road), the proposed intensification in use of the site justifies an improvement to pedestrian access from the north. The only pedestrian route into the centre from this direction is via the main vehicular access off Mill Road, (there are no pedestrian facilities provided at this point) and opposite the war memorial (which is not an attractive entrance). The additional number of vehicle movements associated with the development proposals and the likely increase in pedestrian movements warrants the provision of footways on the junction radii and a marked pedestrian priority route across the car park to the centre. It is therefore recommended that this is secured by condition. A parking survey was undertaken on Wednesday 5 December 2007, which showed that the car park exceeded its capacity between 0930 and 1100. Another survey undertaken on Saturday 8 December 2007 showed that the car park exceeded its capacity between 1800 and 1900, and that the likely cause was an evening event being held at the leisure centre. Whilst Medway Council's Parking Standards do not indicate an appropriate level of parking for leisure facilities, stating that an individual assessment should be made, it is clear that the existing parking provision is unlikely to be adequate to provide for the development proposals when major events are taking place and the proposed development does not provide for an increase in the number of parking spaces at the centre. It is acknowledged that the surrounding residential roads are subject to parking controls, and extensions to the controlled parking zone in this part of Gillingham have been secured in association with recent developments at the University and Mid Kent College. The Transport Assessment that accompanied the application highlights that a significant element of unrelated parking (almost one third on weekdays and more at weekends) occurs in the car park, which at present is not regulated in any way. The Parking Strategy that has been proposed as part of the Transport Assessment seeks to change this to ensure that all users of the Leisure Centre will be able to use the parking. It is therefore appropriate for the Leisure Centre to produce a Parking Management Plan to manage the anticipated demand for car parking at these times. The plan should include:

• Measures to manage and control non-leisure centre parking, both short-and long-stay. • Measures to manage and control staff parking

DC0902MW

• Measures to provide and control a limited time drop-off zone • Details of overspill car parking facilities, both in terms of the existing provision and the

proposed provision following completion of the development • Details of existing coach parking facilities and details of arrangements to provide for

overspill coach parking following completion of the development • Details of how the parking demand will be monitored once the development is

operational • A list of actions in respect of the above for completion before and after the opening of

the development, to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority The Parking Management Plan should also identify and commit to employing a series of measures that will address these issues prior to first use of the development, with a clearly defined timetable for implementation. It should also be a flexible document that can be adjusted once both the day-to-day demand, and that for the major events, is established. The site is well served by public transport and has good linkages with both the rail and bus network, the provision of a travel plan is therefore a very important tool in mitigating the impact of the development, particularly in relation to the concerns outlined above with respect to the parking provision. The transport assessment contains a framework travel plan, the content of which is generally acceptable. It will be necessary for a full travel plan to be drafted and agreed with the Local Planning Authority which is recommend to be secured through an appropriately worded condition. In summary, it is considered that the proposed development will be in accordance with policies T1, T2, T3, T14 of the local plan and TP1 and TP11 of the structure plan. Conclusions and Reasons for Approval The proposal to enhance the Black Lion Leisure Centre to become a London 2012 pre-games training camp will enhance the sporting functions of the centre and (it is intended) will put Medway on the national and international map, while having the additional benefit of delivering an asset to be used by all Medway residents for many decades to come. The proposal is acceptable in terms of 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 Policy SP1, SS1, SS4, SS6, ME1, EN8, EN9, QL1, QL2, QL6, QL7, QL11, QL12, QL14, QL15, TP1, TP3, TP11, TP12, TP19, NR1 and NR5 of the Structure Plan and Policies S1, S2, S4, BNE1, BNE2, BNE3, BNE4, BNE5, BNE6, BNE7, BNE12, BNE14, BNE21, BNE23, BNE34, BNE37, BNE39, BNE43, L1, L2, L3, L8, T1, T2, T3, T13, T14 and CF12 of the adopted Local Plan and the application is accordingly recommended for approval. The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being referred for member consideration due to the extent of representations received expressing views contrary to the recommendation, because it is a Council application and due to its significance.

DC0902MW

4 MC2004/1883

Date Received: 2nd September 2004

Location: Tesco, Courteney Road, Gillingham, Kent Proposal: Construction of extension to existing class A1 foodstore to form an

additional 2,475 sqm gross floor area, relocated petrol filling station, revised service yard, new site access arrangements, reconfigured and enlarged shoppers car park, new store elevations, landscaping and surface treatments and ancillary plant equipment

Applicant: Tesco Stores Limited C/o Agent Agent: Mr B Hartley-Raven Cushman & Wakefield Healey and Baker 43/45

Portman Square London W1A 3BG Ward: Rainham Central Recommendation - Approval subject to:-

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

(i) A financial contribution of £300k towards town centre improvements as

identified in the adopted Gillingham Town Centre Framework. (ii) A S.278 agreement with the Council to undertake highway works on Courteney

Road and Bowater’s Roundabout, including the installation of a slip road adjacent to Tescos on A2, bus lanes on the east and west approaches and all traffic signal amendments, signing, new toucan crossing and the securing of all Traffic Regulation Orders.

(iii) Decontamination of the adjacent Crest Packaging site, a full survey and remediation works to be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the extension opening and subsequently carried out in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(iv) Provision of services (including gas water and electric) to the Crest packaging site.

(v) A financial contribution of 24k towards bus stop improvements. B) The imposition of the following conditions:

(as amended by plans and information received on 12th August, 11th and 16th November 2004, plans dated December 2005, plans received on 20th July 2007 and letter and plans received 22nd November 2007) 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. 2 No goods shall be loaded, unloaded, stored or otherwise handled and no vehicles

shall arrive or depart, within the application site outside the hours 07:00 to 19:00

DC0902MW

Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 18:00 Saturday or at any time on Sunday or Bank Holidays.

3 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an acoustic

assessment shall be undertaken to determine the impact of noise arising from the development site. Noise from commercial premises should be controlled, such that the noise rating level (LA,T) emitted from the development does not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T), by more than 3dB. All measurements shall be defined and derived in accordance with BS4142: 1997. The results of the assessment and details of any mitigation measures shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented before the development is brought into use and thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

4 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a construction

code of practice that describes measures to control noise and dust arising from construction phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All construction shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved code of practice.

5 Prior to first occupation of the proposed development a draft workplace Travel

Plan, including details of proposals to reduce car travel and encourage the use of alternative modes of transport, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within six months of the proposed development becoming operational.

6 Prior to the commencement of development details of secure, covered cycle

storage facilities to provide 28 cycle racks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. The cycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development and shall be thereafter retained.

7 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking shall be kept

available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

8 Prior to the installation of any recycling facilities for customers, details of the

location of such facilities, including parking and unloading provision, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All recycling facilities shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

9 Prior to the commencement of the development, a site investigation shall be

undertaken to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. The results of the investigation, together with a risk assessment by a competent person and details of any measures necessary to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The approved measures shall be fully implemented and a completion report, issued by the competent

DC0902MW

person referred to above stating that remediation has been completed and that the site is suitable for the permitted use, shall be provided to the Authority prior to the first occupation of the development herein permitted.

10 HGV and delivery van parking shall only take place within the service area shown

on the approved plans. 11 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.

12 No materials, plant or other equipment of any description shall be stored in the

open other than in areas and to such heights as have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13 All windows to the eastern elevation of the building hereby approved shall be

obscure glazed and fixed shut apart from a top hung fan light. 14 No external lighting including security lights shall be erected on the site without the

prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 15 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or sucessors in

title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

16 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a comprehensive

tree survey plan showing all existing trees on site and all trees within a distance equal to 12 times their stem diameter of the site boundary shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

17 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an aboricultural

method statement in accordance with BS5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' including a methodology for the implementation of any aspect of the development that has potential to result in the loss or damage to trees shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

18 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the tree retention

and tree and landscape protection measures detailed within the aboricultural method statement approved pursuant to condition 17 shall be shown graphically and submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

19 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include:- proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. external furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc.

DC0902MW

indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance for a period of at least 3 years); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

20 Not withstanding the provisions of Section 55 of the Town & Country Planning Act

1990 (as amended by section 49 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) no mezzanine floors other than that hereby permitted shall be inserted into any of the units within the retail building hereby permitted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

21 The mezzanine proposed shall only be used for customer cafe, toilets, and kitchen

with ancillary storage and shall not be used for the purpose of retail sale of any goods (except for consumption in the cafe), without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

22 Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the disposal of foul

and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the bringing into use of any part of the extension or relocated filling station hereby approved.

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

Site Description The site comprises an existing stand alone superstore with an overall site area (including parking) of approximately 4.9 Hectares. The site is bounded to the west by Courteney Road, and it is from this road (and the Bowater’s roundabout) that the site is currently accessed. To the north the site is bounded by London Road and to the east properties along Edwin Road back onto the site. There is a band of protected trees to the eastern boundary. There is an existing petrol filling station within the site and this is located to the south east of the site. Further to the south of the application site the area is predominantly industrial/commercial in character and this area is allocated in the Medway Local Plan as an existing employment area under Policy ED1. Proposal The proposals seek full planning permission for:

• An extension to the existing store, • Remodelling of the existing exterior of the building, • New parking, • New access and • The re-location of the existing petrol filling station.

DC0902MW

Extension and remodelling of exterior The proposed extension is situated to the south of the existing store and would provide an additional 2,475 sqm gross floor area. There is also proposed a new service yard to be located to the south of the existing store and this would have a dedicated access to the south of the site. The siting of these elements would encroach onto land currently allocated under Policy ED1 of the Medway Local Plan (B) (i) as industrial land (appropriate for uses B1, B2 and B8). The elevations of the store would be altered from the existing clay roofed structure with ‘gable’ detailing and would be replaced by a panel structure with white cladding and glazing. There would be a canopy to the front acting as a ‘storm porch’/pedestrian walkway. The canopy would be supported by painted steel columns and the main entrance to the store would remain on the western elevation although it would be slightly relocated to the south. The overall height of the building would remain at approximately 8.6m (at the highest point). It is proposed to incorporate a mezzanine floor to provide customer café, toilets and a kitchen area – no retail sales (other than the sale of food for consumption in the cafe) would take place from the mezzanine floor. The overall size of the mezzanine would be approximately 423 sqm. There is also proposed a new ‘bulk’ store area to be sited to the south of the existing building and a new service area adjacent to this. Car Parking and Petrol Filling Station It is proposed to provide an additional 183 parking spaces (giving a total of 708 spaces). This would include 26 spaces for mobility impaired drivers (an increase of 14 spaces). The parking area would be reconfigured and some of the existing parking to the south of the store would be lost to provide space for the extension. In addition to this the relocation of the access to the site and the relocation of the petrol filling station would leave space for the re-configured parking. Some of the existing adjacent ‘Crest Packaging’ site would also be given over to provide space for the extension and revised parking layout. Broadly, the new layout would be to the west of the store with the petrol station beyond the parking area adjacent to the boundary with Courteney Road. The petrol station would be re-sited from its current location to the south of the site, adjacent to the boundary with the Crest Packaging site. The petrol filling station would have 8 pumps (the same number as the existing station) and a car wash/jet wash facility together with a kiosk stocking a small range of convenience goods. Highways Works The revised access to the site comprises an enlarged roundabout which would be relocated approximately 70m further to the south along Courteney Road. This would provide access to the carpark, petrol filling station and also access to the new service yard. The revised layout would remove the need for an additional mini-roundabout within the site (as existing) and would therefore provide access to the site via a single enlarged roundabout. There are also highways works proposed outside of the application site and these relate to the Bowater’s roundabout, which provides access to the site from the east and west. It is

DC0902MW

proposed to make improvements to the traffic lights, queue detection, bus lanes and a slip road access to Tescos from the A2. A Transport Assessment, Retail Assessment, Planning Statement and drawings indicating large vehicle swept path analysis have been submitted in support of the application. There is an associated application at the adjacent Crest Packaging site (ref MC2004/1681), which has been submitted by the same applicants/agents and is in outline form for industrial units. That application is also for consideration on this agenda. Relevant Planning History GL/59/0046/91/113 Outline application for the erection of a 65,000 sq ft food retail

store with associated car parking and petrol filling station. Allowed at appeal 21 July 92.

GL/92/0809/92/0758 Proposed erection of a retail food store with associated car

parking and petrol filling station (reserved matters - application number GL59/46/91/0113). Approved 05 February 1993.

MC1999/6193 Temporary planning permission for construction of a canopy enclosure. Approved 10 February 2000.

MC2000/0758 Installation of refrigeration units on roof to replace existing.

Approved 18 July 2000. MC2000/1856 Temporary siting of storage marquee to rear.

Approved 25 April 2001. MC2002/0183 Raising of existing canopy height by 420mm.

Approved 22 March 2002. MC2002/0581 Construction of a single-storey extension to existing bulk store,

provision of a home shopping area and marshalling area. Refused 14 May 2002.

MC2002/1006 Construction of 7 covered trolley bays to car parking area,

alterations to entrance and construction of extension to relocate ATM machines. Approved 22 August 02.

MC2002/1357 Construction of a single storey extension to existing bulk store,

provision of a hope shopping area and marshalling enclosure area. Approved 06 September 2002.

MC2004/2474 Erection of marquee within car park

Refused 23 December 2004. Crest Packaging Site

DC0902MW

MC2004/1681 Outline application for demolition of buildings and construction of 8 industrial units and 11 trade units with associated parking.

For determination on this agenda Representations The application has been advertised by way of a site and a press notice. The owners/occupiers of the following properties have also directly notified of the proposals; Astra Building, Courteney Road, Thackeray’s, Courteney Road, Crest Complex, Courteney Road, DAC Technologies, Courteney Road, Old Gatehouse, Crest Complex, Courteney Road, Room 4, Astra Site, Courteney Road, 2, 2a, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 18a, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 Edwin Road, 12, 12a, Crystal House, 14 London Road, 16 – 22, 24, 24a, 26, 26a, 30, 30a, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 285, 287, Auto Shop, Shell Garage London Road, Watling Tyre Service, London Road, Belisha Beacon, London Road, Hop & Vine, London Road, 26, 28, 30, 32, 37, 39, 41, 43 Wilmington Way, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Franks Court. The following external bodies have also been notified of the proposals; Environment Agency, Southern Water Services, Kent Country Council (Archaeology), Transco, South Eastern Electricity, Kent Police. Representations received in respect of the original proposals as submitted in 2004. Transco advise that there is Low/Medium/Intermediate Pressure gas main in the proximity of the site. No mechanical excavations are to take place above, or within 0.5m of the Low Pressure system, 2m of the Medium Pressure system and 3m of the intermediate pressure system. Where required confirmation of the position of the mains should be undertaken using hand dug trial holes. A copy of the letter and enclosed plans have been forwarded to the applicants agent for information. Southern Water advise that there is no objection to the discharge of foul sewage from the development into the public foul sewer. Surface water discharge to the public sewerage system should be limited to the run-off from the site in its present undeveloped state, and any increase should be attenuated within the development. If planning permission should be granted a condition requiring the details of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Southern Water) prior to the commencement of the development should be imposed. Areas used for vehicle washing should only be connected to the foul sewer after consultation with Southern Water. No trade effluent can be discharged either directly or indirectly to any public sewer without the formal consent of Southern Water Services Ltd. Areas subject to minor oil spillages should be drained by mean of oil trap gullies or petrol/oil interceptors. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the applicants agent. Kent Police advise as follows: The existing building has ATM cash point machines installed through the wall, it is unclear from the drawings as to the future placement of these. Consideration would however be requested that adequate protection is afforded to these machines. With an increase in parking provision, designers would be urged to follow principles detailed under the Safer Parking Award (formerly Secure Car Park Award). This includes one way manoeuvring, lighting, speed restrictions and natural surveillance.

DC0902MW

Petrol stations can sometimes be vulnerable to crime due to their detached locations and adequate security measures should be confirmed. The provision of an effective CCTV system would also be recommended to afford better protection, detection and staff safety to this area. Whilst not a specific issue to designing out crime, there is some concern that the exit arrangement from the petrol station, which appear a little confusing and may require full clarification and traffic/highway department assessment for both volume and layout. A number of issues spring to mind including:

• Is it proposed that all cars will exit left and have to go around the shopper car park?

• Will vehicles be able to also exit right? • This could possibly raise issues in relation to the adequacy of the visibility

splays. • Will there be a possible danger with oncoming traffic onto the main site car

park on the primary route, or those exiting the car park from directly opposite?

These comments have been assessed and have been brought to the attention of the applicants agent. Kent County Council (Archaeology) advise that the site lies along the southern edge of the corridor of the Roman Road of Watling Street. Although it appears to have been relatively undeveloped in the modern era, the site’s proximity to the Roman road makes it a possible location for Roman and Medieval activity. Although there are no recorded archaeological features on the spot of the proposed building itself, there is still archaeological potential there and in view of the extent of the work it is considered that provision should be made for a programme of archaeological work on any forthcoming consent. This could reasonably be secured via a suitably worded condition. 12 letters of representation were received in respect of the proposals as originally submitted raising the following issues:

• The ‘cages marshalling area’ is sited to the rear of properties on Edwin Road. This will cause noise and disturbance and some form of noise barrier should be erected.

• Number 16 Edwin Road is set back further than other properties on the road and so is much closer to the proposed development.

• To take into account fully the traffic impacts this application should-be considered together with MC2004/1681 at the Crest Packaging site and 2004/0152 for development at the Astra Site.

• The traffic survey does not address the effect that a general increase in traffic on the A2/A278 roundabout will have on the A2 west bound traffic queuing from the roundabout past Edwin Road and Marshall Road at busy time of the day, currently this queue of traffic causes a queue backing up Edwin Road, which due to parking on both sides of the road leaves only a single lane at the lower part of Edwin Road. An increase in traffic on the A2/A278 roundabout will exacerbate the situation.

• Noise and dust pollution affecting the Edwin Road properties bordering the eastern boundary.

DC0902MW

• All the trees on the eastern boundary covered by the TPO are deciduous and therefore do not form an effective barrier to dust, noise or privacy for five or six months of the year.

• Should the application be approved then the conditions and criteria for monitoring noise levels should include the monitoring of noise at the first floor level of the houses in Edwin Road.

• Previous noise complaints have led to modifications being made to the site exhaust system.

• Taking into account the age of the existing buildings and the nature of the construction materials used the proposals do not indicate that a risk assessment of the likely air pollution has been carried out for the demolition phase or methods to prevent air pollution of dust pollution.

• Edwin Road property owners should not be liable under the TPO to replace any tree(s) damaged by the demolition and construction works.

• The proposals would have a detrimental impact on highway safety. • Increased traffic levels could not be coped with on the existing road network. • The Bowaters roundabout would continue to be used to provide access to the site and

this is already very busy and an accident ‘hotspot’. • Increase in noise and air pollution arsing from the increased traffic movements. • There is already a problem with litter in the area from the Tesco’s-site. • Vermin will be attracted by the litter and there are already vermin at the site. • Concern over security as there will be access to people’s rear gardens. • The site is set higher than the properties in Edwin Road and the construction of the

buildings will pollute the water course. • The residents of Edwin Road already suffer inconvenience when access or leaving

houses due to the level of through traffic particularly at peak shopping times. • The additional risk of accidents to the number of young children and senior residents

at the se times will increase. • It should be noted that there is a preparatory school at the junction of Edwin Road and

Marshall Road that will be affected by the increased traffic. • The proposals will have a substantial detrimental effect in Rainham Mark. • Tesco’s are open 24 hours a day and the noise and disturbance from constant

deliveries to the rear of the building with articulated lorries and the clashing of cages is already a problem.

• The drawings are less than clear cut since Edwin Road was not shown by name on any of the plans, and the Tesco proposed development did not show where, in relation to individual house numbers it would back onto.

• What means of enclosure will be provided to ensure that the boundaries are not encroached upon during and after the building?

• Hours of loading and unloading in the service area should be controlled. • Air conditioning and other extraction units should be controlled as these are already a

problem.

Non Planning Matters Raised

• The fencing at the Crest Packaging site is broken and needs replacing. • Dismay at the amount of paperwork submitted with the applications – which

may be interpreted as a ploy to deter people from making any comments.

DC0902MW

Following the submission of the revised plans in July 2007 in respect of the highways works to include the ‘throughabout’ and bus lanes to the western and eastern arms of the Bowater’s roundabout a full re-consultation was carried out and the following representations were received: Southern Water advises that their previous comments remain unaltered by the proposed amendments. Kent County Council advises that their previous comments remain unaltered by the proposed amendments Kent Police advise that they do not wish to make any additional comments. Gillingham Town Forum – make the following comments:

• It is considered that the proposals will have far reaching effects on the Gillingham Town Centre.

• With the expansion of the Tesco store comes the ability for Tesco to sell a wider variety of foods and other items such as clothing, electrical and household products. This will create additional competition for local retailers whom do not have the immense buying power of such a large multi national retailer.

• What is being put into place to balance the detrimental and economic effects that it may bring to Gillingham Town Centre.

• Within the application for Tesco, there is no projection made on the number of cars visiting the site.

• No provision for bus services into the site. Is the Council seeking to improve public transport within this area.

• In previous correspondence dating back to 2004 Tesco applied for a further 8 industrial units and 11 trade units with parking. Has there been any progress on this application or is it within this recent one with no mention of it?

• Clarification as to the type of uses proposed at these units is requested so that fuller comments can be made.

11 representations have been received including one letter with 2 signatures and another letter with 8 signatures attached raising the following issues:

• The petrol station is directly opposite my property. • The proposed development will have a substantial effect in Rainham Mark

especially with regards to the boundaries and properties in the residential areas of Edwin Road.

• Rubbish generated from the site continues to be a problem. • Noise and disturbance. Tescos are open 24 hours a day and the noise and

disturbance from constant deliveries to the rear of the building with articulated and local delivery vehicles and the clashing of cages is already a problem. I notice from the plans that again the caging areas will back on to the boundaries to the near residential properties.

• Security concerns with regard to the rear gardens.

DC0902MW

• To take into account fully the traffic impacts this application should be considered together with MC2004/1681 at the Crest Packaging site and 2004/0152 for development at the Astra Site.

• The traffic survey does not address the effect that a general increase in traffic on the A2/A278 roundabout will have on the A2 west bound traffic queuing from the roundabout past Edwin Road and Marshall Road at busy time of the day, currently this queue of traffic causes a queue backing up Edwin Road, which due to parking on both sides of the road leaves only a single lane at the lower part of Edwin Road. An increase in traffic on the A2/A278 roundabout will exacerbate the situation.

• Noise and dust pollution affecting the Edwin Road properties bordering the eastern boundary.

• All the trees on the eastern boundary covered by the TPO are deciduous and therefore do not form an effective barrier to dust, noise or privacy for five or six months of the year.

• Should the application be approved then the conditions and criteria for monitoring noise levels should include the monitoring of noise at the first floor level of the houses in Edwin Road.

• Previous noise complaints have led to modifications being made to the site exhaust system.

• Taking into account the age of the existing buildings and the nature of the construction materials used the proposals do not indicate that a risk assessment of the likely air pollution has been carried out for the demolition phase or methods to prevent air pollution of dust pollution.

• Edwin Road property owners should not be liable under the TPO to replace any tree(s) damaged by the demolition and construction works.

• The need for the expansion of the store has not been demonstrated. • The impact of the store enlargement on the neighbouring shopping areas of

Twydall and Rainham should be considered, • The opening of the Tesco store in Courteney Road has had a significant

impact on the area of Twydall where some thirty shops had provided an almost self sufficient community. In the time Tesco has been open, trading at the shops has been affected causing shops to close and be replaced by charity shops and may traders to consider whether or not they should continue in business. The enlargement of the Tesco store will inevitably affect the viability of these businesses.

• The council should act to preserve the centres at Rainham and Tywdall. • There should be no windows giving outlook from the mezzanine floor café

into the rear gardens of the properties on Edwin Road. • Tesco are proposing to move their entrance to the south. At the moment

the traffic into their site causes considerable congestion (and accidents) and the ‘Mems’ sponsored roundabout, which is situated at the junction of London Road, Courteney Road, Hoath Lane and Twydall Lane.

• The new proposals only pay lip service to the problem and as soon as traffic enters Courteney Road from the north it will be forced to merge into single file – as now. The plans do not address the real problem of road congestion at the roundabout.

