TH MARCH 2006 - Medway

DC0902MW Page 1

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR 15TH MARCH 2006 Page No.

1 MC2005/0704 Luton & Wayfield Alterations to junction of site with Ash Tree Lane including provision of right turn lane to facilitate residential development of adjacent site Land at Ash Tree Lane, Chatham 3 2 MC2005/0814 Luton & Wayfield Application for approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition 1 of MC2003/1285 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of three blocks of flats comprising of 96 residential units, associated garaging and landscaping 2 Ash Tree Lane, Chatham, Kent, ME5 7BZ 12 3 MC2005/1604 Strood South Demolition of dwe lling and construction of a four storey block comprising twenty one 1 & 2 -bedroomed flats with associated underground parking 33 London Road, Strood, Rochester, Kent, ME2 3JB 20 4 MC2005/1656 Rainham Central Construction of six dwellings with associated garaging and access Rear of 75 London Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent ME8 7JR 28 5 MC2005/1964 Luton & Wayfield Construction of a two storey extension to side 9 Colchester Close, Chatham, Kent, ME5 0HQ 36 6 MC2005/1983 Gillingham North Use of land within curtilage of the Blacklion Leisure Centre for Bootfairs for up to 14 days per calendar year to be held on Sundays or Bank Holidays between April & October (Regularization of Existing Use) Black Lion Leisure Centre, Mill Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 1HF 41 7 MC2005/2251 Strood Rural Part approval of reserved matters pursuant to Condition 1 (siting, design and means of access) and Condition 10 (parking and garaging) of outline planning permission MC2004/0686 for construction of 44 dwellings (comprising houses and flats) with associated access roads and parking/garaging Plots 52 to 95, land at The Searchlight with access via the former site of Toad Hall, Main Road, Chattenden, Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester, Kent 47 8 MC2005/2423 Rainham Central Construction of two 2 storey blocks comprising a total of eleven 1 & 2 bedroomed flats for the elderly Former Water Works Site, Guardian Court, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent ME8 7HQ 55 9 MC2005/2441 Strood Rural Construction of 67 dwellings (comprising houses and flats) with associated access roads and parking/garaging Land at Toad Hall and rear of Main Road and 3-11 Elm Avenue, Chattenden, Rochester, Kent 62

DC0902MW Page 2

10 MC2006/0006 Rainham North Avertisement consent for the installation of overhead lit trough box signage to front elevation 187 Station Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 7SQ 69 11 MC2006/0059 Rochester South & Horsted Installation of 17.7 metre high wind powered generator to the rear of the property (resubmission of MC2005/1500) 22 Horsted Way, Rochester, Kent, ME1 2XY 73 12 MC2006/0080 Twydall Construction of a part two storey, part single storey rear extensions 8 Mayfield Close, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 7DP 80 13 MC2006/0091 Strood Rural Insertion of dormer to rear to facilitate loft conversion and extension to existing vehicular crossover to front 134 Church Street, Cliffe, Rochester, Kent, ME3 7PY 85 14 MC2006/0117 Cuxton & Halling Extension to existing cattery building with the provision of 2 additional pens and installation of new freestanding isolation block 18 The Glebe, Cuxton, Rochester, Kent, ME2 1LW 89 15 MC2006/0118 Rainham North Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 4-bedroomed detached house with detached garage for 4 cars and front, side and rear boundary wall (amendment to planning permission MC2001/1014) 37 Berengrave Lane, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 7NA 96 16 MC2006/0142 Watling Change of use from Car Tyre Shop (class A1) into Hot Food Take-Away (Class A5) 153 Barnsole Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4JH 101 BACKGROUND PAPERS The relevant background papers relating to the individual applications comprise: the applications and all supporting documentation submitted therewith; and items identified in any Relevant History and Information section and Representations section with a report. Any information referred to is available for inspection in the Planning Offices of the Council at the Compass Centre, Chatham Maritime, Chatham.

DC0902MW Page 3

1 MC2005/0704

Date Received: 12th April 2005

Location: Land at Ash Tree Lane, Chatham Proposal: Alterations to junction of site with Ash Tree Lane including provision

of right turn lane to facilitate residential development of adjacent site Applicant: Ward Homes Ltd 2 Ash Tree Lane Chatham Kent ME5 7BZ Agent: Ward: Luton & Wayfield Recommendation - Approval with Conditions (as amended by plans received on 22nd August 2005) 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five

years from the date of this permission. 2 No obstruction of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be

permitted within the sight lines hereunder approved. For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see Planning Appraisal Section and conclusions at the end of this report.

Site Description The Ward Homes site is located on the western side of Ash Tree Lane, cut into Sugar Loaf Hill. Ash Tree Lane is a ‘B’ road, which links the A2 with Capstone Road, with the road dropping down the hill from north to south. To the north of Ward’s site is Chatham Grammar School for Girls, whilst to the south lies the residential area of Luton. The access into the site lies on the western side of Ash Tree Lane, with the junction for Corral Close lying on the eastern side approximately 100m to the north. Proposal The application is for alterations to the junction of the Wards site with Ash Tree Lane, including the provision of a right turn lane, in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the Ward Homes site for residential development. The highway works would include the provision of a right hand turn lane for vehicles approaching the site from the north. Two new pedestrian crossing islands are also proposed, one behind the rear garden of number 9 Corral Close and one opposite the footpath linking

DC0902MW Page 4

Ash Tree Lane with Beacon Road. Dropped kerbs with tactile paving would be provided on both sides of the road opposite these crossing islands. Just before the junction (when approaching from the south) the speed limit currently changes from the national speed limit to 30mph. These signs are proposed to be removed and relocated approximately 45m further down the hill. The existing sign showing a narrowing of the road, currently located on the eastern side of the road just before the junction of Corral Close with Ash tree Lane, would be relocated approximately 30m further to the north. Sight lines of 4.25m x 70m to the north and 4.5m x 120m to the south would be provided. The existing informal lay-by would be retained and provided with grasscrete surfacing. The existing hedges and trees on the eastern side of the road, south of the lay-by would be cut back to achieve sign visibility. Following the deferral of the application at the Committee meeting on 30 November 2005, the applicant has not revised the access arrangements. However they have done further assessments and they consider that these justify the access arrangements they are proposing. An update on the assessment work undertaken has been included at the end of this report.

Relevant Planning History MC2003/1285 Re-development of existing site for residential purposes Approved 22 February 2005 MC2005/0814 Approval of reserved matters pursuant to Condition 1 of MC2003/1285

for demolition of existing building and construction of 3 blocks of flats comprising 96 residential units, associated garaging and landscaping.

For consideration on this agenda Representations The application has been advertised on site and in the press. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Corral Close. One letter of objection has been received raising the following points: - Proposed junction will be dangerous as it is just over the brow of the hill for traffic

travelling south and the rush hour queue frequently extends from the traffic lights down past the existing Ward site entrance.

- Increased traffic generated by the development will increase congestion further. - Believe the junction will be restricted or blocked by unwise or illegal waiting and u-

turning by parents on the ‘school run’, as already experienced by residents of Corral Close.

- Refer to previous consent for a day nursery at Chatham grammar School site, which was only approved on condition that the entrance onto Ash Tree Lane was kept locked except for emergency vehicles.

Cllr Purdy has written to object on the grounds that Ash Tree Lane is very busy and is very narrow and an access road would be dangerous, especially for traffic turning right into the development.

DC0902MW Page 5

Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996: Policy T20 Traffic and Development Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy T1 Impact of Development Policy T2 Access to the Highway Policy T3 Provision for Pedestrians

Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 Policy TP2 Transport and the Location of Development Planning Appraisal The principle of the redevelopment of the Ward Homes site was agreed earlier this year, when outline permission was granted. This application, and the associated application for the 96 proposed units, provide the detailed design of the development and access onto the highway. Highways The proposed junction improvements have been the subject of discussions since the outline application was approved in February of this year, and as a result the requirements of the Stage 1 Safety Audit have been met. The informal lay-by has been the subject of negotiation and is required to cater for the high levels of parking that occur during school start and finish times. The surface and condition of the lay-by will be improved through this proposal with the use of grasscrete, and these improvements will also enhance the overall appearance of the road here. The pedestrian island to the north is provided to enable accessibility for pedestrians from the proposed development to access the footpath which runs along the eastern side of the road (by Corral Close). In addition it allows for people who have parked in the lay-by to access the nearby school. The pedestrian island to the south would link the footpath from Beacon Hill with the footway on the eastern side of Ash Tree Lane. The southern visibility splay crosses land which falls outside the ownership of the applicant, and is in fact owned by Medway Council as amenity land. There is no objection in principle to this line of sight being maintained, however, the applicant will require to enter into an agreement with the Council as land owner to secure the right of sight. The Head Teacher of Chatham Grammar School for Girls has referred to the previous refusal of permission for the school to have a new access onto Ash Tree Lane, apart from as an emergency access only (reference MC2004/0718). Whilst these comments are noted the current site is considered to be significantly different to the application he refers to in that it relates to an existing access. In considering the outline application it was accepted that the proposed use would not have a higher trip generation compared to the existing commercial

DC0902MW Page 6

uses operating on the site. It is considered that the junction improvements proposed will provide a safe and well designed vehicular access of a suitable standard and design and is therefore acceptable and accords with the requirements of Policies T1, T2 and T3 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 Conclusion and reasons for approval The proposed junction improvements are considered to be acceptable, and appropriate for the level of development proposed in the associated application MC2005/0814. The proposed highway improvements would not result in any highway safety issues, and therefore the scheme is recommended for approval. [This application would normally fall to be determined under officer’s powers but is being reported for Members consideration at the request of Councillor Purdy.] [This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 9th November 2005, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.] Members’ site visit

In attendance: Councillors Mrs Chambers (Chairman); Bamber; Burt; Gilry; Hicks; Hunter; Jones; John Magee; and Royle. Also in attendance Councillor Davis. Further to the opening of the meeting by the Chairman, the Senior Planner summarised the proposals, the representations received, the site history and the main planning issues in this case as they relate to highway matters. [This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 30th November 2005, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable the applicant to consider alternative access arrangements into the site. The applicants Transport Consultants WSP have produced a document titled ‘Junction Layout Technical Report (January 2006)’ which includes updated traffic surveys taken in January 2006 and also considers four different junction design options. These are:

- to retain the existing access arrangements with no improvements or alterations; - to provide a ghosted right hand turn lane; - to provide a mini-roundabout; or - to provide a conventional roundabout.

Attached to this report is a ‘single sheet summary’ of each option, which lists the advantages and disadvantages or each option. The conclusions reached by WSP as a result of this report are that the existing site access would operate satisfactorily, but that the developers are willing to improve the current situation through the provision of a right hand turn lane. The mini-roundabout was considered at the outline stage and it was agreed that this would not be a suitable option for this site. The conventional roundabout layout has been the subject of an independent safety audit, and has been checked by the council’s own Safety Audit section. This safety audit concludes that a conventional roundabout would result in a risk of insufficient forward visibility

DC0902MW Page 7

and create an imbalance of approaches. It goes on to recommend that a right hand turn lane may be more suitable at this location in a number of places. As a result the applicants have retained the access layout as originally submitted, and request that the application be determined on this basis.]

DC0902MW Page 8

EXISTING

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

1. No changes required

2. Can accommodate traf fic capacity

3. Can accommodate HGV movements

4. Can accommodate Grammar School Kiss and Ride movements

5. Local footways not affected

6. Local footpaths not affected

7. Complies with technical memorandum TA23/81

Landscape issues:

Comments made by another consultant

1. Right turn movements into the site

2. Queuing traffic on main road may obstruct right turns/ south bound traffic.

DC0902MW Page 9

GHOSTED RIGHT TURN

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

1. Minor Changes required

2. Can accommodate traffic capacity




6. Right turn manoeuvres do not obstruct through movements

7. Queuing traffic on main road unlikely to obstruct southbound traffic

8. Complies with technical memorandum TA23/81

9. Improves pedestrian crossing facilities

Landscape issues:


1. Minor Change to eastern area

DC0902MW Page 10

MINI

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

1. Minor Changes required





Landscape issues:


1. Stop southbound traffic

2. Very steep gradient for a mini roundabout

3. Increase vehicle delays

4. Affected by queuing traffic travelling northbound

DC0902MW Page 11

CONVENTIONAL

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES






Landscape issues:


1. Cost

2. Major changes required

3. Steep gradient safety issues

4. Sight lines do not comply with standards, relaxation required

5. Local footpaths detrimentally affected

6. Land not owned by applicant

7. Yellow lines required to prohibit vehicle drivers dropping off and collecting school children close to the roundabout

DC0902MW Page 12

2 MC2005/0814

Date Received: 28th April 2005

Location: 2 Ash Tree Lane, Chatham, Kent, ME5 7BZ Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition 1

of MC2003/1285 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of three blocks of flats comprising of 96 residential units, associated garaging and landscaping

Applicant: Wards Homes Limited 2 Ash Tree Lane Chatham Kent ME5 7BZ Agent: Mr A Wakefield NC Architects Ltd 23 High Street Wroughton

Swindon Wiltshire SN4 9JX Ward: Luton & Wayfield Recommendation - Approval with Conditions

A) Approval of details pursuant to condition 1 (Siting, Design and Means of Access) of planning permission MC2003/1285.

B) The imposition of the following additional conditions on planning permission

MC2003/1285. (as amended by plans received on 21st October 2005) 10 No part of the development shall be occupied until the junction of the site access

read with Ash Tree Lane has been improved and constructed in accordance with the plans submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the sight lines required under the approval shall thereafter be maintained.

11 Prior to the commencement of development details of the cycle racks shown on

the permitted drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The cycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any of the flats in the blocks to which the cycle racks relate and shall thereafter be maintained.

12 The areas shown on the permitted drawings for disabled parking shall be provided,

surfaced, drained and clearly marked out for such purpose prior to the occupation of any of the flats. The reserved parking areas shall thereafter be retained as such

DC0902MW Page 13

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

Site Description The site is located on the western side of Ash Tree Lane, cut into Sugar Loaf Hill. Beacon Hill and the Luton Recreation Ground/Darland Bank lie to the south-west of the site, at a much lower level. The site occupies a prominent location set against the backdrop of the cliff/escarpment. The site is terraced with a mixture of parking areas, outside storage, and the office buildings for Ward Homes (both single and three stories in height), along with a large warehouse style industrial building. Access to the site is from Ash Tree Lane, with the road dropping down into the site from east to west. To the north of the site is Chatham Grammar School for Girls, with the recently constructed gymnasium located on top of the escarpment, above the site. The properties in Beacon Road below comprise a mixture of two storey terraced, semi-detached and detached houses. To the south-east the land is designated as an Area of Local Landscape Importance, whilst the land to the north-west is protected as open space. Proposal This is an application for the approval of the reserved matters of siting, design, means of access, external appearance and landscaping in accordance with the outline application for residential development approved earlier this year (MC2003/1285). The proposals are for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of 96 apartments, to be provided in three blocks. Block A would be sited at the north-western end of the site, and would be a staggered block of four, five and six stories in height. It would provide 50 apartments in total, 49 of which would be two-bed, with 1 one-bed unit. Block B would occupy the central position within the site, and would be a staggered block of three, four, five and six stories. It would provide 30 apartments, 24 of which would be two-bed, and 6 would be one-bed. Block C would be located at the south-eastern end of the site, and would be a staggered block of two, three and four stories. It would provide 16 apartments, 8 of which would be two-bed, and 8 would be one-bed. In total there would be 15 one bed units and 81 two bed units. A total of 118 parking spaces are proposed for the site. 43 would be located behind block A and 4 in front; 16 spaces behind block B; and 8 spaces in between block B and C. The remaining 47 spaces would be provided in a three level car park located towards the front of the site, and which would take into account the change in levels, which would allow access on all three levels. The existing access would be utilised for the residential use, with some improvements proposed. There is a separate planning application submitted which deals solely with the

DC0902MW Page 14

alterations to the access, which is also for consideration at this meeting (MC2005/0704). The junction improvements would include a ghosted right hand turn lane into the site. The access road within the site would be a 4.5m wide carriageway with a 2m footpath on its inner side. Three separate refuse stores are located amongst the parking areas to the rear of the buildings. Cycle storage for 33 bikes is proposed; 15 of which would be located in a covered area between blocks A and B, with the other 18 being located within block B. The materials proposed would be render in various colours (terracotta, teal green and off white) with portland reconstructed stone string courses. The roof would be copper green metal, with a similar coloured powder coated balconies, cladding and aluminium screens. Site Area/Density Site area: 0.87 Hectares (2.15 Acres) Site density: 110 dph (44.65 dpa)

Relevant Planning History MC2003/1285 Re-development of existing site for residential purposes Approved 22 February 2005 MC2005/0704 Alterations to junction of site with Ash Tree Lane including provision of

right hand turn lane to facilitate residential development of adjacent site. For consideration on this agenda Representations The site has been advertised on site and in the press. Consultations have been sent to Southern Water, The Environment Agency, Transco, Southern Electricity Board and the Primary Care Trust. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to Chatham Grammar School for Girls; and the owners and occupiers of 1-14 (consec.) Watchmans Terrace; 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Corral Close; 102-148 and 170-190 (evens) Beacon Road; 149-159, 163, 165, 169-175, 181, 185-201, 209-225, 235, 237, 241-249 (odds) Beacon Road, and 44 Beacon Road. In addition Ward Homes (the applicants) provided a public exhibition of the plans in Hempstead Library on 7 th and 10th June. Six letters of objection have been received raising the following points: - Lack of parking provided on site - Overflow parking would spill into Ash Tree Lane, which would seriously constrict the

road and make this an accident black spot - Already congestion in this area at school drop off and pick up times, as this is the only

area suitable for dropping children off to Chatham Grammar school. The development will make this situation worse.