• The Council should consider the possibility of making Courteney Road one way with traffic travelling northwards. This would provide more ‘stacking space’.

DC0902MW

Non Planning Issues Raised

• Superstores (such as Tesco’s) are controlled by a management with little interest in the local areas.

Cllr Chishti has written enclosing a letter of objection from a local resident expressing the view that Courtney Road should be made one way in order to make the proposal work. Cllr Chishti supports that view. Threadneedle Investments (the owners of the main elements of the Orchard Precinct, Rainham) advise as follows:

• We are most concerned that the extension of their store at Courteney Road may lead to the closure of Tesco’s business in Orchard Precinct. This would be severely detrimental to the retail offer at the precinct. Wilkinson would not normally have considered Rainham as a preferred location, but for the current quality of the retail offer at the Precinct.

• Whilst Tesco have committed to their current lease in the Precinct, we would

be most disappointed if their store was to close. Our agents consider that the prospects for re-letting a unit of this size could prove difficult. It is most likely that a future occupier would possibly be either a discount retailer or a small trade operator. This would undoubtedly dilute the retail offer in Rainham Town Centre. In time it may lead to existing retailers moving out. This could be a very immediate risk since the Precinct currently faces fourteen lease renewals during 2005. Events at Courteney Road and Tesco’s future business decisions will certainly influence these events. I believe without a quality anchor store retailer these units, if vacated, would be more difficult to re-let.

• I will be asking our Agents to establish with Tesco their intentions to the

businesses within the town. This may give us comfort regarding our ownership. Nevertheless, you may wish to consider conditions being placed upon Tesco to maintain and trade from their store at the Precinct for a fixed period of time in the event that the Council is minded to grant consent for the above application.

A petition containing 14 signatures from traders of Rainham Shopping Centre has been submitted raising the following issues:

• This development would have a considerable effect on the shopping centre and surrounding shops taking a considerable amount of our trade with possible closure of shops.

• We in the shopping centre have experienced closure of shops in the past due to high rents and subsidence in the centre. We have all struggled to overcome these and if this application is granted it would be a permanent down turn in trade and many traders feel that this would be the last nail in the coffin for Rainham and it would also affect Twydall Shops, Parkwood Shops and the Savacentre.

• We in Rainham do not have the same benefit of free parking as do other centres such as the Savacentre, Twydall and Parkwood and the proposed

DC0902MW

Tesco development would also be free parking to attract customers. It is not the expense of paying for parking but the inconvenience to mothers etc with families going to the ticket machine with their children, having the right change, going back to their car to display the ticket, especially on cold rainy mornings. This is what makes the free parking so attractive.

• In our view the proposal by Tesco would have a detrimental effect on these surrounding areas of shops and we strongly oppose this application.

It should be noted that the proposal for a through about has now been dropped following comments from the planning Committee when they last considered the application. It is now proposed to improve the Bowater roundabout in terms of the signalisation, queue detection, bus lanes and a slip road into Tescos from the A2. Development Plan Policies Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL2 (Priorities for Public Realm) Policy EN9 (Trees Woodland and Hedgerows) Policy EP2 (Employment Land Provision) Policy EP3 (Location of New or Replacement Employment Land) Policy EP17 (Development of Large Food Stores) Policy TP1 (Integrated Transport Strategy) Policy TP2 (Assessment Criteria for Transport Proposals) Policy TP3 (Transport and the Location of Development) Policy TP9 (Supporting Public Transport) Policy TP11 (Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists) Policy TP12 (Development and Access to the Primary/Secondary Road

Network) Policy TP15 (Development Traffic and Heavy Goods Vehicles) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)


Policy S1 (Development Strategy) Policy S2 (Strategic Principles) Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise Standards) Policy BNE6 (Landscape Design) Policy BNE8 (Security and Personal Safety) Policy BNE9 (Design of Commercial Frontages) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated Land) Policy BNE41 (Tree Preservation Orders) Policy BNE42 (Hedgerow Retention) Policy BNE43 (Trees and Development Sites) Policy ED1 (Existing Employment Sites) Policy R6 (Retailing in Rainham) Policy R11 (Town Centre Uses and the Sequential Approach) Policy R13 (Retailing and the Sequential Approach)

DC0902MW

Policy R16 (Restrictions on Goods for Sale) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T3 (Provision for Pedestrians) Policy T4 (Cycle Facilities) Policy T5 (Bus Preference Measures) Policy T11 (Development Funded Transport Improvements) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)

Government Guidance Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres. Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control. Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise. Planning Appraisal

Principle and Policy Issues The existing Store on the site is a ‘stand alone’ store and is not the subject of any designations within the adopted Medway Local Plan 2003. The site is outside of the core retail areas but does lie within the main identified urban area of Gillingham. The planning history of the site is fully outlined in the ‘Planning History’ section of the report – but it is worth noting here that the store was granted permission at appeal in 1992. Part of the site (to the south) would be taken from the existing Crest Packaging site to provide parking and a new service yard for the extended Tesco store. This is allocated in the Medway Local Plan 2003 as existing employment land under Policy ED1 as land suitable for use classes B1, B2 and B8. The take of land from the Crest Packaging site amounts to approximately 0.9 Ha, which is approximately 25% of the total area of the Crest Packaging site of 3.9 Ha. The key issues with regard to the acceptability of the principle of this development are therefore:

• Qualitative and quantitative need, • Location of retailing and the sequential test, • Loss of allocated employment land.

In terms of need, additional retail capacity in the east of the Borough was identified in the Medway Local Plan 2003, initially through the first draft of this document in 1999. More recent studies, completed since the submission of the original application also bolster this view. The latest Retail Capacity Study (2005) from DTZ indicates that there is headroom for A1 (ie retail) development.

DC0902MW

In addition to this, policy now advocates that a single retailer should not be expected to split their store into separate sites. Given this, it is considered that it is reasonable to consider expansion of the existing Tescos store and also that this will remove the need for it to be demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable sites for retail development. Finally, as the site is not a ‘new’ out of centre location it would also meet one of the lower order choices in the sequential test. Throughout the course of the application the issue of the impact of the proposed development on other centres have been carefully considered and the site most likely to experience adverse impacts from the proposals is considered to be Gillingham. This conclusion is reached on the basis of the geographical proximity of Gillingham to the application site and its status in the centre hierarchy. Notwithstanding that Gillingham has already been identified as a centre which is declining, it is still considered appropriate to ensure that the current proposals would not further exacerbate the situation. Following negotiations with Officers a substantial financial contribution towards projects outlined in the Gillingham Development Framework, which has recently been adopted as a Supplementary Planning Guidance Document has been agreed (via a S106 legal agreement). The contribution amounts to £300k and it is considered that this will have significant and wide reaching benefits to Gillingham as a centre. This view has been reached after very careful consideration of the Local Plan Policies and also advice contained in Government Guidance, most specifically PPS6 – which at paragraph 2.8 specifically states that:

"Where existing centres are in decline, local planning authorities should assess the scope for consolidating and strengthening these centres by seeking to focus a wider range of services there, promote the diversification of uses and improve the environment."

This is precisely the aim of the Development Framework and given that the document is adopted and has been subject to the relevant consultation and adoption procedures it is considered appropriate that this is afforded significant weight indeed in the determination of this application. In the light of this the financial contribution is considered to be in line with both Local Policy and Government Guidance. In relation to Rainham, Tescos have confirmed that they have no intention in the foreseeable future of closing that store, indeed they have verbally advised the opposite that they may wish to improve or even expand it. The Council has therefore asked them to contact the management company of the precinct to discuss how the two parties can best work together for the benefit of Rainham. In the light of the preceding discussion it is concluded on balance, that the are no concerns with regard to the need or the location of the proposed development subject to the S106 legal requirement for a financial contribution as outlined above. The key issue therefore remains the loss of the allocated employment land on the Crest Packaging site. Initial concerns with regard to this issue centred around the fact that the site has been empty for a considerable period of time and that there is a need for ED land to be brought forward for development. Despite being allocated for this use, the Crest Packaging site has failed to come forward for development during the Local Plan Period and its entire loss would be deemed to be unacceptable as there is demand for additional B1, B2 and B8 floorspace within the Borough.

DC0902MW

However, the current proposals and those under MC2004/1681 propose to utilise approximately 25% of the Crest Packaging site for Retail use. In addition to this there is an associated outline application for industrial units on the remainder of the Crest Packaging site. Throughout the course of the application, part of the negotiations have revolved around ways to unlock the Crest Packaging site and to assist in bringing it forward for appropriate employment development. In this respect the applicants would be willing to enter into a S106 agreement to secure the decontamination of the Crest Packaging site and to leave it in a developable state (ie ready to build on) together with providing services into the site. It is considered that this would serve to overcome the main barrier to the Crest Packaging site being developed and would help to provide land to meet the ED requirements within the Borough. In the light of these two very substantial off site benefits, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of policy, location and impacts on the existing centres.

Referral to the Government Office for the South East (GOSE). The provsions of Circular 07/99 in relation to Departures are relevant to this application. In the light of the preceding discussion related to the principle of the development and the current allocations for the site in the Adopted Medway Local Plan, it is considered that the application remains a ‘technical’ departure from the Development Plan as part of the site to the south is allocated under Policy ED1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 (ED1 (B) (i)) as suitable for B1, B2 and B8 uses and this will not be realised in terms of the allocated use –instead it will be used as part of the Tesco proposals. Despite being a departure, referral to GOSE would only be required if the proposal consisted of 5000sqm floor area; was on land belonging to a Local Authority; or by reason of its scale or nature the proposal would significantly prejudice the implementation of the Local Plan policies. The proposal does not exceed the floor space trigger is not on land ownerd by the Council and through the negotiated S106 agreement would actually bring forward developable employment land in accordance with policy. It is not therefore considered that referral to GOSE is necessary in these circumstances. In addition to this, the provisions of Circular 15/93 (the “Shopping Direction”) have been considered and it is concluded that as the proposals would result in the creation of less than 2,500 square metres of additional floor space that the proposals would fall outside of the requirements to be referred to GOSE under this direction. Street scene and design The existing store on the site is sizeable and already impacts on the surrounding area. The main alterations that will be visible from outside of the site will be the appearance of the northern and western elevations when viewed from London Road (to the north of the site). Whilst the proposals would result in a significantly different external appearance to the building, the detailing, scale, bulk and design are all considered to be acceptable for the context of the site. The siting of the Petrol Station would also be visually prominent from Courteney Road/Bowaters roundabout and some tree screening would be lost here. However, the design of the petrol station is ‘standard’ and the visual impact of this is on balance considered acceptable given that the surrounding context is a major road artery and an industrial estate. In addition to this, further landscaping could be secured via a condition

DC0902MW

to soften the impact of the Petrol Station particularly in relation to the adjacent footpaths along Courteney Road. Consequently there are no concerns with regard to the visual impact of the proposals overall. Neighbours’ amenities The application site is well contained and surrounded by similar uses to the north, south and west. It is acknowledged that some of the adjoining sites are vacant but have a lawful industrial/commercial use. It is not considered that there would be any harm to the amenities of the occupiers or future occupiers of the surrounding commercial buildings given the context of the existing industrial estate. With regard to the impacts on residential amenities, concern has been raised with regard to overlooking, particularly from the café, which is proposed to be sited on the mezzanine floor of the store. These concerns have been raised by the residents of Edwin Road and were also raised at the time of the appeal in 1992. This issue was fully considered by the appeal Inspector and a condition was imposed to ensure that all openings on the eastern elevation should be obscure glazed and fixed shut save for a top hung fanlight to preserve the amenities of the nearby residents. It is considered that it would be reasonable to re-impose this condition to adequately preserve the privacy of the residents on Edwin Road. There are concerns raised regarding the noise and disturbance that would arise from the expansion of the store and there is particular concern with regard to deliveries. It is noted that there was a condition imposed by the appeal Inspector on the appeal decision (condition number 17 to GL/59/0046/91/113) which set a specific decibel level requirement between the hours of 22.00 and 07.00. Despite this condition, there is a history of noise complaints and these appear to relate mainly to the noise associated with the delivery function and includes clattering of trolleys, banging of doors and vehicle movements – some of which are hard to measure and can be reasonably short interruptions – but are nevertheless causing an impact. It is also noted that the site does already operate as a large store and is very close to the industrial estate where many of the units have an unrestricted use in terms of hours of operation and delivery times. However it is still critical to ensure that the residential amenities of the nearby residents will not be unacceptably prejudiced by the proposals given that the existing store will be substantially expanded as a result of the proposals and the location of the proposed service areas. Given that the existing condition does not appear to have served to fully protect the nearby residents from noise and disturbance arising from delivery activities at the site, it is considered reasonable to seek to control the hours of deliveries via a suitably worded condition. Indeed it is considered that this would serve to improve the prevailing situation for the nearby residents as this condition would be easier to monitor and/or enforce as opposed to one that sets a specific decibel level. After very careful consideration it is considered that provided the conditions outlined below are imposed on the grant of any permission the amenities of the surrounding residents would not be unacceptably prejudiced by the proposals.

• Restricted delivery times • Measures to minimise the transmission of noise from the use of the premises

and;

DC0902MW

• A code of practice covering noise, dust and air quality during construction to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Council.

• No windows to the eastern elevation of the building except for obscure glazed windows that are fixed shut apart from a top hung fanlight.

On balance, and with the conditions outlined above being imposed, the impacts are considered to be acceptable in terms of overall impacts on the amenities of the surrounding residents. Highways

Traffic generation and impact In order to understand the potential impact of the expanded store, a comprehensive transport assessment accompanied the application. The level of existing customer traffic generated by Tesco was identified from traffic surveys, and a trip generation database incorporating survey data from similar sites was used to calculate the expected increase in traffic resulting from the development. The extended store is expected to generate a 25% increase in vehicle movements during the weekday peak period, and a 23% increase in vehicle movements during the Saturday peak period between 1300 hours and 1400 hours. Although it is unlikely that all of these trips will be new to the network – up to 30% of traffic to a supermarket during the Friday peak and 10% on a Saturday are pass-by trips - the impact on the surrounding road network would remain significant. In particular, it was shown that the additional traffic generated by the development would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the operation of Bowaters Roundabout as it exists. Already over capacity at busy periods, the addition of the development traffic is likely to exacerbate this lack of capacity at peak times and increase queues on the A2 approaches in particular. A number of alternatives for Bowaters roundabout have been considered. The first was to increase the number of running lanes on the roundabout from three to four in order to increase its capacity to accommodate more traffic. However, a safety audit considered that adding traffic lanes on certain sections of the circulating area of the roundabout could increase the risk of sideswipe accidents. By decreasing the lane widths from 4 metres to 3 metres, the proposal would also further reduce the ability of large vehicles to remain in their marked-out lane. A second proposal considered the option of providing access to the Tesco site from Hoath Way via a signalised junction linking directly into the car park, and also providing access to the employment area and Courteney Road south. This proposal would remove the Courteney Road arm of the Bowater Roundabout. However, surveys of the existing traffic accessing the Tesco store indicate that the majority of vehicles originate from the east and west of Bowaters Roundabout, with only a relatively small number of vehicles travelling to and from the store via Hoath Way South. Therefore the majority of vehicles would still use Bowaters Roundabout, but rather than enter via the Courteney Road access they would use Hoath Way. Consequently, there would be very little reduction in overall traffic levels on Bowaters roundabout if a new access were to be provided on Hoath Way (around 1%). It would also place a significant burden on the Hoath Way roundabout to the south, already a busy junction providing access to Gillingham Business Park, and the Courteney Road/Hoath Way mini-roundabout, the capacity of which would be exceeded at peak times and potentially result in vehicle queues backing up along Hoath Way.

DC0902MW

The Committee previously considered a “through-about” proposal for Bowaters roundabout, but were not convinced that this proposal would work. They therefore required the applicants to undertake a further traffic survey and to put forward a series of options which should include consideration of slip road from the A2 and re-consideration of a roundabout/traffic light junction on Hoath way. An updated traffic survey has been undertaken. The applicants conclusion is that the issue with Bowater roundabout is outdated signalisation, queue recognition systems and the lack of bus priority. They have therefore set out a package of improvements to the roundabout that are set out within the S106 package, which upgrade the signalisation, including improved surfacing approaching the roundabout, queue recognition linked to the lights, bus priority lanes etc. Their modelling indicates that these measures will significantly improve the operation of the roundabout taking into consideration their proposal. In addition, while they do not consider it necessary, they are prepared to include the provision of a new slip road on the A2 adjacent to Tescos boundary to further reduce queue lengths on the A2 from Rainham. To this extent an application has already been submitted and is currently being assessed by the Councils Highway consultants and safety audit team. In terms of Hoath Way, the proposition of a roundabout is not feasible as there is not the land available while a traffic light system would not benefit for the reasons stated above while it will also impact greatly on the availability of parking and vehicle manouvering within the site. For these reasons this option has not been considered feasible. Tescos will continue to monitor the operation of the roundabout as it is in their interests for this to function as otherwise their customers will go elsewhere. Tesco, following the completion of a Section 278 agreement with the Highway Authority, will both fund and implement all the proposed highway works. Access arrangements and car parking As part of proposed extension, the access arrangements to the site are revised with the roundabout at the site access/Courteney Road enlarged and relocated 70m south of its existing position. This will provide access to the Tesco car park and service yard, proposed industrial area and Courteney Road South, with the internal mini-roundabout removed. The proposed site access roundabout is predicted to have ample spare capacity to accommodate the predicted traffic flows. Although the service yard remains in broadly the same position, the revised layout of the internal access roads will provide a greater degree of separation between private vehicles and delivery lorries. The petrol filling station will be relocated to the northeast of the new access roundabout. The site currently provides 525 car parking spaces for Tesco customers, equating to a parking ratio that is marginally above the Council’s maximum standard. A parking accumulation study accompanying the Transport Assessment demonstrated that the existing provision is near capacity during peak shopping periods, and clearly the expanded store would increase the demand for car parking. To support this, an additional 183 parking spaces are proposed bringing the total to 708, including 26 spaces for mobility-impaired drivers (an increase of 14 spaces). Despite the increased gross floor area (GFA), the parking ratio will remain at 1 space per 11sqm GFA. The overall provision is considered to be acceptable and appropriate to serve the needs of the development and, combined with the relocation of the access further to the south, is unlikely to result in vehicle queues disrupting the flow of traffic on the local network. The parking provision is also balanced by the improvements to public transport provided as part of this application. In addition, it is proposed to enhance the cycle

DC0902MW

parking facilities within the site through the provision of a further 28 cycle racks, which will be secured through the imposition of a planning condition. Public Transport, Pedestrians and Cyclists In order to balance the significant highway works proposed to facilitate access by private car, the Council has negotiated the incorporation of measures to improve public transport infrastructure. The site is well served by public transport, with a bus at least every 10 minutes passing the site along the A2 linking it with Chatham, Hempstead, Parkwood and Gillingham, and therefore no additional services are considered necessary to accompany this application. However, as part of the works to Bowaters Roundabout, two sections of bus lane will be constructed on the east and west arms. This will involve the removal of sections of highway verge, with no impact upon the running lanes currently available, and enable buses to bypass any traffic queues on the approaches to the roundabout. The provision of the bus lanes accords with the Council’s objectives in respect of bus priority measures on the A2, which is identified as a strategic bus corridor. In addition, the developer has agreed a financial contribution towards upgrading the existing bus shelter facility on the westbound carriageway and the installation of a new bus stop and shelter on the eastbound carriageway. The site is linked to pedestrian footways on the A2 London Road via a walkway near to the northwest corner of the existing store, and there is an additional walkway between the store car park and Courteney Road on the western edge of the site. A shared pedestrian/cycle route will be provided to complement the new carriageway through Bowaters Roundabout, linking with the existing provision on the A2/London Road, A278 Hoath Way and Courteney Road via new toucan crossings. A new pedestrian footway will be provided along the eastern side of Courteney Road, in addition to pedestrian islands with dropped kerb crossing facilities on the site access. Comments Made by Kent Police in Relation to Highway’s Matters Kent Police have expressed concern at the exit arrangements from the relocated petrol filling station, the adequacy of the sightline for vehicles turning right and the potential for conflict with vehicles approaching from other directions. It is unlikely that vehicles exiting the petrol filing station will be prevented from turning right, as it would not be logical to send all vehicles around the car park. In addition to this, the visibility to the right is acceptable, provided the boundary treatment around the petrol filing station is kept at a low level. Boundary treatments, vehicle circulation in the car park and traffic calming measures are potentially issues that could be controlled by planning condition. However, beyond the main access roundabout, the site itself will remain private and it could be argued that safety issues on the site itself are the responsibility of Tesco. Moreover, it is not considered that any of the issues raised by the Kent Police will have an impact on safety on the highway network beyond the site boundary. Whilst it is clearly in the interests of Tesco to ensure that vehicle circulation within their site does not compromise the safety of its customers the issues raised by Kent Police would not compromise overall highway safety or capacity on the highway network and as such it is not deemed appropriate to impose a condition requiring the layout of the car park or exit from the petrol filing station to be submitted and approved. However, the applicants have been made aware of the comments from the Police.

DC0902MW

Overall Conclusions in Relation to Highways Issues Subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure the highway works to Bowaters Roundabout and financial contributions towards enhancing public transport infrastructure, the application is considered acceptable in terms of traffic generation, parking, and access for pedestrians and cyclists. Accordingly, no objection is raised under the provisions of Policies T1, T3 and T4 of the Local Plan and the proposals are deemed to be acceptable in terms of overall highway safety and parking provision. Trees There are a number of well-established young trees growing to the west of the site (mostly Ash, Cherry and Pine) that would have to be removed in order to relocate the petrol station and roundabout. The trees that would have to be removed are valuable in terms of the screening they provide but these would not warrant protection in their own right. It is considered that the removal of these trees would be acceptable provided substantial replacement planting could be secured and it is considered that this could be controlled via a suitably worded condition. Existing trees within the car park area are not shown on the plans and again, additional planting/landscaping will be required for the new car park layout. The tree planting areas should be designed to reduce the instances of vehicle and trolley damage to trees. Again, it is considered that these details can be secures via a suitably worded condition. There is a protected tree belt to the east of the application site and there is also an existing retaining wall to the rear of the current store. All of the protected trees growing along this boundary are situated behind this retaining wall, and so although the plans do not accurately show all of the trees, it is nevertheless concluded that the extension could be accommodated without causing harm to the band of protected trees as the proposed new buildings do not encroach beyond the line of the existing retaining wall. There are no objections in this instance with regard to the proposed development provided additional information comprising tree survey plans, aboricultural method statements and root protection zones is submitted and approved in writing prior to the commencement of the development and this can be secured via a suitably worded condition. Other Matters Contaminated Land The former use of the site could have given rise to contamination. Policy BNE23 of The Medway Local Plan 2003 relates to contamination and this requires that proposals for development of land likely to be contaminated should be accompanied by the findings of a site investigation survey, which identifies contaminants. In order for the proposals to be judged against the provisions of Policy BNE23 a site investigation survey will need to be submitted. Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control states that planning applications should be accompanied by at least a desk-top study where contamination is known or suspected or the proposed use would be particularly vulnerable.

DC0902MW

However, PPS23 also requires the Local Planning Authority to take a balanced approach when dealing with applications. Although this application is for development on a brownfield site, the proposed development is for a commercial use. This is considered to pose a lesser risk to human health than if the proposal was for residential development. The need for a desk top study at the application stage is therefore considered to be less critical and in these circumstances it is considered that the contamination issues can be adequately controlled by way of a suitably worded condition. On balance therefore, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of contaminated land issues in respect of the proposed extension. Archaeology The site lies within an area that has potential for archaeological finds. It is concluded that a suitably worded condition requiring a programme of archaeological work to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site would adequately ensure that any features of archaeological interest were properly examined and recorded. As such there are no concerns with regards to the proposals and their potential archaeological impact. EIA Development Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 identifies those developments where the requirement for and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is discretionary. This application falls within the scope of developments outlined in Schedule 2 whereby the Local Planning Authority can require the submission of an Environmental Statement if the likely effects of the proposals are to be ‘significantly adverse’. Whether the proposals would represent development requiring an Environmental Statement has been considered. Given the fact that the proposals are for a redevelopment of an existing employment site on a site identified as an Employment allocation in the Local Plan, together with the fact that the protected tree belt to the rear is to be retained and that there is no evidence of wider contamination it is not considered that there will be any significantly adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in this instance. Consequently it is concluded that there is no requirement for an Environmental Statement to accompany this application.