- Concern over traffic generated by this development causing problems on Ash Tree Lane

- Is there scope of diverting traffic away from Ash Tree Lane in the direction of Luton? - Three-storey car park would afford views into the rear gardens and rooms of

properties in Beacon Road and cause loss of privacy

DC0902MW Page 15

- Potential safety issue if a car crashes through from the car park and lands in the gardens below – should use safety barriers and relocate the car park

- Need for high fence along the boundary to stop things like footballs or projectiles being thrown or kicked down the hill

- Over development of the site - Block A in particular is too high - Buildings should be moved back towards the edge of the site and reduced in height - Noise and disturbance from the proposed development, both during construction and

from the future residencies - Beacon Road could become a rat-run because of the poor access onto Ash Tree

Lane/A2 - Site is surrounded by mature trees - Multi-storey car park not appropriate for the site - New traffic lights at the Watling Street junction have already caused tailbacks down

Ash Tree Lane – this development will simply make the situation worse - Concern that travel survey was undertaken before the traffic lights were installed, and

this hasn’t taken the changes into account - Loss of outlook for occupiers of properties in Beacon Road - Loss of privacy from proposed development - Development like that in Corral Close would be more appropriate for the site - Segregation of affordable units from rest of the development is unacceptable in this

day and age - Development will impact on the wildlife in the area - Increased use of Luton recreation Grounds will exacerbate problems here of litter, fly-

tipping and dog fouling One letter of comment received stating that Beacon Road properties need more than a visual barrier – actually need a high fence to stop anything falling into the gardens of these houses. Councillor Purdy has written objecting on the grounds of the extra traffic in Ash Tree Lane, which is already a very busy narrow road; there is also the danger of traffic turning right into the proposed development. Environment Agency raises no objection but reiterate advice that the site is within Source Protection Zone 1 of a public water supply abstraction. Care should therefore be taken in the design of the soakaways and early contact should be made with the Agency’s Groundwater and Contaminated Land Department. Southern Water Services raise no objection subject to informatives regarding the need to contact Southern Water for supply and removal of water. Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy ENV15 Built Environment Policy ENV16 Urban Open Space and Town Cramming Policy H3 Housing in Urban Areas Policy T17 Parking Standards

DC0902MW Page 16

Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 General Principles for Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy BNE23 Contamination Policy H3 Affordable Housing Policy H4 Housing in Urban Areas Policy H5 High Density Housing Policy T1 Impact of Development Policy T3 Provision for Pedestrians Policy T13 Vehicle Parking Standards

Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 Policy HP3 Previously Developed Land

Policy QL1 Quality of Development and Design Planning Appraisal Principle of Development The application is a reserved matters scheme following approval of an outline application earlier this year, which accepted the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of some form of residential development on the site. The principle of the loss of the employment use on this site has therefore already been agreed, and this application simply deals with the detailed design of the scheme. Siting and Design of the Buildings The development being proposed seeks to take advantage of the site characteristics, by proposing blocks of flats which would be sited against the backdrop of the cliff/escarpment behind. The height of the flats takes into account the change in levels across the site, providing the tallest block (Block A – 6 stories) in the lowest part of the site and the smallest block (Block C – 4 stories) at the highest part of the site, near Ash Tree Lane. The buildings also have various heights within each structure to provide a stepped elevation, which further breaks up the bulk of the buildings and would give interest to this prominent elevation. The blocks are well spaced within the site, so that they are not viewed as one continuous building against the backdrop. The distance between blocks A and B would be 24m, and between block B and C would be 12m. The blocks of flats themselves have a modern design, which incorporates flat and curved roof designs, modern balconies and large glazed elements for the top floor flats in each case, and there is a continuity of design between the blocks. It is considered that the principle of providing modern buildings set against the backdrop of the cliff is acceptable, and would work well. The site can be viewed from locations within Luton and approach roads towards the site, and at present the large unattractive shed style building provides the main focus of attention, with the three storey office building set to one side. The recent gymnasium for the school sits above the cliff top, and protrudes into the skyline. In contrast it is considered that the design and siting of these units would result in a development which comfortably sits within the site,

DC0902MW Page 17

and which would provide a much-improved appearance when viewed from these vantage points. The applicants have submitted Accurate Visual Representations (AVR’s) of the site, to demonstrate accurately how the development would appear once constructed. It is considered that these images demonstrate the fact that the development would be acceptable when seen within the context of the whole hillside, and the current level of development here. The car park would be located in front of block B, and would have a similar staggered appearance as the flats, taking into account the change in levels. Against the backdrop of the flats behind, it is considered that this would not be as stark as the plans suggest. The materials proposed for the car park would be a green concrete frame and panels, with stainless steel espalier wire support for planting cover. The colour of materials and the use of landscaping would help to blend the structure in with the surroundings. The remainder of the parking, although predominantly located to the rear of the flats, would all be overlooked, therefore addressing concerns about security. Housing Mix and Density of Development: The scheme comprises a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom flats with a density of development of 110 dwellings per hectare. The site is considered to be a ‘stand alone’ development where it has little relationship to the style or type of housing in nearby locations. As such a flatted scheme is considered to be acceptable, and makes best use of previously developed land within the urban area as encouraged with Government Planning Policy Statements. Given the constraints of the site a traditiona l housing scheme would be impractical and result in a development which would not accord with the aims of PPS3 in terms of density. Policy H5 of the local Plan states that where sites are located close to good public transport corridors then a greater intensity of development will be appropriate, and it is considered that this site falls within this category. The site area falls below the 1 hectare threshold when Policy H10 (Housing Mix) would be applicable, however it is acknowledged in the supporting text that where higher density development is sought in response to Policy H5 the variety of house types would be likely to be restricted. In this instance, therefore, a wholly flatted development is considered to be acceptable. Neighbour Amenities The blocks of flats are set back from the cliff edge within the site, and would provide views out across the valley. Given the set back from the cliff edge, the substantial change in levels and the distances involved, it is considered that the occupiers of the new flats would not be able to view into the gardens or rear windows of the properties in Beacon Road below. It is acknowledged that there is some amenity space located in front of Block A which would in theory allow residents to stand at the edge of the site and look down towards Beacon Road, however, even in this instance the distances involved are considered to be too great to substantiate concerns about loss of privacy. There would be a distance of 30m from the edge of the site in front of Block A to the rear elevations of Beacon Road properties, as measured in plan form, which doesn’t take into account the change in levels.

DC0902MW Page 18

Highways Access into the site is dealt with in planning application MC2005/0704, which involves junction improvement works to create a ghosted right hand turn lane when approaching from the north and two islands in the road to improve pedestrian crossing facilities. The access road within the site would be a two-way carriageway of 4.5m in width, with a gated entrance point by Block C. 118 parking spaces are provided within the site, which for 96 apartments gives a ratio of 1.23 spaces per unit. Each unit will be allocated one dedicated parking space, with the remainder (22 spaces) being given over for visitors. The site is situated within walking distance of the main A2, with good links to public transport along here in both directions, and the services provided both in this area and in Luton. As such this level of parking provision is considered to be acceptable. Six spaces are also allocated for disabled parking, close to the main entrance of each block. Three would be provided outside Block A, two outside Block B and one outside Block C. This level of provision and the location of the spaces are considered to be appropriate. Adequate provision for cycle parking has also been included on site, which would meet the requirements of the adopted parking standards. The amended plans show an enhanced level of footpath provision within the site, giving access to the blocks from all the parking areas, which would ensure pedestrian safety. Speed restraint measures in the form of rumble strips are included on the access road, to reduce speeds within the site, and these are considered to be acceptable. Other matters The legal agreement attached to the outline consent covered the requirement for there to be 25% affordable housing within the scheme, and agreed contributions towards improvements to off site open space facilities, education provision and traffic calming. Landscape The amended landscape scheme has sought to address the concerns over the screening of the chalk face between the blocks by including some chalk loving, mature tree species along the rear of the site. The site sections and elevations plans indicate the expected height of these trees. The landscape scheme also provides a comprehensive layout for the remainder of the site, including some landscaping along the front of the car park at ground level. This would, once established, help to screen the front elevation of the car park and blend the development in with the hillside below. The areas surrounding the blocks themselves are all shown to be softened with planting which enhance their setting. The revised landscape scheme represents an improvement, but it is considered that further work would achieve a better overall landscape scene. In particular further attention can be paid to the siting of trees within the site to ensure the cliff face has an appropriate amount of screening, and to the treatment of the cliff face itself. As a result the reserved matter of landscape is not to be dealt with now, but would be submitted at later date. It is considered

DC0902MW Page 19

that a suitable revised scheme could be incorporated into the layout of development as shown. Conclusion and reasons for approval The proposed development is considered to be an acceptable redevelopment scheme for this site, which would enhance the appearance of the area. The site is visible from many vantage points and the replacement of the unsightly shed like building and offices with a residential development of a high standard of design would be a substantial visual improvement. The landscaping scheme seeks to address the chalk cliff face and soften the appearance of this, as well as providing a suitable landscaped appearance for the site, for the future occupiers. The external materials proposed are considered to be appropriate for the site and would ensure the buildings blend in with their setting against the hill. The distances involved between the proposed flats and the existing housing further down the hill, combined with the change in levels between these two areas would ensure a loss of privacy would not occur for the existing residents. An appropriate level of parking has been accommodated on the site. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable, and in accordance with Policies BNE1, BNE2, H4, H5, T3 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan. [This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 9th November 2005, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.] Members’ site visit

In attendance: Councillors Mrs Chambers (Chairman); Bamber; Burt; Gilry; Hicks; Hunter; Jones; John Magee; and Royle. Also in attendance Councillor Davis. Further to the opening of the meeting by the Chairman, the Senior Planner summarised the proposals, the representations received, the site history and the main planning issues in this case as they relate to matters of layout and design, residential amenity and highways. [This application was deferred at the Development Control Committee on 30 November 2005, to enable the applicant to consider alternative access arrangements into the site. The associated access application MC2005/0704 has been updated with the applicants findings.]

DC0902MW Page 20

3 MC2005/1604

Date Received: 17th August 2005

Location: 33 London Road, Strood, Rochester, Kent, ME2 3JB Proposal: Demolition of dwelling and construction of a four storey block

comprising twenty one 1 & 2-bedroomed flats with associated underground parking

Applicant: Kilderkin Developments Limited 36 Chinbrook Road Grove Park

London SE12 9TH Agent: Mr R Terry Howard Fairbairn & Partners 439 London Road

Croydon CR0 3PF Ward: Strood South Recommendation - Approval subject to:- A) The applicant entering into an agreement/undertaking under Section 106 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure a contribution of £9,285 for improvements to the Darnley Road Recreation Ground.

B) The imposition of the following Conditions: (as amended by plans received on 13th October 2005) 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five

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 prior to the first occupation of any part of the building hereby permitted 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 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 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. The works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted or in accordance with a programme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted pursuant to the requirements of this Condition shall include existing and proposed ground levels

DC0902MW Page 21

including any earthworks; hard surfacing materials; and minor artefacts and structures (e.g. refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc). Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

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 No development shall take place (except as may be agreed in writing by the Local

Planning Authority) until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and time table which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved specification.

7 Prior to the commencement of development, an acoustic assessment shall be

undertaken to determine the impact of road traffic noise upon the proposed development. The results of the assessment and details of any mitigation measures necessary to ensure a commensurate level of aural amenity within habitable rooms and garden areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works which form part of the approved mitigation scheme shall be implemented before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be retained as such.

8 Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, sight

lines of 70.0 metres by 2.0 metres by 70.0 metres shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access points and no obstruc tion of sight more than 0.6 metres above carriageway level shall be permitted within the sight lines thereafter.

9 Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development herein approved the

area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking shall be provided and thereafter 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.

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

Site Description The application site lies on the southern side of London Road (the A2), on the outskirts of Strood town centre. The Northcote Road recreation ground lies to the rear (south) of the application site. To the west is a garage court area and flats known as Hillside Court, whilst

DC0902MW Page 22

to the east there are two detached buildings and then a terrace of 4 properties before the junction of Northcote Road with London Road. The property immediately to the east of the application site at number 31 is a bungalow, which is occupied as a chiropractic clinic. The application site is currently occupied by a large detached Victorian property, which has fallen into disrepair, and is currently boarded up. The building is set at a higher level than the road and pavement, with steps up to the front door. The building is of a yellow brick construction with red banding and slate roofing. It currently occupies approximately half the frontage of the site along London Road, with the remainder of the site covered by areas of hardstanding and overgrown grass. The site is enclosed by brick walls along the front and side of the site, and by a stone wall along the rear boundary with the park. Within the park along this boundary is a row of mature trees. The boundary between the site and number 31 London Road is currently quite open. Almost directly opposite the site to the north is the junction between Castle View Road and London Road. Castle View Road is characterised by large detached properties set back from the main road and at a higher level. St Nicholas C of E infant school also lies to the north of the site. Proposal The submitted application proposes the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a block comprising 21 flats. The accommodation to be provided would comprise 16 two-bedroom flats and 5 one-bedroom flats. The flat block would be three stories in height with additional rooms provided in the roof space (including dormer windows). The building would fill almost the entire frontage width of the plot (27 metres). The main element of the building would have a ridge height of 12.5 metres (measured from the back of the site), but this would appear at between 13 and 14.5m when viewed from the front taking into account the change in levels across the site and the height of the basement area. The design of the block incorporates a tower feature on the western corner of the building, which would be a four storey element and this would have a maximum height of 15 metres. There would be a fla t roof element in the central section of the building, which would be concealed by dummy pitched roofs. A new vehicular access would be created along the London Road frontage, providing access to an underground parking area for 21 cars, with access into the flats via a main staircase and lift located at the western end of the car park (by the tower feature). The second staircase shown is for emergency access only. The basement would also provide cycle storage for 5 bicycles. Further to the deferral of this application from the 9 November Committee, updated plans have been received showing revisions to the sight lines for the vehicular access. The existing access (at the western end of the site) would be turned into a new pedestrian access from London Road. A second pedestrian access would be derived via the footpath at the western boundary of the site. A refuse store would be located adjacent to the main pedestrian access.

DC0902MW Page 23

An amenity area is shown to the rear of the flat block, occupying the southern part of the site, adjacent to the park, along with new landscaping to both the front and side of the building. Site Area/Density Site area: 0.121 hectares (0.3 acres) Site density: 173 dph (70 dpa)

Relevant Planning History 5/65/109 Breakfast room at rear Approved 11 November 1965 MC2005/0549 Demolition of dwelling and construction of twenty-one 1 and 2 bedroom

flats with associated underground parking. Withdrawn 30 June 2005 Representations The application has been advertised by means of site and press notices. Consultation letters have been sent to The Primary Care Trust, Transco and the EDF Energy. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of: 21 to 31 (odds) and St Nicholas School, London Road; 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and 3 Castle View Road; and 1-31 (odds) Hillside Court, Downside. Two letters have been received objecting to the application for the following reasons: - The existing building ought to be protected for its character. - The proposal will result in increased traffic on this part of London Road, which,

coupled with the development at the Cedars Hotel, will add to congestion in the area. - The proposed development will not be in keeping with character of the area. - The development will give rise to a loss of privacy for the occupiers of number 29. Southern Gas Networks have written drawing attention to the location of its infrastructure within the vicinity of the application site. Kent Police has written raising no objection to the application and has provided comments about security design features. The County Archaeological Officer has written recommending the imposition of a condition requiring the undertaking of an archaeological investigation of the site, given its location to the Roman road. Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy T17 (Parking Standards) Policy T18 (Development and Traffic)

DC0902MW Page 24


Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas) Policy H5 (High Density Housing) Policy T1 (Highway Impact of New Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003

Policy HP3 (Previously Developed Land) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL5 (Density of Development) Policy TP14 (Highway Impact of New Development) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal Principle of Development: The application site lies within the built up area as defined in the adopted Local Plan. As such the principle of redevelopment is acceptable, subject to the scheme complying with the other policies in the adopted Local Plan. Policy H4 allows for the use of vacant land or the redevelopment of existing buildings for residential use and Policy H5 allows for high-density schemes within the towns and in areas served by good public transport links. It is therefore considered that the principle of high-density block flatted accommodation on this site, given its location close to the centre of Strood and the public transport facilities available, is appropriate. This application is a resubmission of a scheme submitted earlier this year, which was withdrawn to enable further consideration to be given to the design and siting of the proposed development. Street Scene and Design The application site lies in a very prominent position, especially when approaching Strood from the west, down London Road. There is a lay-by and grass verge just to the side of the site, which gives the plot a very open aspect and allows views of the site from some distance. The site is also prominent when approaching from the east as a consequence of numbers 29 and 31 being substantially set back from London Road. In addition to this, the site is highly visible from the recreation ground to the south, where views are possible across the site to the dwellings in Castle View Road. The currently submitted proposal seeks to address the most prominent corner of the site, by including the tower feature to give interest to this corner of the building. This feature provides a focal point for the development and will serve as the main entrance to the building. The front elevation of the building has two projecting gable features, which help break up the mass of the building and give additional detailing to this elevation. The windows in the roof

DC0902MW Page 25

have also been positioned so that they now sit more comfortably within the roof plane and have a more symmetrical layout between the gable features. The rear elevation incorporates full height doors for each flat, with balconies at the first and second floors and for the flats accommodated in the roof space. The accommodation in the rear elevation will have views towards the recreation ground to the rear. The redesign of this elevation has given it a more symmetrical appearance. The building addresses the prominent corner of the site and provides a well proportioned front and rear elevation where the site will be visible from the main road and the recreation ground. The existing dwelling on the application is sited right on the boundary with number 31 to the east. 31 London Road is a small detached bungalow set well back from the road frontage and there is already a marked contrast between the scale of the existing house of the application site and the neighbouring bungalow. The current proposal sites the new block further away from the party boundary providing a better setting for the proposed building within the site, so that the flank to flank separation distance will increase from 4 metres to between 6 and 7 metres. Although the proposed flat block will be larger than the existing house, it is considered that the development would not be read in conjunction with this smaller building to the east, given that it is set so far back within its own plot. The flats would be provided with a small area of communal garden space at the rear of the building and some additional landscaping at both the front and sides. The existing brick boundary wall along the frontage would be re-built with the new accesses being accommodated within it. The brick walls along the western and southern boundaries would be retained and repaired as necessary. The existing building has been left to fall into a state of disrepair and the site is generally unkempt and having a negative impact on the street scene in this area. It is considered that the proposed development would enhance the street scene and as such the design and appearance of the proposed building is considered to accord with the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 (the emerging Structure Plan). Neighbour Amenities The proposed flats would principally face out towards the recreation ground at the rear and the main road to the front with the result that there will be no material overlooking or loss of privacy for the occupiers of adjoining properties. The bungalow to the east is a chiropractic clinic, therefore is not in residential use and any oblique views over the property will not give rise to an unacceptable loss of privacy. A letter of objection has been received from the occupants of number 29 London Road expressing concerns about the possible loss of privacy, however this property is located 20 metres to the east of the application site, where the only windows in the eastern elevation will serve a corridor. Such an objection cannot therefore be substantiated.

DC0902MW Page 26

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in amenity terms and accordingly no objection is raised to the proposal under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the emerging Structure Plan. Highways The proposed new access into the site is considered to be acceptable and the revised plans submitted demonstrate that appropriate sight lines (2m x 90m to the west and 2m x 59m to the east) can be achieved. This revised layout has been checked and agreed by the Safety Audit section. The development will generate additional traffic by comparison with that arising from the existing property on the site, however, given the volumes of traffic already using the A2 at this point it is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not be so significant as to adversely affect the operation of the local highway network. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in access and traffic generation terms and no objection is therefore raised to the application under the provisions of Policies T18 and T19 of the Structure Plan, Policies T1 and T2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy TP14 of the emerging Structure Plan. The level of parking provision within the site will be one space per flat. Given the site’s proximity to the town centre, the railway station and the bus links, the proposed level of parking is considered to be acceptable. Cycle parking has also been provided in the underground car park. The proposed parking arrangements are considered to be acceptable and no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policy T17 of the Structure Plan, Policy T13 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy TP19 of the emerging Structure Plan. Other Issues The development would front towards the busy A2 and as such concerns have been raised regarding the level of aural amenity the occupants of the flats would enjoy. Given the fact that there is existing residential housing to the east in this part of London Road, it is considered that it would be appropriate to address this concern by the imposition of a condition which requires an acoustic assessment to be undertaken prior to commencement of development and the implementation of mitigation measures as necessary. With regard to equipped play areas and informal open space, Policy L4 of the adopted Local Plan requires residential schemes to make open space provision where there is a proven deficiency. This policy applies the National Playing Field Association (NPFA) standards of: 1.6 hectares per 1,000 people for formal recreation space; and 0.8 hectare of children’s play space and casual recreation space. Applying the occupancy ratios specified in the Local Plan to the proposed development it is estimated that this proposal would be occupied by up to 46 people. The cost of providing equipped play areas and informal play space per head is respectively £142 and £102. Contributions towards the provision of equipped play areas are not sought in respect of one bed flats. Applying these costs the development generates a contribution requirement for play and informal space of £9,285. It is recommended that this contribution is secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement/Obligation. Any contribution received under this agreement would be used for the refurbishment and maintenance of the play area and open space at Darnley Road, which is within walking distance of the application site.