S106 requirements Throughout the course of this application a substantial package of financial contributions and works have been negotiated to be delivered as part of this project and these are outlined below: Highways S106

• A financial contribution of £24k towards bus stop improvements. • A S.278 agreement with the Council to undertake highway works on Courteney

Road and Bowater’s Roundabout, including the installation of bus lanes on the east and west approaches and all traffic signal amendments, signing, new toucan crossing and the securing of all Traffic Regulation Orders.

DC0902MW

Gillingham Town Centre Financial Contribution.

• A financial contribution of £300k towards town centre improvements as identified in the adopted Gillingham Town Centre Framework.

Works at the Adjacent Crest Packaging Site

• Decontamination of the adjacent Crest Packaging site, a full survey and remediation works to be submitted to, and approved in writing prior to the extension opening and subsequently carried out in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

• Provision of services (including gas, water and electric) to the Crest packaging site.

It is considered that this overall package would provide significant wider benefits to the local area in terms of improvements to Gillingham, major improvement to the highway network, improvement of bus lanes and bus stops and the very significant works to the Crest Packaging site, which would leave it in a state ready for redevelopment. It is considered therefore, that any potentially harmful impacts of the proposals would be adequately offset by the S106 requirements.

Conclusions and Reasons for Approval In the light of the preceding discussions it must be concluded that this is indeed a complex case which is interrelated with the adjacent Crest Packaging application and both of these have been ongoing for a long period of time. There are also matters of policy and potential impacts that must be fully assessed in respect of these proposals. Very careful consideration has been given to the proposals and a holistic view of the impacts and benefits arising from the proposals have been carefully weighed. It is considered that overall the proposals whilst representing a departure form the Development Plan would not prejudice the delivery of the overall aspirations for the Borough and there are special circumstances that would justify a Departure from the Development Plan in this case – not least the very significant and wider benefits that will arise as a result of the proposals. Issues of highway safety, impacts on trees and amenity have also been very carefully considered and overall the proposals are deemed to be acceptable. As such the proposals are recommended for approval. This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members consideration due to the level of representations received contrary to the Officer Recommendation. The application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 10th October 2007 when it was determined to defer a decision for further negotiation in relation to the highway aspects relative to this proposal.

DC0902MW

5 MC2004/1681

Date Received: 20th July 2004

Location: Crest Packaging Site, Courteney Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 Proposal: Outline application for demolition of buildings and construction of 8

industrial units and 11 trade units with associated parking Applicant: Tesco Stores Limited C/o Agent Agent: Mr B Hartley-Raven Cushman & Wakefield Healey and Baker 43/45

Portman Square London W1A 3BG Ward: Rainham Central Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 Approval of the details of siting, design and external appearance of the building(s),

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

2 Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above shall

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

3 The development hereby permitted shall be begun no later than the expiration of

two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

4 No external lighting shall be installed on site without the prior written consent of the

Local Planning Authority. 5 The reserved matters to be submitted pursuant to condition number 1 in relation to

landscaping shall also include a landscape management plan 6 No materials, plant or other equipment of any description shall be stored in the

open other than in areas and to such heights as have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a scheme for the

disposal of foul and surface water has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the bringing into use of any of the buildings hereunder approved.

8 The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition number 1 shall

include a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary

DC0902MW

treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

9 The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with Condition 1 above shall

include:

a) A plan showing the location of and allocating a reference number to each existing tree on site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the crown spread of each retained tree;

b) details of the species, diameter (measured in accordance with paragraph a) above, and the approximate height and an assessment of the general state of health and stability, of each retained tree and of each tree which is on land adjacent to the site and to which paragraphs c) and d) below apply;

c) details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree, or of any tree on land adjacent to the site;

d) details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels and of the position of any proposed excavation within the crown spread of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site within a distance of 20m from any retained tree, or any tree on land adjacent to the site, equivalent to half the height of that tree;

e) details of the specification and position of fencing and of any other measures to be taken for the protection of any retained tree from damage before or during the course of development.

In this Condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with paragraph a) above.

10 The reserved matters submissions pursuant to condition 1 shall include details of

existing and proposed site levels, and cross sections through the site. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved levels.

11 The details to be submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall show adequate land,

reserved for the parking of vehicles and upon approval of the details, no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on the land so shown (other than the erection of a private garage or garages) or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the reserved vehicle parking area.

12 No goods shall be loaded, unloaded, stored or otherwise handled and no vehicles

shall arrive or depart within the application site outside of the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 18:00 Saturday or at any time on Sunday or Public Holidays

13 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an acoustic

assessment shall be undertaken to determine the impact of noise arising from the development site. Noise from commercial premises should be controlled, such

DC0902MW

that the noise rating level (LA,T) emitted from the development does not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) by more than 3dB. All measurements shall be defined and derived in accordance with BS4142: 1997. The results of the assessment and details of any mitigation measures shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented before the development is brought into use and thereafter by maintained in accordance with the approved details.

14 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a construction

code of practice that describes measures to control noise and dust impacts arising from the construction phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All construction works shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

15 No mechanical ventilation and/or extraction systems shall be installed on any of

the units hereby approved without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority

16 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a site

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

17 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their successors in title, has

secured the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written programme and specification which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

18 The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall not detail any windows or doors

within the eastern elevations, other than emergency exits required under the building regulations. All such emergency exits shall be kept closed at all times other than when required for an emergency exit from the buildings.


Site Description The site comprises an existing industrial site occupied most recently by Crest Packaging. The site is currently vacant and the buildings are currently unused. Demolition has recently commenced in respect of the buildings. The buildings on site were of utilitarian design and functional in character as would be expected in the context of an industrial estate.

DC0902MW

Covering the application site and to the south of the site lies the Courteney Road industrial area, which is allocated as existing employment land in the Medway Local Plan under Policy ED1 as suitable for development falling within classes B1, B2 and B8. There is a protected tree band to the east of the site, which are the subject of a group TPO. Beyond this to the east there are residential properties situated on Edwin Road. The site lies within the identified urban area of Gillingham. To the west the site is bounded by Courteney Road itself. To the north of the application site lies the existing Tesco’s store and this site is also the subject of a related application for an extension to the existing store also reported to the Committee on this agenda. Proposal The proposals seek outline planning permission for industrial and trade units with all matters except means of access reserved for future consideration. An indicative layout has been submitted which illustrates that the provision of 8 industrial units of between 7-10,000 sq.ft and 11 trade units of between 3-5,000 sq.ft. with parking/servicing areas etc can be accommodated on the site. The means of access is shown as being provided from the re-sited roundabout providing vehicular access to the re-modelled/extended Tesco store considered under application reference MC2004/1883 also on this agenda. However, as the application has been submitted in outline form, the layout submitted is purely indicative and is subject to change. Detailed matters of layout, siting and design will be considered at reserved matters stage, As such it is simply the principle of the development and the means of access to the site that falls to be considered in the determination of this application. A transport assessment (produced to cover both this application and the associated Tesco’s extension) has been submitted in support of the proposals. There is an associated application at the adjacent Tesco’s site for an extension to the existing store, remodelling of the existing exterior of the building, new parking, new access and re-location of the existing petrol filling station which is also reported to the Committee on this agenda and this report should be read in conjunction with the content of the report for this associated detailed application.

Relevant Planning History There is a long and complex planning history for this site and only the most relevant applications are cited here: Direct Site History MC/98/0574/MG/59/046 Installation of an exhaust stack.

Approved 28 October 1998. MC2002/0081 Part change of use of lower ground floor of east block from

general store area to ink processing factory. Approved 18 June2002.

DC0902MW

Tesco’s site History (adjacent site) GL/59/0046/91/113 Outline application for the erection of a 65,000 sq ft food retail

store with associated car parking and petrol filling station. Allowed at appeal 21 July 92.

GL/92/0809/92/0758 Proposed erection of a retail food store with associated car

parking and petrol filling station (reserved matters - application number GL59/46/91/0113). Approved 05 February 1993.

MC2004/1883 Construction of extension to existing class A1 foodstore to form

an additional 2,475 sqm gross floor area, relocated petrol filling station, revised service yard, new site access arrangements, reconfigured and enlarged shoppers car park, new store elevations, landscaping and surface treatments and ancillary plant equipment. Also reported to planning committee on this agenda for consideration.

Representations The application has been advertised by way of a site and press notice. The owners/occupiers of the following properties have been directly notified of the proposals;20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 Edwin Road, Training Centre, Courteney Road. The following external bodies have been notified of the proposals; Environment Agency, Southern Water Services, Kent Country Council (Archaeology), Transco, South Eastern Electricity, Kent Police. Representations received in respect of the original proposals as submitted in 2004. Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority advises that the access appears satisfactory although a hydrant request/requirement report may be raised in due course. Kent County Council (Archaeology) advise that the site lies along the southern edge of the corridor of the Roman Road of Watling Street. Although it appears to have been relatively undeveloped in the modern era, the site’s proximity to the Roman road makes it a possible location for Roman and Medieval activity. Although there are no recorded archaeological features on the spot of the proposed building itself, there is still archaeological potential there and in view of the extent of the work it is considered that provision should be made for a programme of archaeological work on any forthcoming consent. This could reasonably be secured via a suitably worded condition. Transco raise no objections to the proposals and advise that there are known pipes owned by Transco in the area and there may be additional infrastructure belonging to other licensed gas transporters or privately owned may be also be present in the areas. The pipes owned by Transco are Low/Medium/Intermediate Pressure gas main in the proximity of the site. No mechanical excavations are to take place above, or within 0.5m of the Low Pressure system, 2m of the Medium Pressure system and 3m of the intermediate pressure system. Where required confirmation of the position of the mains should be undertaken using hand dug trial

DC0902MW

holes. A copy of the letter and enclosed plans have been forwarded to the applicants agent for information. Southern Water advise that they have no objections regarding foul sewage disposal and make comments regarding how surface water should be accommodated. If planning permission should be granted a condition requiring the details of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Southern Water) prior to the commencement of the development should be imposed. This has been copied to the applicants Environment Agency advise that the site is on, or immediately adjacent to a former landfill site. Should your council be mindful to grant planning permission then the Agency would advise that some or all of the following building design matters should be attached as conditions to the permission. They provide further guidance on these matters. In addition they recommend a contamination condition. A copy of their detailed comments has been sent to the applicant. Threadneedle Investments represent Eagle Star Life Assurance Company who are the owners of the main elements of the Orchard Precinct, Rainham. They make the following comments:

• Concerned that the extension of their store at Courteney Road may lead to the closure of Tesco’s business in Orchard Precinct. This would be severely detrimental to the retail offer at the precinct.

• Concerns about the eleven trade units which are being proposed for construction at

Courteney Road. I would request further information about their intended use. Are these Trade Counters (such as tile, electrical or plumbing centres) or are they retail units? We would need further information to assess the implications for the existing traders in the precinct.

8 letters of representation have been received in respect of the proposals as originally submitted raising the following issues/concerns:

• The industrial units will back onto Edwin Road. • What type of units will the trade units be? • What type of industry will be in the industrial units? • Concern regarding noise and light pollution from the units. • What will the hours of operation be? • Will extractor fans be used? These can be extremely noisy – particularly at

night. • Will any trees be felled? Most have TPO’s on them or are there plans to

plant more trees? • With Tesco’s being expanded noise pollution at night will increase with

lorries arriving and backing up into the loading bays. • The area around the Tesco roundabout A2 Courteney Road and Hoath Way

is already heavily congested the roundabout going into Tesco’s is to be relocated – has the volume of traffic been taken into consideration?

• What type of fencing will be used on the boundary backing onto the properties on Edwin Road?

DC0902MW

• Will there be a grounds maintenance programme for the whole area, Tesco’s have a problem with keeping their shrub beds free of rubbish and trolleys at the moment.

• Although a lot of information has been provided related to infrastructure and traffic flows etc nothing has been submitted that relates to the impacts these proposals will have on the residential areas adjoining the site. This is not acceptable, not is it an acceptable proposal for the residential occupiers. A mix of 19 industrial and trade units with the noise and vehicle impact this must generate possibly over a 24 hour, 7 day a week period, sited along the boundary of this residential area will impact tremendously on the rights of those residents to quietly enjoy their leisure amenities including the loss of privacy.

• There have, as documented within this application, already been a large number of accidents involving members of the public on the roads surrounding this site and access area. This proposals can only impact further on this already dangerous situation, with such an increase in numbers of vehicles of all types needing to access the site and area, this will increase the number of times that the motorway routes will be closed/restricted due to accidents which have caused grid lock all around the towns. The numbers and sizes of these vehicles, not only supplying the increase in goods to Tesco’s itself on its application to increase its square footage, but also to service an additional 19 trade/industrial units will be devastating.

• The application is overpowering and although I am fully aware that the planning department has to work within financial constraints and the financial might of a company like Tesco will be daunting, none the less, they should not be allowed to impact so devastatingly on the residents of the area nor upon this already dangerous and busy area unchallenged.

• The application is overpowering on a site of this size. • Concern over pedestrian and cyclists safety as well as overall highway

safety concerns. • Concerns over safety/security of rear gardens backing onto the site as the

plans appear to show free access through the site and beyond onto the back gardens.

• It is unclear from the plans whether the access road will run to the rear of the gardens backing onto the site.

• Concern that the buildings on the site will be demolished a long time prior to works to construct the new buildings on site commencing and that the site will be left vacant and un-secured for a long period of time. This could cause problems of anti social behaviour.

• There are no details of gases/fumes/smoke etc emanating from the industrial units – surely this must be provided given the close proximity of the residential properties to the site.

• As there are already unoccupied units in Courteney Road, Gillingham Business Park and Medway City Estate is there really a need for any more of this type of unit to be built? There is concern that they would remain vacant.

• As the proposed site is on a higher level than the existing properties in Edwin Road there is a risk that the site could pollute the water course and this should be given consideration.

DC0902MW

• It is assumed that the properties will not be an eyesore and that no windows will be allowed that could give rise to overlooking.

• The traffic survey submitted does not address the effect that a general increase in traffic on the A2/A278 roundabout will have on A2 westbound traffic queuing from the roundabout past Edwin Road and Marshall Road at busy times of day. Currently this queue backs up to Edwin road, which due to parking on both sides of the road leaves only a single lane at the lower part of Edwin Road. An increase in traffic on the A2/A278 roundabout will exacerbate the situation.

• The current boundary treatment to the rear gardens of the residential properties on Edwin Road has fallen into disrepair and this must be addressed otherwise security for these properties is compromised.

• There are no details shown of the proposed boundary treatments. A solid boundary wall preferably 2 metres high with barbed wire at the top is a minimum requirement.

• It is unclear as to the distance from the rear of the three 10000 sq feet industrial buildings from the eastern boundary. Is any form of access behind the buildings proposed – tipping of rubbish and litter on the boundary was a problem with the former owners.

• The trees on the eastern boundary covered by the TPO are deciduous and therefore do not form an effective barrier to dust, noise or privacy for five or six months of the year.

• Should the application be approved then the conditions and criteria for monitoring noise levels should include monitoring noise at the first floor level of the rear of the houses in Edwin Road.

• Taking into account the age of the existing buildings and the nature of the construction materials used the proposal does not indicate that a risk assessment of likely air pollution has been carried out for the demolition phase or methods to prevent air or dust pollution.

• Tesco’s air conditioning is already too loud and the exhaust/extraction systems at the new units must be very carefully controlled.

• A statement of ‘acceptable noise’ should be agreed before the development is allowed to go ahead.

• Any increase in noise from current levels is not acceptable. • Measures to prevent any increase in traffic movements in Edwin Road must

be a priority. • There is a preparatory school at the junction of Edwin Road and Marshall

Road and this will be affected by the proposals. • Opening and construction hours should be 7.30 am and 5pm.

Non Planning Matters Raised

• The proposals will devalue properties in the area. • Travellers will use the site if it isn’t developed straight away.

Development Plan Policies Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

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

DC0902MW

Policy EN9 (Trees Woodland and Hedgerows) Policy EP2 (Employment Land Provision) Policy EP3 (Location of New or Replacement Employment Land) Policy TP1 (Integrated Transport Strategy) Policy TP2 (Assessment Criteria for Transport Proposals) Policy TP3 (Transport and the Location of Development) Policy TP9 (Supporting Public Transport) Policy TP11 (Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists) Policy TP12 (Development and Access to the Primary/Secondary Road

Network) Policy TP15 (Development Traffic and Heavy Goods Vehicles) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)


Policy S1 (Development Strategy) Policy S2 (Strategic Principles) Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise Standards) Policy BNE6 (Landscape Design) Policy BNE8 (Security and Personal Safety) Policy BNE9 (Design of Commercial Frontages) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated Land) Policy BNE41 (Tree Preservation Orders) Policy BNE42 (Hedgerow Retention) Policy BNE43 (Trees and Development Sites) Policy ED1 (Existing Employment Sites) Policy R16 (Restrictions on Goods for Sale) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T3 (Provision for Pedestrians) Policy T4 (Cycle Facilities) Policy T5 (Bus Preference Measures) Policy T11 (Development Funded Transport Improvements) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)

Government Guidance Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance 16; Archaeology and Planning Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control. Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise.

DC0902MW

Planning Appraisal

Principle and Policy Issues Under planning application MC2004/1883 (the previous item on this agenda) it is proposed to utilise approximately 25% of the Crest Packaging site for Retail use as part of the Tesco’s development. In terms of the principle in respect of this outline application, the site is allocated as an existing employment site in the adopted Local Plan under Policy ED1 (b) (i) – Courteney Road and as such any uses falling within use classes B1, B2 and B8 are deemed to be acceptable in principle subject to the criterion of the other relevant development plan policies being satisfied. The key issues with regard to the acceptability of this development are therefore whether:

• The impacts on the amenities of the surrounding properties are acceptable. • Whether the means of access to the site is acceptable in terms of highway safety.

If these issues are deemed to be acceptable then all other matters will be adequately addressed at reserved matters stage and/or controlled via suitably worded conditions. Street scene and design In terms of street scene as the application is in outline form, this issue cannot be fully considered at this stage, however given that the site is allocated as employment land it is not anticipated that there will be any potential issues in accommodating industrial style units in the context of the surrounding area. The visual impact of the re-sited roundabout and proposed new ‘arm’ off this roundabout to serve the new industrial units is considered acceptable. Consequently there are no concerns with regard to the potential visual impact of the proposals overall. Neighbours’ amenities The application site is well contained and surrounded by similar uses to the north, south and west. It is acknowledged that some of the adjoining sites are vacant but have a lawful industrial/commercial use, and it is not considered that there would be any harm to the amenities of the occupiers or future occupiers of the surrounding commercial buildings given the context of the existing industrial estate. With regard to the impacts on residential amenities, concern has been raised with regard to overlooking. These concerns have been raised by the residents of Edwin Road and were also raised at the time of the appeal in 1992. This issue was fully considered by the appeal Inspector in the determination of the Tesco’s application for the existing store at the adjacent site to the north and a condition was imposed to ensure that all openings on the eastern

DC0902MW

elevation should be obscure glazed and fixed shut save for a top hung fanlight to preserve the amenities of the nearby residents. It is considered that it would be reasonable to impose a similar condition here to adequately preserve the privacy of the residents on Edwin Road. Concerns have also been raised in respect of the location of the proposed services and the units themselves, it should be stressed that as the application is in outline form, this layout is subject to change and is purely indicative. Noise and disturbance The former occupiers of the site, Crest Packaging have been the subject of noise complaints from adjacent residential properties in the past, especially when operations continued into the early hours of the morning. Noise leading to the complaints has arisen from vehicle movements and from plant and machinery. Careful consideration must therefore be given to whether the proposals would cause undue noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties. Planning Policy Guidance PPG24 ‘Planning and Noise’ advises that new development involving noisy activities should be sited away from noise sensitive land uses. Furthermore, Policy BNE3 of the Medway Local Plan states that:

‘where new noisy industrial or similar development is proposed, it is necessary to ensure that it does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance to the amenity of existing uses in the locality’.

In this instance, whilst the provisions of Policy BNE3 are relevant it should also be noted that the site is allocated as employment land under Policy ED1 and the surrounding area to the south is also industrial in character. On balance therefore, it is considered that the uses are broadly appropriate for the area but given the previous history of noise complaints any permission should subject to suitably worded conditions being imposed to control:

• Hours of deliveries. • Construction hours/code of practice covering noise, dust and air quality. • A scheme to minimise the transmission of noise from the premises to be submitted. • Details of any mechanical extraction systems to be submitted and approved in

writing.

It is accordingly considered that provided the conditions outlined are imposed on the grant of any permission the amenities of the surrounding residents would not be unacceptably prejudiced by the proposals. Highways As an outline application, the principles of access and traffic generation are considered and have been assessed in conjunction with the impact of the proposed extension to the food store. In addition, an assessment of the mini-roundabout located on Courteney Road to the south of the site was undertaken. It is likely that fewer large vehicle trips will be generated by the proposed industrial/trade units when compared with the previous use of the site, however trips by car are likely to be higher, which will have a greater impact on Bowaters Roundabout. The proposed use also offers a greater potential for higher levels of public transport use.

DC0902MW

As part of proposed extension, the access arrangements to the site are revised with the roundabout at the site access/Courteney Road enlarged and relocated 70m south of its existing position. Access to the proposed industrial area will be from a dedicated arm off the roundabout, which has been assessed and is predicted to have ample spare capacity to accommodate the predicted traffic flows from both the industrial site and the extended Tesco store. Vehicle tracking diagrams have been submitted that demonstrate large vehicles are able to negotiate the roundabout and access the site in a safe manner. The indicative plans demonstrate that an appropriate level of parking to serve the needs of the development can be provided, and that the site can accommodate sufficient manoeuvring space for the large vehicles expected to access the site to turn and leave in a forward gear. Clearly, any subsequent reserved matters application for the layout of the site will address these specific issues. Subject to the Section 106 agreement to secure the highway works to Bowaters Roundabout and the Courtney Road roundabout as part of the Tesco extension, and improvements to public transport infrastructure, the application is considered acceptable in terms of traffic generation and access and no objection is raised under the provisions of Policies T1, T3 and T4 of the Local Plan. Trees There is a protected tree belt to the east of the application site and there is also an existing retaining wall to the rear of the current store. All of the protected trees growing along this boundary are situated behind this retaining wall, and so although the plans do not accurately show all of the trees, it is nevertheless concluded that the redevelopment of the site could be accommodated without causing harm to the band of protected trees as the extent of the application site does not encroach beyond the line of the existing retaining wall. In any case, the final layout of the buildings and boundary treatments etc are yet to be finalised. There are no objections in this instance with regard to the proposed development provided additional information comprising tree survey plans, aboricultural method statements and root protection zones is submitted and approved in writing prior to the commencement of the development and this can be secured via a suitably worded condition. Other Matters Contaminated Land The former use of the site could have given rise to contamination. Policy BNE23 of The Medway Local Plan 2003 relates to contamination and this requires that proposals for development of land likely to be contaminated should be accompanied by the findings of a site investigation survey, which identifies contaminants. Although this application is for a brownfield site, the proposed development is for a commercial use. This is considered to pose a lesser risk to human health than if the proposal was for residential development. The need for a desk top study at the application stage is therefore considered to be less critical. This balanced decision has been reached following extensive negotiations with the applicants agent in respect of contamination issues. It has been agreed that a S106 requirement will be attached to the associated application for the Tesco’s extension to ensure that this site is fully decontaminated and the site left in a ‘developable’ state. Given the history of the site and the comments in relation to contaminated land issues from the Environment Agency this aspect

DC0902MW

is considered to be a very large achievement with very tangible positive effects for the currently vacant and derelict site which currently has very poor prospects for redevelopment largely due to the costs associated with removing the existing buildings and decontaminating the site. As such, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of contaminated land issues in respect of the proposed redevelopment of the site. Archaeology The site lies within an area that has potential for archaeological finds. It is concluded that a suitably worded condition requiring a programme of archaeological work to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site would adequately ensure that any features of archaeological interest were properly examined and recorded. As such there are no concerns with regards to the proposals and their potential archaeological impact. EIA Development Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 identifies those developments where the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is discretionary. This application falls within the scope of developments outlined in Schedule 2 whereby the Local Planning Authority can require the submission of an Environmental Statement if the likely effects of the proposals are to be ‘significantly adverse’. Whether the proposals would represent development requiring an Environmental Statement has been considered. Given the fact that the proposals are for a redevelopment of an existing employment site on a site identified as an Employment Allocation in the Local Plan, together with the fact that the protected tree belt to the rear is to be retained and that there is no evidence of wider contamination it is not considered that there will be any significantly adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in this instance. Consequently it is concluded that there is no requirement for an Environmental Statement to accompany this application.

S106 requirements A substantial package of financial contributions and works have been negotiated to be delivered as part of the associated Tesco’s extension application and whilst these are not reiterated in full here, it is considered that a very comprehensive package of has been negotiated which would bring far reaching benefits. Conclusions and Reasons for approval In the light of the preceding discussions it must be concluded that this is indeed a complex case which is interrelated with the adjacent Tesco’s extension application and both of these have been ongoing for a long period of time. There are also matters of policy and potential impacts that must be fully assessed in respect of these proposals. Very careful consideration has been given to the proposals and a holistic view of the impacts and benefits arising from the proposals have been carefully weighed.

DC0902MW

It is considered that the comprehensive package of S106 obligations would result in wide reaching benefits to Gillingham town centre, to the long-term redevelopment of the Crest Packaging Site and would make very real and tangible improvements to the highway network and bus lane provision. As such the proposals are recommended for approval. This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members consideration due to the level of representations received contrary to the Officer Recommendation. The application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 10th October 2007 when it was determined to defer a decision for further negotiation in relation to the proposed improvements to Bowaters roundabout to facilitate this proposal and the extension to Tescos..

DC0902MW

6 MC2004/1214

Date Received: 2nd June 2004

Location: Former Akzo Chemical Works, Pier Road, Gillingham, Kent.

Proposal: Outline application for the redevelopment of former industrial works to provide 808 residential units, live/work units, retail use (class A1), restaurant (class A3), hotel (class C1) with ancillary pub and restaurant (ancillary class A3), doctors surgery (class C1), harbour masters and chandler, 93 bed student accommodation, new access arrangements, associated landscaping and car parking (demolition of all existing buildings).

Applicant: Berkeley Homes (Eastern) Ltd, Berkeley House, 7- Oakhill Road,

Sevenoaks, Kent TN13, 1NO.

Ward: Gillingham North ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation – That the Development Control Committee authorise the Assistant Director of Development, Economy and Transport Division to enter into a Deed of Variation to vary the terms of the Section 106 dated 26th May 2006 made between the Council and Berkeley Homes (Eastern) Ltd under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 pursuant to the terms of the planning permission granted by the Council on 26th May 2006 (ref MC2004/1214) in accordance with the terms as set out follows:

1. To vary Clause 1.1.4 of the agreement to extend the definition of ‘Affordable Housing Land’ to include ‘Extra Care Units’.

2. To delete in their entirety Clauses 1.1.5 of the principal agreement about ‘Affordable Housing Prices’ and the definition at the end of ‘Affordable Housing Scheme’ and the definition of Clause 1.1.1 shall be adopted in substitution.

3. The definition of “Affordable Housing Scheme” in clause 1.16 of the Principal Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and definition at Clause 1.12 shall be adopted in substitution

4. To vary Clause 1.1.14 of the agreement about ‘Education Contribution’ towards improvement of Primary and Secondary School facilities in the Medway Area by reducing the contribution to £800K from £1.1 million). The education contribution is reduced based on the fact that Mid Kent College will now be providing some of the education provision required in the area through their new HQ building, which is fully funded.

5. To vary Paragraph 8.1 of the Schedule 1 of the agreement to state that an ‘Education Contribution of £200K shall be paid on the first Occupation of 50% of Housing Units to be so occupied within each of the five phases comprising the Development.

6. “Nomination Agreement” at clause 1.1.24 of the Principal Agreement shall remain intact.

DC0902MW

7. The definition of “Registered Social Landlord” at clause 1.1.44 of the Principal Agreement shall (subject nevertheless to the provisions of Clause 4.15) be extended to include any provider of affordable housing.

8. The definition of “Extra Care Unit” at clause 1.1.6 shall be adopted for the purposes of the Principal Agreement

9. Paragraph 7.2 (Bus Only Link) of the Schedule 1 of the Principal Agreement is to remain. However in view of the members concern about the impact of the bus link a plan will be presented to members at the committee which will show how the proposed bus link can be achieved with minimal impact on the local townscape.

10. The words ‘except the Revenue Per Unit’ shall be inserted at line 1 of clause 14.1 of the Principal Agreement between the words “any sums” and “which become payable under this Agreement”

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3.6 of Schedule 1 of the Principal Agreement the Owner shall be under no obligation to provide the Affordable Housing until it has secured the Revenue Per Unit Provided That

11.1 the Owner shall use all reasonable endeavours to secure the Revenue Per Unit

11.2 in the event that the Owner secures the Revenue Per Unit in respect of any sector or section of the Affordable Housing Land its obligations to provide shall take effect in respect of such sector or section.

12. Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of Schedule 1 of the Principal Agreement shall be deleted but with the exception of paragraph 3.2.2

13. The whole of paragraph 3.3 of Schedule 1 of the Principal Agreement shall be deleted and the following shall be inserted

"Subject to paragraph 3.9 the Owner undertakes to use reasonable endeavours to procure the provision of

Extra Care Units

Units

typical floor area (square feet)

No. Units

Minimum Revenue Per Unit

1 bed 549 40 £112,566 2 bed 764 20 £156,649 including 5,000 square feet of ancillary common parts completed to Shell and Core

Housing Units for Rented Accommodation

Units typical No. Minimum Revenue

DC0902MW

floor area (square feet)

Units Per Unit

1 bed 490 30 £107,800 2 bed 678 20 £149,160 Provided that if the Minimum Revenue per Unit of Housing Units for Rented Accommodation is not achieved the RSL may market such Housing Units as Shared Ownership Units*

* The Owner is prepared to discuss with Medway Council the detail and timing of the marketing process for Housing Units for Rented Accommodation prior to any such Units before converted to Shared Ownership.

Shared Ownership

Units

typical floor area (square feet)

No. Units

Minimum Revenue Per Unit

1 bed 490 62 £107,800 2 bed 678 40 £149,160 1 bed 490 23 £121,030 2 bed 678 17 £167,466

all of which shall equate to a proportion of 25% (202 units) of the total number of Housing Units on the Development and the Extra Care Units will be designed and built to comply with either Lifetime Homes Standards or the relevant sections of the "Housing Corporation Design and Quality Standards April 2007" document as far as possible taking into consideration the relevant planning permission for that Phase of the Development".

14 Paragraph 3.5 of Schedule 1 of the Principal Agreement shall be read so as to include the occupancy restriction from applying to phase 1 or to phase 5.*

* Phase 5 is the student accommodation phase

15 In The event that the Registered Social Landlord (as redefined by this Deed) is not

(i) A body registered with the Housing Corporation pursuant to the Housing Act 1996 or

(ii) A non registered organisation that is developing the Affordable Housing under the Housing Corporation’s Management Accreditation Scheme

The Affordable Housing Scheme will nevertheless be managed by a body falling within the categories described in either 15(i) or 15(ii) above.

DC0902MW

BACKGROUND

Members will be aware that since the grant of the outline planning permission under MC2004/1214 for this site, this committee granted further planning permission under ref MC2007/1025 for 605 student accommodation units and over 1100 square metres of retail unit along the southern part of the development site. In granting the permission members hoped that the permission would help to satisfy some of the badly needed student accommodations provision for the Universities in the Medway area. The provision of student units was supported by the University of Kent who have written in support of the scheme.

Following the grant of permission for the student accommodation application and approval of the reserved matters of the phase 1 part of the site, initial works have now commenced on site in relation to both the student facilities and the significant highway works necessary to facilitate the entire development.

The Universities at Medway need to have the 605 student units ready for use by September 2009. Concern of Berkeley First regarding the viability of the scheme had delayed commencement of development on site.

Members are advised that in order to find a way forward and facilitate commencement of the building of the main development, over the last few months Berkeley Home (Eastern) and Berkeley First have been in discussion with the Council’s officers regarding options and possibilities that could make the development viable and enable Berkeley First to undertake the development.

To establish the validity of Berkeley First’s assertion they were asked to produce an Open Book Development Appraisal and assessment and consider various different options. Berkeley First submitted their Development Appraisal for the Council’s consideration.

In this document Berkeley First has argued that with the substantial cost of cleaning up the land, high built cost and relatively low selling price per unit have rendered the development financially not viable. There is also the financial contribution towards education and developer’s subsidy toward 25% affordable housing units, However, to bring the development to a viable state Berkeley First has looked at various different options and is seeking the above-mentioned variations to the 106 legal agreement and also is seeking to provide an alternative type and level of affordable housing units. To this end Berkeley First is proposing the followings:

• Provide 25% affordable housing units totalling 202 units of which 60 units would be Elderly accommodation (Extra Care Units 40 one-bed units and 20 two-bed units), 50 rented housing units (20 one bed and 30 two bed units) and 92 shared Ownership units (comprising 55 one-bed units and 37 two-bed units). The affordable rented units in this development will be the Extra Care Units element.

• To make car parking provision of no more than 25% for Extra Care Accommodation units and a minimum of 50% car parking provision for the Shared Ownership element of the development.

Although it is accepted that the 605 student accommodation units do not technically count toward affordable housing, it is nonetheless expected to greatly reduce demand by students for accommodation and assist in freeing some existing housing units at the lower end of the market in the surrounding towns like Chatham and Gillingham and thus making some contribution

DC0902MW

In terms of Education, with Mid Kent College development well under away, which is fully funded there is not the requirement now for the level of contribution previously required and a reduction of £300k is acceptable without impacting negatively on pressure on local school.

In terms of the bus link, the committee need to consider the options of maintaining the link as agreed, reducing to make it narrower or deleting the link and using the money for other public transport related improvements

Conclusions and reasons for approval

As a result of the Berkeley First application for variation of the section 106 legal agreement there would be no reduction in the percentage of affordable housing in the scheme however there will be extra care units and the remaining number of affordable units will be rented housing units and shared ownership type and less financial contribution towards education. It is considered that on balance the long-term contribution of the development to the vitality and regeneration of the area would be substantial and significant enough to make a balance judgment in favour of the development and as such it is considered justified to accept the Deed of variation stated above particularly bearing in mind the significant cost of developing this presently contaminated and flood prone site and that 605 unit of much needed student accommodation will be provided on top of 25% affordable housing.

Members are advised that Berkeley First in their letter dated 23rd April 2008 have confirmed that pending resolution of the Deed of Variation of the Section 106 they are ready to proceed with the development of the site at Pier Road.

Members are advised that the level of affordable house now proposed, as part of this deeds of variation would comply with the government advice contained in PSS 3 Housing and the Council Adopted Local Plan Policies.

DC0902MW

7 MC2008/0223

Date Received: 7th February 2008

Location: Safety Bay House Warwick Crescent Rochester ME1 3LE Proposal: Outline application for construction of a 4 storey block comprising 24

flats with associated access road and car parking with replacement of jetty and moorings

Applicant: Mr A Manku Dallas Estates Alpha House Unit B 140-143 Milton Road

Gravesend Kent DA12 2AJ Agent: Mr M Smith JCN Associates Ltd 2 Exchange Court London Road

Feering Colchester Essex CO5 9FB Ward: Rochester West Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

A. The applicant entering into an agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:

(i) A contribution of £14,581 to fund improvements at Borstal Recreation

Ground (ii) A contribution of £16,000 towards the provision of primary school places in

the vicinity.

B. The imposition of the following conditions:- (and as amended by plans received on 16th May 2008) 1 Approval of the details of layout, scale, external appearance of the building and the

landscaping] (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.



3 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the

expiration of 2 years from the final approval of the reserved matters or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

4 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

DC0902MW

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

5 The landscaping details submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall include a survey of

existing trees abutting the access track to the site showing trees to be felled in order to carry out improvements to and provide passing bays to this track; existing and proposed ground levels and hard surfacing materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

6 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The approved planting stock shall be maintained for a minimum period of five years following its planting and any of the stock that dies or is destroyed within this period shall be replanted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7 In this Condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in

accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs a) and b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use.

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

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

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

8 The details to be submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall show adequate land,

reserved for the parking or garaging of vehicles, together with secure cycle parking and upon approval of the details, no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on the land so shown (other than the erection of a private garage or garages)

DC0902MW

or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the reserved vehicle parking area.

9 The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall provide for an internal floor

height for the ground floor flats of no less than 6.12 metres above Ordinance Datum Newlyn. There shall be no residential accommodation (habitable or otherwise) provided below that level, with the basement level providing for car and cycle parking, refuse, lifts and stairwells only or such other service requirements as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

10 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for

protecting the proposed development from transport related noise that implements the measures described in the noise assessment prepared by Hepworth Acoustics Ltd reference 4588.1v1 dated April 2007 shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works, which form part of the approved scheme, shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

11 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 provided to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

12 No part of the development shall be occupied until the existing jetty and moorings

have been removed and replaced in accordance with details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

13 The moorings hereby permitted shall only be used by the occupiers of the units

hereby permitted and shall not be sold or let to persons who do not reside within one of the aforementioned residential units.

14 The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall identify the route of public

footpath RR14 crossing the site and measures to safeguard the future line of the public footpath. The approved measures shall be put in place before first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted and retained as such at all times thereafter. The route of the footpath shall also be protected during the construction period.

15 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details for

improvements to the access road that provides vehicular access to the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access road shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occuption of any of the residential units hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained free from any obstruction for the duration of the development hereby permitted.

DC0902MW

16 During the construction phase, no works of construction shall take place other than

within the hours Monday - Friday 08:00 - 18:30 hours, Saturdays 08:00 - 16:00 hours and not at all Sundays or National Holidays.

17 No development shall take place until a construction code of practice that

describes measures to control noise, dust and lighting impacts arising from the construction phase of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be followed throughout the construction of the development.

18 No development shall take place until details of wheel washing facilities to be

made available on site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities shall be placed on site prior to the commencement of development and shall be retained on site for the duration of the construction period, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wheel washing facilities shall be utilised for all vehicles used in the construction where necessary to prevent mud being taken onto the public highway

19 The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall include details for refuse

storage including provision for recycling. 20 There shall be no deliveries of materials or heavy equipment/machinery or heavy

goods vehicles accessing or exiting the site between the hours 08:30 - 09:30 and 15:00 - 16:00 Monday - Fridays during school term time unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

21 Prior to the commencement of the development details of a scheme for lighting the

access road and parking areas within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be installed on site prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained.

22 No development shall take place until the developer has secured the

implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written programme and specification which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Authority prior to the commencement of development.

23 Details of the proposed method of surface water drainage shall be submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency and Southern Water. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

24 There shall be no surface or foul water discharge to the ground or to groundwater.

DC0902MW


Site Description The application relates to an undulating site of 0.48 hectares with a significant covering of trees. The application site was formerly occupied by a detached dwelling, known as Safety Bay House, which has now been demolished. The application site also includes part of the riverbank and foreshore and a 130 metres long tree lined private driveway that leads from Warwick Crescent; this drive turns sharply at the shoreline to enter the main part of the site from the south-west. A definitive public footpath runs along the river’s edge and crosses the application site, a short distance back from the foreshore where facilities for mooring boats are already in place.

Immediately abutting the application site to the west are the grounds of Bridgeside, a detached bungalow, which is also accessed via the drive off Warwick Crescent. Further to the west is the coastbound M2 viaduct. Abutting the application site on its southern and eastern boundaries are the rear gardens of semi-detached houses in Kennard Close and Brambletree Crescent. On the southern side of Warwick Crescent, opposite the entrance to the site, is the Pilgrim Manor Community School.

Proposal The application is for the construction of a 4 storey building comprising 24 two bedroom flats with associated access road, parking and replacement jetty and moorings. The application is a re-submission of application MC2006/2210 which was for the construction of 24 two bedroom flats in a 4/5 storey building. Like the previous application, the proposal is in outline form with all matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) other than access reserved for future consideration. The illustrative drawings accompanying the application show a J-shaped building, open towards the north facing the river and partly towards the east. This represents a reduction in the ground cover from the previously submitted building which was U-shaped. The accommodation would comprise 8 flats on each of the first, second and third floors (compared to 6 flats on each of the ground, first, second and third floors under the previous scheme). Overall, the proposed building, including the central courtyard would measure 37 metres long by 33 metres wide by 14 metres high. The development would be accessed via the existing drive from Warwick Crescent. Under the current proposal this drive would be widened. The road would continue around the outside of the proposed building and lead to parking spaces under the building and beside the building. The previous scheme proposed 28 spaces under the building and a further 15 spaces at the southern end of the site. The current application, as originally submitted proposed 25 parking spaces, but this has been revised to 35 spaces. Some trees in the centre of the site would be lost to accommodate the proposed development. However, it is intended to retain the trees on the eastern, western and southern boundaries.

DC0902MW

Site area/density: Site area 0.48 hectares (1.19acres) Site density 50 u.p.h. (20 u.p.a.)

Relevant Planning History ME/91/0166 Outline application for the erection of a detached four bedroom dwelling Approved 29 May 1991 ME/91/0167 Outline application for the erection of a three bedroom dwelling Refused 29 May 1991 Appeal dismissed 4th December 1991 MC2003/0845 Construction of 3 x five bedroom detached houses with integral garages

and new moorings for 5 boats (demolition of existing building and removal of existing mooring)

Withdrawn MC2003/2386 Construction of 7 x five bedroom detached houses with detached

garages and new moorings for 7 boats (demolition of existing building and removal of existing mooring)

Approved 25 August 2004 MC2006/2210 Outline application for construction of a 4/5 storey block comprising 24

flats with associated access road and car parking with replacement of jetty and moorings

Refused 13 December 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: 1-20 (consec) and 22 Kennard Close; 41-49 (odd) Warwick Crescent; 49-89 (odd) Brambletree Crescent; Bridgeside, Warwick Crescent; The Pilgrim School, Warwick Crescent; Medway Bridge Marina, Manor Lane; and to the 24th Medway Scout Group. Letters have also been sent to: the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency; Natural England; Kent Wildlife Trust; and Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer. The Highways Agency has written advising that the application would not adversely affect the M2 Motorway. It does, however, recommend that the developer produces a residential Travel Plan. The Environment Agency initially wrote stating that although it did not object to the earlier application, it has re-modeled the tidal section of the River Medway due to the higher climate change allowances included in PPS25, which predict higher flood levels than previously issued. The predicted 1:200 year flood level in 2110 just downstream from the M2 bridge is 6.17 ODN. The land in front of the development should be at least 300mm above the predicted flood level and the ground floor finished levels should be a minimum of 600mm above the predicted flood level, if sleeping accommodation is on the ground floor. Based on the original flood risk assessment, which states that the ground at the front of the site ranges

DC0902MW

from 5.6 ODN to 6.2 ODN, the bund would not provide adequate protection and an objection is raised. Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer initially wrote stating that he had no significant concerns or representations to make at this stage. The Medway NHS Primary Care Trust has written seeking a contribution of £115,536 based on the HUDU model. Medway Ports have written raising no objection in principle but advising that further details would be required. Natural England makes the following comments:

• The site is close to the River Medway (between Cuxton and Temple Marsh) Site of Nature Conservation Interest and the Kent Wildlife Trust should be consulted;

• Previous surveys have shown that the site has limited potential to support protected species although bird species have been recorded. The applicants should be reminded of their obligations under the Wildlife Countryside Act and to avoid any impact on nesting birds, no site clearance work affecting trees or scrub should take place in the breeding season unless it can be demonstrated that the tree and scrub affected have been inspected by a suitably experienced person on the day of removal;

• The intertidal mudflats are a Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat. Any loss to this habitat should be avoided when the jetty is replaced;

• The Council should seek measures to enhance biodiversity, if it is minded to grant planning permission.

Kent Wildlife Trust has written objecting on the grounds that the site is adjacent to the River Medway (between Cuxton and Temple Marsh) Site of Nature Conservation Interest and the Trust is concerned about the potential impact on river’s intertidal and riverside habitat, a Kent BAP priority habitat. The applicant’s protected species assessment states that there will be some disturbance to mud and shingle during construction of moorings, but offers no technical assessment or reasoned justification for the conclusion that the jetty will have little impact on protected species and no conclusion about the disturbance to a priority habitat. The trust requests a full technical assessment of the intertidal and riverside impact of the moorings, together with mitigation and compensatory measures and objects on the grounds that the application fails to satisfy Local Plan policies BNE37, BNE38, and BNE40, and PPS9. 8 letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

• The application is identical to the previous application and should be rejected for the same reasons;

• Overdevelopment; • A building over two storeys would be out of character with the area; • The sewage system is incapable of taking any more demand and the pumping station

would need to be upgraded; • The site is prone to flooding and this is likely to be more regular with rising sea-levels; • The access to the site is unsuitable; • The noise from the railway and motorway bridges is unlikely to be acceptable to the

inhabitants of the proposed flats;

DC0902MW

• The development will generate a minimum of 48 additional vehicles plus HGV’S onto Warwick/Brambletree Crescent, which are already congested;

• Increased noise and disturbance to local residents; • A separate access should be provided; • The existing mooring was only accessible at high tide and has not been used for many

years. To construct a jetty that could be used at other times would involve dredging which could affect the river flow;

• The towpath should not be interfered with; Pilgrim School has written asking the Council to consider whether there is a need to open up the access road currently being used by construction traffic as a permanent roadway, to alleviate congestion in Warwick Crescent. All consultees and objectors have been notified of the receipt of revised plans. Following re-consultation, the following representations have been received: The Environment Agency has written stating that the submitted topographical survey shows that the majority of the site is above 6.17 metres OD and therefore outside the significant risk flood plain. It should be ensured that finished floor levels for living are a minimum of 300mm above 6.17m OD and sleeping accommodation 600mm above 6.17m OD. With regard to the jetty, the Agency also advises that the river is under its jurisdiction for land drainage purposes and its written consent would be required for any works in, over or under the channel of the watercourse or on the bank within 15 metres of the landward toe of any flood defence etc. Natural England has written stating that it has no further comment to make. Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer raising no significant objection, but making the following comments:

• The supporting planning and design and access statements do not incorporate any detailed comments or advice on how crime prevention measures have been taken;

• There is a concern regarding the impact of vehicular access on neighbouring roads;

• There is still concern about the level of parking potentially displacing vehicles onto surrounding roads and the undercroft parking being out of view;

• The site would be relatively permeable with access from either Warwick Crescent or the riverside walk. Clear definition of public/private space, use of suitable boundary treatments, adequate lighting, landscaping etc. would reduce the opportunity for unauthorized access or crime.

A further 7 letters have been received from local residents re-iterating the previous objections and concerns regarding the character of the proposed development, additional traffic, inadequate access, inadequate infrastructure and disruption. Development Plan Policies National Planning Guidance

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development 2005

DC0902MW

PPS3 Housing 2006 PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk 2006

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 Policy EN9 (Trees, woodland and hedgerows) Policy EN12 (River Corridors)

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL5 (Quality and Density of Development) Policy QL16 (Water Recreation) Policy TP12 (Development and Access to the

Primary/Secondary Road Network) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards) Policy NR10 (Development and flood risk)

Medway Local Plan 2003 Policy S6 (Planning Obligations)

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise Standards) Policy BNE23 (Site Contamination) Policy BNE41 (Tree Preservation Orders)

Policy BNE43 (Trees on Development Sites) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy L4 (Provision of Open Space) Policy L10 (Public Rights of Way) Policy L11 (Riverside Path and Cycleway) Policy L13 (Water Based Leisure) Policy T1 (Impact of Development on the Highway Network)

Policy T2 (Access to Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards) Policy CF13 (Tidal Flood Areas)

Planning Appraisal The main issues for consideration in the determination of this application are:

• Whether the development is acceptable in principle; • The density of the development; • Design and setting considerations; • Amenity considerations; • The loss of trees; • Nature conservation issues; • Highways and parking; • Flood Risk; and • Infrastructure contributions.