DC0902MW Page 27

Conclusions and Reasons for approval The proposed development is considered acceptable and would improve the appearance of this site in London Road. The design would be appropriate for its location and there would be no adverse impact on the occupiers of any nearby properties. An acceptable access into the site can be achieved and an appropriate level of parking can be provided on site. As such the scheme is considered to be in accordance with Policies ENV15, T17, T18 and T19 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, H4, S6, T1, T2 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan, and is recommended for approval. [This application would normally fall to be determined under officer’s powers, but is being reported for Members consideration at the request of Councillor Bacon due to concerns about the traffic generating potential of the development, especially when combined with the impact of additional development at the Cedars Hotel.] [This application was deferred from consideration at the request of officers at the Development Control Committee on the 9th November 2005 to enable further consideration to be given to the sight line arrangements at the junction between the site access and London Road. This has now been addressed by the applicant through the submission of a revised layout plan showing increased sight lines, and a Transport Planning Statement.]

DC0902MW Page 28

4 MC2005/1656

Date Received: 30th August 2005

Location: Rear of 75 London Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent ME8 7JR Proposal: Construction of six dwellings with associated garaging and access Applicant: Mr AR Hawkins 187 Edwin Road Gillingham Kent Agent: Mr B L Cullen Kent Drawings Office 1, First Floor 25 High Street

Rainham Gillingham, Kent ME8 7HX Ward: Rainham Central Recommendation - Approval subject to:- A) the applicants entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 to secure: (i) the payment of £5,255 towards improvements to the operational play area and

open space at 108 Maidstone Road.

(ii) the cost of a Traffic Regulation Order to control on street parking at the junction of the site access with Salisbury Avenue

B) The imposition of the following 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 any of the buildings are occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.



4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development within Part 1, Class A, B, C and E of the Second Schedule to the Order shall be carried out on the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

DC0902MW Page 29

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 existing and proposed ground levels including any earthworks; car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc). Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

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

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

7 The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking and garaging shall

be provided (including the car parking policy to serve 75 London Road) prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings and 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 No dwelling shall be occupied until the means of vehicular access to the

development has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.


Site Description The site is located to the south of the A2 to the rear of 75 London Road, and is bounded by residential development to the north and east, the Howard School playing fields to the west and a dwelling and a nursery to the south. Access to the site is via an unmade road between 6 and 8 Salisbury Avenue, which also serves a number of garages, a parking court and the rear of properties in Salisbury Avenue. The site is quite well screened with hedgerows around the perimeter and some mature trees. There is an existing dwelling located on the site, known as 6a Salisbury Avenue, which was formerly a garage for number 75 London Road, but which has now been granted a Lawful Development Certificate as a separate dwelling house. Proposal This is a full application for the demolition of the existing dwelling known as 6a Salisbury Avenue and the construction of 6 dwelling houses. The houses would be provided as three

DC0902MW Page 30

pairs of semi-detached dwellings, comprising four 4-bed units and two 3-bed units. Four of the units would be sited across the centre of the site in a line, linked by their single garages, whilst the other pair would be sited at an angle. The houses would all have pitched, hipped roofs, with gablet features, and pitched roof porches to the front. They would have a maximum height of 8m to the ridge, and an eaves height of 4.7m. Plot 1 would be provided with a detached double garage, whilst the other units would all be provided with a single garage, and driveway parking in front. Access to the site would remain via the track between 6 and 8 Salisbury Avenue, but this track would be widened to create a 4.8m wide road, with a footpath located along the northern edge leading from the site to Salisbury Avenue. Access through the site would also be provided for 75 London Road - a requirement of the earlier appeal decision. In support of the proposal, a transport statement and supporting letter were submitted with the application. Site Area/Density Site area: 0.213 ha (0.526 acres) Site density: 28 dph (11.4 dpa)

Relevant Planning History 65/66C Outline for 4 detached houses. Refused 19 February 1987 65/66D Outline for 4 houses. Approved 22 May 1987 65/66E Outline for erection of 12 retirement bungalows each with garage. Approved 18 August 1988 94/654 Outline for residential development comprising nine bungalows. Approved 3 February 1995 MC2000/0413 Outline application for residential development comprising eleven

houses and garages. Refused 9 August 2000 Appeal dismissed 31 May 2001 MC2000/1205 Outline application for residential development comprising nine houses

and garages. Refused 9 August 2000 Appeal dismissed 31 May 2001 MC2001/1664 Outline application for residential development comprising of 11 houses

and two garages (Duplicate application of MC2001/1665) Withdrawn

DC0902MW Page 31

MC2001/1665 Outline application for residential development comprising of 11 houses and two garages

Refused 2nd January 2002 Appeal dismissed 29th July 2002

MC2003/0432 Outline application for construction of three dwellings Refused 19th December 2003 Appeal Allowed 23rd September 2004 MC2003/2644 Outline application for the construction of 2 dwellings Refused 10th March 2004 Appeal Allowed 23rd September 2004 MC2004/2295 Outline application for construction of four dwellings with vehicular

access via Salisbury Avenue Refused 10 December 2004 MC2004/2752 Application for Lawful Development Certificate (existing) for use as a

single dwelling Approved 29 December 2004 It should be noted that the planning history above relates to different site areas. The current application relates to a reduced site when compared to the 2000 and 2001 applications and appeals, however it is a larger area than that included in the 2003 applications and appeal. Relevant Planning History for Land to the south at 6b Salisbury Avenue MC2004/2487 Outline application for construction of two detached houses Approved 17 March 2005 Representations The application has been advertised by means of a site notice. Salisbury Ave residents association has been notified of the application. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupier of 67-75 (odds) London Road; 2, 2a, 3, 4, 6, 6a, 6b, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 26, 30, 30a and 52 Salisbury Avenue; and 9 Century Road. Nine letters of objection have been received raising the following points: - Intensity of development would damage the tranquillity in the area. - Disturbance from noise from new development and car parking. - Only 2 houses should be allowed on the site. - Too many houses on site especially as site next door has been given permission for

two dwellings - Access will be a problem - Development will result in increased traffic using Salisbury Avenue and exacerbate

existing grid lock situation - Salisbury Avenue already busy due to school and nursery traffic, and church traffic at

the weekends - Backland development - Lack of services in the area

DC0902MW Page 32

- Lack of on site parking, which will lead to overspill parking on Salisbury Avenue - Site used to be a well-maintained garden rather than a brownfield site - Will affect the amenities of surrounding residents - Access not owned by applicant as others have right of way and have paid for its

maintenance - Previous refusal for 4 dwellings already on the site - Cramped and over-developed layout - Out of keeping with character of the area - Detrimental impact on amenities of occupiers in surrounding houses - Contrary to policies ENV15 & ENV16 of Structure Plan and BNE1, BNE2 & H9 of

Local Plan - Development will reduce neighbouring occupiers enjoyment of the area Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy ENV15 Built Environment Policy ENV16 Urban Open Space and Town Cramming

Medway Local Plan (Adopted Version) 2003:

Policy BNE1 General Principles for Built Development Policy BNE2 Amenity Protection Policy BNE3 Noise Standards Policy H4 Housing in Urban Areas Policy H9 Backland Development Policy T1 Impact of Development Policy T2 Access to the Highway

Policy T13 Parking Standards Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003:

Policy QL1 Quality of Development and Design Planning Appraisal Background The ‘Relevant Planning History’ section above gives an indication of the long history of this site. In terms of dealing with this current application the following issues are considered to be most relevant. The most recent approval for development to the rear of 75 London Road was given at appeal in September 2004. Two applications were considered by the Inspector, one proposing 2 dwellings and the second proposing 3 dwellings, both of which were allowed. The current application relates to a different (larger) site area to these two schemes, but wholly includes the area they related to. The current plans still show three dwellings in the area that formed the site in the allowed appeal, but now also includes three additional dwellings in the extended site area.

DC0902MW Page 33

The plans also show the demolition of the existing unit known as 6a. In terms of the existing situation, there is consent allowed at appeal for three units, plus one existing unit on site, which provides a total of 4. The current scheme therefore represents an increase by 2 of the number of units in relation to the current approved situation. The site area is larger than that of the refused application for four units last year, as it now includes the land previously excluded for 6a Salisbury Avenue. Principle of Development The site falls within the urban area, as defined in the Local Plan, and the site would therefore fall to be considered against Policy H4 of the plan, as a windfall site. This policy states that redevelopment and infilling for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. Furthermore the appeal inspectors considering development on the site, accepted that there was no objection in principle to the residential use of the land. Street Scene and Design By removing the existing dwelling, 6a, from the site, it has been possible for the applicant to achieve a better layout for development, which overcomes many of the concerns raised in the last application for four houses, as this involved very tight relationships between houses on the site. The current layout sites the dwellings essentially across the central section of the site, so that issues regarding loss of amenity are avoided (see section below). The mass of development is broken up by the separation of the units by single garages so that ample space about the dwellings can be provided, and the re-orientation of plots 5 and 6 provides the layout with a bit more interest. The scheme now includes some large areas that would be laid to grass at the front of all the houses, which would help soften the appearance of the development and provide a better balance with the amount of hardstanding provided for the driveways. The houses are of a standard modern design, which would be in keeping with the kind of development visible in the vicinity of the site. Garden lengths range from between 14m (plot 1) to 6m (plot 4). Whilst these garden lengths may be significantly less than those provided for existing houses in Salisbury Avenue and London Road, they are not uncommon for modern houses, given the density standards now being worked to under the advice of PPG3. The density of development falls just below the 30dph guideline of PPG3, however it should be noted that the site area shown above includes the access road, and if this were excluded the density would rise to within the range given in PPG3. It is considered that this density is appropriate given the pattern of development surrounding the site, and its own low density. Neighbour Amenities The site lies to the rear of the properties fronting both Salisbury Avenue and London Road, however all of these dwellings have long rear gardens. This would result in distances in excess of 50m between the front elevation of the new houses and the rear of those in Salisbury Avenue, which would clearly exceed the recommended separation distances given in the Kent Design Guide. The slightly angled layout of plots 5 and 6 would not result in the

DC0902MW Page 34

rear elevation facing directly towards the rear of 75 London Road, so again loss of privacy issues are avoided. The rear elevations of the houses face out over the playing fields to the west, therefore would not result in any privacy issues in this direction. The planning permission granted for two new houses at 6b Salisbury Avenue last year also needs to be taken into account. At that time an indicative plan showed the two dwellings to be sited parallel to 6b itself, therefore these houses are likely to have their side elevations facing to the north, which would mirror the layout of plots 1 and 2 on the current application site. The only side windows shown on plot 1 are for a downstairs cloak room and stairwell, therefore given that these would not serve habitable rooms, there is no concern about potential loss of privacy between the two sites. In terms of additional noise and disturbance, it would be difficult to argue the harm caused as a result of a net gain of two dwellings, given the number of cars that already use this access road, and the improvements being proposed which would allow cars to pass without needing to wait for other traffic. Highways The site has a complicated ‘highway’ history which has caused a number of concerns in the past. The outline application allowed at appeal for three houses in 2004 included the upgrading of the track to include a passing place, and this was found to be acceptable to the Inspector at that time. The current proposal seeks to provide a fully adoptable road instead of this, which would allow two cars to pass without the need for additional passing bays. It should also be taken into account that the site already has outline consent for three dwellings, and there is an existing dwelling on site. In effect therefore, this proposal results in a net gain of two dwellings. From a highway perspective it is considered that the improvements being made to the access road, which would not only benefit the proposed development but also other users of this access, would result in there being insufficient grounds to warrant a refusal of the scheme based on the intensification of the use of the access from these additional two units. The developer’s have also undertaken additional speed surveys along Salisbury Avenue, which have demonstrated that the sight lines proposed for this access are satisfactory (2m x 50m provided within the highway boundary, and 2.4m x 50m when viewed across the front gardens of properties either side of the access). In addition the Applicant is willing to pay for the costs of a Traffic Regulation Order to control on street parking at the junction of the site access with Salisbury Avenue. In terms of on site parking facilities, the development would provide each property with one garage space and one driveway space in front, with the exception of plot 1 which would have a double garage and driveway. This provides at least two spaces per dwelling, which would be acceptable to serve dwellings in this location. In addition access is made to the rear of 75 London Road, as required by condition attached to the previous appeal decision in 2004. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in highway terms, and would accord with Policies T1, T2, T3 and T13 of the Local Plan.

DC0902MW Page 35

Other Matters The site introduces new development in an area where there is a shortage of equipped play areas and informal open space. Due to the expected pressure this development would have on these facilities it is considered that a contribution should be sought towards improvements to the existing area at 108 Maidstone Road which is under pressure due to overuse. This would be for the sum of £5,255. Conclusions and reasons for approval The principle of development on this site is established through Policy H4 and the previous appeal decisions which permitted an outline consent for 3 units. The enlarged site area and the demolition of the existing unit on site, has allowed a better layout of development to be achieved, totalling 6 units, which is considered to be in accordance with Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan. Adequate amenity protection for existing residents can be provided, which would ensure accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan. The scheme also includes substantial improvements to the access road to the site, which would also benefit existing users of the access, and therefore the proposal would accord with Policies T1, T2, T3 and T13 of the Local Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval. [The application would normally fall to be determined under delegated powers but has been referred to Committee due to the number of representations received contrary to officers recommendation, and also at the request of Councillors Foster and Fearn due to the number of recent planning applications made for this site, and the level of objection from local residents.]

DC0902MW Page 36

5 MC2005/1964

Date Received: 11th October 2005

Location: 9 Colchester Close, Chatham, Kent, ME5 0HQ Proposal: Construction of a two storey extension to side Applicant: Ms H Buckett 9 Colchester Close Chatham Kent ME5 0HQ Agent: Ward: Luton & Wayfield Recommendation - Refusal 1 The proposed extension would represent an overdevelopment of the plot leaving

insufficient garden space for the dwelling. The proposed extension would therefore be detrimental to the character of the area and to the amenities of the occupiers of the property. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Kent Structure Plan, Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003.

2 The proposed extension, due to its design, siting, height and extent of projection

along the shared boundary with 10 Colchester Close would have an overbearing impact and result in an unacceptable loss of outlook and daylight for the occupiers of that property. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003.

3 The proposed extension, due to its siting, scale and design, would result in a loss

of sunlight to the rear garden area and rear windows of 8 Colchester Close and a loss of privacy for the occupiers of that property. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003.

Site Description The application property is a two-storey, one bedroomed, back-to-back, “starter home” at the end of a small terrace of properties. The property is set above road level and is orientated at right angles to the immediately neighbouring property to the south, number 10. The south-eastern (side) elevation of the application property projects 2.2 metres beyond the rear elevation of number 10. Number 10’s ground floor kitchen window and door are set some distance from the shared boundary with the application property, while the first floor rear windows at number 10 serve non-habitable rooms (bathroom and landing). As a consequence of the application property’s layout it has a side garden area, rather than a rear garden, and this garden area has a width of 4.1 meters (to the party boundary with 23

DC0902MW Page 37

Woolwich Close, the neighbouring property to the east. Number 9’s garden area is enclosed by fencing approximately 1 metre high along the boundary with number 10 and approximately 1.4 metres in height along the boundary with number 8. The boundary with 23 Woolwich Close comprises a brick retaining wall with fencing above it, which reaches a height of approximately 2.5 metres. The front elevation of the application property faces northward towards number 8 and there is a gap of 2.5 metres between the party boundary between number 8 and the application property and number 8 is set at a slightly lower. Proposal The submitted application is for the construction of a two-storey side extension to the south eastern elevation of the property, to provide a lounge and additional bedroom. The proposed extension would occupy the full depth of the property and have a depth of 3.3 metres. The proposed extension would have a gable roof form, with a ridge height of 7.6 metres. There would be one ground floor and one first floor window in the north elevation facing towards number 8. The would be no windows in either the rear elevation or the side elevation. Representations Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of: 8, 9a, 10 and 11 Colchester Close; and 23 and 24 Woolwich Close. Two letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds: - Loss of light to number 10; - The siting and scale of the proposed extension may give rise damp problems due to

the low level and small size of rear gardens; - The application property is designed for single-person occupancy and its enlargement

will give rise to noise/disturbance as a result of it being more intensively occupied; - The use of number 9a’s driveway for access/storage of materials etc. will not be

permitted; - Noise and disturbance will arise during the construction works; - The proposal will result in loss of light and ventilation to number 9a’s sole lounge

window; - The proposal may undermine the stability of number 9a; and - The extension will be incongruous in street scene and result in terracing. One letter has been received from the occupiers of a neighbouring property raising no objection to the application. Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Medway Local Plan 2003

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection)

DC0902MW Page 38


Policy QL1 (Quality of Design) Planning Appraisal Street Scene and Design The proposed extension would only be partially visible from the street. As a consequence of the mixed street scene, including short terraces and properties of varying design and layouts, it is considered that the proposed extension will not appear as being incongruous or out of character with the streetscene. However, the proposed extension would extend much further into the application property’s garden area when compared with other properties in the street. The extension would occupy the majority of the property’s garden area, leaving only a gap of 0.7 metres to the boundary with Woolwich Close and a 2.5 metre wide access way to the front. From adjacent gardens and from properties in Woolwich Close, the proposed addition would be readily visible and would appear very cramped. It is considered that the extension would represent an over-development of the plot, which is very modest, having been designed to accommodate the requirements of the occupiers of a one-bedroom starter property and not a family home. In this respect the application is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 (the emerging Structure Plan). The proposed extension follows the design of the existing building, including its roofline and window size and spacing. The fact that the south eastern and the south western elevations would be entirely blank is not ideal in design terms but given their limited visibility, it is not considered so objectionable as to merit a refusal in its own right. Amenity Considerations The existing house extends 2.2 metres beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property at number 10 and the construction of the proposed extension would result in the formation of a two storey wall, 5.5 metres in depth along the party boundary. The rear of the extended property would project virtually along the whole length of the party boundary between numbers 9 and 10. It is considered that the resulting wall would have an unduly overbearing and oppressive affect upon the occupiers of number 10 and would in particular adversely impact upon the use of the rear garden of this neighbouring property. The extension would also add to the level of overshadowing experienced by the occupiers of number 10. The depth of the proposed extension would also adversely impinge upon the outlook from the kitchen of number 10. There would also be some loss of outlook to first floor rear windows, but as these serve non-habitable rooms, it is not considered that this would result in a material loss of amenity to the occupiers of number 10. The construction of the proposed extension would be prejudicial to the amenities of the occupiers of number 10. The occupier of number 9a has objected to the proposal on several grounds but as the proposed extension would not be visible from that property, it is considered that the proposed development will not have a material impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of number 9a in terms of loss of outlook, sunlight, daylight or privacy. Issues of structural stability and

DC0902MW Page 39

potential damage to number 9a while works are being carried out are not planning considerations. The neighbouring property at number 8 is set approximately 5 metres away from the application property and is set forward of number 9. The presence of the proposed extension in itself would not prejudice the receipt of light within number 8 or result in an unacceptable loss of outlook when looking out from the windows serving that property. However, number 8 currently experiences overshadowing from the existing house at number 9 during the afternoon and with the construction of the proposed extension this overshadowing would commence around 12 noon onwards and would result in a shadow being cast over the whole of number 8’s rear garden. It is considered that this extent of overshadowing would lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity for the occupiers of number 8. The lounge and bedroom windows in the extension would face towards number 8. Number 9’s existing windows have some views in the direction of number 8, but their siting is such that the private amenity area of number 8’s garden is largely shielded by existing structures. The new windows in the extended property, being set further to the rear of the property, would have unobstructed views into the rear garden of number 8. There would also be some potential for overlooking to occur from the new windows into the rear windows of number 8, albeit that such views would occur at oblique angles. It is therefore considered that the construction of the proposed extension would unacceptably prejudice the amenities of the occupiers of number 8 by reason of unacceptable levels of overshadowing and loss of privacy. The property to the south west, 23 Woolwich Close, has first floor windows to the front and side from which the proposed extension would be visible. However, as this property is set at a much higher level, it is considered that the proposed extension would not result in any significant loss of outlook, sunlight or daylight to that property. As there would be no windows facing 23 Woolwich Close, no loss of privacy would be experienced by the occupiers of that property as a consequence of the presence of the proposed extension. The construction of the proposed extension would result in the formation of a two-bedroomed house in place of a one-bedroomed property and would result in virtually the whole of the property’s garden area being lost to this addition. All that would remain of the property’s existing side garden area would be a 0.7 metre wide strip. In addition there would be a 2.5 metre wide strip in front of the property that would serve as a modest front garden area. It is considered that the amenity space that would be available to the extended property would be inadequate to serve the requirements of the occupants of a two bedroomed house. The proposed extension is considered to be unacceptable in amenity terms and accordingly this proposal is viewed as being contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the emerging Structure Plan. Highways The proposed extension would increase the size of the property to two bedrooms, thereby increasing its likely demand for parking. However, although the property does not have any off-road parking provision, on-street parking is available in the area and it is considered that the proposal would not result in any detriment to highway safety. No objection is therefore raised to the application under the provisions of Policy T17 of the Structure Plan, Policy T13 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy TP19 of the emerging Structure Plan.