DC0902MW

In considering the current application, it is also necessary to assess the changes between the previous application and the current scheme. The previous application was recommended for approval by Officers, but refused by the Planning Committee on the following grounds:

“1 The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the predominantly two storey semi detached character of the immediate area. In addition the site is proposed to be served by an access which due to its width and length is not suitable to serve the number of properties proposed. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and BNE1 and H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2 The proposal has inadequate access to serve the number of units proposed,

by virtue of the restricted width and extended length of the access road and its access onto the end of a cul-de-sac which has limited capacity as well as being in close proximity to a school. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policies T1 and T2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.”

Principle of Development In terms of principle, the current application raises no new issues. The site is within the defined built up area of Borstal as defined in the proposals map to the Local Plan and, therefore, no objection can be raised to the principle of development for residential purposes. The principle of residential development has already been accepted with the grant of planning permission for 7 detached houses and new moorings under reference MC2003/2386 and with the grant of planning permission for 4 detached houses and the retention of the existing bungalow on the adjoining site at Bridgeside under reference MC2002/0036. The submitted application is therefore considered to accord with the provisions of Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan. In addition to the proposed flats, the proposal also relates to the replacement of a jetty and the provision of moorings. Policies EN12 and QL16 of the Structure Plan and Policy L13 of the Local Plan support the provision of such water based facilities providing there is no adverse impact in terms of nature conservation; adequate access for pedestrians cyclists and road traffic; and the proposal does not prejudice the amenities of local residents. Therefore, the principle of the provision of new moorings in this location on the river is acceptable. Density Although the size of the building has been reduced, compared to the previous application, the number of units, and therefore the density, remains unchanged at 50 units per hectare (20 units per acre). This compares with a density of 13 dwellings per hectare for the previously approved scheme which was considerably less than the then advocated level of 30-50 dwellings per hectare in PPG3 “Housing”. With that application it was considered that having regard to the character and density of surrounding development; the riverside location of the site; and the heavily treed nature of the application site, a lower density was appropriate in this location. Government Advice as contained in PPS3 ‘Housing’ 2006 states that Local Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities, although 30 dwellings per hectare net should be used as

DC0902MW

a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision making. Lower densities can be justified having regard to, inter alia, the character of the area and levels of accessibility. Having regard to these considerations, although no objection can be raised to the principle of a development at a density of 50 units per hectare, regard needs to be paid to these other considerations when assessing whether this density is acceptable. Design, appearance and effect on the character of the area Although the application is in outline form at this stage, it raises issues relating to design and the character of the area, particularly as to how a 4 storey block of 24 flats (3 floors of residential accommodation above an undercroft parking area) in this location would fit in with the established layout and character of the area. In order to do this it is necessary to understand the site context and the character of the surrounding development. In this regard, it should be noted that the size of the development has been reduced from a 4/5 storey building. This part of the village, like other parts of Borstal has developed piecemeal. Borstal is essentially a linear village (Borstal Road/Wouldham Road) with a number of developments off this road. Apart from Shorts Way, which links to The Esplanade, the developments on the north-west side of Borstal Road take the form of cul-de-sac developments (Manor Lane and Warwick Crescent). The character of the immediately surrounding area (Warwick Crescent and the roads off it) is that of 1950’s/1960’s semi-detached and terraced houses. That of the adjoining development to the north-east (Farmdale Avenue) consists of detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows (1950’s/1960’s). The only other feature is the Pilgrim Community School in Warwick Crescent. The site itself is relatively isolated being hidden from the public highway and in its immediate context only visible from the rear of houses in Brambletree Crescent and Kennard Close. There is, however a public footpath crossing the site along the river frontage and any development would be clearly visible to walkers using that footpath. In its wider context, the site is visible from the Medway Bridge (M2) which includes a pedestrian footbridge and cycle way directly overlooking the site. In addition, the site is clearly visible from Medway Valley Park on the opposite side of the river. Assessing the proposed development in terms of character and local distinctiveness, due to the existing layout of this part of Borstal, the limited relationship of the site to surrounding development and the constraints of the site, in terms of grain and street pattern, the proposed development cannot relate to its surroundings and can only be assessed as an isolated development. It terms of continuity and enclosure; the proposed development, as illustrated, does not provide a clear distinction between public and private space but this can best be addressed at the detailed stage. Due to its relative isolation, the proposed development cannot relate to any building line or have an active street frontage. Within the proposed development, ease of movement is achievable, but again this could be further addressed at the detailed stage. Beyond the site and within this part of Borstal generally, ease of movement is restricted, although this is a feature of the way the area has developed and cannot be addressed as part of the application. By retaining the public footpath across the site frontage, existing movement is being maintained.

DC0902MW

When the previous application was determined, it was considered by Officers that in terms of scale, mass, layout and siting, the principle of constructing a four/five storey block of 24 flats on the site could be achieved satisfactorily. That opinion also applies to the current proposal for a smaller, 4 storey building. The detailing of any scheme will be a matter for the reserved matters application. The proposal is therefore in accordance with terms the provisions of Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. Effect upon trees This site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). A Tree Survey was submitted with the previous application, with a plan showing that six protected and 28 other trees within the site could be lost, if a scheme similar to that illustrated were to be submitted. This plan also showed trees for retention, together with root protection areas and requirements for protective fencing. This plan has been submitted as part of the current application. When the previous application was considered, it was the Officers’ opinion that although there would be some tree loss the general tree cover would be retained and there was a commitment to retain as many trees as practicable on the site. Accordingly, no objection was then raised in terms of tree loss, and no objection is now raised under the provisions of Policy EN9 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE43 of the Local Plan. Neighbour amenity Although surrounded on three sides by the rear gardens of residential properties: Brambletree Crescent to the east, Kennard Close to the south and Bridgeside to the north, the site is relatively isolated. There are considerable distances from the site boundaries to these properties, and the building would be centrally situated within the site and well screened. It is, therefore considered unlikely that there would be an issue of unneighbourly overlooking, although this would be addressed at the reserved matters stage. Accordingly no objection is raised in this regard under Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan. Highway Issues A traffic assessment was carried out when the previous application was considered. As there is no change in the number of units proposed, there would be no change in the anticipated level of traffic generation and therefore, the previous assessment would still be applicable. The proposed development is for 24 flats, which represents an intensification of use of the vehicular access from Warwick Crescent above that for which there is already extant permission, namely 7 houses on the application site together with 4 additional dwellings approved at Bridgeside. The currently permitted development on the application site, of 7 houses would generate around 38 trips per day along the access track, with 4 vehicular movements during the morning peak and 4 vehicular movements during the evening peak. The proposed development of 24 flats would generate an additional 17 vehicular movements making a total of 55 trips per day. Beyond the access track, it is necessary to assess the impact of the proposed development on Warwick Crescent and the highway network. Warwick Crescent is an estate road, 5.5 metres wide and as such is designed to serve between 50 and 300 dwellings. Under the circumstances, this road should have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposal. Planning permission has been granted for a new school

DC0902MW

(MC2007/0382), but it is not intended to increase the annual intake of the 236 pupils and the staff level would remain the same. Therefore it can be assumed that the new school would not generate any additional traffic in Warwick Crescent. In addition, the school proposal includes the provision of 24 on site parking spaces, which would reduce on street parking during the working day from that at present. There is an element of congestion in Warwick Crescent at school start and finish times, but it is not considered that the proposed development at Safety Bay House would affect this. [There have been no recorded accidents in Warwick Crescent, including its junction with Borstal Road, during the last 36 months.] The 2.5 metres wide access track will be widened to 3.7 metres wide with passing bays that will increase the width to 5 metres in places. This is sufficient for large vehicles such as fire appliances to access the site. The access widens to 4.1 metres where it meets Warwick Crescent; this together with the improved access to Pilgrim School will result in improved turning facilities. Subject to the submission of details of the parking bays and the provision of an on site vehicle turning facility, no objection is raised under Policy TP12 of the Structure Plan and Policies T1 and T2 of the Local Plan. There would be 35 parking spaces serving 24 units. The maximum permitted under the Council’s adopted Vehicle Parking Standards would be 36 spaces (1.5 spaces per unit). Secure cycle storage facilities would need to be provided as part of the proposed development. In view of the site’s location, not that close to public transport facilities or local shops, this level of parking is considered to be acceptable. No objection is, therefore, raised in terms of parking under the provisions of Policy TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan. Impact of jetty and Moorings The proposed access has only been assessed based on the impact of the residential development and not a separate use of the jetty and moorings. Similarly the impact on the footpath and nature conservation issues has been on the basis of the use of the moorings by residents of the flats and not a separate more public use. Accordingly it is recommended that a condition be imposed restricting the use of the moorings to residents of the proposed flats. In addition the existing jetty and moorings have fallen into disrepair and in the interests of amenity either need to be removed or replaced with the proposed new moorings. Accordingly a condition is recommended that no flat shall be occupied until the jetty and moorings as proposed have been provided. Effect on public footpath Policies L10 and L11 of the adopted Local Plan require that development shall take into account public rights of way that should be safeguarded wherever possible. In the case of the public footpath abutting the river and running across the whole landward frontage of the site it is to be noted that, like the previous proposal, the current application will not result in any direct physical impediment to its continued use. However it does represent an essential link in the riverside footpath network and it is considered that a condition should be imposed to ensure that its alignment is safeguarded in perpetuity. Road Traffic Noise A Noise Impact assessment was submitted as part of the application. This demonstrates that the site is within noise exposure category (NEC) B during the day and night. At this level the

DC0902MW

applicant should demonstrate that adequate mitigation measures are included in the proposal or an appropriate condition is imposed. The applicant has demonstrated that with high specification glazing reasonable and good internal noise levels, as defined by BS 8233 will be achieved in living rooms and bedrooms with windows closed. The assessment recommends a format of construction that would ensure that the internal noise levels will conform to the reasonable and good design ranges identified by BS 8233. To ensure that this is achieved within the development an appropriate condition is recommended and accordingly, no objection is raised to the proposal under the provisions of Policy BNE3 of the adopted Local Plan. Flood Risk On the basis of the subsequent letter from the Environment Agency (see Representations), no objection is now raised to the proposed development in terms of flood risk under the provisions of PPS25, Policy NR10 of the Structure Plan and Policy CF15 of the adopted Local Plan, subject to an appropriate condition to ensure that finished floor levels for living are a minimum of 300mm above 6.17m OD and sleeping accommodation 600mm above 6.17m OD.

Community Facilities

Policy L4 of the adopted Local Plan indicates that in association with new residential development, communal play facilities should be provided when there is a deficiency of such facilities in a particular area. If these facilities cannot be provided on site then, in appropriate circumstances, off site provision can be made.

In accordance with the formulae set out in the Developer Contributions guide a contribution of £14,581 should be sought to fund improvements at Borstal Recreation Ground.

The site is within an area of pressure for education facilities and taking the pupil product factors set out in the Developer Contributions guide the proposal would generate a need for two primary school places and a contribution of £16,000.

It is recommended that these contributions should be secured by means of a section 106 agreement/obligation.

The PCT wrote asking for a contribution but the figure quoted does not correspond with the formulae agreed within the developer contributions guide and no response has been received to request to justify the figure asked for. Accordingly this request cannot be carried forward at this time.

Nature conservation considerations The concerns of the Kent Wildlife on the potential impact of the replacement jetty and moorings on river’s intertidal and riverside habitat is noted and has been brought to the attention of the applicants who have responded to the effect that the replacement jetty and moorings will be solely for the use of residents and details will be submitted at the reserved matters stage. It is accepted that a scheme needs to be designed to minimize the potential impact and that compensatory measures are necessary. The applicant is prepared to accept a condition requiring the submission and approval of such a scheme. Subject to this condition, no objection is raised under Policy EN6 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE36 of the Local Plan.

DC0902MW

Conclusion and reasons for recommendation of approval

In the light of the above assessment of the application proposals, the submitted application is considered to be acceptable in terms of principal, density, amenity, highway terms, nature conservation, flood risk, and noise. It is considered that the site can be developed in a manner that is acceptable in design terms, subject to the submission of appropriate details at the reserved matter stage. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with the provisions of relevant Structure Plan and Local Plan Policies. This application would normally fall to be determined under Officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ determination in view of the number of letters of representations received contrary to the Officers’ recommendation and in view of the Committees decision on the previous application.

DC0902MW

8 MC2007/1498

Date Received: 20th August 2007

Location: Land at and to the rear of 109 Frindsbury Road Strood Rochester

ME2 4JD Proposal: Demolition of buildings and construction of a part two part three

storey block comprising two 1 bedroomed flats and eight 2 bedroomed flats and two storey building comprising two 1 bedroomed flats with provision for 12 associated parking spaces

Applicant: Abbey Group Ltd Abbey House 12 Southgate Road Potters Bar

EN6 5DU Agent: Mr B Rea Hall Needham Associates Kille House Chinnor Road

Thame Oxon OX9 3NU Ward: Strood North Recommendation - Approval subject to:-

A. The applicant entering into an agreement under the terms of S106 of the Town & Country Planning Act to secure a contribution of £17,940 towards the provision of play facilities, informal open space and sports provisions in the vicinity of the site.

B. The imposition of the following conditions:- (and as amended by revised drawings received on 20th March 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 there has been submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before any part of the buildings are occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.



4 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing and proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above

DC0902MW

and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc). Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

5 No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a

minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

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 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 provided to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

7 Before the development hereby permitted commences, a scheme for protecting the

proposed flats 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 shall thereafter be retained.

8 Prior to the commencement of development full details of the proposed cycle store

and bin stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle store and bin store shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development and shall thereafter by retained.

9 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking, turning, secure

cycle storge and bin storage 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.

10 Prior to the commencement of the development details of existing and proposed

levels and cross section through this site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

11 Prior to the commencement of the development details of foul and surface water

drainage to serve the development, including flats, outbuilding and parking areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

DC0902MW

approved details shall be installed prior to the occupation of any part of the development and thereafter retained.

For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report. Site Description The application relates to 109 Frindsbury Road, which is a two storey property located on the north-western side of the road. The property appears to have a retail use at ground level (currently vacant) with residential above. In addition, the application site includes a 4 metres wide vehicular access leading to a rear yard used for plant hire. The site has a frontage to Frindsbury Road of approx. 10 metres, although it widens to the rear of the adjoining properties (105-107 Frindsbury Road) to approx. 21 metres; it has a depth of approx.57 metres. Frindsbury Road rises from the south-west towards the north-east. 105-107 Frindsbury Road is also two storey and is reflective of the design of No.109. This property is also in retail use on the ground floor (used by the plant hire company) with what appears to be offices above. The plant hire yard measures approx. 50 metres in depth by 21 metres in width. Within this area is a large flat roof building that occupies the whole of the northern side of the yard. Generally, the land rises sharply from Frindsbury Road towards the north and this results in the key characteristic of the site, which is that the area subject to this application is substantially lower than the adjoining land and properties on the north, east and west boundaries. The ground level rises sharply from Frindsbury Road and the adjoining land and properties are some 5 metres higher than the application site. Large retaining walls form the boundary of the site. Immediately to the east of the application site, there is a public footpath that runs from Frindsbury Road to Powlett Road. Next to this footpath, there is a relatively recent development of six flats, known as Christian Court. The properties located on the western boundary of the site (Mayfair) are two storey terraced houses dating before 1947. These properties all have single storey rear projections, which would have formed part of the original house, and small rear garden areas. There is an access to the rear garden areas that runs along the top of the boundary wall on the western side of the site. The boundaries of these properties are a mix of fencing and walls ranging in height up 1.8 metres. The properties located to the northern side of the site (Basi Close) are more modern two storey properties also raised above the development site. There is a large tree on the north-eastern side of the boundary. The public footpath between Frindsbury Road and Basi Close runs along the eastern boundary of the site and beyond this to the east are the rear garden to the properties in Powlett Road and Frindsbury Road. These properties are all two storeys in height. Proposal This application seeks full planning permission for a total of 12 flats in two buildings and follows the refusal of planning permission for a four storey block of flats on 5 October 2005 under reference MC2004/1722. That scheme comprised a total of 11 flats (8 x 2 bed flats and

DC0902MW

3 x one bed flats). The current proposal involves the demolition of all buildings on site, including the frontage building. The frontage building would be replaced by a two storey building comprising 2 x one bedroom flats (one on each floor). This building would be narrower than the existing building, enabling the vehicular access to be widened to 4.1 metres The main part of the development would comprise a part two storey/part three storey building located towards the rear of the site. This building would house 10 flats (8 x two flats and 2 x one bedroom), each of the ground and first floors containing 3 x two bedroom flats and 1 x one bedroom flats, with 2 x two bedroom flats on the top floor. The flat block has been designed so that it breaks down into 4 elements, each with its own roof. This would take the form of 4 hipped roofs; on the two storey parts, the ridge would run from north to south, whilst on the three storey parts, the building would be turned through 90 degrees to that the ridge ran from east to west. Part of the third storey would be accommodated within the roofspace, resulting in the provision of dormers in the front (south facing) and rear (north facing) elevations to each of these elements. Due to the difference in levels between the application site and surrounding land to the west, north and east, the first floor windows of the proposed flats would be at the level of the adjoining footpath and gardens. It is submitted that the frontage building would be constructed in bricks with a rendered panel on the front elevation and concrete roof tiles. The rear building would also be constructed in bricks with concrete roof tiles. Juliet balconies would be introduced on some of the south facing windows and on one east facing window at first floor level. 12 car parking spaces are shown to the rear of the frontage buildings and in front of the proposed flat block (1:1 Provision). In addition, a separate building comprising bicycle store (4 cycles) and bin store is shown. This structure would be screened by a 0.9m high post and rail fence. A footpath along the eastern side of the block provides access to the rear flats. Three courtyard/garden areas are shown to the sides/rear of the block. Traffic calming measures are proposed in the vehicular access, which would also serve a parking area at the rear of 107 & 109 Frindsbury Road.

Ground levels have not been detailed on any of the submitted plans. However, the elevations show the retaining walls on the eastern and western boundaries to be approximately 5 metres in height. The building is designed so as to maximise the use of the roof space on two elements, whilst attempting to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties in Mayfair. This results in differing ridge and eaves levels throughout the development. The submitted plans show that the three storey elements of the proposed building would have two ridge heights of approx 10.2 metres above ground level (one at approx 5.8 metres above the top of the retaining wall and the other at approx 5 metres above the retaining wall). The ridge of the two storey elements would be approx 8.2 metres above ground level (approx 4.7 metres and 3.4 metres above the retaining wall). This compares to a ridge height of approx 13.2 metres under the previously refused scheme. In terms of the front elevation of the building to eaves height would measure approx 5.5 metres in respect of the two storey element, rising to approx 7.2 metres for the three storey element. The eaves to the rear elevation would also rise to approx 7.2 metres in height above ground level. All four elevations contain habitable room windows at ground and first floor levels, whilst the second floor flats only have windows in the south (front) and north (rear) facing elevations.

DC0902MW

Site Area/Density Site Area: 0.09 Hectare (0.245 Acre) Density: 110 d. p. h. (45 d.p.a.) Relevant Planning History MC2004/1722 Demolition of buildings and construction of a four storey block of one and

two bedroom flats with parking. Refused 5 October 2005 MC2005/2374 Change of use to residential Approved 31 May 2006 Representations The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and advertisement in the local press. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of: 6-19 (inclusive) Mayfair; 5-25 (odds) and 32 Powlett Street; 103, 105, 107, 113; and 115 Frindsbury Road; Flats 1-6 (Inclusive) Christian Court; and 1-7 (Inclusive) Basi Close. Additionally consultation has been sent to the Frindsbury and Wainscott Residents Association, Southern Water, The Environment Agency, Seeboard; and Transco. Southern Water has written advising that it can provide foul sewage disposal to serve the proposed development, although a formal application for connection will need to be made and an appropriate informative should be attached to any planning permission. It is recommended that the storm water flow should be connected to soakaways and a condition to this effect should be attached to any planning permission. Frindsbury and Wainscott Community Association has the following reservations about the proposed development:

• The number of dwellings proposed is excessive; • Access onto the busy A228 appears restricted and is close to a pedestrian

crossing; • One parking space for a two bedroom property is inadequate and there is no space

for parking on surrounding streets; • The visual impact on the surrounding area, particularly Mayfair, raises a concern; • There is limited landscaping which could be the result of overdevelopment.

6 letters have been received from local residents raising the following concerns and objections:

• Three storey buildings would be out of character in an area of predominantly two storey buildings;

• Proposal would have adverse impact on the rear of the dwellings in Mayfair in terms of overlooking;

• Twelve parking spaces are inadequate and parking will overspill onto surrounding roads, which are already under pressure exacerbating parking problems in the area;

• Proposal would generate additional traffic onto a main road close to a pedestrian crossing;

DC0902MW

• There is insufficient space for refuse lorries • Refuse bins may have to be placed beside the road which could be a hazard; • The impact of the development on the banks has not been shown; • Proposal would affect the tree, which it is proposed to retain; • Cycle parking is a meaningless gesture as no-one would cycle in Frindsbury; • The access to the site should be wider; • Nothing has changed since previous application was refused.

The Environment Agency has reiterated its comments on the previous application which stated that they have no objections to the proposal. They advise “The site lies within Source Protection Zone 2 of the public water supply abstraction. A source Protection Zone (SPZ) is the area over which recharge is captured by an abstraction borehole. SPZ’s are designated by the Environment Agency and are delineated to protect potable water supplies against the polluting effects of human activity. Potable supplies are therefore at risk from activities at the site and all precautions should be taken to avoid discharge and spillage to the ground during construction and subsequent operation.

Care should also be taken in the design of any soakaways, and the earliest contact should be made with the Agency’s Groundwater and Contaminated Land Department” All consultees and objectors have been notified of the receipt of revised plans and a further 5 letters (including one from the Frindsbury and Wainscott Community Association) have been received re-iterating the previous objections. Development Plan Policies Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL11 (Protection of Existing Community Services) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan 2003:

Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE23 (Contaminated Land) Policy ED3 (Other Employment Sites) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H5 (High Density Housing) Policy L4 (Provision of Open Space in New Residential Developments) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

DC0902MW

Planning Appraisal Principle of development The site is occupied by a Plant Hire company and used for storage of their equipment. It also has a repairs workshop at the rear and a retail unit which fronts onto the Frindsbury Road. The loss of an existing employment use and retail unit is a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. The site is not allocated as an existing employment site under Policy ED1 of the Local Plan. The application, therefore, falls for consideration under Policy ED3 of the Local Plan that relates to employment sites not specifically identified. This policy allows for the alteration, extension or replacement of existing premises for employment use where they are not detrimental to local amenity. The preamble to this policy at paragraph 4.5.5 states that where sites, which by reason of their age, impact on local amenity, physical constraints, or poor infrastructure are less suited to modern employment use and providing a suitable alternative site can be found to relocate existing firms, it would be appropriate to consider the redevelopment for other uses to facilitate an improvement to local amenity and the environment of the area. The Local Plan states that within the urban area the preferred reuse of such sites would be residential. The applicant’s agent advises that no decision has been made to re-locate the plant hire operation. Should this be necessary then every effort would be made to re-locate in the locality. Under the previously refused scheme, the existing shop was retained and no objection was raised in regard to the loss of a retail facility. The current proposal would result in the loss of a shop within a local centre, as identified under Policy R10 of the Local Plan. However, planning permission has already been granted for a change of use to residential under reference MC2005/2374 and therefore, no objection can be raised on account of the loss of a retail facility. In conjunction with policy ED3 of the adopted Local Plan, the proposal also falls for consideration under Policy H4 of the Local Plan which supports the principle of housing development consisting of the use of vacant or derelict land or the redevelopment of existing buildings no longer required for non-residential use. The redevelopment of this site for housing could have significant benefits in terms of the impact on the area generally. When assessed against the criteria in both policies ED3 and H4 and the reasoned justification (i.e. age, amenity, physical constraints, poor infrastructure, suitability for modern employment use, vacant or derelict land, market demand for employment, appropriateness of location and the identification of alternative sites) it is considered that the loss of the employment use of the rear portion of this site would be outweighed by the benefits gained by redevelopment for housing under policy H4. This being the case, the general principle for the redevelopment of this land is considered to be acceptable.

DC0902MW

The density of the proposed development at 110 d. p. h. (45 d.p.a.) is considered to be acceptable in this location having regard to that of the surrounding development, including the neighbouring flat block (Christian Court) and the site’s relatively close proximity to Strood Town Centre, local shopping facilities and public transport – Frindsbury Road being a bus route with stops nearby. The proposal would, therefore, comply with Policy H5 of the Local Plan. Design, appearance and character. The previous application was refused on the grounds that:

“The proposed development by virtue of its siting, mass, bulk, height and design will result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of adjoining residential properties, especially in Mayfair, by virtue of loss of outlook and direct overlooking, which they could reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy. The development would therefore be unacceptable in terms of Policy ENV15 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Policies QL1 and QL5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003.”

That application showed a three storey building, with additional accommodation in the roofspace, located centrally within the site and close to the 5 metres high retaining walls on the eastern and western boundaries of the site. That application also showed the retention of the frontage building. The current proposal, in an attempt to address the ground of refusal, has reduced the height of the main building to two and a half storeys with the upper floor, partly within the roofspace. Although this has reduced the height of the proposed building, it has resulted in the development being more spread out and the amenity area broken up. The applicant’s agent has written advising that this is the result of an attempt to address the earlier scheme’s height, mass and bulk and allows the creation of smaller and more intimate spaces. There are two elements of the current proposal which need to be addressed in design terms. Firstly, the design of the proposed new frontage building. This building retains the simple form of the existing building, albeit on a slightly smaller scale to allow for the widening of the access. In design terms this is acceptable, maintaining the character of the street scene, but with the use of appropriate materials enhancing the appearance of the site. The second element relates to the main building. This building, whilst more spread out than the previously proposed building, would be less dominant and being to the rear of the site, behind existing and proposed development, and below the surrounding ground level, would have little impact on the street scene. Accordingly, in terms of design and the impact on the street scene, the proposal is acceptable and would be in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. Amenity considerations The ground of refusal for the previous application also related to the impact on adjoining residential properties in Mayfair and the potential loss of privacy and outlook that would result. The current proposal seeks to address this by reducing the height, spreading the bulk, moving parts of the building further away from the boundary and reducing the number of windows facing towards Mayfair.

DC0902MW

The result is that those windows still facing towards Mayfair are at ground level (not ground floor level) and therefore, the potential for overlooking is very limited. Due to the reduced height of the proposed building and the relative levels of the application site and Mayfair, the proposed building would have the appearance of a predominantly single storey building when viewed from Mayfair. In this context it is considered that the current proposal addresses the previously raised concerns in terms of privacy and outlook. Like the previous scheme, the current proposal has been assessed in terms of the Building Research Establishments (BRE) daylight/sunlight indicators. When the previous scheme was considered, it was acknowledged that some loss of daylight would occur in the early hours of the morning, but this would be gone by 10.00 am and a robust case for a refusal on the grounds of loss of daylight/overshadowing could not be justified. With the reduction in the height of the proposed building compared to that previously considered, the potential light loss under the current proposal would be even less significant. The issue of outlook for the occupiers of the proposed flats also needs to be addressed bearing in mind that the proposed development would be set within an area of excavated land below the prevailing ground level. Whilst this could easily result in the occupiers of the proposed flats, particularly on the ground floor looking out on retaining walls, the proposed layout of the development has resulted in the provision of small patio/garden areas which would be overlooked by these flats. The scheme has been designed so that the main habitable room windows overlook these areas and do not look out onto the retaining walls. Having regard to all of the above, it is considered that the current proposal addresses the previously raised concerns in respect of loss of outlook and overlooking and accordingly, no objection is raised in this regard under Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan. Highway and parking considerations

The Transport Statement, submitted as part of the application, calculates that the proposed development would generate two vehicle movements in the morning peak and one in the evening peak. This data is considered to be an under assessment and two vehicle movements are also likely to occur in the evening peak. The TRICS database suggests that a total of 27 vehicle movements is likely over the course of a day, marginally higher than the 20 predicted by the Transport Statement. The applicant states that the existing plant hire use of the site generates 4 movements during the morning peak. It would, however, seem reasonable to assume that a similar or higher number of trips would be generated by this use when compared to a residential development. There are no recorded road traffic accidents in the vicinity of the access, and no indication that the proximity of the access to the pelican crossing has caused any safety issues. Although it is likely that the access will be less intensively used, it is proposed to make improvements by widening the access to 4.1 metres. This will allow two medium sized cars to pass at slow speed. The surfacing work proposed at the point of access where the footway is interrupted will provide pedestrians with adequate warning of the access, a significant improvement over the current situation. There is good visibility to west, and visibility to the east, at 41 metres marginally higher than that considered under the previous application. This is based upon a set-back of 2m from the edge of road, an appropriate distance for a relatively small development. There is an element of balance in determining the acceptability of this sightline. Manual for Streets indicates that a sightline of 43 metres is appropriate for a road

DC0902MW

where speeds are around 30 mph. Whilst the proposed sightline is marginally below this, it is considered that having regard to the existing use of the site, the absence of any accidents at this location, improvements to the width of the access and the provision of speed restraint measures on the access road, there are suitable mitigation measures, and therefore the proposed access is considered to accord with Policies T1 and T2 of the Local Plan. Parking is to be provided at one space per unit. Given the central location of the site in close proximity to public transport and the town centre, this level of parking is considered to be acceptable and accordingly, the proposal is acceptable, under Policy TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policy T13 of the Local Plan. Education and open space provision Policy S6 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 enables the Council to seek developer contributions towards the provision of infrastructure, social, recreational and community facilities where a need for these would arise from a proposed development. This Policy is now supplemented by the Council’s Developer Contributions Guide which was adopted on 4 May 2008, although, in the case of this application, the contributions were agreed with the applicant’s agent prior to the adoption of this document. In the case of this application, as only 8 x two bedroom flats are proposed no contribution is sought in relation to educational facilities. However, the Council’s Greenspace Services would be seeking a contribution towards the provision of play facilities, informal open space and formal sports provision. The Occupancy ratios, which are applied for the provision of such facilities, as specified in the Local Plan, are 1.33 persons for one bedroom units and 2.44 persons for two bedroom units. Applying these ratios to the proposal would result in the 4 x one bedroom flats being occupied by 5 persons and the 8 two bedroom flats being occupied by 20 persons. The contributions sought (per person) are £152 per head for equipped play space, £109 per head for informal open space and £487 (per head) for formal sports facilities. No contributions are sought for play facilities in respect of one bedroom units. The proposed development would, therefore result in a requirement for a contribution of £2,980 (£596 per head) in respect of the one bedroom units and a contribution of £14,960 (£748 per head) for the two bedroom units, making a total of £17,940. The applicants agent confirmed that his clients are willing to pay such a contribution as well as any reasonable legal costs for officer time in connection with any legal agreement prepared under Section 106 of the town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as Amended) related to the proposal. Conclusion and reason for recommendation of approval

It is considered that the current proposal addresses the grounds of refusal which applied to the previously application and is acceptable in terms of principle, employment and retail policies, appearance, neighbour amenity, parking and infrastructure contributions. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policies QL1, QL11 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies S6, BNE1, BNE2, BNE23, ED1, H4, H5, L4, T1, T2 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 expressing views contrary to the recommendation.

DC0902MW

[This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 2nd July 2008, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.]

DC0902MW

9 MC2008/0798

Date Received: 8th May 2008

Location: 80-86 John Street, Rochester, Kent ME1 1YW Proposal: Increase in roof height to form additional level to accommodate four

1-bedroomed flats with external escape stair case to rear (Resubmission of MC2007/0165)

Applicant: Asonic UK 196 Perth Road Gants Hill Essex 1G2 6DZ Agent: Mr P Hutchinson Peter Hutchinson Architects 50 Ospringe Street

Faversham Kent ME13 8TN Ward: Rochester East 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 Notwithstanding the materials listed on the plans 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 No development shall take place until arrangements for the conduction and

extraction of fumes from the A5 units on the ground floor have been made in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such arrangements shall thereafter be retained.

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

Site Description The application site is set in a mixed area of residential flats and houses and commercial properties. The three-storey block has commercial units on the ground floor (comprising A5, A1 and vacant units) with residential above. To the east is a four-storey block of flats, the west a two-storey building with a pub on the ground floor with residential above, to the north two-storey flats and houses and to the south a terrace of two-storey houses. Directly to the rear of the block is a block of garages and to the front on street parking that is available for use by the public. The block has a run down appearance and is of low architectural quality. On the southern side of John Road the buildings are predominately flat roofed and to the north pitch roofed.

DC0902MW

Proposal Planning consent is sought for an increase in roof height to form an additional level. The height of the building will increase from approx. 8.5m to 11.3m. The additional floor is proposed to be placed onto the original roof. The rather large overbearing roof overhang will be removed. The raised roof will accommodate four 1-bedroomed flats each with an open plan kitchen/living room and bathroom. Access to the flats will be via an internal staircase but an external escape staircase to the rear is planned for fire escape purposes. This external staircase is planned with a curved screen wall. The new and existing bands between the windows and the stair area is proposed to be clad in timber (probably Western Red Cedar) boarding with new vertical windows added to the stair well. The current proposal alters from the previously refused scheme through the re-design of the extension which removes of the concrete overhang and adds cladding to the existing and proposed bands between the windows and the stair area. Site Area/Density Site area: 0.067 hectares (0.165 acres) Site density: 119.40 d.p.h (48.48 d.p.a)

Relevant Planning History MC2007/0165 Increase in roof height to form additional level to accommodate four 1-

bedroomed flats with external escape stair case to rear Refused 15 May2007 The current application differs from that previously refused through a different design for the proposed extension and through the inclusive treatment of the fascade of the building. Representations The application has been advertised on site . Consultation letters have been sent to the Primary care trust, The Police architectural liaison officer, EDF energy and Southern Gas networks. Neighbour consultation letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of numbers 41-47 (odd) St Peter Street; 3-15 (odd) and 102 and 104 Delce Road; 155-181 (odds) Rochester Avenue and 31 Hallsfield Road Two letters of representation have been received making the following comments:

• Detract from the appearance of the premises • Tower over the premises opposite and the adjacent pub • Dominate the streetscape • Pressure on parking • Fire escape is inadequate may impede access from the ground floor shops adjacent to

it • In danger of becoming the future carbuncle within the city of Rochester if it is extended

in this manner

DC0902MW

• Extending the flues will make the rear of the building even more unattractive than it is at present

• Security will be compromised • Loss of privacy from the fire escape • Noise and disturbance

A petition with 74 signatures has been received raising the following concerns:

• Devaluation of the top floor of the property • Restricted parking • Noise disturbance • Inconvenience for customers and residents • The loss of sunlight for opposite residents • Safety of pedestrians • Loss of privacy

Southern Gas Networks has written to advise the presence of gas mains in the proximity of the site Development Plan Policies Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

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


Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Provision) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal The main planning considerations in the determination of this application are:

• Street scene and design • Amenity • Highways

Street Scene and Design The area comprises of low quality buildings and the application site is considered to be of no of no architectural merit. The proposed scheme is different to that previously refused by enhancing the external appearance of the building through the removal of the concrete overhang and the use of cedar boarding between the windows and on the stair well. This forms a more cohesive appearance to the building and ties the existing and proposed together. It is considered that the proposal is now in accordance with PPS1 and Local Plan policy H4, in that it provides a clear improvement to the local environment.

DC0902MW

The increased height of the building is considered acceptable with regard to the height and mass of the other buildings in the area and does not appear out of character within the street scene, and with the proposed enhancements to the existing building it is considered that this development would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the streetscene. The flues to the rear of the property are likely to have to be extended in order to overcome any environmental concerns. This can be a condition of the application to ensure that they are of a sympathetic nature and do not compromise the design.

The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies H4 and BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. Neighbourhood Amenity Due to the siting and orientation of the building with regard to the neighbours to the south it is considered that there would be no significant issue with regard to loss of sunlight, daylight, outlook or privacy. Due to the height and design of the block of flats to the east with no flank wall windows it is considered that there would be negligible affect on the amenities of the occupants with regard to outlook, daylight, sunlight or privacy. The applicants have submitted a report on daylight and sunlight which primarily focuses on the affect the proposed extension would have with regard to the neighbour to the west which is a two storey building comprising a pub on the ground floor with residential above. The flat at first floor has several windows on the eastern flank that relate to a conservatory, lounge, kitchen and bathroom. The flat roof of the pub below is used as a roof terrace which is the only outside amenity space. The report sets out that the loss of daylight to this neighbours windows would be negligible when compared to the existing situation and unlikely to be noticable and therefore are not thought to be harmful. The Building Research Establishment Guide (BRE) gives a total of 1486 hours as an annual average for sunlight likely to be received and recommends that windows should receive 25% of annual hours sunlight with 5% during the winter. The report shows that the adjacent neighbour – 78 John Street (The Mordon Arms PH), will receive substantially more than the Guides minimum recommended annual level and winter levels. There would be a small reduction in sunlight through the proposed scheme but this is not deemed sufficient to justify refusing permission. The sun on the ground indicators have shown that the roof terrace of the Mordon Arms will have a slight reduction in the amount of sunlight but by 11.30 hours the effects of the new extension will have disappeared.

It is considered that the applicants have produced evidence that the amenities of the occupants of 78 John Street would not be significantly adversely affected by the proposal and as such the development would be in accordance with the advice given in Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. Highways No parking spaces are proposed for the development, however there is on street parking in the form of parking bays directly to the front, which have no restrictions, this combined with the small number of units sought is considered to be acceptable. There are no objections in

DC0902MW

terms of highway safety and the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies T1 and T13 of the local plan. Conclusions and Reasons for Approval The principle of the proposed development and the design are considered to be satisfactory. The proposed development will not be out of context with its surroundings and it is considered to be acceptable for the reasons outlined above. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policies QL1, T19, and HP4 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, T13 and H4 of the adopted Local Plan and the application is accordingly recommended for approval. The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being referred for member consideration due to the extent of representations received expressing views contrary to the recommendation. [This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 2nd July 2008, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.]

DC0902MW

10 MC2008/0548

Date Received: 31st March 2008

Location: Land adjacent to Bells Lane and Kingsnorth Close Hoo Rochester

Kent Proposal: Construction of a two storey block comprising five 2-bedroomed self-

contained flats with associated parking Applicant: Mr Boparai Ringland Developments Unit C 3 Clipper Court Clipper

Court Medway City Estate Rochester Kent ME2 4QR Agent: Ward: Peninsula Recommendation - Approval with Conditions (as amended by drawings received on 9th June 2008) 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.



4 The living room window(s) on the first floor northern corner shall be fitted with

obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light. 5 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels of contours; means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans including replacement trees, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

DC0902MW

6 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.

7 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, detailed plans relating to

the external storage of bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before any of the units are first occupied and thereafter retained.

8 Prior to the commencement of the development, a site investigation shall be

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

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

Site Description The application site is located within the rural settlement of Hoo St. Werburgh, as defined on the proposals map of the Local Plan. The site is located on the eastern side of Bells Lane and is currently vacant. At the time of the previous application (MC2007/0819) the site contained a fairly dilapidated concrete block of 11 single storey garages, but since that approval the garages have been demolished. The site is an irregular shape, and the access to the site from Bells Lane also serves Nos. 94 and 96, a pair of two storey, semi-detached properties. No. 94 is a single dwellinghouse, which also has a detached garage beyond the north-eastern boundary of the site. No. 96 is used as a dental practice, with a car park to the side and rear. The application site is at a slightly higher level than the road. There is a public footpath along the south-eastern boundary, outside the application site. Kingsnorth Close is beyond the footpath to the south and south-east. The houses in Kingsnorth Close are two-storey, terraced properties. There is also a block of garages to serve the houses within the close. The surrounding area is largely residential in character and made up of a mix of house types and ages.

DC0902MW

Proposal This application seeks full planning permission for construction of a two-storey block comprising five 2-bedroomed self-contained flats with associated parking. The proposed block will be positioned centrally within the site. There will be a fairly large public lawned area to the front of the block, and a smaller lawn area to the rear. The driveway will pass along the northern boundary of the site adjacent No. 94, to five car parking spaces at the rear of the site. The driveway would also continue to maintain access to the garage belonging to No. 94. There will be a drying area to the southern side of the building. The building will have the appearance of a two storey semi-detached pair of houses, with a hipped, tabletop roof and projecting bays. The building will measure 4.9m to eaves level and 8.1m to the ridge. It will be 10.9m wide, extending to 11.5m taking into account the projecting bays. The building will be 12.3m deep, extending to 14.8m into the bays. At the front, the building will be roughly in line with the building line of Nos. 94 and 96. There will be two flats on the ground floor, two on the first floor and one at second floor within the roof space. Each flat will have a hallway, a kitchen/living room, a bathroom and two double bedrooms. All the bedrooms will be on the southern side of the building. There will be windows on every elevation, serving both habitable and non-habitable rooms. Each of the ground floor flats would have it’s own separate entrance. The first floor and second floor flats would be accessed from a shared entrance and stairway. An external bin store is shown on the layout to be located to the south. This application is a resubmission of a scheme recently approved under reference MC2007/0819. The current scheme is for five flats with one parking space per flat whereas the previous scheme was for four flats with a one parking space per flat. The design of the buildings is largely the same for both schemes however, the current scheme would be higher by approx. 200mm with a tabletop roof and would be slightly deeper by approx. 1.3m. In terms of the arrangements for storing refuse, the current scheme shows an external store. The previous scheme showed an internal store. Site Area/Density Site area: 0.09 ha (0.22 acres) Site density: 55 u.p.h (23 u.p.a)

Relevant Planning History MC2006/2042 Demolition of existing garage block and erection of a two storey block of

6 two bedroomed flats with six car parking spaces. Withdrawn

MC2007/0819 Demolition of existing garage block and construction of a two-storey

block comprising four 2-bedroomed self-contained flats with associated parking.

Approval, 20 September 2007 Representations

DC0902MW

The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of: 1-8 Kingsnorth Close; 77-89 (odds) Bells Lane and 86 and 94-98 (evens) Bells Lane. Four letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns: Lack of parking Overdevelopment Loss of view Proposed connection to main drain – main drain has collapsed Loss of light Loss of privacy

During the assessment of the planning application it was discovered that the red line depicting the site area included some land that was outside of the applicant’s ownership. To rectify this, the applicant amended the red line to show the site area to be the land within his ownership. No other changes were made to the application. The application has been re-advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent again to the owner/occupiers of: 1-8 Kingsnorth Close; 77-89 (odds) Bells Lane and 86 and 94-98 (evens) Bells Lane. One additional letter of objection has been received raising the following concerns: Loss of privacy Narrow access Parking problems Loss of trees


Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy HP5 (Housing Development in the Countryside) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)


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

DC0902MW

Planning Appraisal Principle The issue of the principle of the removal of the garages and redevelopment for flats was accepted in the grant of planning permission for the four flat scheme in September 2007 under ref MC2007/0819. The main determining issues are therefore whether the increase in the number of flats from 4 to 5 raises areas of concern regarding design, layout, amenity or highway issues. Street scene and design Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in terms of its layout and siting, details, materials, proportion, scale and mass, and that it respects the scale, appearance and location of surrounding buildings and spaces. A run-down block of garages of low architectural quality previously occupied the application site. The garages detracted from the character and appearance of the area. As such, the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is welcome and is in keeping with the character of the area. The footprint of the building is fairly large when taking into account its depth; however, the building will not take up an excessive portion of the site, and sufficient space will be maintained around and between buildings. The proposed building will have the appearance of a pair of semi-detached properties, with rendered walls, a hipped roof and projecting bays to break up and add interest to the elevations of the building. The height of the building will not be excessive, and will be similar to Nos. 94 and 96. The building will be higher than the properties in Kingsnorth Close; however, this is due to the existing land levels, and as the houses in Kingsnorth Close are set so far back from the main road, the difference in height will not be particularly noticeable. The building will also be set back from the road in line with Nos. 94 and 96, creating a fairly generous green space to the front, which is in keeping with the front gardens of adjacent properties on Bells Lane. The previous application included a condition to retain the trees within the site as although they were not protected by a preservation order, it was felt that the trees made a positive contribution to the appearance of the street scene. However, since demolishing the garages it has become clear that not all trees can be retained and have therefore been removed. As the trees were not protected and given that the previous permission has not been implemented, there is no breach of planning control by removing the trees. As the trees have been removed it is recommended that a condition be included to require replacement trees. On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1 and BNE43 of the Local Plan 2003.

DC0902MW

Neighbours’ amenities Policy BNE2 seeks to ensure development does not affect the amenity of existing residents or future occupiers through loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight, or noise, activity levels and traffic generation. The properties most directly affected by the proposed development would be No. 94 Bells Lane, and No. 1 Kingsnorth Close. In terms of the impact on No. 94 Bells Lane, the northern flank elevation of the block of flats will be approximately 10m away from the flank of No. 94. At this distance, there is unlikely to be any significant loss of light to No. 94 caused by the proposed building. There will be one secondary window at first floor level on the northern corner of the building that could afford views over the garden of No. 94; however, this is unlikely to cause an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to No. 94. Furthermore, as this window is a secondary window (the main window serving the living room is a bay on the rear elevation) it could be conditioned to be obscure glazed. In terms of the impact on No. 1 Kingsnorth Close, the proposed building will be more than 5m away at its closest point, on the other side of a public footpath. The proposed building will be sited forward of the building line of the properties on Kingsnorth Close so that the southern flank elevation of the building will face across the front gardens of these properties. At first floor level in particular there will be windows on the rear (eastern) elevation of the building that may have a view over part of the rear garden of No. 1, but again the level of overlooking likely to be experienced is unlikely to be significant. Furthermore, in terms of noise and general disturbance to neighbouring properties, the site currently has the potential to be used as a parking area for up to 11 cars, plus the access serves the dental practice at No. 96. The use of the site for a block of five flats with five car parking spaces is unlikely to create an unacceptable level of activity, noise or disturbance on this site, particularly as the area is residential in character and the proposed use will not deviate from this. In relation to the effect on the amenities of future occupiers, the proposed flats will be two bedroom flats and there is adequate circulation, living and eating, and storage space. Each flat will have two double bedrooms, and all rooms will have adequate access to light and ventilation. The flats will also retain an outside amenity space. The proposed accommodation is therefore considered to be acceptable for occupation by small households. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan 2006 and Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan 2003. Highways The adopted vehicle parking standards require the provision of a maximum of two spaces per dwelling in this location, which equates to a total maximum requirement of ten car parking spaces. The submitted drawing shows the provision of one space for each of the five flats. In view of the size and type of the accommodation and its proximity to the village centre and on

DC0902MW

a bus route the proposal is considered acceptable. The access to the parking area provides for adequate vision and so no objections are raised in terms of highway safety. Accordingly no objection is raised to this aspect of the application under the provisions of Policy T19 of the Structure Plan 2006 and Policies T1, T2 and T13 of the Local Plan 2003. Conclusions and Reasons for approval The design of the proposed development will be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene, and there are likely to be no adverse effects on the amenities of neighbouring properties or future occupiers, or on highway safety. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable and the application therefore accords with the provisions of Policies QL1, HP5 and TP19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE43, H11, T1, T2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan. 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

11 MC2008/0714

Date Received: 23rd April 2008

Location: Chapel Cottage 367 Pump Lane Gillingham ME8 7TJ Proposal: Construction of a detached double garage to side/rear with door

canopy attaching to existing dwelling Applicant: Mr D Spink Chapel Cottage 367 Pump Lane Rainham Gillingham

Kent ME8 7TJ Agent: Mr W P Miller Miller Ankas The Guard House Historic Dock Yard

Chatham Kent ME4 4TE Ward: Rainham North Recommendation - Refusal 1 The proposed garage is of a scale that, in addition to other additions to the

application property, exceeds the requirement of only 'modest' extension to rural dwellings and as such is contrary to Policies HP5, EN1 and EN3 of Kent and Medway Local Plan 2006 and Policy BNE1 and BNE25 of Medway Local Plan 2003.