DC0902MW Page 40

Conclusion The proposed extension would have significant and unacceptable impacts on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and as such would be contrary to the provisions of the cited Development Plan policies. For the reasons stated above the application is recommended for refusal. [This application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but has been referred for Members’ determination at the request of Councillor Goulden to enable regard to be paid to the applicant’s personal circumstances.] [This application was considered by Members at the Development Control Committee on the 22nd February 2006, when it was determined to defer a decision to enable a Members’ site visit to be held.]

DC0902MW Page 41

6 MC2005/1983

Date Received: 6th October 2005

Location: Black Lion Leisure Centre, Mill Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 1HF Proposal: Use of land within curtilage of the Blacklion Leisure Centre for

Bootfairs for up to 14 days per calendar year to be held on Sundays or Bank Holidays between April & October (Regularization of Existing Use)

Applicant: Mr J P Greenfield I Underdown Avenue Chatham Kent ME4 5XA Agent: Ward: Gillingham North Recommendation - Approval with Conditions (and as amended by plans received on 15th November 2005) 1 The use hereby permitted shall only operate on Sundays and Bank Holidays

between the months of April and October and there shall be no more than 15 bootfairs on the land per calandar year.

2 The bootfair shall only operate within the confindes of the area defined by the red

line on the site location plan submitted on 15 November 2005 and shall not operate in any other area within the curtilage of the Black Lion Leisure Centre including those parts of the playing area used by sports pitches.

3 During the operation of the bootfairs, the overspill parking areas, defined in blue on

the site location plan submitted on 15 November 2005 shall be kept available for overspill parking and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the overspill parking area

4 The Bootfairs shall only take place between 0600 hours and 1500 hours on its

days of operation and at no other time outside of these specified hours 5 Prior to the commencement of the Bootfair operations in any calendar year, a full

list (schedule detailing the dates of those events shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). No other bootfairs shall be held on any other date without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

DC0902MW Page 42

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

Site Description This application relates to the sports ground/fields that lie within the curtilage of the Blacklion Leisure Centre. The area to be used for the boot fairs is located to the north-western side of the Black Lion Sports Centre and the Rebound Centre, while the 2 overflow parking areas lie: A) to the south of the main car park and indoor swimming pool and B) to the north of the main parking area and north east of the rebound centre. The northern boundary of the site is bounded by the Indoor Bowling Centre and Prince Arthur Road. The eastern boundary is formed by Mill Road which has two storey terraced houses located on its eastern side. The southern boundary is formed by Brompton Road and the western boundary is formed by the King Charles Hotel. Vehicular access to the site is gained via the existing access points in Mill Road and Brompton. Road. Proposal This proposal seeks planning consent to regularise the existing use of the sports field/grounds for the holding of Boot Fairs for up to 14 days per calendar year to be held on Sundays or Bank Holidays between April & October. Representations The application has been advertised on site and in the press. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of: Mill Road: London Chambers (Nos 3-7) Nos 9-21 (Inc) and 23; and High Street No’s 2, 3, 4, 4A, 6, 6A, 6B, 6C, 8, 10, 10A, 12A. Consultations were also sent to port England and the Medway Towns Sports Council. One letter has been received raising objections to the development on the following summarised grounds:

- Scale of use, they are not boot sales but markets. - New goods are sold openly and the traders enjoy lower rents than a bona fide

market; - The events are run on Council owned land and have never been tendered to the

open market; - Unless strictly controlled the use will amount to unfair competition to local retailers

and markets. Sport England raise no objections to the development on the ground that the applicant has stated that no part of the playing field is used whilst the football season is on. Subject to the imposition of a condition ensuring no activities take place that may prejudice the use of the playing field Sport England have no objections as the development would meet the exception of their policy E3 in that “The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of, or inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facility on the site”.

DC0902MW Page 43

Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy S2 (Environment) Policy ENV2 (Landscape and Nature Conservation) Policy ENV4 (Special Landscape Areas) Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy ENV16 (Urban Open Space) Policy ENV17 (Conservation Areas) Policy ENV18 (Archaeological Sites) Policy T17 (Parking)


Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise) Policy BNE12 (Conservation Areas) Policy BNE20 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) Policy BNE34 (Areas of Local Landscape Importance) Policy L3 (Protection of open space) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to the Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)


Policy SP1 (Conserving and Enhancing Kent’s Environment and Ensuring a Sustainable Pattern of Development)

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL7 (Conservation Areas) Policy QL8 (Archaeological Sites) Policy QL10 (Historic Landscape Features) Policy TP2 (Transport and Location of Development) Policy TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal Background This proposal was originally submitted to increase the existing bootfair operation on the site to up to 30 days per calendar year to be held on Sundays or Bank Holidays. However, in processing the application it became clear that the existing operation, within the curtilage of the Blacklion Leisure Centre for the holding of up to 14 days per calendar year, did not have planning consent. This appears to have been due to a misunderstanding on the part of the operators and site providers, in that they thought that they had rights to hold up to 14 such events in any calendar year without requiring planning consent. Whilst this is potentially true in relation to land outside of the curtilage of a building (Class B, Part 4, Schedule 2, Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended) this does not apply to land within the curtilage of a building, such as exists in this

DC0902MW Page 44

instance with the land forming part of and therefore within the cartilage of the Black Lion leisure centre. This being the case, the applicant has decided to regularise the existing use (14 days) rather than pursue the increase in days, as originally sought. Principle of development The sports field and associated land that lies within the curtilage of the Black Lion Sport Centre is protected under Policy L3 of the Local Plan. The policy refers to the protection of such open spaces from development unless it meets one of criteria listed. However, the proposal seeks to continue a use that has been in operation for the last 9 years continuously. Furthermore, the proposed use of part of the site for a boot fair, does not strictly fall within the parameters of this policy given that the market would not be a permanent development on the site. The applicant has also put forward the argument that the use is in itself a leisure use, being an activity which many people enjoy at the weekend and on bank holidays. The fact the site is open space needs to be considered and it is clear that the regularisation of this use would not unacceptably mix with the existing facilities on the site. Indeed, the Councils Department responsible for Education and Leisure has written advising that they are supportive of the regularisation of the existing bootfair operation on this site. The Black Lion Leisure Centre, it surrounding land and sports pitches are well used facilities. However, in this instance the boot fair use operates when the field/sports pitches are not in full use and furthermore they are not held on the formal football pitch areas. The proposal does not therefore conflict with the comments given by Sport England. Ample overflow parking is available in the areas shown in blue on the submitted block plan. It is not considered therefore that the regularisation of the boot fair for 14 days in any one calendar year, between April & October, would have a negative impact on the use of the leisure facility or related land. A permission on this limited basis would not be considered to be contrary to the objectives of Policy L3 of the adopted Medway Local Plan 2003. Vitality and Viability The regularisation of this use should be considered in terms of its impact on the existing market trade in Gillingham. This type of boot fair is not a traditional market, but concerns and objections have been received from a market operator. Additionally, concern was raised regarding the proposal to increase in number of days of operation to 30 per year. However, as Members will be aware the applicant is no longer seeking this number of days to operate and is solely seeking to regularise the operation that he has been running continuously for the last 9 years. It is a concern that boot fairs, on a large scale, have been eroding the traditional support and buying power from street markets in recent years. Gillingham town centre markets, which are held on Saturday and Monday, are considered to be integral to the vitality and viability of Gillingham as a town centre. These markets are successful at present and they do assist with the on-going sustainability and viability of the town centre, especially in light of the recent withdrawal of well know shops from the town. Members should note that the applicant is now only seeking to regularise the existing use and is not proposing an increase in days. The boot fair could re-locate to open land in close vicinity and could operate for 14 days in any calendar year without planning permission. The traditional markets are successful at present and this being the case it is not considered that the regularisation of this existing use for no more than 14 days in any one calendar year (held on Sundays and Bank Holidays) would

DC0902MW Page 45

have a consequential impact on the existing traditional markets and would not therefore be likely to affect the viability of Gillingham town centre. Policy R11 of the Medway Local Plan states that business, leisure and entertainment uses, cultural and education facilities should be located in the main centres of Chatham, Strood, Gillingham and Rainham, or on the edge of these centres. The Medway Local Plan 2003 in the text indicates that the edge of the core area is generally considered to be within 200-300m of the defined area. Proposals elsewhere are subject to compliance with the criteria listed. Boot Fairs would generally fall within the definition of being a leisure use, and as such should be considered against this policy. The sports ground/field subject to this proposal is within 150m of the edge of the core area of Gillingham and therefore the site is clearly on the edge of core area. The site is easily accessible by a choice of transport modes being adjacent to bus route and within 5-10 minute walk of a main line railway station. Furthermore, for the reasons specified above the regularisation of the existing use is not considered to undermine the vitality and viability of the Gillingham. Therefore, this development is considered to be acceptable in term of policy R11 of the adopted Local Plan. Impact on Amenity It is considered, having regard to the application siting and the existing level of operation for the last 9 years that the proposed development would not have an adverse affect upon the amenities of the occupiers of those properties. Therefore this application is considered to be acceptable under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the emerging Structure Plan. Highways The applicant has revised the nature of the application and redefined the area where the boot fairs are to be held as well as detailing the areas where the overflow car parking will operate. The revised plans also demonstrate the vehicular access points (which are existing vehicle accesses) This is satisfactory from a highway and pedestrian safety perspective and therefore there are no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds, subject to a condition reserving the overspill parking areas, shown on the plan, to be available for such use. Other Matters The proposal has been considered in relation to its impact on the Lower Lines, the Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the vicinity, the fields of fire, the Conservation Area within which it stands and the Area of Local Landscape Importance. Bearing in mind the limited number of events and the transient nature of the development, combined with the fact that no trace will be seen once the operator has cleared the site, it is not considered that this development will have an adverse impact and is acceptable in this regard. This being the case, this development is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policies ENV2, ENV15, ENV17 and ENV18 of the Structure Plan, Policies BNE1, BNE12 BNE20 and BNE34 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies QL7 and QL8 of the emerging Structure Plan.

DC0902MW Page 46

Conclusion It is considered that the regularisation of the proposed use would not have a detrimental effect on the leisure function of the Black Lion Leisure Centre. Additionally, the granting of this existing unit on the limited basis proposed would be unlikely to affect the viability and vitality of Gillingham town centre. Finally, the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway and pedestrian safety and for these reasons the application 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 at the requests of Cllrs Mrs Chambers Magee due to the sensitive nature of the area and in order to ensure full debate is given to the proposed use.]

DC0902MW Page 47

7 MC2005/2251

Date Received: 21st November 2005

Location: Plots 52 to 95, land at The Searchlight with access via the former

site of Toad Hall, Main Road, Chattenden, Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester, Kent

Proposal: Part approval of reserved matters pursuant to Condition 1 (siting,

design and means of access) and Condition 10 (parking and garaging) of outline planning permission MC2004/0686 for construction of 44 dwellings (comprising houses and flats) with associated access roads and parking/garaging

Applicant: Ward Homes Ltd 2 Ash Tree Lane Chatham Kent ME5 7BZ Agent: Mr G Marshall Grafik Architects Ltd Station Court Radford Way

Billericay Essex CM12 0DZ Ward: Strood Rural Recommendation - Approval subject to:- 1 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development concerning Plots 52 to 95 (

inclusive) and subject of application MC2005/2251, the emergency access identified on drawing 05-0824-01B and linking the application site with Elm Avenue shall be completed and made available for use in accordance with the approved drawing. The emergency access shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the development hereby permitted. The emergency access shall not be used at anytime as a general means of vehicular access to the application site.

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 forms approximately 30% of an area of land formerly known as Toad Hall and The Searchlight after the two houses that once occupied the site. The current application site concerns The Searchlight and has an area of 0.965 hectares (2.38 acres). The application site lies to the south of Main Road and east of Elm Road, Chattenden and is at the edge of the built up area. To the east are open fields and to the south there is a wooded slope leading down to the Medway Estuary. Immediately to the south of the application site there is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The application site is bounded to the north by the site of Toad Hall, which is currently being developed for residential purposes pursuant to the provisions of outline planning permission MC2004/0686 and reserved matters approval MC2004/1150. The redevelopment of this adjoining site amounts to Phase 1 of the development permitted under the terms of the outline planning permission.

DC0902MW Page 48

Proposal This application is a revised reserved matters submission for the southern portion of the site covered by outline permission MC2004/0686, south of the Saxon Shore footpath and north of land designated as a Local Nature Reserve and SSSI. The principle of development of this site has been established by the granting of outline planning permission MC2004/0686. Details for the redevelopment of The Searchlight in its entirety as part of the area covered by the outline planning permission were approved under application reference MC 2004/2321 when permission was given for: five 2 bed terraced houses, four 3 bed apartments and thirty three 2 bed apartments. The apartments within the previously approved scheme were to be contained within 2 and 3 storey blocks, laid out around a formal central round courtyard located to the east of the neighbouring property at 41a Elm Avenue. The scheme the subject of the current revised matters submission changes the form of development from a mainly apartment-based estate to a development comprising a mixture of apartments and houses grouped in short terraces; extending the development form that has been used within the Phase 1 area of the outline permission (ie the development immediately to the north of the current site and now substantially under construction). The current reserved matters submission seeks approval for details relating to siting, design and means of access for a scheme consisting of 44 dwellings, comprising the following mix: 16 two bedroomed flats; 2 two bedroomed houses; 25 three bedroomed houses and 1 four bedroomed house. Under the current submission two thirds of the dwellings would be houses, compared with a nearly the 90% flatted scheme as previously proposed. This part of the site is now known as Phase 3 having previously been identified as Phase 2. Under current proposal 12 of the proposed flats would be accommodated within a single block providing living space on three floors, with the upper level of accommodation being housed within the roof space, either within gable features or dormer windows. This block would therefore be 2.5 storeys in height and would a maximum ridge height of 11.7 metres. This flat block would be sited at the northern end of the site, adjoining the southern boundary to the Phase 1 development area. This block of flats would be served by an open, communal parking area, primarily to the east of the principal estate access road serving this phase of the development. The other flats would be sited above garages at the entry to shared parking areas. A communal amenity area would be provided to the rear of this flat block. The proposed houses would be arranged in terraces ranging in length between 3 and 11 units, the latter including the over-sailing flats referred to above. The proposed houses would comprise a mixture of 2, 2.5 and 3 storey units, with the 3 storey house type being a “town house” incorporating integral garages. The 2.5 storey units will have a mixture of dormer windows and rooflights illuminating the roof level accommodation. The design of the proposed houses and flats is “typical” of contemporary housing estates. Although specific details of the external materials to be used have not been submitted as part of this reserved matters submission, the submitted drawings suggest that a mixture of brickwork, tile hanging, weather boarding, render and roof tiles will be used. The design of the units comprises a mixture of gable and hip roof forms, with some bay features. A number of the dwellings will have “Juliet” type balconies, while the town houses feature small scale first floor terrace areas to the rear.

DC0902MW Page 49

Car parking will be provided in the form of on-curtilage garages and drives or garages and forecourt spaces within communal parking compounds. Vehicular access to the site will be derived via the estate road serving Phase 1 of the development permitted under the terms of the outline planning permission. Site Area/Density Site area: 0.92 ha. (2.38 acres) Site density: 47.7 dwellings/hectare (Phase 3) Relevant Planning History MC2003/0316 Full application for the erection of 105 dwellings

Refused 9 October 2003 Appeal lodged and subsequently withdrawn 27 May 2004

MC2003/2304 Outline application for residential development at 30 dwellings per

hectare Refused 10 December 2003 Appeal lodged and subsequently withdrawn 27 May 2004

MC2004/0686 Outline application for residential development at 30 dwellings per

hectare Approved 24 May 2004 following the conclusion of a Section Agreement

MC2004/1150 Part approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning

permission MC2004/0686 for the construction of 49 dwellings with associated access roads and parking/garaging (Phase 1) Approved 18 August 2004

MC2004/2321 Part approval of reserved matters pursuant to Condition 1 (siting, design

and external appearance, Condition 4 (boundary treatment) and Condition 10 (parking and garaging) of outline planning permission MC2004/0686 for the construction of 42 dwellings (comprising 37 flats and 5 houses) with associated access roads and parking/garaging.

Approved 6 April 2005 Other Related History MC2004/274 Outline application for adjoining land r/o Main Road Approved 6 April 2005 MC 2005/1513 Construction of one pair of semi-detached 3-bedroomed houses with

integral garages (Land r/o 37, Elm Avenue) Approved 29th September 2005

DC0902MW Page 50

Representations The application has been advertised by means of press and site notices. Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of: 37, 39, 41, 41A, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, Peppercorn and Lingley House, Elm Avenue; and Tamarisk, Main Road. Consultations have also been undertaken with Hoo St Werburgh Council, “Hands Off Kent”, The Dickens’ Country Protection Society, Southern Gas Networks, Southern Water Services Ltd, EDF Energy and the Police Architectural Liaison Officer. Hoo Parish Council has written expressing concerns about the increased density, lack of positive measures to promote energy conservation, intrusiveness of 3 storey dwellings, security problems associated with the use of parking compounds that are remote from houses, lack of on-site recreation facilities, lack of tree preservation, inadequacy of emergency access provisions and the need to secure infrastructure provisions through Section 106 Agreement Two letters have been received objecting to the application for the following reasons: - The height of the buildings is excessive and will result in the loss of privacy; and - The proposed development will place additional strain upon local infrastructure,

especially in the light of the increased number of dwellings that is being proposed. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has written to advise that the layout and design is generally satisfactory from a security point of view. Southern Gas has written providing details of their installations in the area and drawing the applicant’s attention to trunk main underlying Elm Avenue and Main Road. The Dickens’ Country Protection Society has written advising that it has no comments to make. The Kent Wildlife Trust has written advising that it considers that the scheme addresses the issues raised at the outline stage in respect of precluding access to the Cookham Wood SSSI. Development Plan Policies

Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy S9 (Infrastructure and Community Facilities) Policy ENV5 (Nature Conservation Areas)

Policy ENV7 (Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows) Policy ENV15 (Built Environment)

Policy T17 (Parking Standards) Policy T18 (Traffic Generation)


Policy S6 (Planning Obligations) Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE6 (Landscape Design)

DC0902MW Page 51

Policy BNE34 (Areas of Local Landscape Importance) Policy BNE35 (Nature Conservation Sites) Policy BNE43 (Trees on Development Sites) Policy H1 (New Residential Development) Policy H3 (Affordable Housing) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T2 (Access to Highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards) Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2003 (Deposit version) Policy SP1 (Sustainable Patterns of Development)

Policy SS3 (Sustainable Approach to Location of Development)

Policy SS5 (Enhancing Existing Communities) Policy E8 (Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity) Policy E9 (Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy QL13 (Provision for New Community Services and Infrastructure) Policy HP1 (Housing Provision and Distribution) Policy HP7 (Range and Mix of Housing Provision) Policy HP8 (Affordable Housing) Policy TP2 (Transport and the Location of Development) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards) Planning Appraisal The main issues for consideration in this case are: matters of principle; design and layout; implications for amenity; parking and highways and infrastructure considerations. Principles of Development The principle of development on this site has been established through the Local Plan process and the granting of outline planning permission under application reference MC2004/0686. The Toad Hall/Searchlight site has been allocated for residential development under Policy H1 of the adopted Local Plan. One phase of the development permitted under the terms of the outline permission has already had its reserved matters approved under the terms of application MC2004/1150 and that phase of the development has now in part been occupied. The currently submitted application is concerned only with the approval of reserved matters, pursuant to the outline planning permission, in respect of what is now being referred to as Phase 3 of the allocated site. Reserved matters have previously been approved for development on this part of the site under the terms of application MC2004/2321. The outline planning permission is accompanied by a Section 106 Agreement adressing: education contributions; contributions to off-site play space provision; on-site affordable housing provision; and the protection and maintenance of the adjoining SSSI. This application is concerned solely with the details of design and layout and directly associated matters. The principle of development on the site has been established by the granting of outline planning permission and since the proposals meet the provisions of Policy

DC0902MW Page 52

H1 of the Local Plan, no objection can be raised to the principle of the proposed development in the determination of the submitted reserved matters application. Design and Layout considerations The revised site layout follows the principles accepted in Phase 1, which is now under construction. This comprises terraced groups of houses, with integrated apartment buildings rather than wholly free-standing blocks. Access to the site is from Phase1, via a “bottleneck” access point reduced to 3.2 metres in width, where the road crosses the Saxon Shore footpath. The emergency access to Elm Avenue, previously approved is also reached from this part of the site. With the change in emphasis to houses rather than apartment blocks, the currently submitted scheme will have a scale and appearance that is more akin to that being followed in Phase 1 of the estate. The variety in house types and heights provides interest within the development and it is considered that the layout and design will be in keeping with the character of area. Although the current submission will result in 2 additional units being provided within this phase of the development it is considered that the resulting density within this part of the development will not be prejudicial to the character of the surrounding area. In design and appearance terms the submitted proposals are considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 (the emerging Structure Plan). Amenity Considerations The main amenity effects arising from this development upon the occupiers of neighbouring property relate to the potential for noise and disturbance to be experienced by the occupiers of properties in Elm Avenue and for the occupiers of those properties to experience a loss of outlook. The issue of increased disturbance was considered at length during the Local Plan process, which resulted in the allocation of the site for residential purposes, and again in the earlier submissions. In any event the new access was agreed in 2001 prior to the present development being proposed. Once traffic associated with this development is within the main body of the site, traffic calming and management proposals will control vehicle speeds and consequently vehicle noise. Residents in Elm Avenue will have a view of new development but it will be at some distance from those properties due to the generally long length of the rear gardens of the existing properties. There will be adequate space for intervening landscaping and screening. Direct overlooking at levels that would be unacceptable will not arise. The block spacing between the existing properties in Elm Avenue and the proposed development will be such that adjoining residents will not experience any unacceptable loss of privacy, loss of light or over shadowing.

DC0902MW Page 53

A substantial number of trees and hedgerows along the route of the Saxon Shore footpath are to be retained, along with trees located along the eastern site boundary. A number of trees, mainly small specimens, will have to be removed to accommodate the development. New planting will be limited by the relatively intensive nature of the proposed layout to small groups adjoining the main roads and entrances to parking courts. Third party representations continue to be raised about the effect of the development on existing infrastructure and services. However, this is not a “reserved matter” as such. The Section 106 Agreement has addressed the consequences of this development on local facilities through the various contributions that are to be made. These contributions are based upon the number of units ultimately provided within the development and accordingly the scale of these contributions will be proportionately increased as a consequence of the provision of the 2 additional units identified within this reserved matters submission. It is considered that the proposed development will not give rise to any unacceptable loss of amenity for the occupiers of neighbouring properties and no objection is therefore raised to the application under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the emerging Structure Plan. Traffic and Transport The traffic generation issues arising from the development of this site for residential purposes were addressed during the consideration and determination of the outline application, when it was determined that the proposed access would be capable of accommodating the requirements of the proposed development. Given this background no objection is raised to the proposed access arrangements for the currently submitted reserved matters application under the terms of Policy T18 of the Structure Plan and Policy T1 of the adopted Local Plan. The proposed parking arrangements satisfy the requirements of the adopted vehicle parking standards and accordingly no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policy T17 of the Structure Plan, Policy T13 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy TP19 of the emerging Structure Plan. Affordable Housing An element of affordable housing will be provided, to be consistent with the requirement in the Section 106 Agreement accompanying the outline planning permission. There is a requirement to provide affordable housing at the rate of 25% across the extent of the site subject to outline planning permission. Recommendation and Reasons for Approval The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in appearance and layout terms and it is considered that it will integrate well with the now partially completed first phase of the development on the adjoining Toad Hall site. Having regard to the location and the relationship of the existing properties in Elm Avenue relative to the proposed development, it is considered that the proposal will not cause any unacceptable harm to the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Policies ENV15 and T17 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, H1, T1, T2 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan and the application is accordingly recommended for approval. [This application would normally fall to be considered under the officer’s delegated powers

DC0902MW Page 54

but has been reported for Members’ consideration due to the number of representations that have been received that are contrary to the officer recommendation.]

DC0902MW Page 55

8 MC2005/2423

Date Received: 19th December 2005

Location: Former Water Works Site, Guardian Court, Rainham, Gillingham,

Kent ME8 7HQ Proposal: Construction of two 2 storey blocks comprising a total of eleven 1 & 2

bedroomed flats for the elderly Applicant: Avondale Designer Homes Ltd Bowen House Bredgar Road

Gillingham Kent ME8 6PL Agent: Mr L Mineham Ubique Architects 11 Ashford House Beaufort Court

Sir Thomas Longley Road Medway City Estate Rochester, Kent ME2 4FA

Ward: Rainham Central Recommendation - Approval subject to:- A) The applicant entereing into an Agreetment/undertaking under S106 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure contribution of £1945 towards informal public open space

B) The imposition of the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. 2 The elderly occupied apartments hereby approved (other than any warden's

accommodation) shall be occupied only by:

a) a person over the age of 60 years of age or:

b) any spouse/partner aged 55 and over living as part of a single household with such a person; or

c) former spouse/partner aged 55 years and over who were living as part of a single household with such a person who has since died unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

3 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in

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

DC0902MW Page 56

4 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.

5 All soil, vent and waste pipes apart from their terminations shall be constructed

within the buildings. 6 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development the bathroom windows to

unit 6 and 9 as identified on drawing 414/11 shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light and shall thereafter be retained as such.

7 The roof light windows to be installed on the first floor southern elevation of Block

A as identified on elevation G of plan 414/11 herein approved shall have a minimum floor to sill height of 1.7 metres.

8 Prior to the commencement of the development, plans and details of the bin stores

and their means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bin stores shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to any occupation of the site and shall thereafter be retained.

9 None of the buildings hereby permitted shall be occupied until underground ducts

have been installed by the developer to enable telephone, electricity and communal television services to be connected to any premises within the site without recourse to the erection of distribution poles and overhead lines and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order), no distribution pole or overhead line shall be erected within the area except with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority.


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 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 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.

11 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.

12 Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted an investigation shall

be undertaken to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. The

DC0902MW Page 57

results of the investigation together with a risk assessment by a competent person and details of a scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to any development on site and a completion report issued by the competent person referred to above, stating how remediation has been completed and that the site is suitable for the permitted use, shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

13 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.

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 is an area of open grass behind a beech hedge on the south side of Guardian Close and is part of an area owned by Southern Water in connection with the reservoir/water works. The land rises slightly from the road. Access exists into the site through locked gates approximately 4.5m wide. Guardian Close is a cul-de-sac with single storey accommodation between the Close and the main road (A2) and a two storey block to the east of the application site with a row of facing windows less than 4m from that boundary. There is open parking at right angles to the road on the south side. To the south of the application site lie houses in Boston Gardens. Proposal The application proposes to construct 2 blocks of two-storey buildings comprising a total of eleven 1 and 2-bedroomed self-contained flats, to be occupied by elderly persons. Block A would be located at the southern end of the site and would comprise four 2 bedroomed flats and one 1 bedroomed flat. The property would feature a cat-slide roof design on the southern elevation with first floor southern elevation rooms served by high-level windows. Block B would be located at the northern end of the site and would comprise six 1 bedroomed flats. The upper floors of both blocks would be accessed via external staircases. Access to the site would be as existing from Guardian Court. Parking for 11 vehicles would largely be provided in the area between the two blocks save for three spaces located to the sides of Block B. New access gates would be fitted for the existing water works site. Existing planting on the northern and southern elevations are indicated as proposed for retention whilst a chain link fence is proposed on the eastern and western elevations.

DC0902MW Page 58

Site Area/Density

Site area (approx): 0.15ha (0.37 acres) Density: 73.3dph (29.7dpa) Relevant Planning History MC2004/0262: Outline application for the construction of 8 residential flats for the elderly Approved 31 March 2004 MC2005/1200: Construction of 2no. two-storey blocks comprising a total of thirteen 1 &

2 bedroomed retirement flats Withdrawn by Applicant MC2005/1945: Construction of two 2 storey blocks comprising a total of eleven 1 & 2-

bedroomed self-contained flats Refused at Committee 30 November 2005 Representations The application has been advertised on site and in the press. Southern Water Services; The PCT; The Police architectural Liaison Officer; The Electricity and Gas boards have been consulted on the application along with the owners and occupiers of all the properties in Guardian Court. 5 letters of objection and a petition containing 28 signatures have been received raising concerns over:

- Loss of light, privacy and outlook to properties in Boston Gardens and Guardian Court - Increase in demand for parking in an already limited area - Increased vehicle movement to the detriment to residential and highway safety - Bin store siting and appearance is not appropriate - The age limit of 55 is not retirement or for the elderly population

The Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer has raised no objections to the application though has referred to points addressed in the previous application MC2005/1954. These centred on whether the stairwells could be incorporated into the building, whether Block A could incorporate additional rear windows to increase natural surveillance to the rear communal area and whether increased windows in the flank walls of Block B could be incorporated to improve surveillance to parking areas 1, 10 and 11. Southern Gas has written raising no objections to the application. Paul Clarke MP has written to object to the application confirming the concerns of residents raised.

DC0902MW Page 59


Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy ENV16 (Town Cramming) Policy H3 (Housing) Policy T17 (Impact on Transport)


Policy BNE1 (Built Environment) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Land Contamination) Policy H4 (Housing) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T13 (Parking Standards)


Policy QL1 (Built Environment) Policy QL5 (Quality and Density) Policy HP4 (Housing) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal Principle The site lies within the urban area of Gillingham where there is a general presumption in favour of redevelopment of existing sites for housing under Local Plan policy H4. In addition a valid permission exists in outline for 8 residential flats for the elderly to be constructed on site. A previous application for a similar scheme to be occupied unrestricted was refused by the Committee because of concerns that the development would have detrimentally affected the amenities of the existing elderly residents in Guardian Court. The applicant in revising the scheme has attempted to overcome these concerns by restricting the occupants to 55 years and over and has submitted a document explaining that, should permission be granted, the development would be owned and managed by a specialised management company. In considering representations and similar developments elsewhere, and the concerns raised by the Committee in determining the previous application it is considered that a minimum age of 55 years would not satisfactorily address the concerns. It is therefore recommended that the minimum age of occupation should be raised to 60 years and over for the principle occupier. There is no special designation on the application site and as such the principle of development for elderly housing is acceptable subject to considerations of detail. The main issues are considered to be the impact on the character and appearance of the area including the residential amenities of occupiers of the existing adjacent accommodation.

DC0902MW Page 60

Street Scene and Design Having regard to the mixed nature of building designs and types within the vicinity of the application site, the proposal is considered to be set at an adequate and acceptable distance from neighbouring properties and its design would respect the built form, mass and sitings of neighbouring properties that define this area. In turning to the areas addressed by Kent Police, no overriding objection is raised either by Kent Police or residents with regards to the open staircases. The applicant has argued they add character to the design of the building and as they can be seen from the communal areas, they would not raise concerns regarding security. With regards to the rear windows at first floor level on Block A, this has been designed to overcome amenity concerns. Block B has bathroom windows in its flank walls where additional habitable room windows could raise amenity concerns with regards neighbour overlooking, particularly to Guardian Court. With regards to open space provision and owing to the size of the plot, no provision can be made on site for informal or formal sports. However the applicant has been requested to contribute toward off-site provision and this has been made the subject of a Section 106 developer contribution. With regards to the siting and appearance of the bin stores and boundary treatments, this aspect can be controlled by condition. The site itself is currently undeveloped and although an indicative plan has been submitted showing a landscaping scheme, a detailed plan will need to be submitted and this is listed in the proposed conditions. With regards to trees, the site currently contains 2 semi-mature species of very low amenity value. Their removal is not considered unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to have no negative impact on the character and setting of the street scene and would be in accordance with the provisions of Policies ENV15 and ENV16 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan; and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 (the emerging Structure Plan). Contaminated Land The application site is currently used in connection with the water works and there is potential for the land to be contaminated and for noise caused by the operation of the works to affect the noise amenities of the future occupiers of the flats. The first element can be controlled by way of a planning condition. The water supplied to the reservoir is pumped from another source and therefore there are no noise implications. The Environment Agency has written expressing the wish for additional conditions to be placed however it is felt these can be controlled by the proposed contamination Condition and by other legislation. Amenity Considerations Immediately to the north and west of the application site are residential properties provided for, and in occupation by elderly residents. Guardian Court to the west contains 24 flats and the eastern elevation of this block faces the application site. In taking into consideration the siting of the windows in relation to the siting of the proposed blocks, the rooms considered most affected by the proposal in terms of outlook and light loss are those to bedroom 1 of Flats 4 and 17 and bedroom 2 to Flats 5 and 18, located at the northern end of the site and

DC0902MW Page 61

thus affected by Block B. However given what would be an 11-metre distance between the two buildings, the level of impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of these properties is considered to be satisfactory and acceptable. Other windows along this flank either serve non-habitable rooms or are secondary to main windows on other flanks. Properties opposite the application site are bungalows with open plan front and rear gardens, which are easily visible from the road. Therefore the proposal is not considered to raise any new issues with regards to loss of privacy to these p roperties. With regards to properties to the south of the application site in particular properties 14 and 15 Boston Gardens, the proposed Block A would be set approximately 18m from its rear elevation. Designed with a cat-slide roof and devoid of first floor overlooking, the proposal is not considered to cause a detrimental impact to the occupiers of these properties in terms of loss of privacy or outlook. Nevertheless a condition controlling the siting of these high-level windows is recommended. The committee concerns with respect to the previous application related to the use of the proposed buildings by non elderly people and the potential conflict with existing elderly residents of Guardian Court, particularly through vehicular movement. In order to address that concern the application now relates to accommodation for persons 60 years and older and this is controllable through the condition recommended. It is considered that the proposed development will not adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and accordingly no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the emerging Structure Plan. Highways It is considered that the level of traffic that will be generated by the proposed development will not be prejudicial to the operation of the local highway network. The proposal provides one off-road parking space per flat. Having regard to the character of the area, and the type of accommodation proposed, this level of parking provision is considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the proposed development will not be detrimental to highway safety and accordingly no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policy T17 of the Structure Plan, Policies T1 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan; and Policy TP19 of the emerging Structure Plan. Conclusion and reasons for Approval It is considered that the proposal would result in a form of development which would be in character with the street scene, would not adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and would provide a satisfactory level of off-street car parking. The application is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Policies ENV15, ENV16 and T17 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, H4, T1 and T13 of the adopted Local Plan and is accordingly recommended for approval. [This application would normally fall to be determined under Officers’ delegated powers but is reported for Members’ consideration because of the extent of the representations that have been made by local residents].

DC0902MW Page 62

9 MC2005/2441

Date Received: 20th December 2005

Location: Land at Toad Hall and rear of Main Road and 3-11 Elm Avenue,

Chattenden, Rochester, Kent Proposal: Construction of 67 dwellings (comprising houses and flats) with

associated access roads and parking/garaging Applicant: Ward Homes Ltd 2 Ash Tree Lane Chatham Kent ME5 7BZ Agent: Mr G Marshall Grafik Architects Ltd Station Court Radford Way

Billericay Essex CM12 0DZ Ward: Strood Rural Recommendation - Approval subject to:-

A) Variation of an existing Agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the Toad Hall/Searchlight development to ensure that the provisions of the Agreement apply to the enlarged development recommended for planning permission, in relation to provisions for affordable housing and contributions to community infrastructure, and:

B) the imposition of the following conditions:

(and as amended by plans received on 20th and 29th December 2005) 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 buildings to which they relate are occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 None of the buildings hereby permitted shall be occupied until underground ducts

have been installed by the developer to enable telephone, electricity and communal television services to be connected to any premises within the site without recourse to the erection of distribution poles and overhead lines and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order), no distribution pole or overhead line shall be erected within the area except with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority.


works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

DC0902MW Page 63

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, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration where relevant.] Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and implementation programme.