2 The proposed garage, by virtue of its location, scale, irregular footprint and roof

design appears awkward and contrived and detrimental to the historic and architectural character and appearance of the listed building with which it is associated. The garage would also adversely affect the setting of the listed building and fails to preserve or enhance the historic and architectural character and appearance of the Lower Rainham Conservation Area. The proposal is contrary to Policies QL1, QL6 and QL8 of Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1, BNE14, BNE17 and BNE18 of Medway Local Plan 2003.

Site Description The application property is the ‘solar wing’ of a mid to late fifteenth century hall house that is grade 2 listed. Although the property was altered in the 16th century, and has been altered also at other times, the exterior of the building to a great extent retains its medieval character. A rear extension was added to the property about 10 years ago. The original hall house has been divided into two dwellings – 367 (application property), otherwise known as ‘Chapel Cottage’ and 369 (attached to the northeastern side of the application dwelling) that is known as ‘Chapel House’.

DC0902MW

The property is located in a small cluster of dwellings, most of which fall within the limits of the rural settlement of Lower Rainham as designated in the local plan. However the application property falls outside of the boundary of the rural settlement and is located within the countryside and the ‘Gillingham Riverside’ Area of Local Landscape Importance (ALLI). The property also lies within a designated Lower Rainham Conservation Area. 367 and 369 Pump Lane are the only properties that are located on the northwestern side of the lower part of Pump Lane. On the opposite side of the street, are detached and semi-detached dwellings of more recent build and to the rear and southwestern side of the application site are open fields. Along the boundaries of the fields are shrubs and hedging. The application site measures about 11m wide at the frontage and slightly narrows along its depth so it is about 5m across the rear boundary. The application site is about 38m in depth. To the side of the application property there is a gap from the southwestern flank wall to the side boundary of the site (with the adjacent field) ranging from about 6m at its widest to about 4m at its narrowest. Currently to the side of the dwelling is hardstanding that allows parking for a number of vehicles. Proposal The proposal is for the construction of a garage to the side of the dwelling. The front elevation of the garage is in line with the join between the original timber framed property and the brick/timber clad rear extension. There is a gap of about 1m between the garage and the house. The front elevation of the garage measures about 3.8m wide, the garage is about 10.7m depth and narrows to a width of about 2.9m at the rear elevation. There is a canopy roof linking the garage roof to the southwestern flank of the dwelling, above the primary access door to the dwelling. The proposed garage has a roof design that is partly pitched and partly flat. The pitched roof element does not cover across the whole span of the roof but is of a ‘pelmet’ design that incorporates a dual pitch roof (about 1.6m wide) effectively ‘snaking’ around the perimeters of the roof. The pelmet roof travels from northeast to southwest across the front elevation of the garage, then turns at about 90 degrees and runs along the southwestern side of the roof, turns at about 90 degrees to and travels from southwest to northeast across the rear elevation of the garage and then turns again to travel towards southeast (for a distance of about 3.8m) along the northeastern side of the roof. The remainder of the roof is flat. A pair of timber garage doors are proposed in the front elevation, a pair of timber doors in the rear part of the northeastern flank and a window in the rear elevation of the proposed garage. Plan clay roof tiles are proposed for the pitched elements of the roof and the external walls are proposed to be of horizontal timber boarding. The garage it to be located hard up against the post-and-rail fencing along the southwestern boundary of the site.

Relevant Planning History GL/96/0348 Proposed erection of a two storey rear extension to dwelling Approved 02 August 1996

DC0902MW

GL/96/0349 Listed Building application for the proposed erection of a two storey rear

extension to dwelling Approved 02 August 1996

MC2002/0450 Listed building consent to dismantle external stud wall and reinstate to

existing character Approved 29 April 2002

MC2008/0715 Listed Building Consent for construction of a detached double garage to

side/rear with door canopy attaching to existing dwelling For consideration on this agenda Representations The application has been advertised on site and in the press and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of the following properties: 376, 374, 372 and 369 (Chapel House) Pump Lane. Three letters have been received supporting the proposal on the following grounds :

• The garage will enhance the look of the property; • The garage will fit in well with the neighbourhood; • Will improve the visual aspect of the whole site; • Is in keeping with the existing (old part) building; • Will hide the ‘out of character’ brickwork of the rear extension; • Historic nature of the property is enhanced by the proposal.

Development Plan Policies Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006

Policy QL1 Quality of Development and Design Policy QL6 Conservation Areas Policy QL8 Buildings of Architectural of Historic Importance Policy EN1 Protecting Kent’s Countryside Policy EN3 Protecting and Enhancing Countryside Character Policy HP5 Housing Development in the Countryside


Policy BNE1 General Principles of Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy BNE12 Conservation Areas Policy BNE14 Development in a Conservation Area Policy BNE17 Development involving Listed Building Policy BNE18 Setting of Listed Building Policy BNE34 Areas of Local Landscape Importance

DC0902MW

Planning Appraisal Background The applicant’s agent has stated in the Design Statement that ‘a single garage was demolished some time ago due to its poor condition’ however planning records show that a historic single garage was to be removed as part of the proposal for the extension to the rear of the property (under applications 96/348GL and 96/0349GL and the later applications in 1997 for ‘submission of details’). Records show that two additional parking spaces were to be provided in place of the garage at that time. The applications for the extension to the dwelling were assessed with no garage remaining on the site. Records from the application MC2002/0450 show that no garage existed at the property at that time. Therefore it is considered that the existence of a garage previously on this site does not have a bearing on the current considerations other than the realisation that the demolition of that garage was to support the previous application to build the rear extension and in terms of enlargement of the rural property at that time would have offset somewhat the additional mass on the rear of the building. The current application for the garage needs to be considered in terms of its provision in addition to historic development at the property. The main matters for consideration of this application are:

• Principle of extension • The design of the garage and impact on character of listed building and

conservation area; • Impact on the character and function of the ALLI. • Impact on neighbours’ amenities;

Principle of extension The application property would originally have been a single dwelling but has been historically sub-divided into 367 and 369 Pump Lane. 367 Pump Lane has then been extended to allow for a reasonable level of accommodation to what otherwise was a small dwelling. The rear extension at the property has increased the useable floor area by about 50%. Planning legislation considers that any detached buildings that are within 5m of a dwelling is an ‘extension’ to the dwelling, rather than being an ‘outbuilding’. The proposed garage has a floor area of around 32m square, which would increase the size of the dwelling by a further 42%. The increase of the original dwelling (which itself is a wing of the original hall house) would then be about 92%. Policy HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 does not permit housing development within the countryside except in exceptional circumstances, including ‘the rebuilding, conversion or modest extension of a dwelling currently in residential use’. The

DC0902MW

adopted local plan policy states that there will be a strong presumption against residential development in the rural area except in specific circumstances. Within policy BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan 2003, one of these ‘exceptional circumstances’ is listed as: “(vi) a rebuilding of, or modest extension or annex to, a dwelling” Within the preamble to policy BNE25 a guide of a 25% increase in floor area is identified as a modest extension for rural properties. Any extension greater than that would then dominate the character of the original property. A 92% increase in the floor area of the original dwelling would significantly dominate the original property and is therefore contrary to Policies HP5 of the structure plan and BNE25 of the local plan. Design and impact on listed building and conservation area The application property is also grade 2 listed. Local plan policy for additions to a listed building states that they will not be permitted if they are: “(i) detrimental to the architectural or historic character of the building; or (ii) unsympathetic in design, scale, appearance and use; or (iii) do not retain original features and materials. In terms of the principle of a garage being provided as an ancillary building to a listed building the expectation is that any ancillary buildings should be designed and located so that they appear as though they could be an outbuilding built at the time of the original dwelling. In this case the proposed garage is of a design that does not firstly respond to the site but is designed around a desire to maximise space for garaging. The garage is of a scale, at around 10.5m length, to allow for the parking of two cars ‘in-line’ with a further car being parked on the drive to the front of the garage. As a result of the design generating from a desire for a specific area for parking, the resultant garage is awkward and unconventional. The use of a low-ridged “pelmet” type roof is more likely found on a modern suburban garage and the ‘snaking’ of the roof around the perimeters of the roof, with a remaining element of flat roof, emphasises the contrived nature of the design in an attempt to provide the desired garage floor area. Although the materials to be used for the construction of the garage are acceptable for an outbuilding for a property of this age the size, shape and other design detailing of the garage bears little relationship to an outbuilding that would be expected to be built as ancillary to the original dwelling, which is part of a medieval (15th Century) hall house. In addition to the poor appearance of the garage as an ancillary outbuilding the location of the garage is such as would be expected of a modern garage to a modern building rather than an ancillary outbuilding to a medieval property. In terms of the impact of the garage on the setting of the listed building and the Lower Rainham conservation area the proposal locates the garage behind the line of the original dwelling and adjacent to and beyond the recent rear extension. As such a significant differentiation is being made by the applicant’s agent between value of the original part of the listed building and the more recent rear extension.

DC0902MW

However, this apparent differentiation between the different aged parts of the dwelling is not considered to be appropriate. Rather the impact of the garage needs to be considered in terms of its impact on the property as a whole. Any historic extensions allowed to the dwelling should have been designed in their own right to be sympathetic to the original dwelling. In this case the existing rear extension at the property was carefully designed in terms of its subservience to the main building, materials used and sloping roof form and it creates a sense of hierarchy within the house. The existing rear extension is designed so as to appear as a historic form of extension, appropriate for this building, rather than a modern extension. The addition of the garage to the side of the dwelling will screen much of the flank of the existing dwelling. The proposed garage is considered to be of a considerably less well designed and historic form than the existing rear extension and the screening of the flank of the existing building is not in itself necessarily appropriate even with an outbuilding of a better design. In addition it is considered that the infilling of the whole of the width of the site, up to the side boundary of the site, with adjacent buildings is detrimental to the setting of this rural dwelling within its plot. Overall it is considered that the proposed garage would adversely affect the setting of this listed building and as such is contrary to planning policy. The requirements of planning policy concerning development in a conservation area, in part is that development ‘should achieve a high quality of design which will preserve or enhance the area’s historic or architectural character or appearance.’ For the reasons already outlined the proposal is considered to be contrary to this policy requirement. In summary the proposed garage is considered to be of a scale, design and location that is contrary to Policies QL1, QL6, QL8, EN1, EN3 and HP5 of Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1, BNE14, BNE17 and BNE18 of Medway Local Plan 2003. Impact on Area of Local Landscape Importance The proposal is not considered to ‘materially harm’ the landscape function and character of the Gillingham Riverside ALLI, in which the property is located, or impact on the ‘economic or social benefits’ of the area. As such the proposal is considered to comply with Policy BNE34 of the local plan. Amenity Considerations Due to the location of the garage away from surrounding dwellings it will not result in any detrimental impacts to neighbours’ amenities in terms of loss of outlook, privacy, daylight or overshadowing. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant parts of Policy QL1 of Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2003 and Policy BNE2 of Medway Local Plan 2003. Highways The proposed garage will not impact unacceptably in terms of parking provision to serve the property or on highway safety. No objection is therefore raised to the proposal in highway terms.

DC0902MW

Conclusions and Reasons for Refusal In summary the proposed garage is considered to be of a scale, design and location that is detrimental to the integrity of this rural, listed building and its setting and also the conservation area in which it is located and as such the proposal is contrary to Policies QL1, QL6, QL8, EN1, EN3 and HP5 of Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE1, BNE14, BNE17 and BNE18 of Medway Local Plan 2003. This application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers however it has been redirected to planning committee for members’ consideration due to the level of neighbour representation supporting the proposal.

DC0902MW

12 MC2008/0715

Date Received: 23rd April 2008

Location: Chapel Cottage 367 Pump Lane, Gillingham, Kent ME8 7TJ Proposal: Listed Building Consent for construction of a detached double garage

to side/rear with door canopy attaching to existing dwelling Applicant: Mr D Spink Chapel Cottage 367 Pump Lane Rainham Gillingham

Kent ME8 7TJ Agent: Mr W P Miller Miller Ankas The Guard House Historic Dock Yard

Chatham Kent ME4 4TE Ward: Rainham North Recommendation - Refusal 1 The proposed garage, by virtue of its location, scale, irregular footprint and roof

design appears awkward and contrived and detrimental to the historic and architectural character and appearance of the listed building (Medieval) with which it is associated. The garage would also adversely affect the setting of the listed building and the proposal is contrary to Policy QL8 of Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies BNE17 and BNE18 of Medway Local Plan 2003.

This is a listed building application to accompany the planning application reported under the previous item on this agenda. Matters of site description, proposal, planning history, representations received, policy and appraisal, in so far as its relates to the impact of the proposal on the character and setting of the Listed Building, have been set out in full in the previous report to item MC 2008/0714.

DC0902MW

13 MC2008/0749


Location: Land Rear of 343 & 343A Maidstone Road (fronting Tanker Hill)

Rainham Gillingham ME8 0HU Proposal: Outline application for demolition of outbuildings and construction of

one pair of semi-detached dwellinghouses with parking Applicant: Mr S J Williams 135 Berengrave Lane Rainham Gillingham Kent Agent: Mr J Liddiard 14 Wentworth Drive Cliffe Woods Rochester Kent ME3

8UL Ward: Rainham Central Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 Approval of the details of scale, appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called

"the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.



3 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the

expiration of 2 years from the final approval of the reserved matters or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

4 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

5 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking shall be kept

available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

DC0902MW

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 part of the rear gardens of 343 and 343a Maidstone Road in Rainham, which back onto Tanker Hill. There are some fairly dilapidated sheds/garages at the rear of these gardens, close to Tanker Hill, with the boundaries currently fenced off. The site relates to Tanker Hill rather than Maidstone Road, and on the western side of Tanker Hill adjacent to the application site are three existing properties, numbers 67, 69 and 71. The original Tanker Hill properties lie on the eastern side of the road here, and Tanker Hill is a cul-de-sac with a turning head located to the north of the site. Tanker Hill comprises a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. There is unrestricted on street parking in Tanker Hill. There is a change in levels between the Maidstone Road properties and those in Tanker Hill, with the Maidstone Road properties set at a lower level that the application site. Proposal This is an outline application for the construction of a pair of semi-detached houses, with layout and access to be determined at this stage. The site is rectangular in shape and has a depth of 26m and a frontage width of 14m. The existing Maidstone Road properties would retain a garden of 15m in length each. The layout shows the houses set back from the footpath by 7m, to allow for two off street parking spaces for each unit. The houses are shown to have a depth of 8.5m, and a gap of 1m would be retained between the pair of semi’s and the relative side boundaries. The houses would have a 10m garden each. A front porch detail is also shown on the layout. Site Area/Density Site area: 0.037 hectares (0.091 acres) Site density: 54 Dph (22 dpa)

Relevant Planning History MC/98/0947/MG One two bed detached dwelling at land rear of 343a Maidstone Road Refused 12 February 1999 MC2001/1509 Construction of loft conversion and dormer window (at 343a Maidstone

Road) Approved 11 October 2001 MC2002/1165 Construction of loft conversion and gable end to roof (at 343a Maidstone

Road) Approved 1 August 2002

DC0902MW

Representations The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of 351, 343, 343a and 345 Maidstone Road; and 70, 71, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82 and 84 Tanker Hill. Eight letters of representation have been received raising the following points: Overlooking and loss of privacy for adjoining properties New dwellings would create more on street parking and affect existing on street

parking for neighbouring properties Scheme would exacerbate an already bad parking situation in the area Trees already removed from the site Street light already removed Loss of light to neighbouring property, particularly through kitchen door Loss of sunlight for properties on Maidstone Road Access for emergency vehicles in Tanker Hill will be difficult Noise and disturbance from the two new properties All houses in Tanker Hill should be given a driveway to alleviate parking issues Construction will affect residents with asthma and cause general disturbance for

residents on Tanker Hill Previous refusal for new dwelling to rear of 343a Maidstone Road Scheme will set a precedent for further houses to the rear of Maidstone Road

properties Development Plan Policies Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

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


Policy BNE1 General Principles for Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy H4 Housing in Urban Areas Policy T2 Access to the Highway Policy T13 Vehicle Parking Standards

Planning Appraisal Principle of Development The application site lies within the urban area, as defined in the adopted Local Plan. Policy H4 permits residential development in such areas, including infilling, provided a clear improvement to the local environment would result. The principle of allowing two new dwellings here is therefore acceptable, so the application falls to be determined in light of the proposed layout in relation to the surrounding area, access to the site and parking provision, and amenity issues.

DC0902MW

Street Scene and Design The proposed pair of semi-detached houses would be set back in line with the adjoining property to the south, number 71 and would replicate the existing building line of properties on this side of the road. The garden length would also replicate the garden layout of number 71 in terms of the depth, and would be slightly longer than the garden for the other pair of semi’s on this road, 67 and 69. The layout shows that the houses would be set in from the north and south boundary by 1m, allowing room for pedestrian access to the rear garden and ensuring the houses are set off the adjoining boundaries. Off street parking would be located at the front of the house, with a small area in between available for landscaping to soften the appearance of the development. The overall layout would be very similar to that of the existing three properties on the western side of Tanker Hill, and it is considered that the layout would therefore be acceptable and in keeping with an established pattern of development. No details have been submitted for the detailed design of the houses as this has been reserved for a later application. However it is considered that an application could be submitted showing appropriate design for the properties. It is therefore considered that the scheme is acceptable and accords with Policy QL1 of the Structure Plan and Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. Amenity Considerations As the detailed design of the houses is reserved, a full assessment of the impact on neighbouring properties in terms of positions of windows and loss of privacy issues etc. cannot be made. However it is likely, given the proposed layout, that the principle windows would be on both the front and rear elevations, rather than on the side. In this case direct overlooking of number 71 Tanker Hill would be avoided. There would be a separation distance of 25m between the proposed rear elevation and the rear of the Maidstone Road properties, which would exceed the recommended distance in Kent design and address any concerns about overlooking in this direction. The distance between the proposed front elevation and the properties on the eastern side of Tanker Hill would be 22m, which would again exceed recognised separation distances for properties across roads. Given that the proposed houses are sited to the north of number 71, they would not result in any overshadowing or loss of sunlight to this property. It is considered that the distances involved would ensure that overshadowing towards Maidstone Road properties would also not be an issue, despite the change in levels. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable and accords with Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan. Highways The application site would be accessed directly onto Tanker Hill, with two new vehicular crossovers shown, to allow access to the off-street car parking proposed. There in no objection in principle to the proposed new access points, which would again be similar to the access created for numbers 67-71 Tanker Hill.

DC0902MW

Two off-street parking spaces are proposed for each unit, which is considered to be appropriate for what is likely to be family housing in this location. Concern has been raised that the creation of these off-street spaces will result in the loss of on-street parking for existing residents. The formation of the crossovers will result in the loss of a couple of on-street parking spaces, and whilst this may have an impact on the existing parking situation it is considered that it would not be significant enough to justify refusing the scheme on this ground alone. Other Matters An objection relates to the noise and disturbance that would be created during the construction of the proposed houses. Other legislation exists which seeks to control construction noise to restrict disturbance for adjoining residents. Whilst this cannot be taken into account in making this decision, the applicants can be made aware of the need to comply with this legislation, through an informative. One of the objections refers to the previous refusal of permission for a dwelling to the rear of 343a Maidstone Road. This was for a single dwelling on land solely to the rear of 343a, and hence the plot was narrower than the plots of land which had previously been allowed for the development of 67-71 Tanker Hill. The previous application acknowledged the precedent for allowing development in this location, but the application was refused on the grounds that the scheme would have resulted in a cramped form of development, out of character with the street scene due to the plot width constraints, and general footprint of the building (which incorporated a two storey rear projection). It is considered that this scheme differs from the refused scheme in that the provision of a pair of semi’s across two plots (rear of 343 and 343a) would allow for a scheme which would not be cramped within the street scene, would not require a two storey rear projection, and would better reflect the existing pattern of development. In addition the previous scheme was refused due to the extent of hard standing to the front. Again this scheme reduces the overall level of hard standing to the front compared to the previous layout, and allows for some landscaping to be included, which can be secured via condition. Conclusions and Reasons for Approval This outline application, which would determine matters of layout and access, is considered to be acceptable for the reasons stated above and would accord with Policies H4, BNE1, BNE2, T2 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan, and is therefore recommended for approval. This application would normally fall to be determined under officer’s powers but is being reported for Member’s consideration due to the extent of representations that have been received contrary to the officer recommendation.

DC0902MW

14 MC2008/0793

Date Received: 2nd May 2008

Location: Newlands Farm Station Road Cliffe Rochester ME3 7RU Proposal: Stationing of three caravans and one WC/laundry portacabin, new

path and associated plant for agricultural workers Applicant: Mr P Tickle C/O Agent Agent: Mr G K Simpkin Graham Simpkin Planning 2 The Parade Ash Road

Hartley Longfield Kent DA3 8BG Ward: Strood Rural Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 The caravan and portacabin hereby permitted shall be removed and land restored

to its former condition on or before ( 31st July 2013) in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2 No more than 3 seasonal labourers caravans and one mobile laundry unit to the

east of Newlands Farm; and as shown on the submitted drawings shall be placed on site at any one time.

3 The three caravans hereunder approved for seasonal labourers shall only be

occupied by persons soley or mainly employed for the purposes of agriculture at Newlands Farm.

4 The 3 labourer's caravans hereunder approved shall only be occupied from 1st

January to 31st March and from 1st May to 30th November (inclusive) in any calendar year and shall not be occupied at any other time.

5 Proposals for a hedgerow perimeter landscaping (to include Alder trees and native

hedgerow species) to screen the 3 caravans and mobile laundry unit approved shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing, within one month of the granting of planning permission. Such approved planting shall be planted within 5 months of the written approval and thereafter regularly maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or plants which within this 5 year period are removed or become seriously damaged, diseased or unhealthy shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

6 No materials, plant or other equipment of any description relating to the storage of

the caravans shall be placed on the land without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

7 No security lighting or any other form of external lighting shall be installed without

first obtaining the prior consent in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

DC0902MW

For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning Appraisal section and conclusions at the end of this report. Site Description Newlands Farm is accessed from Station Road (the B2000). To the north of the wide vehicular access are three cottages that have been combined into one larger dwelling, whilst to the south is Oast Cottage. Further into the access, which expands into a farmyard, is large packing shed, used to sort out farm produce and store tractors etc and to the south of this parallel with Oast Cottage is a bungalow. The farm lies within the countryside just to the south of the village of Cliffe on the eastern side of Station Road. Although situated within the open countryside the area is not covered by any specific landscape protection policies. Newlands Farm extends to approx 87.96 ha (217 acres), which comprises of 8 plots, all east of Station Road and crossing over Cooling Street (further to the east). The farmer has for the last two years developed the growing of crops such as broad beans, cauliflowers, onions, potatoes, spring greens, leeks which are supplied to local farm shops, restaurants and public houses and are also sold at the local Farmers Market in High Halstow and the Isle of Grain. The surrounding wider area is farmland, although the site lies south of Cliffe village and there are a few sporadic dwellings in the countryside. The caravans and laundry/wc portacabin have already been placed on site. The application had been submitted in good time to allow for determination before May, but further information was required to make the application valid and as a result delayed determination. In order to provide facilities for his seasonal workers the applicant had locate the structures on site. A thick hedgerow screens the caravans from the adjacent dwelling at Almond Lodge, sited approx 42 metres away from the caravan site’s western boundary Proposal This application is for the stationing of three caravans and one WC/Laundry portacabin, a new path and associated plant for agricultural workers. The supporting statement points out that two caravans have been kept at Newlands Farm since the late 1990’s and have been used to provide accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers under the provisions of Schedule 2, part 5, Class A of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995. Reference is made to the earlier planning permission ME98/0579 so that the applicant did not have to be continually removing the caravans in the winter months, although that permission has expired. The seasonal stationing of the caravans on the site for agricultural workers would be “permitted development” under Part 5, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 so the current application is simply to regularize the storage of the empty

DC0902MW

caravans on the same site when not in use, rather than having to keep moving them off and on the site each year. Due to their size they cannot easily be relocated during the winter. Accordingly the application seeks consent to retain the two older caravans in their new location and the additional caravan on site during the winter period. The new location on the land is so that they are further away from the dwellings known as the Oast Cottage and The Bungalow. One caravan and the laundry mobile building have been positioned behind the large main farm building on the site, with the other two directly to the north. Permission is also sought for the siting of a laundry/shower cubicle, which the applicant would like to retain through the year. A path is proposed to link all these buildings and on site, this comprised of a matting system laid on the ground. The seasonal workers who are employed under the S.A.W.S. (Seasonal Agricultural workers Scheme) scheme need to live on site from May until mid-November and then again for 12 weeks from early January until March. They are employed on the farm picking the produce. The use of seasonal labour is vital for the continuation of profitable agricultural activity at Newlands Farm and in early season the workers assist with planting as well as helping with the picking. They will remain on the farm until the autumn to help clean up the land and clear up. The applicant intends to plant an additional shelterbelt of native tree and hedge plants, to that which exists in order to screen the caravans from long distance views, whilst also providing the occupiers with a degree of shelter and privacy. This will link into the existing shelterbelt comprising in the main of Alder trees. The applicant has applied for a limited permission of five years (in view of the changing agricultural climate). The two relocated caravans have a kitchen, living room, shower room and three bedrooms. The third caravan only has two bedrooms. The applicant on site confirmed that he accommodated between 3 and 4 students/workers per caravan. This would equate to a maximum of 12 persons.