5 A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives,

management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.



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 the northernmost portion of the Toad Hall/Searchlight site which is an allocated housing site in the Medway Local Plan and is subject to an outstanding outline planning permission MC2004/0686. Development is under way in the centre of the site for Phase I of the development (51 dwellings) that was the subject of a detailed planning permission granted under reference MC2004/1150. The site overall has been increased in size by the incorporation of a tract of adjoining land to the rear of Elm Avenue and Main Road which was acquired subsequent to the outline consent for the Toad Hall land by the applicants and has the benefit of a separate outline planning permission granted by MC2004/2746. The site slopes gradually upwards towards the south. It was formerly a combination of garden and orchard land although it has been partly cleared, awaiting development. Proposal The proposal is to combine the area that was Phase I (now phase 2) of the original Toad Hall/Searchlight site with the additional area subsequently permitted to produce a coherent scheme for the enlarged site. The form of development now proposed follows closely to the character of the central part of the site now being developed and the revised proposals for Phase III which appear

DC0902MW Page 64

elsewhere on this Agenda. It is characterised by a more intense form of development with a predominance of smaller house types – mainly 2 and 3 bedroom units together with a small proportion of apartments. The proposal provides for 67 units in all, of which 14 are 2 bedroom apartments, 5 are 2 bedroom houses, 38 are 3 bedroom houses and 10 are 4 bedroom houses. There is a total of 145 garaging and parking spaces mainly arranged in open parking courts or in small garage blocks with flats over although a small number of the houses have integral garages. Some 12 spaces are designated for visitors use. The development comprises a series of terraced groups of houses, following a curved main site access road. Other dwellings are located in recessed courtyards. Apartments excepted, dwellings all have private garden areas of a minimum 10 metres depth, some being considerably larger. Site Area/Density Site area: 1.427ha (3.52 acres) Site density: 47.5 dph (19dpa) Relevant Planning History MC2003/0316 Full Application for the erection of 105 dwellings Refused 9 October 2003 Appeal lodged and subsequently withdrawn 27 May 2004 MC2003/2304 Outline application for residential development at 30 dwellings per

hectare Refused 10 December 2003 Appeal lodged and subsequently withdrawn 27 May 2004 MC2004/0686 Outline application for development at 30 d.p.h.

Approved 24 May 2004 following the conclusion of a Section 106 Agreement

MC2004/1150 Part approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning

permission MC2004/0686 for the construction of 49 dwellings with associated access roads and parking/garaging (phase 1)

Approved 18 August 2004 MC2004/2321 Part approval of reserved matters pursuant to Condition 1 (siting, design,

and external appearance, condition 4 (boundary treatment) and condition 10 (parking and garaging) of outline planning permission MC2004/0686 for the construction opf 42 dwellings (comprising 37 flats and 5 houses) with associated access roads and parking/garaging.

Approved 6 April 2005 MC2004/2746 Outline application for adjoining land r/o Main Road Approved 6 April 2005

DC0902MW Page 65

MC2005/1513 Construction of one pair of semi detached 3-bedroomed houses with integral garages.

(land r/o 37, Elm Avenue) Approved 29 September 2005 MC2005/2251 Part approval of reserved matters pursuant to Condition 1 (siting, design

and means of access) and condition 10 (parking and garaging) of outline planning permission MC2004/0686 for construction of 44 dwellings (comprising houses and flats) with associated access roads and parking/garaging

For consideration elsewhere on this agenda Representations The application has been advertised by means of press and site notices. Consultation letters have been sent to the PCT; Kent Wildlife Trust; The Police Architectural Liaison Officer; English Nature; Dickens Protection Society; Southern Water Services; Hands Off Kent; and gas and electricity operators. Neighbour consultation letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 3-49 (odds), 41a, 16, 20, Lingley House, and Peppercorn Elm Ave; 22 and 38, Broadwood Road; Delcot, Ferncroft, Tamarisk, Broadwood house, Resolution, Hilstan, Shalon, Hillview, Hazelmere, Gwyngarth, The anchorage, Benvenue, Yelsted, 15 and 16 Haig Villas, The Briars, Wheatcroft, and Wayside Main Road and 58 Pankhurst Road. Three letters have been received from adjoining occupiers, raising objection on the following grounds: - Dangerous and inadequate road access to Main Road.

- ‘Rat – running’ through the local road network to avoid delays at the new junction with the link to the A228.

- Loss of privacy arising from new 3 storey flats proposed close to boundary. - Loss of open space and wildlife habitat - Further pressure on local services. Hoo St. Werburgh Parish Council has written to raise concerns on the following issues: - Over intensification of development on a site originally assumed to take 105 Dwellings

overall. - No evidence of sustainable approach to development. - Over dense development, flats & 3 storey houses out of character with the setting. - Too much reliance on parking courtyards. - No on-site recreational provision. - Development not appropriate to a ‘rural settlement’. - Concern about adequacy and safety of a single access. - Remoteness from services. - No concern for pedestrian safety off site. - The area needs further burial site provision. The Kent Police Architectural Officer raises no significant objections on a crime prevention basis but identify a number of detailed points where surveillance of parking courtyards and rear access could be enhanced.

DC0902MW Page 66

English Nature raise no objection to the proximity of the site to the Tower Hill to Cockham Wood SSSI. Southern Water and Southern Gas raise no objections Kent Fire Brigade expressed concern about the width of the proposed emergency access.

Development Plan Policies Regional Planning Guidance Note 9 (RPG 9) Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy ENV 15 Built Environment

Medway Local Plan 2003 Policy BNE 1 General Principles Policy H3 Affordable Housing Policy H9 Backland Development Policy H4 Housing in Urban areas Policy H11 Residential devpt. In rural settlements Policy T1 Impact of development Policy T2 Rural settlements access to the highway


Policy QL Quality of Development and Design

Planning Appraisal Principles of Development The principle of development of this site has been established by the granting of the various planning permissions on the Toad hall site and by the separate outline planning permission granted by MC 2004/2746.

The Toad Hall site was accorded a notional capacity of 105 dwellings in the schedule and descriptions attached to Policy H1 although the plan does make clear in para. 5.5.2 of the Written Statement that this site, along with other allocated land has “an indicative capacity that is neither a target nor a maximum figure, but merely reflects the Council’s initial assessment of the site.” However, the submitted details indicate development to a higher density than was envisaged at the time the Toad Hall land was allocated in the Medway Local Plan.

In overall policy terms, this accords with Government policies aimed at concentrating housing development into existing defined settlements and making the best use of allocated and permitted land.

DC0902MW Page 67

Therefore, provided the development meets normal site-specific criteria, such as acceptable design and layout, spatial standards, relationship to existing development, access arrangements and parking, there is no objection in principle to the proposal. Design and Layout considerations

There are two issues for consideration here, first whether the proposed design and layout is acceptable of itself and second whether it relates appropriately to its setting.

The layout now adheres to the principles approved for the Phase I development now under construction and is characterised by an urban style based on terraced groups of properties, following the road line, turning corners, forming small formal public spaces and rear parking courtyards.

The style of development is generally small scale with vernacular features generally reflecting the tradition of cottage building in Kent. The materials proposed reinforce this with brickwork, rendering, stained or colourwash, timber cladding, relatively steep pitched roof with pantiles or peg tiles.

Phase I has proved to be an attractive and popular development reflective of traditional Kent Village/Urban design and this proposal would continue that approach and is therefore acceptable.

On the second issue, the proposed development is of course wholly consistent with Phase I which it immediately adjoins. It is however a radically different form of development to the older housing on Main Road and Elm Avenue that comprises detached bungalows, chalet bungalows and individual houses on relatively large plots and therefore build to a significantly lower density.

It would not be possible to replicate this form of development in the context of current planning policies unless it was recognised as being a form of development of such value as to be safeguarded by a designation in the Local Plan. However, the area is not a Conservation Area, nor an area identified for any other development restraint and therefore current general policies should apply. The proposed development does not impose on the existing housing by virtue of overlooking, overshadowing or any other unneighbourliness. Affordable Housing When outline planning permission was granted for the ‘additional land’ by MC2004/2746 no affordable housing was required as this land fell below the 1 hectare or in this case notional 25 dwellings threshold above which Local Plan policy H3 applies.

Whilst this site has been incorporated into the Toad Hall/Searchlight site in order to achieve a more coherent development it is felt that the exemption of part of the land from policy H3 should be material to this case.

The applicants have proposed 10 affordable units on this phase of the development and in

view of the above this is considered to be acceptable.

DC0902MW Page 68

Landscape, Open Space and Amenity implications

A full landscaping scheme has not been submitted at this stage but the site layout plan indicates that the site eastern boundary, when it adjoins the open countryside is to be subject to substantial new tree and hedge planting beyond which buildings are to be well set back in order to avoid a hard urban edge to the development.

No specific open space or play space is proposed on this development. As a result provision offsite is to be secured through the S106 Agreement.

Boundary treatment is also not specified at this stage and should therefore be the subject of a condition.

Whilst some dwellings are close to the site boundaries with existing development in Main Road and Elm Avenue, the closest “face to face” distance between existing and proposed dwellings is at least 40 metres, which allows for adequate privacy and reduces potential overlooking. Provision of Community Facilities As with other parts of the development, the provision of suitable community facilities is secured through the Section 106 Agreement. Since both contributions to school places and to off-site open space are on a per dwelling basis, the increased number of dwellings delivers an increased contribution. Transport Implications It is considered that the site access provisions with one main point of access and an emergency access are adequate. Kent Fire Brigade expressed concern about the width of the emergency access between nos. 35 and 37 Elm Avenue. The applicants have confirmed that a number of poles supporting overhead wiring will be relocated to remove the ‘pinch points’ and enable access to the specified width of 3800mm to be maintained. There is no objection to this proposal, therefore, on transport grounds. Conclusions and reasons for approval The principle of developing this site has already been accepted. The design and layout is consistent with the high quality of layout and design achieved on phase 1. The density is appropriate for the location and complies with Government policy. The layout provides for a good level of amenity for prospective occupiers without prejudicing the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Car parking provision is acceptable for a development of this kind in this location. The proposal therefore complies with the Development Plan policies referred to and is recommended for approval. The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being reported to Committee due to the amount of representation received contrary to the recommendation.

DC0902MW Page 69

10 MC2006/0006

Date Received: 3rd January 2006

Location: 187 Station Road, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 7SQ Proposal: Avertisement consent for the installation of overhead lit trough box

signage to front elevation Applicant: Mr H Uzum 28 Slade Tower Leyton Grange Estate Leyton London

E10 5HU Agent: Ward: Rainham North Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 (i) Any advertisements displayed and any site used for the display of

advertisements shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(ii) Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition.

(iii) Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(iv) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

(v) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure or hinder the ready interpretation of any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, railway, waterway (including any coastal waters) or aerodrome (civil or military).

2 The illumination of the display hereby permitted shall be constant and the signs

shall only be illuminated during the opening hours of the premises. For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.

Site Description 187 Station Road has recently opened up as a mini-market set in a designated Neighbourhood Centre. The property is situated in a small parade of six commercial units sited on the ground floor of a four-storey block, with residential properties on the upper floors. This block contrasts to the surrounding properties, which are predominately two-storey, and

DC0902MW Page 70

in residential use. To the rear of the block is a garage area and opposite there are residential dwellings. The shops in the parade are small and generally have a subdued commercial character. There are no other projecting or illuminated signs within the parade. The properties in the parade have non-illuminated fascia signs only, most of them with awnings. In the wider area there are a number of signs that are illuminated both externally and internally with the closest ones to the site being mainly illuminated by trough lighting. Proposal The application proposes the installation of overhead lit trough box signage to the front elevation approx. 4.8m in length with 0.25m projection.

Relevant Planning History MC2004/1835 Replacement of a shop front and the installation of roller shutters.

Refused, September 2004

MC2004/2488 Retrospective advertisement consent for the display of a fascia sign and projecting box sign (both illuminated), Refused 1 December 2004. Appeal dismissed.

MC2005/1408 Retrospective advertisement consent for a fascia sign with proposed

externally illuminating strip light and retrospective internally illuminated projecting sign – approx. 4.8m in length, 0.42m projection Refused 5 September 2005

Representations The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 170, 172, 174, 176, 177c, 179c, 181c, 185,189 and 236 Station Road Three letters of objection have been received making the following comments:

- The sign would cause a great nuisance and may set a precedent for other shops in the parade could have illuminated signs

- The light would attract more people coming to the shop during the night time and encourage them to hang around the premises which could cause sleep disturbance

- The light may cause sleep disturbance - Under age drinking occurs – This is not a material consideration


Policy ENV15 (Built Environment)


Policy BNE1 (General Principles for the Built Environment)

DC0902MW Page 71

Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE10 (Advertisements) Policy R10 (Local centres, Village Shops and

Neighbourhood Centres) Policy T1 (Impact of Development)


Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design)

Planning Appraisal Street scene and design The area surrounding the site is a predominately residential area consisting of mainly two-storey housing. The fact that the site is part of a parade of shops does not alter the overall character of the area. The advice in PPG19 makes it clear that advertisements should relate to and be in scale and character with their surroundings. The adjoining commercial units have non-illuminated signs, which do not detract from this general character. The proposed trough illumination although the first in the parade of shops is not considered to be detrimental to the character or appearance of the building or street scene. Such lighting is considered to be less intrusive on the street scene than internal illumination and the trough light will spill light down onto the sign and so reducing its impact. In addition to this, trough lighting can been seen illuminating shops within Station Road. In determining the appeal against both projecting and fascia signage the Inspector raised concern regarding the size and colours for the sign which he considered would detract and be harmful to the visual amenities of the area. The sign has been reduced in width from that currently on site from approx. 0.42m to 0.25m. This reduction is significant and as such will reduce the overall prominence of the sign in this small parade of shops. The colouring has been very much toned down and reduced from a scheme with four colours with the prevalent colour being a bright red to just two colours, a green background with white lettering. The green of the sign matches the shop front and is considered a vast improvement to that currently there. It is considered that the inspector’s comments in the appeal of the previous application have been overcome and as such the application is recommended for approval. Accordingly no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policies BNE1 and BNE10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. However, it is proposed to attach the sign to an unauthorised shutter and while there is no objection to the sign without the shutter the applicant needs to be advised that he should not attach it to or retain the shutter. An informative is recommended to this effect. Amenity Although this is a predominantly residential area the fascia sign is set below the residential accommodation in the flats above. The signs are set on the other side of the road from a terrace of properties. The trough lighting by its nature reflects downwards onto the sign and not outwards as in the case of the previous applications. The trough lights and the change in colours from the bold red sign with numerous other colours to a simpler green and white sign is not considered to detract from the outlook and setting enjoyed by the surrounding residence.

DC0902MW Page 72

Accordingly no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policies BNE2 and BNE10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. Highways The adverts are not considered to constitute a road safety hazard, which would be likely to distract, confuse or obstruct the vision of road users due to their setting approximately 5m away from the road. Accordingly there are considered to be no highways issues raised by this proposal. Accordingly no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policies T1 and BNE10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. Conclusion and reasons for approval It is considered that this application addresses the concerns raised by the Inspector in dismissing the previous appeal on visual amenity grounds. It is considered that the sign now complies with the Development Plan policies referred to and is accordingly recommended for approval subject to conditions. [This application would normally fall to be determined under Officers’ delegated powers but is being reported for Members’ consideration at the request of Cllr Magee and due to the number of representations]

DC0902MW Page 73

11 MC2006/0059

Date Received: 19th January 2006

Location: 22 Horsted Way, Rochester, Kent, ME1 2XY Proposal: Installation of 17.7 metre high wind powered generator to the rear of

the property (resubmission of MC2005/1500) Applicant: Mr & Mrs S R & V S Bean 22 Horsted Way Rochester Kent ME1

2XY Agent: Ward: Rochester South & Horsted Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. 2 Prior to the construction of the wind turbine on site, details of the colour shall be

submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter be retained.

3 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 installation of the wind generator approved.

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.

DC0902MW Page 74

4 Prior to the removal of the oak (T2) and the construction of the wind turbine on site,

details of any replacement trees to include siting, species, size, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be carried out during the next available planting season after construction of the wind turbine and if any tree, within a time period of five years from the date of the construction of the wind turbine, is removed, uprooted, 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.

5 Upon the decommissioning of the wind turbine, the structure shall be removed

from the site and unless an application for a replacement wind turbine has been granted planning permission in the same location, the land shall be restored to its former condition.

For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report. Site Description The application site consists of an area of approx. 0.3 ha, located in the urban area of Medway. The site accommodates a two-storey residential dwelling and associated amenity space. The amenity space comprises grassed areas to the front and rear and mature trees and vegetation to the rear. The character of the area consists of detached and semi-detached dwellings that are either two-storey houses or bungalows. Most properties within the vicinity are accommodated within large plots, particularly in terms of the length, with most of the amenity area being located to the rear, behind the properties. The application site is particularly unusual in shape as it runs in a relatively uniform, rectangular shape at a width of approx. 15m, then there is a slight stagger and the garden area increases in width to approx. 27m, finally tapering to a point. The length of plot is approx. 103m from front to rear. Most rear gardens within the immediate vicinity have an average rear garden length of approx. 59m in Wilson Avenue and approx. 56m in City Way. Proposal It is proposed to install a 17.7 metre high wind powered generator to the rear of the property. The proposed turbine is a horizontal axis type, which means the rotating shafts are aligned horizontally on the tower. The tower itself would be a galvanised steel tower approx. 14.9m high, with three blades made of wood epoxy. The diameter of the blades would be approx. 5.57m, making each blade approx. 2.78m in length.

This application is a re-submission of the previous application (MC2005/1500). The difference between the current application and the previous application is the height and a slight variation to the design. The current application shows a wind turbine that is 17.7m high. This is 10cm shorter than the wind turbine previously approved. In relation to design, the difference between the two turbines is the size and shape of the hub and the nacelle. This part of the turbine on the current application is larger than that previously approved.

DC0902MW Page 75

Relevant Planning History MC2005/1500 Installation of 17.8 metre high wind powered generator to the rear of the

property Approved 1 December 2005 Representations The application has been advertised on site and neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of 107, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123 and 125 Wilson Avenue; 229, 231, 233, 235, 237, 237a, 239, 241, 241a, 243 and 245 City Way; 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28 and 30 Horsted Way; 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 Primrose Close; Unit 18a Fort Horsted and Fort Horsted Nursing Home, Primrose Close; Rochester Airport, Maidstone Road, and National Air Traffic Services Ltd. 4 letters of objection have been received. The following issues have been raised:

- Loss of value of properties - Noise - Height - Threat to visual amenities - Safety - Impact on birds and bats - Loss of trees - Disturbance to wildlife and habitats - Hazard to aircraft - Sets a precedent - Detrimental to character and appearance of area - Interference - Light Flicker

Government Policy Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) – Renewable Energy (2004) Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996:

Policy S1 (Sustainable Development and Energy Conservation) Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy NR15 (Renewable Energy)

Medway Local Plan 2003:

Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise) Policy BNE37 (Wildlife Habitats) Policy BNE41 (Tree Preservation Orders) Policy BNE43 (Trees and Development Sites)

DC0902MW Page 76

Policy CF11 (Renewable Energy) Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 Policy SP1 (Sustainable Pattern of Development) Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy NR1 (Energy Generation) Policy NR2 (Renewable Energy Production) Planning Appraisal Principle Following Earth Summits in Kyoto (1992) and Johannesburg (2002) there is now strong global and national policy support for the development of renewable energy sources and a means of reducing reliance upon the use of fossil fuels and the generation of “greenhouse gases”. Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) sets out the Government’s planning policy on renewable energy. PPS 22 recognises that small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall output of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally. Furthermore PPS22 suggests that there is significant scope for renewable energy generation to be integrated into the built environment and thus to be located in urban areas. Policy S1 of the Kent Structure and Policy SP1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 (the emerging Structure Plan) support the key principles of PPS 22 and the overall need to deliver sustainable patterns and forms of development. Policy SP1 of the emerging Structure Plan in particular states ‘…responding to the implications of long term climate change by advancing prudent use of energy, water and other natural resources…’ as one way of achieving sustainable development. On the matter of identifying sites for the potential exploitation of wind for a source of energy generation, the emerging Structure Plan indicates that ‘…onshore potential may lie not only in larger schemes but in small scale opportunities involving single or small clusters of turbines’. Policy CF11 of the adopted Local Plan gives general support for renewable energy schemes provided “…the location, scale and design of the apparatus and associated infrastructure are not detrimental to nature conservation or landscape concerns and present no significant loss of residential or countryside amenity”. Similarly Policy NR2 of the emerging Structure Plan supports the introduction of renewable energy facilities provided there are no adverse visual, amenity or ecological implications arising from the proposed development. It is considered that the general principle of this proposal accords with the provisions of Policies S1 and ENV15 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policy CF11 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies SP1, NR1 and NR2 of the emerging Structure Plan. The main issues for consideration arising from this proposal are: visual impact; implications for the amenities of adjoining properties, including noise considerations; impact on trees and ecology.

DC0902MW Page 77

Visual Impact In terms of the visual impact, consideration must be given to the siting and design of the proposed turbine, within the urban context. The proposal involves the installation of a 14.9 metre high tower supporting a turbine consisting of 3 blades with an overall diameter of 5.57 metres.

The proposed turbine would be located approximately 67 metres away from the rear elevation of the nearest property in Horsted Way (number 20) and approximately 85 metres away from the rear elevation of the nearest property in Wilson Avenue (number 119). There are mature trees located around the northern section of the application property’s rear garden and to the rear of most of the surrounding gardens, which will serve to help screen the proposed turbine and therefore minimise its visual impact when it is viewed from surrounding properties. However, the top of the turbine, the hub, nacelle and blades, will be visible, from surrounding gardens and the street scene, as it is necessary for the turbine to be gain enough height to minimise turbulence and to maximise the energy capture of the wind turbine. Although tall, the design of the turbine is relatively streamlined and given the length of the surrounding rear gardens it is considered that the proposed structure will not appear as being unduly prominent when it is viewed from neighbouring properties. It is also considered that as a consequence of its rear garden location the proposed turbine will not detract from the general streetscene. It is considered that the proposed wind turbine would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the street scene or the wider area and no objection is therefore raised to the application under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the emerging Structure Plan. Residential Amenity In terms of residential amenity, the main considerations arising from this proposal relate to the potential for noise generation and the safety implications of installing such a structure in close proximity of other residential properties. It is considered that as a consequence of the distance between the proposed turbine and the immediately neighbouring properties this proposal will have no adverse affects in terms of loss of outlook, daylight and privacy. With respect to noise generation it is to be noted that day time background noise level has been measured at 43 dB(A). The level of noise generated from the turbine at ground level has been identified as being 65 dB(A) (based upon the manufacturers specification) in a wind speed of 20m/s (worst case scenario). Typical maximum wind speed tends to be 10 m/s, therefore the level at the applicant’s boundary will be 43 dB(A). In assessing the impact of new noise generating sources the Council normally seeks to ensure that these do not exceed a level of 3 dB(A) above the existing background level (ie an increase of 3 dB(A) above the existing background level will become audible to most humans). Applying the 3 dB(A) above background level criterion to the circumstances of this proposal the upper acceptable limit would be 46 dB(A). The noise arising from the proposed turbine is equal to the background noise at the applicant’s boundary and in the worst case scenario. Also, the proposed wind turbine would be located around 67 metres away from the rear elevation of the nearest

DC0902MW Page 78

property and that the noise levels emanating from the turbine would be considerably lower than 43 dB(A) at the facades of other neighbouring properties (allowing for the normal reduction in noise levels attributable to distance from the noise generating source). Although background noise levels are lower during night time period, it is considered that noise arising from the operation of the turbine will not be unacceptable during this period. It is therefore considered that this proposal will not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity in terms of noise. With respect safety considerations, PPS 22 provides advice on what is considered to be a technically safe distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings. The safe separation distance can be calculated by adding 10% to the ‘falling over distance’ of the turbine (ie the height of the turbine from the base to the tip of the blade). For the proposed turbine, the safe separation distance is 19.47 metres (ie 17.7 + 1.77). Given the application property’s garden size and the distance from the nearest properties, the recommended safety distance will be more than exceeded and accordingly no objection can be raised in safety terms. Due to the siting of the proposed turbine the sun may pass behind the rotors of the wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties and when the blades rotate, this shadow may flick on and off, an effect known as shadow flicker. This effect will only be experienced within buildings when the flicker appears through window openings. Shadow flicker is rare and the further the observer is from the turbine, the less pronounced the effect will be. Turbines do not cast shadows to their southern side and the effect will be less pronounced when the sun is obscured by cloud, intervening buildings and vegetation. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of the turbine. In this case the rotor diameter will be 5.57 metres and therefore if shadow flicker were to occur, it would be within 55.7 metres of the turbine. Given that the rear elevation of the nearest property will be around 67 metres away, there would be no detrimental impact on residential amenity as a result of shadow flicker. In amenity terms this proposal is considered to be acceptable in all regards and accordingly no objection is raised to the application under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policies BNE2 and BNE3 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the emerging Structure Plan. Trees The northern part of the application property’s rear garden accommodates a number of mature trees and dense vegetation. This is also characteristic of many of the rear gardens of surrounding properties. The greenery within the area makes for a pleasant setting and attractive amenity space for residents. Previously there were three mature trees immediately to west of the proposed wind turbine that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. These protected trees comprised two sycamores and one oak. The protected oak tree (T2) has a substantial decay pocket which will limit the longevity of this tree. One of the sycamores (T3) was in a poor condition, suffering from squirrel damage, and had permission granted for its removal. This sycamore tree has now been removed. The applicant has agreed to plant replacement trees to compensate for the loss of the 2 trees that are to be removed. The siting of the proposed turbine allows for the retention of the second protected and healthy sycamore tree. Given the health of the trees that are to be removed and the proposed planting of replacement trees, it is considered that the loss of one sycamore tree and one oak tree, will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

DC0902MW Page 79

A number of poorly maintained fruit trees would also need to be removed. It is considered that these trees do not make a significant contribution to the visual amenity of the area and therefore their removal will not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the area. Conditions are recommended to require the protection of the retained trees while the proposed turbine is installed and to secure the planting of replacement trees to compensate for the removal of the 2 protected trees. No objection is raised to this application under the provisions of Policies BNE41 and BNE43 of the adopted Local Plan. Ecology The area is not designated as being of ecological significance, however, it is noted that there is a large area of vegetation in and around the site, which is likely to provide habitats for a variety of wildlife. The turbine tower would remain in a fixed and static position. A concrete foundation will have to be put in place to enable the tower to be fixed to the ground and this area will be minimal, and is therefore considered not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding wildlife. It is the rotating turbine blades that have the greatest implications for wildlife, birds in particular. PPS 22 states that the risk of collision between moving turbine blades and birds is minimal for birds in flight. Most birds in flight can be expected to take action to avoid obstacles but different species will vary in their reaction. Having regard to the scale of the proposed turbine, it is considered that it will not have a significant effect on wildlife in the area and accordingly no objection is raised to the proposed development in this respect under the provisions of Policy BNE37 of the adopted Local Plan. Conclusions and reason for approval The proposed installation of a wind turbine within the urban area will introduce a new feature within the street scene, but it is considered that this will not have a detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the immediately surrounding area and due to the location and relationship with neighbouring properties, the proposed wind turbine will not cause any unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties or the personal safety of the public. The application is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Policies S1, ENV15 and NR15 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE3, BNE37, BNE41, BNE43 and CF11 of the adopted Local Plan and accordingly is recommended for approval. [This application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but is reported for Members determination because of the number of representations that have been received that are contrary to the officer recommendation.]

DC0902MW Page 80

12 MC2006/0080


Location: 8 Mayfield Close, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 7DP Proposal: Construction of a part two storey, part single storey rear extensions Applicant: Mr & Mrs Parrick 8 Mayfield Close Rainham Kent ME8 7DP Agent: Mr G R Westrup Architectural Plans (Medway) Ltd. 13 Walderslade

Road Chatham Kent ME4 6PA Ward: Twydall Recommendation - Approval with Conditions (and as amended by plans received on 23rd February 2006) 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. 2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the extension herein

approved shall match those used on the existing dwelling. 3 Prior to the bringing into use of the extension the hallway window on the first floor

northwest elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening apart from any top hung fan light and shall thereafter be retained as such.


Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no windows other than those hereunder approved shall be installed in the first floor northwest or southwest elevations without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

5 Prior to the first occupation of the extension herein approved, the first 7m of the

boundary fence between nos. 8 and 9 Mayfield Close shall be replaced with fencing at a height of 2m. The fencing shall thereafter be retained at that height.


Site Description 8 Mayfield Close is a two-storey link-detached property, with an attached garage to side and one further driveway parking space. There is a single -storey rear extension with a balcony above. The rear garden is large compared to others in the area and narrows to a point to the south. The garden level is slightly higher than the floor level of the house. Boundary

DC0902MW Page 81

treatment is fixed panel fencing, approx. 1.2m high adjacent no. 9 and approx. 1.8m high elsewhere. The property is located at the end of a small cul-de-sac in a predominantly residential area. The area has a mixed street scene although properties are of broadly similar character. The adjacent property no. 9 is set at 90° and has a single-storey side extension, with windows facing the application site in the extension and the main flank wall. To rear the site backs onto properties in Pembury Way. Nos. 35 and 36 Pembury Way have two-storey side extensions with the one at no. 36 being approved in 2004 following a member site visit. Proposal The proposal is for a part single-storey and part two-storey side extension, to provide a utility room, WC, dining room and study at ground floor, and a bedroom and dressing room at first floor. The extension would project 4m from the flank elevation of the property. The wall adjacent no. 9 would follow the line of the slanting boundary and would be set in. The single-storey elements would have flat roofs 3.2m high. The first floor would begin level with the main rear elevation of the property, and would be 5.4m wide, set away from no. 9. It would have a hipped roof 8m high to the ridge. The application is a resubmission of withdrawn application MC2005/2248 (see below). The differences are the reduction in size of the first floor extension (removing a rear projecting element), and rearrangement of first floor windows. Revised plans have also been submitted since the application’s first submission, showing further internal rearrangement to enable obscure glazing to the first floor window facing no. 9.

Relevant Planning History MC2005/2248 Construction of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension and

first floor side extension Withdrawn

Other relevant applications to other properties: MC2003/1842 (36 Pembury Way) Construction of a first floor side/rear extension

Refused 03/12/03, appeal dismissed 04/06/04 MC2004/0098 (36 Pembury Way) Construction of first floor side extension Approved with conditions 31/03/04 Representations Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owners and occupiers of: 7 and 9-13 (inc) Mayfield Close; and 35-37 (inc) Pembury Way. Two responses have been received objecting to the application for the following reasons

- The extensions represent a major redevelopment of the property, the equivalent of building a new house in the garden, disproportionate and over-dominating to the plot, and would set a precedent for further development in Mayfield Close

DC0902MW Page 82

- The extensions, due to their size and the angled wall, would be out of character with the layout and design of the estate

- Loss of privacy, outlook and light to no. 9 - Disturbance to residents from heavy delivery vehicles, and in connection with

construction works; possible damage to services from same - The labelling of the drawings is misleading as the “rear” elevation is in fact the

side of the property and vice versa. Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996

ENV15 (Built Environment) Medway Local Plan 2003

BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) BNE2 (Amenity Protection)


QL1 (Quality of Design) Planning Appraisal Street Scene and Design The main bulk of the extension would not be visible from the road. The slanting wall of the single-storey extension would be visible in the gap between nos. 8 and 9, but due to the layout of the street these views will be very limited. The flat roof single -storey extension to no. 9 is already partially visible in similar views, and a two-storey flat roof extension is visible at no. 11. The extension has been designed to reflect the character of the existing property and is similar in design to two-storey extensions visible at nos. 35 and 36 Pembury Way to rear. While the extension would be large, the property is sited in an unusually large plot for the area and it is not considered that the proposal would represent overdevelopment. The arrangement of windows at first floor is not ideal in design terms but has been proposed in this way to overcome amenity issues and would not be generally seen. It is also noted that the existing flank wall is blank at first floor level. Overall it is not considered that the current proposals will have a significant impact on the street scene or that they would be detrimental to the character of the area. There are limited opportunities within Mayfield Close for such extensions due to the small plot sizes other than at corner properties. It is also noted that there are already two-storey extensions at no. 11 Mayfield Close and nos. 35 and 36 Pembury Way. It is therefore not considered that the extension would set a precedent, damaging or otherwise. The extensions at no. 36 Pembury Way in particular are very similar to the current application proposals. It is noted that 36 Pembury Way also had a refusal (and appeal dismissed) for extensions, but that scheme was larger, including a rear first floor extension. The withdrawn proposals at the application property were similar to this refused scheme, but as noted above the current scheme has removed the rear two-storey element, in line with decisions taken at 36 Pembury Way.

DC0902MW Page 83

Amenity Considerations The proposed extensions are screened from no. 7 by the existing property, and are at a distance of approx. 12m from the nearest Pembury Way property, no. 36 (increasing to approx. 17m at first floor). Given also the orientation of the properties, it is considered that the proposed extensions will have no significant impact on these properties in terms of loss of outlook, sunlight or daylight. The first floor element of the extension is set away from no. 9, and the single-storey element is set off of the party boundary by approx. 1m. There would be some loss of outlook and daylight to ground floor windows in the side extension at no. 9, but those nearest the application property and proposed extensions serve non-habitable rooms (utility room and WC). It is also noted that a 2m high fence could be erected along this boundary without requiring planning permission, which would have a similar effect. There would also be some loss of sunlight, but this would only be for a short period in the morning and again this would predominantly affect non-habitable room windows (including a hallway window at first floor). It is therefore considered that these impacts would not be significantly detrimental to the occupiers’ amenity. Rear facing windows at first floor are within relatively close proximity to windows at no. 36 Pembury Way (approx 17m). However, this degree of mutual overlooking already exists between the two properties and at other pairs of properties in the two roads. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant loss of amenity as a result. There is also a first floor window proposed facing no. 9, which would have views over that property including hallway, utility room and WC windows. However, as this window also serves a hallway, it can be conditioned to be obscure glazed to overcome this concern. At ground floor the proposed utility room has a window and door in very close proximity to a window and door serving no. 9’s utility room. While both rooms are non-habitable and therefore loss of privacy would be limited, there would still be a perception of overlooking to both properties. However, the boundary treatment is relatively low along this boundary, and if this were replaced by higher fencing it would effectively screen views in both directions. A condition is therefore recommended to secure this. Highways The proposed extension creates a fourth bedroom but the property has two off road parking spaces, which is in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards and is considered sufficient. Conclusion The proposed extensions would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, and subject to the mitigation measures in the recommended conditions would not impact unduly on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. They are therefore in accordance with Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003.

DC0902MW Page 84

[This application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but has been referred to committee at the request of Cllr Griffiths due to potential inconsistency in application of policies, in comparison with recent decisions at 36 Pembury Way.]

DC0902MW Page 85

13 MC2006/0091


Location: 134 Church Street, Cliffe, Rochester, Kent, ME3 7PY Proposal: Insertion of dormer to rear to facilitate loft conversion and extension

to existing vehicular crossover to front Applicant: Mr S T Davies 134 Church Street Cliffe Rochester Kent ME3 7PY Agent: Mr K Crutchley 67 Adelaide Drive Sittingbourne Kent ME10 1XJ Ward: Strood Rural Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. 2 Materials used on the construction of external surfaces of the development herein

approved shall match those used on the existing dwelling. For the reasons for this recommendation for approval please see planning appraisal section and conclusion at the end of this report.

Site description The application property is a two-storey end of terrace dwelling located within a mainly residential area. The street scene comprises of a mixture of designs and styles with large two-storey detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. To the northeast of the proposal site there is a modern housing estate. To the front of the dwellings in Church Street there are a number of vehicular crossovers that are of various lengths. There is an area of hard standing to the front of the dwelling providing parking for two vehicles. To the rear of the dwelling there is a flat roofed two-storey rear extension projecting approximately 3.1m. Also within the rear garden space there is a pre-fab garage on the rear boundary. On all boundaries there is approximately 1.8m high panel fencing. There are no other dormer window within the vicinity however there are a number of other extensions and additions to properties within the immediate vicinity. Proposal This application is for two aspects:

- the insertion of a dormer to the rear of the property to facilitate a loft conversion and - an extension to the existing vehicular crossover to front.

DC0902MW Page 86

The proposed dormer window would have a flat roof, be set off all boundaries by approximately 400mm and would have hanging tiles on all faces of it. The increase in the vehicular crossover would be from 5.3m to 8m.