Relevant Planning History ME98/0579 Newlands Farm, Station Road, Cliffe, Rochester, Kent,

Winter storage of two caravans for accommodation of seasonal workers Approved 18 December 1998 Conditioned to expire on 30 November 2003; occupation of caravans

only between 1st May and 30th November and not to be used for residential purposes at any other time.

Representations The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of Newlands Cottage, Newlands Farm shop, Almond Lodge, Station Bungalow, Oast Cottage, Newland Farm all in Station Road; 2 to 12 Cooling Road, plus 1 and 2 Syringa Villas, 1 and 2 Maple Cottages and Maple Cottage, Fairleigh, 1 and 2 Morning Cross Place, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Morning Cross Cottages all in Cooling Road. Hand delivery letters were also given to the Newlands Bungalow within the farmyard; Kia Cra and Sunnyside further to the south in Station Road; plus 5 cottages (Reginald Lodge, Cliffe

DC0902MW

Cottage, Heathcliffe Cottage, Peninsula Cottage and Spadges Cottage) along Well Penn Road. The Council’s Agricultural advisor has also been consulted. Medway Council’s Agricultural Adviser has written in support of the application. He notes that Newlands farm grows vegetables including potatoes supplied to local farm shops, restaurants and pubs and local farmers markets. This form of intensive cropping requires a relatively high labour requirement and thus the availability of suitable seasonal labour forms an essential part of the business. He also notes that many fruit and vegetable farms in Medway, Kent and further afield now rely to a large extent on the availability of a significant workforce of Eastern European student labour, which requires the provision of adequate temporary accommodation to approved standards. This is commonly provided in the form of caravans, which are often granted consent to remain year-round, subject to vacancy periods. There are various precedents for permitting winter storage of such caravans on other farms in the area and further afield, and the agricultural advisor considers that the proposed storage of the 3 caravans and portacabin on the application site here to be a relatively modest facility that appears to be genuinely required in relation to the operation of the vegetable enterprise on this farm. Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council: Raises objection to the proposal on the grounds of loss of residential amenity, in particular noise and light as the location is close to residential properties. They also have concerns about the number of residents to be housed in the caravans and how the seasonal nature can be enforced. Dickens Country Protection Society: Concerns are raised with regard to noise levels and how the caravans will be managed. 2 Letters of representation have been received (from one household) objecting on the grounds of:

• Complaint that the caravan park is already on the farmers land and occupied by 11 workers.

• Concerns that up to 20+ workers are able to stay in the caravans some being teens, mid twenties.

• Concerns that caravans could be occupied up to 11 months of the year. • Concern over loss of residential amenity, noise and disturbance, smells, loss of

privacy, light pollution. • Object to the noise of the workers playing loud music, football and generally cause a

disturbance late at night. • Concerns that septic tank and electrical and water supplies have already been

erected, irrespective of electrical installation part P regulations and WRAS regulations. • Concerns over security. • Considers that the farmer could accommodate these workers elsewhere.

The advise from the Building Control Department is that the stationing of mobile homes/caravans together with associated drainage (including septic tanks) is not controllable under the Building Regulations. Electrical work would only be controllable under part P if the caravans/ portacabin received their electricity from a source located within or shared with a dwelling. These matters are not planning matters and fall under the applicant’s responsibilities to ensure the health and safety of his employees.

DC0902MW

National Planning Guidance

PPS1: Delivery and Sustainable Development PPS1A: Planning System & General Principles PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG24: Planning and noise


Policy SP1 (Sustainable Pattern of Development) Policy SS8 (Development in the Countryside) Policy EN1 (Protecting Kent’s Countryside) Policy EN3 (Protection and enhancement of Countryside Character) Policy EN9 (Trees, hedgerows and woodlands) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy EP9 (Protection of Agricultural Land) Policy NR5 (Pollution Impacts) Policy TP12 (Development and Access to the Primary/Secondary Road

Network) Policy TP15 (Development Traffic & Heavy Goods Vehicles) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)


Policy BNE1 (General Principals for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Considerations) Policy BNE25 (Development in the Countryside) Policy BNE42 (Hedgerow Retention) Policy BNE43 (Trees & Development Sites) Policy T1 (Impact of New development on the Highway Network) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal Having regard to the provision of the Development Plan, it is considered that the main issues arising from the proposal are as follows:

• Matters of principle, • Character of the rural countryside and landscape. • Amenities of the nearby residential units. • Highway safety and car parking implications.

Principle This application concerns farm land and the site lies within the rural area and within the open countryside and is outside any recognised rural settlement as defined in the adopted Local Plan. The proposal therefore falls to be assessed against the criteria identified under Policy SP1, SS8, EN1 and EN3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006, and Policy BNE25 of

DC0902MW

the Medway Local Plan 2003, which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to prevent development within the rural area unless a special justification can be made or there is an overriding need for it. The special justification for development in the rural area relates to need associated with agriculture. The applicant has confirmed that he does not own the land but leases it to farm and that he has no other land or buildings in which he could house his workers. The location chosen for the caravans is preferred in order for security when they are not occupied to prevent theft and vandalism. It is also the best location for access by emergency vehicles and in terms of the “ethical training initiative” and standards adopted by the major supermarkets in respect of the social welfare, well being and supervision of seasonal agricultural workers. The applicant advised on site that the caravans are for students from Europe who are employed under a Government approved, Harvest Opportunity Permit Scheme (HOPS). As well as being paid a regular wage, they are provided with English lessons with trips arranged to local attractions. The aim of the HOPS scheme was to foster international relations and to provide farms with badly needed staff to enable the harvest to be gathered. The nature of vegetables is that it must be harvested relatively quickly within a short window of time. The caravans are occupied from May to November and then again for 12 weeks between early January and March, and this can be controlled by way of an appropriate condition to prevent occupancy between December to April. It is also considered that the siting and storage of the caravans will not cause the loss of any productive agricultural land under policy EP9 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, as the site chosen is poor for growing crops due to their position adjacent to the farm buildings. The advice of the Council’s agricultural consultant is clear in terms of the necessity for accommodation for seasonal workers to support the type of farming being undertaken at this farm. It is therefore considered that the 3 static caravans and the mobile WC/laundry unit permanently on the site are acceptable in principle. Countryside and Design Considerations The site lies within the rural area and within the open countryside and is outside any recognised rural settlement as defined in the adopted Local Plan. The proposal therefore falls to be assessed against the criteria identified under Policies SP1, SS8, EN1, EN3, EN9, QL1 and QL4 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and Policies BNE1 and BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to prevent development within the rural area unless a special justification can be made or there is an overriding need for it. The landscape implication of this proposal involves the stationing of caravans and a mobile laundry unit and whether they can be viewed within the wider landscape. Although the site for the four mobile structures cannot be readily seen from the farm access serving the farm and the nearby dwellings, being well hidden behind the farm buildings and screened by the windbreak to the west of the site, due to the flat topography of the land utilised for low growing crops, the structures are very prominent from long distance views from the north from Cooling Street and west from Well Penn Road and even further west from Cooling Road. As man made structures they do create a prominent feature within the

DC0902MW

landscape. However, it is considered that with appropriate planting their impact could be lessened, as has been accomplished around the nearby Mockbeggar farm site and therefore would not impact upon the countryside. The structures are essential for the operation of the farm and their siting has been selected based on security, no impact on productive farm land and because it has the least impact on the countryside. With additional screening (which can be conditioned) any impact can be reduced. The proposal is, therefore, viewed as being in accordance with the above mentioned Development Plan policies. Impact on Amenities Policies SS8 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2 and BNE25 of the adopted Local Plan seek to ensure that the amenities of existing residents are safeguarded. It is considered that the principal issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents in terms of noise and general disturbance. There only 3 caravans and therefore the number of workers are limited while occupation is for only 6 months of the year. The caravans are located a reasonable distance away from the closest dwellings (the nearest being approximately 42 metres away from the rear of Almond Lodge and approx 21 metres away from the rear boundary of that property) and as such it is not considered that the caravans and their occupation will have any undue detrimental visual impact and harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of these properties. It should also be noted that the caravans could be placed in this location while they are being occupied without any requirement for planning permission. Furthermore the caravans are screened from the rear of this property by an existing tall hedgerow of alder trees. It is also noted that the siting of one of the original caravans was previously closer to the rear of Almond Lodge than the current location of the caravans. As itinerant workers do not generally have access to their own cars and rely on public transport or bikes if they go out from the site there will be little disturbance from vehicle movement. The fact that there have been no complaints to the Council’s environmental protection team other than some complaints of smoke nuisance from the burning of runner beans is also of significance. As the 3 static caravans are for seasonal labour only and which in any case is permitted development over which the Council has no control, the only relevant condition considered required is to prevent permanent habitation of these caravans by non-agricultural workers. In amenity terms the proposal is therefore viewed as being acceptable and complies with the cited Development Plan Policies

DC0902MW

Highways Impact, Traffic and Car Parking In terms of car parking provision, Policies T19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and T13 of the adopted local Plan set out parking standards (as maxima). Policies TP12 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and Policies T1 and T2 of the adopted Local Plan deal with the impact of additional traffic caused by development and seek to ensure that the Highway network is adequate in terms of capacity and safety. The maxima allowance for the 3 seasonal caravans would be 2 spaces each, a total of 6 spaces. Although the occupiers of the caravans are not expected to have cars, there is sufficient room for cars to be parked within the farm yard. No highway objection is therefore raised and in car parking terms the proposal is therefore viewed as being acceptable. Conclusions and reasons for Approval Having regard to the application site’s location in open countryside, it is considered that an exception to the normal presumption against permitting development within the rural area can be made in this case because the proposed use is supporting the continuing functioning of a working farm. In view of the above appraisal the proposal is considered to accord with the Development Plan policies and is recommended for approval subject to conditions. This application would normally fall to be considered under officers’ delegated powers but has been reported for Members’ consideration due to objections raised by the Parish Council and the Dickens Country Protection Society contrary to the officers recommendation.

DC0902MW

15 MC2008/0828

Date Received: 7th May 2008

Location: Land rear of Lingley House, Elm Avenue, Chattenden, Rochester,

Kent ME3 8LZ Proposal: Construction of a detached house with integral garage

(resubmission) Applicant: Ms J Larkin C/o Agent Agent: J Bolton Synergy Windmill Business Centre Wrotham Road

Meopham Kent DA13 0QJ Ward: Strood Rural Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 The development shall be constructed in accordance with the details of materials

specified in the submitted application forms and there shall be no deviation from these materials without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The materials as approved shall thereafter be maintained.

4 The bathroom and landing windows on the eastern elevation shall be fitted with

obscure glass and shall be non-opening with the exception of any top hung fanlight, opening at least 1.5m above inside floor level and shall be subsequently maintained.

5 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details pursuant to conditions 5 of planning permission MC2007/0980. 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.

DC0902MW

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

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

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

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

7 The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the road which provides

access to it via the Toad Hall and Search Light Development as detailed on the submitted red line site plan, has been constructed and adopted and gates have been erected separating the residential developments from the emergency access required in accordance with the conditions on planning permission MC2005/2251.

8 Means of vehicular access to the development hereby permitted shall only be from

Main Road Chattenden, through the Toad Hall development as shown on the submitted plans.

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 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.

11 During the construction phase, no works of construction shall take place other than

within the hours of 0800 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1300 on Saturday. No construction/operations on site shall take place on Sundays and National Holidays.

DC0902MW


Site Description The site is within a rural settlement of Chattenden. The land to the east is part of the Toad Hall/Searchlight residential development. The Land to the south falls away in the direction of the village at Lower Upnor and the Medway River/Estuary. The site currently forms part of the rear garden to Lingley House, Elm Avenue, Chattenden. The site comprises a level area of garden land adjacent to a recently erected new brick wall (1.8 metres in height) that was erected as part of the Searchlight/Toad Hall development (ref MC2005/0259). This wall forms the boundary along the western side to that development. Planning permission for a Chalet style bungalow has been approved for this site under reference MC2007/0980 and that permission has been implemented with the foundations being in place on site. The site boundaries of the proposed development are defined by the wall referenced above to the east, a six-foot high concrete post and concrete panel wall to the north, with new access and existing planted boarders/fencing in the existing garden to the south. The post and concrete panel fence forms the northern boundary of the proposed development site. The fence separates the proposed emergency access route that runs along this boundary wall into Elm Avenue. The proposed new build will be accessed via the Ward Homes development on to the northern boundary of the site. Proposal The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a detached two-storey house with integral garage and is a resubmission of planning application MC2007/0980, which sought consent for the construction of a chalet style bungalow with integral garage on land to rear of Lingley House, Chattenden. This application is for a two-storey house, somewhat smaller than the house to the front (Lingley House). The proposed layout is located to the east of an existing extensive residential garden area. A good sized private garden of approximately 240 square metres will be provided with this new property. As with the previous submission, the proposed property will have 3 metres separation between the eastern walled boundary and the side elevation and five metres between the proposed front elevation and the existing concrete panel fence. An opening has already been created, in line with planning permission MC2007/0980, in this fence to provide access to the site. There will be parking for three cars, two on the drive and one in the garage. The house will be arranged so that the bathroom window facing east will have obscured glazing. The remaining window on the east elevation provides light into the landing area for the house.

DC0902MW

The site will be accessed from the existing private road called Searchlight Heights; this road will in due course become adopted.

Relevant Planning History MC2004/0686 Outline application for residential development at Toad

Hall/Searchlight Heights site Approved May 2004.

MC2005/2251 Plots 52-95, land at the Searchlights with access via Toad Hall,

Main Road, Chattenden seeking part approval of reserved matters pursuant to Conditions 1 and 10 of outline planning permission MC2004/0686 for the construction of 44 dwellings with associated access roads and parking Approved March 2006.

MC2005/0259 Construction of a 2m high brick wall immediately behind the

boundary fence to Lingley House Approved.

MC2007/0098 Lingley House proposal for the installation of a 15m high wind

powered generator Approved March 2007.

MC2007/0980 Construction of a new chalet style bungalow with integral garage

on land to rear of Lingley House Approved 1 August 2007.

Representations The application has been advertised on site and the individual neighbour notification to the owner/occupiers of Lingley House, Peppercorn, Elm Avenue, Chattenden. 2 letters of representation have been received objecting on the following grounds:

• Neighbour of development site, directly opposite proposed dwelling, was unaware of previous proposal and was not informed of this current one. No notices outside site at Searchlights or Elm Avenue.

• No objection to the low-lying bungalow already passed but several objections to the proposed two-storey house.

• Original height of bungalow was 7.5m, now raised to 9m. This would be a large imposing property.

• Planning notices state that trees will obscure the new building but the new build is two high for this to be possible.

• Parking for three cars will result in congestion. Why has the access not been made from Lingley house and Elm Avenue?

• The new dwelling will spoil views of those residents who bought their properties at Searchlights almost a year ago.

• No reference of this planning proposal or previous decision came up on searches during the buying process of properties in the Toad Hall development.

DC0902MW

• Although one obscure window was detailed on the east elevation of the permitted chalet bungalow, there now appears to be a second, non-obscured window, which will cause overlooking.

• The position of the proposed building line is not in line with other dwellings in Toad Hall, but is placed several metres to the south. This will make it far more imposing than the new houses immediately adjacent to it.

• The development will lead to loss of daylight/sunlight.

Hoo St Werburgh Parish Council object to the scheme on the following grounds:

• Overdevelopment of the site • Proposal amounts to backland development • Scheme would set precedents for other gardens to be developed in a similar

manor.

Development Plan Policies Kent and Medway Structure Plan, 2006:

Policy SS8 (Development in the Countryside) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development & Design) Policy HP5 (Housing Development in the Countryside) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Medway Local Plan, 2003:

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H9 (Backland Development) Policy H11 (Residential Development in rural Settlements) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal The main issues for consideration arising from this proposal are:

• Matters of principle, • Design and layout, scale, • The impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties • Access and parking matters.

Principle The principle of the development of this site for one property has been accepted in the granting and implementation of one chalet bungalow under planning permission MC2007/0980. The determining issues therefore relate to the difference between the approved Chalet bungalow and the 2 storey house now proposed and the implications of the changes in terms of design, street scene, amenity and highway matters.

DC0902MW

Street Scene and Design The previous proposal was for the erection of a single chalet style bungalow, which incorporated rooms within the roof space, giving the appearance of a two-storey dwelling. The changes to be considered in this current application are whether the increase in height from 7.5 to 9 metres would result in a development out of character with the street scene. The overall footprint of the development would not be altered from that approved in August 2007. Properties adjacent and opposite the development site within the Toad Hall estate have all been built at two-stories or more and whilst the majority of dwellings along Elm Avenue are bungalows, it is not considered that the increase of 1.5 metres in height will result in detriment to the street scene, and would not be out of character with the recently constructed homes in Toad Hall. The alterations to the design of the proposed dwelling from chalet style to a typical two storey house is considered more in keeping with the character of the Toad Hall development than the previous proposal, and as such this resubmission is an improvement, in terms of design, than the development approved in 2007. External materials will be kept the same as those approved via discharge of condition of MC2007/0980 and will include multistock brick Baggeridge Willow Buff for the exterior walls and a clay tile, Redland, for the roof. These have been considered acceptable and will not result in detriment to the character of the street scene. As the overall footprint of the development is not being made larger, there are no objections to the proposal in terms of layout, and the development’s position in relation to dwellings in the Toad Hall Estate. The dwelling would have always sat a little further back from the main building line of those dwellings recently built at Toad Hall, which are immediately adjacent to the development site. The alterations to the proposal relate mainly to design and scale and the proposed increase in height is not considered to result in detriment to the adjacent dwellings above and beyond that which would have been experienced by the building of the previously approved chalet bungalow. The proposal is considered acceptable against the provisions of Local Plan Policies H9 and BNE1 and Structure Plan policy QL1. Amenity Considerations Whilst the previous application established that the site could comfortably accommodate an additional dwelling, it is necessary to consider whether the amendments to the proposed scheme are acceptable in terms of overlooking, privacy, daylight and sunlight impacts. There are a number of residential properties adjacent to the development site to the east, and opposite the access to the north of the site. The dwellings opposite the development site access sit closer to the rear of Peppercorn, the dwelling adjacent to Lingley House and as such it is unlikely that the proposed two-storey dwelling will cause detriment to the amenities of residents of those dwellings opposite or Peppercorn itself. The access to the proposed dwelling will be off a permitted road constructed for access to the new development within the Toad Hall site, and given that the proposal is for a single dwelling it is unlikely to result in unnecessary noise disturbance as a result of increase traffic. It would not be anymore intrusive than that which has already been granted planning permission on the Toad Hall/Searchlight development or indeed the previously approved scheme on the development site subject to this proposal.

DC0902MW

Enhanced boundary treatment and the submission and implementation of a landscaping scheme will aid in mitigating any potential intrusion caused by the new development. Nevertheless, a number of changes to the layout of the new scheme have resulted in alterations to the outer appearance of the building that may result in overlooking, particularly on to the dwelling immediately adjacent to the development site to the east. The original chalet style dwelling permitted included a bathroom window on the east elevation, which was proposed to be fitted with obscure glazing. The amended scheme for a two-storey house now proposes two windows at first floor level on the eastern elevation. The first serves the main bathroom to the house, the second provides light into the landing area. As both serve non habitable rooms they can be obscure glazed and an appropriate condition is recommended. There is one window at first floor on the flank elevation of the adjacent dwelling facing the development site, this is likely to provide light into a bathroom or landing area and with the heavily landscaped boundary, it is not considered that overlooking will occur onto the proposed dwelling either. The proposed dwelling will not share the same building line as the adjacent dwelling to the east of the site, and will be set further back than the rear building line also. Nevertheless, the adjacent property to the east is also two-storey’s in height and is at a sufficient distance (just over 3 metres) from the proposed dwelling so as not to cause unnecessary harm to the amenities of occupiers of both development’s. In terms of impact on sunlight/daylight, both the proposed dwelling and adjacent dwelling to the east benefit from south facing gardens and following a sunlight and daylight indicator test being undertaken, it is unlikely that shadowing will occur, enough to cause detriment to the amenities of either development. The adjacent dwelling will experience some shadowing in the later afternoon/evening hours as the sun sets in the west, but will nevertheless receive sun throughout most of the day. In terms of loss of outlook to the dwellings opposite the site to the north, it is not considered that this proposal will result in detriment to outlook above and beyond what was considered acceptable during the planning process of MC2007/0980. Concern has been raised as to why residents of those dwelling opposite the site to the north were not informed of the previous application. This is because these dwellings had not been constructed at the time of the previous application. Some of these dwellings are still not inhabited; nevertheless, a site notice was erected outside the access to the development site in Toad Hall and outside Lingley House, Elm Avenue and the Council complied with the legal requirements in terms of consultation. Proposed amenity space for the dwelling is acceptable, without detrimental impact to the remaining garden area of Lingley House, which is extensive. It is not considered that the character and amenity of the area as a whole will be impacted upon in any unreasonable or unsatisfactory way as a result of the proposal. Given the size of the rear garden proposed it is not considered necessary to remove permitted development rights. It is considered that the proposal is in general accordance with Local Plan Policies H9 and BNE2 and Structure Plan Policy QL1. Landscaping Condition 5 of planning permission MC2007/0980 required the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme, to include details of both hard and soft landscaping. Details have been approved in April 2008 and it is intended that the landscaping approved shall be adopted and incorporated into this new scheme. The proposal is for the drive to be in tarmac and for the majority of the garden to be laid to lawn with the existing flower and shrub boarder to the rear

DC0902MW

of the existing garden to Lingley House, to the eastern side of the plot being left as a shrubbery boarder as will the existing boarder to the south. A new boarder and hedge will be established along the western boundary between the existing and proposed garden. To the front of the site, to the north, the landscaping shall match that on the adjoining Ward Homes development. Highways This application is no different to the previously approved scheme in terms of access and parking provision for the dwelling remains as before, with space for 2 cars on the drive and one within the integral garage. Therefore this proposal is acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy T2 and T13 and Structure Plan Policy TP19. The emergency access between Lingley House and Peppercorn will remain as such and gates have already been installed as part of the Toad Hall development, preventing access to the site from this access. Access to the proposed dwelling will be via the Toad Hall development. As with the previous scheme, the dwelling should not be occupied until the road through Toad Hall has been adopted. A condition is recommended in relation to this as well as ensuring that the development is only accessed via Main Road through the Toad Hall development and not Elm Avenue. As before, conditions are recommended securing parking and requesting the erection of visibility splays for the safety of pedestrians. Conclusions and Reasons for approval The principle of development has been accepted under planning application MC2007/0980, for the erection of a chalet style dwelling on site. This current proposal seeks approval for a two-storey dwelling house, which utilises the same footprint as the previously approved scheme, already implemented on site. It is not considered that the increase in height by 1.5 metres will represent overdevelopment of the site, nor detriment to amenities of neighbouring properties and as such it is considered that the development is in accordance with relevant development plan policy and is as such recommended for approval. This application would normally be dealt with under delegated powers but has been referred for Committee determination due to the objections raised by the Parish Council.

DC0902MW

rd july 2008 page no. - medway · mc2006/1952 construction of 18 x 6 metres high posts with fixed...

Documents