Relevant Planning History 81/436 Proposed two storey rear extension

Approved 1 July 1981 74/486 Vehicle port for covering of motorbike on side, of existing house Approved 16 December 1974. Representations Neighbour notification letters have been sent to the owner/occupiers of 131,132,133 & 136 Church Street & 4 & 8 Chesterton Road. Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council has written in objecting to what they consider to be an overdevelopment of the roof slope out keeping with neighbouring property. Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy ENV15 (Kent’s Built Environment) Policy T17 (Parking Standards)


Policy BNE1 (General Principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T13 (Vehicle Standards)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Plan) 2003

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and design) Policy TP19 (Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal Street Scene and Design The proposed dormer window would be located to the rear of the dwelling and therefore would not be visible from Church Street. The proposal would be located approximately 400mm off all the boundaries. It would not therefore dominate the original roof slope. Although the size of the windows on the proposal would be smaller than the windows at first floor they would continue the fenestration that can be seen on the existing rear elevation of the dwelling. The proposal would result in the dwelling appearing different from the neighbouring properties, however given the detailing in the design of the proposal then this

DC0902MW Page 87

alteration would be kept to a minimum and acceptable. The increase in the size of the existing vehicular crossover would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene due to there being an existing crossover and that there are other crossovers which are similar in length to the one proposed within the immediate vicinity. In design terms the proposed works are considered to be acceptable and accordingly no objection is raised to this aspect of the application under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 (the emerging structure Plan) Amenity Considerations The proposed dormer would have a slight impact on the privacy on the occupiers of neighbouring properties of 132 & 136 Church Street. Due to the distance off the boundary of the windows and the impact of the existing first floor windows the proposal would not result in any form of overlooking that doesn’t already exist. The proposal would have a slight impact in terms of daylight and sunlight on the occupiers of the surrounding dwellings. However due to the impact being slight and its siting the impact would not be significant and acceptable. Due to the siting of the proposal there would be no additional impact on the occupiers of 132 & 136 Church Street in terms of outlook. Considering the impact of the existing crossover the proposed increase in size, would not have a detrimental impact terms of daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook. Taking the proposal as a whole it is in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. Due to siting and distance, no other neighbours would be affected by the development. The application proposals are considered to be acceptable in amenity terms and no objection is raised to this aspect of the application under the provisions of Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan, Policy BNE2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003 (the emerging structure Plan) Highways The proposal would create a fifth bedroom in the proposed converted loft. However given the proposal provides two off street parking spaces and there is un-restricted parking to the front it is not considered that any highway concerns can be justified. It is not considered that the extended crossover would raise any new highway issues or cause harm to interests of highway safety. Conclusion and reasons for Approval The design and siting of the dormer is such that it would not detract from either the appearance of the existing property of the wider street scene or the amenities of the occupiers of the immediately adjoining properties. The extended crossover would equally be acceptable in visual amenity and highway safety terms. BNEThe submitted application is therefore considered to be in accordance with the provisions of the Policy ENV15 of the Structure Plan and Policies BNE1 and 2 of the adopted Local Plan and is accordingly recommended for approval.

DC0902MW Page 88

[This application would normally fall to be considered under the officers’ delegated powers but is being reported for Members’ consideration because of the letter received from the Parish Council expressing a view is contrary to the officer recommendation]

DC0902MW Page 89

14 MC2006/0117


Location: 18 The Glebe, Cuxton, Rochester, Kent, ME2 1LW Proposal: Extension to existing cattery building with the provision of 2 additional

pens and installation of new freestanding isolation block Applicant: Mrs B Blackburn 18 The Glebe Cuxton Rochester Kent ME2 1LW Agent: Ward: Cuxton & Halling 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 The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mrs B Blackburn while she

resides at 18 The Glebe. When she ceases to occupy the property as her main residence, the cattery use shall cease and all buildings and structures associated with it shall be removed from the site.

3 No more than 16 cats shall be boarded at the permises at any one time unless

otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4 Visitors and/or clients shall only be permitted to attend the cattery hereby permitted

on an appointment only basis and the appointment times shall be staggered to avoid any overlap between visits. Visitors and/or clients shall only be permitted to attend the cattery hereby permitted between the hours of 0900 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays inclusive and between the hours of 0900 and 1800 on Saturdays; closed on Sundays and Public Holidays.

5 The existing arrangements for the storage and disposal of solid and liquid waste

arising from the cattery, as well as drainage arrangements to service the development, shall be retained for the duration of the development.


Site Description This application relates to a mid-terraced property situated on the western side of The Glebe, a residential cul de sac and within the village of Cuxton. The application relates to the rear garden, which measures approximately 21 metres by 7 metres and a further garden

DC0902MW Page 90

extension beyond the original garden measuring approximately 12 metres by 8.6 metres, accessed via a gate and adjacent to the rear gardens of 42 Woodhurst Close to the south and 27 to 31 May Street to the west; and to the north by the remainder of the garden land owned by the occupier of No.6 The Glebe. In 1992 temporary planning permission was granted for the erection of a boarding cattery in the rear garden, comprising of six units and a shed to be used as the food preparation area. A permanent planning permission for the cattery was granted in 1994, after the cattery had been in operation a year and there was no evidence of any harm to amenity by reason of noise or other nuisance. Although there are six pens, each can accommodate up to two cats and therefore a maximum of 12 cats could be accommodated at any one time, although cats will only share a pen if they are from the same family and currently the applicant has a registered licence to hold nine cats. The business is strictly run by appointment only weekdays and Saturdays, from 9:30 to 17:00 with clients coming to the rear garden entrance. The applicant collects all necessary supplies and no trade or other delivery vehicles visit the property. The applicant collects and returns some of her client’s cats. To the rear of 12 to 16 (evens) there is a block of nine garages, accessed via a private driveway between 14 and 18, which also serves the cattery, there being a door within the rear fence into the garden area where the cat pens are situated. The whole garden area is enclosed by 1.8 metre high fencing, except for one boundary created by the rear wall of the block of garages. The application property is adjoined on either side by residential properties and their gardens. Within the cul-de –sac is on street car parking as well as space for five cars directly opposite the application property. Proposal This application is for an extension to the cattery business and will comprise of two additional pens at right angles to the existing cattery and adjacent to the southern boundary within the original garden area. A separate isolation pen within the extended garden area is also proposed. The applicant has advised that she currently uses a fold up isolation pen when required and as it has to be situated 15 feet away from the other cat pens, she would prefer a more permanent structure to be situated within the extended garden area. It is shown to be placed 4.6 metres into this area of garden and 0.5 metres away from the boundary with the rear garden of 42 Woodhurst Close. The applicant subsequently phoned to say that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had advised that the isolation pen need not be situated this far away from the other pens, and if needs be it could be relocated to within the main garden area.

Relevant Planning History ME91/0833 Erection of a boarding cattery comprising of six 3ft X 6ft units.

Refused 7 January 1992 ME92/0315 Erection of a boarding cattery comprising of six units and a shed to be

used in conjunction with.

DC0902MW Page 91

Approved 21 July 1992. Condition No.3 limited the number of cats to be kept to 6.

ME92/0315A Renewal of above.

Approved 17 August 1993. Condition No.2 limited the number of cats to be kept to 6.

ME92/0315B Renewal of temporary permission for the erection of a boarding cattery

comprising of six units and a shed to be used in conjunction with. Approved 5 September 1994.

ME96/0731 Use of domestic garden land for commercial purposes in conjunction

with the erection of an extension to an existing boarding cattery. The application was for 10 additional runs, which could accommodate 20 cats situated within the garden extension and adjacent to the northern boundary. An isolation pen was proposed in the SE corner of the garden extension. Refused 12 March 1997. Appeal dismissed 11 March 1998.

ME97/0266 Use of domestic garden land for commercial purposes in conjunction

with the erection of an extension to an existing boarding cattery. The application was for 4 additional runs, which could accommodate 8 cats situated within the garden extension and adjacent to the northern boundary. An isolation pen was proposed in the SE corner of the garden extension. Refused 4 June 1997. Appeal dismissed 11 March 1998

Both applications refused on the grounds that the expansion of the business would be at a level detrimental to the amenities of the area. Representations The application has been advertised on site. The owners and occupiers of 41, 43, 45, 16 and 20 The Glebe; 42 Woodhurst, and 27, 29 and 31 May Street have been notified of the application. 3 letters have been received objecting to the development on the grounds of: - The properties built in the Glebe were for residential use, not for the operating of a

business. - The property is situated within a small cul-de-sac. Since the previous applicant there

are at least a further 5 vehicles belonging to residents using the limited parking available.

- The extension of the existing business will lead to further traffic movements via delivery and collection of cats to the premises.

- All the arguments put forward with regard to the earlier refused application under ME97/0266 still apply

Eight letters in support of the application have been received stating: - The applicant cattery is well run, hygienic, clean and maintained to the highest

standards and the best some clients have found to use.

DC0902MW Page 92

- As an immediate neighbour the business has not caused any problems and being the only cattery in the area serves the local population.

- Customers would appreciate 2 additional pens at the cattery, which can be often booked up months in advance, it is so popular.

- It is not considered that such a modest extension would have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties.

- In the current market climate we should be supporting small business development and helping to promote goodwill to local people with reasonable requests.

- Some of the letters advise that the applicant will only see them at a given appointment time and they have never seen any other customers at that time.

- There has never been any problems with car parking in the cul de sac.

National Planning Guidance PPS1 Delivery and Sustainable Development PPS1A Planning System & General Principles PPG4 Industrial and commercial development and small firms Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy S2 (Environment) Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy T17 (Parking Standards)


Policy BNE1 (General principles for built development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity protection) Policy BNE3 (Noise) Policy ED10 (Working from home) Policy T1 (Impact of development on the highway) Policy T13 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Version) 2003

Policy QL1 (Quality of development and design)

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:

a) Whether the principle of an extension to the cattery business use is acceptable within a residential area.

b) Design and impact upon the street scene c) Whether the proposal would cause harm to the amenities of the occupiers of

nearby residential units. d) Whether the proposal would prejudice highway safety and vehicle parking

implications.

DC0902MW Page 93

Principle The application property is located within a wholly residential area. The key issue is whether the extension of the cattery business by way of 2 additional pens will harm the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties and the character of the locality in general. In this issue regard needs to be paid to the advice contained within paragraph 15 of PPG4 “Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms” which states amongst other things, that:

“…In areas which are primarily residential, development plan policies should not seek to unreasonably restrict commercial and industrial activities of an appropriate … which would not affect residential amenity. Planning permission should normally be granted unless there are specific and significant objections such as a relevant development plan policy, unacceptable noise, smell, safety and health impacts or excessive traffic generation. The fact that an activity differs from the predominant land use in any locality is not a sufficient reason, in itself, for refusing planning permission. “

In dealing with this application, an appropriate balance needs to be achieved between encouraging small scale businesses in residential areas and safeguarding the amenities of the occupiers of properties in the area. It is considered that the existing cattery with six pens that could accommodate up to 12 cats represents a small business that operates successfully from the private dwelling within a residential area. It is considered that the principle of acceptance is primarily one of fact and degree as to whether the increase use will harm residential amenity. Street Scene and Design The proposed structures, if not to be used in conjunction with a business, would be deemed to be permitted development under the provisions of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The structures are small in scale, of timber construction and have the appearance of garden sheds (notwithstanding the mesh fenced walls) and only take up a small proportion of the garden area. The buildings as proposed would not present a significant visual impact on the locality given the proposed site being well screened by boundary fencing from adjacent properties. The design would not present a materially different visual impact than many residential outbuildings that can be constructed without the need for specific planning permission under ‘Permitted development’ entitlements for outbuildings. In terms of design and appearance, the buildings are therefore viewed as being in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned Development Plan policies. Neighbour Amenities 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. As the visitors to the proposed cattery arrive on an appointment basis and intermittently

DC0902MW Page 94

throughout the day/week, it is considered that the comings and goings created by two additional pens at the cattery will not adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or highway safety in the immediately surrounding area. Conditions were imposed on the previous planning consent to regulate the times during which clients can visit the site and to restrict such visits to an appointment only system. The continued use of conditions can restrict such visiting and there is sufficient on-street car parking within the vicinity of the applicant’s property so as not to impact on the amenities of adjacent dwellings. In terms of the potential for the generation of odour the applicant already liaises with the Council’s Animal Welfare officer and the cattery is well run in terms of hygiene , cleanliness and odour control. All aspects to do with minimising odour concerns are controllable and enforceable through other legislation. In terms of noise the cats will be kept in separate pens, although 2 cats from the same family may at times be boarded. It is also noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Section has received no recorded complaints of noise or odour from the cattery. It is also noted that noise from the cattery is minimal and that odour is avoided by regular cleaning. The potential increase in noise from vehicle movements at the site has been considered and it is not considered that the activities associated with the increased use of the cattery will significantly affect the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties. The applicant is advised to contact the animal licensing officer to amend the details of their licence and this can be dealt with by way of an informative. Due to the nature of the proposed isolation pen, in that it will only be used when a cat is unwell, it is not considered that this unit and its proposed siting will cause any significant problems to the amenities of adjacent properties, such that would warrant a refusal of planning permission. It is noted that the difference between this current application and the earlier applications dismissed on appeal is quite significant. In those two appeals, one proposal was for 10 additional pens, equivalent to a maximum of 20 additional cats on top of the approved maximum of 12 cats, a total of 32 cats for the application ME96/0731. The second proposal under ME97/0266 was for 4 additional runs, which could accommodate 8 cats, a total of 20 cats. Those proposed pens were also all situated within the extended garden area. This current application only proposed 2 additional pens, a maximum of 4 cats and therefore a total of 16 cats, which is not considered too excessive and the proposed pens are sited within the existing garden area with only the isolation pen unit being situated within the extended garden area. In amenity terms the proposal is therefore viewed as being acceptable and in accordance with the provisions of the cited Development Plan policies. Highways Impact, Traffic and Car Parking With regard to vehicle parking, there is no identified standard within the adopted Vehicle Parking standards for catteries. However, having regard to the relatively low level of visitor activity at the site at any one time, and as the applicant’s visitors arrive on an appointment basis and intermittently throughout the day/week, it is considered that the presence of the existing on-street car parking spaces will be sufficient to meet the parking requirements of the

DC0902MW Page 95

proposed two additional cat pens. Accordingly no parking objection is raised to the application. With respect to traffic generation, it considered that traffic generation associated with this development will be at such a low level that it will have no adverse affect upon either highway capacity or safety within the vicinity of the application site. Conclusions and reasons for approval The principle of the establishment of a cattery has already been considered in the grant of previous applications. It is considered that the addition of 2 pens and an isolation pen will not unacceptably impact on residential amenity and the development accords with policy criteria. The application is accordingly recommended for approval. The application would normally be determined under delegated powers but is being referred to committee due to the extent of the representations received expressing views contrary to the recommendation.

DC0902MW Page 96

15 MC2006/0118


Location: 37 Berengrave Lane, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 7NA Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 4-bedroomed

detached house with detached garage for 4 cars and front, side and rear boundary wall (amendment to planning permission MC2001/1014)

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Boland 37 Berengrave Lane Rainham Gillingham Kent

ME8 7NA Agent: Ward: Rainham North Recommendation - Approval with Conditions (and as amended by plans received on 21st and 22nd February 2006) 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. 2 Details and samples of any materials to be used externally and any means of

enclosure shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of the date of this decision and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 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.

4 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.

5 The garage and workshop hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes

incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and no trade or business shall be carried out therefrom


Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be installed in the flank wall(s)

DC0902MW Page 97

of the development approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

7 Within one month of the date of this permission, a revised drawing number

PDR/0601-SB/02B indicating the flat roofed porch shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This drawing must depict matching details with those shown on the elevational drawing number PDR/0601.SB/03C recieved on 22 February 2006. The development shall be undetaken in accordance with the details approved.

8 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in

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

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

Site Description The site is located on Berengrave Lane, close to the junction with Holmoaks. The area is mainly residential in character with the properties directly opposite the site comprising 1930’s semi detached dwellings. There are some bungalows in the vicinity and Holmoaks is more mixed in character with bungalows and 2 storey dwellings. Immediately adjacent to the site is St Georges Hall and the cricket ground and pavilion. Access to the cricket field runs along the side of the site. The boundary treatment to Berengrave Lane is strong and comprises a 1.5m brown brick wall. There is an extant planning permission for a replacement dwelling (2001/1014) which has been implemented and the house has been constructed to eaves level. Proposal The proposals seek full planning permission for a replacement dwelling and garage for 4 cars (revised scheme to that approved under 2001/1014). The changes as originally submitted to the approved scheme comprise

- alterations to the front porch, - the insertion of an additional window above the porch, - moving the vehicular access - details of a 2.4m wall along the perimeter of the property, - alterations to the roof form and - the insertion of 3 dormer windows to the front roof slope.

Revised plans were received on 22 February and the changes now omit the insertion of the additional window above the porch.

DC0902MW Page 98

Site Area/Density Site area: 0.13 ha (0.32 acres) Site density: 8dph (3.12 dpa)

Relevant Planning History MC2001/1014 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 4-bedroomed

detached house with a detached garage for 4 cars. Approved with conditions January 2002.

Representations The application has been advertised by way of a site notice and the owners and occupiers of numbers 13 & 14 Chilton Court, numbers 33b, 35, 38, 40, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 70a Berengrave Lane, numbers 2,4,6,8 & 10 Holmoaks and St Georges Hall and the Cricket Club have been notified of the application. Three letters of objection have been received (one of the letters had attached 16 signatures) raising the following issues:

- Loss of view - Overlooking - The building is very obtrusive - Lots of objection to the previous scheme - Dormer windows will be out of keeping - Too many windows in total


Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy T17 (Parking Standards)


Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection) Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T13 (Parking Standards) Policy H4 (Housing in Urban Areas)

Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Version 2003

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy T19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

DC0902MW Page 99

Principle The site lies within the built confines of the main urban area where the principle of residential development is acceptable, in accordance with H4 of the Medway Local Plan. This application is a revised scheme to that approved under reference MC2001/1014. The basic siting, scale and proportions of the dwelling approved remain unchanged and consequently the principle of a dwelling of this size, scale and design has been deemed acceptable. The revisions to scheme will therefore be considered in the light of the design and amenity Policies of the adopted Local Plan. Street scene and design The changes comprise an alteration to the design of porch from a pitched to a flat roof structure. There is also an alteration to the main roof form to omit the central gable with a circular window to the front elevation. Instead it is proposed that the roof form will be a simple hipped ridge design with 3 pitched roof dormer windows to the front roof slope. There are no plans to alter the internal layout of the house and so the roof space will remain for storage accessed via a hatch only. In terms of impact on the street scene, given that the extant permission is for a scheme of a very similar design, scale and bulk, it is not considered that it could reasonably be argued that these proposals are of a poor design or would have a significant detrimental visual impact. There is an existing wall to the front of the property and boundary treatment to the side is strong. Subject to materials and the design of the wall and gate being approved these elements are acceptable. Neighbours’ amenities In terms of neighbour amenity, the proposed alterations to the porch would not give rise to any detrimental impacts and the changes are cosmetic. The 3 dormer windows serving the roof space will replace a much smaller oriel window. Although there is an increase in the potential for overlooking, there is a minimum distance of 27m window to window with closest properties – i.e those directly opposite the site. The properties directly opposite the site are the only properties affected by the changes to the revised scheme. Given the distance between the properties in question, there would not be an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the neighbouring properties arising from overlooking from the development. Even if, at a later date, the roof space were converted into habitable accommodation (ie a bedroom) the development would be acceptable.

Conclusions and reasons for approval In the light of the preceding discussion the proposed development adequately respects the context of the area in design and street scene terms. In addition there would not be an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the surrounding properties arising from the development. Consequently the proposals comply with the provisions of Policies ENV15 and T17 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies BNE1, BNE2, T1, T13 and H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Policies QL1 and T19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2003.

DC0902MW Page 100

[This application would normally fall to be determined under Officer’s powers but is being reported for Members consideration due to the extent of representations that have been received contrary to the Officer recommendation.]

DC0902MW Page 101

16 MC2006/0142


Location: 153 Barnsole Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4JH Proposal: Change of use from Car Tyre Shop (class A1) into Hot Food Take-

Away (Class A5) Applicant: Mr D S Bola 158 Rock Avenue Gillingham Kent ME7 5PR Agent: Ward: Watling Recommendation - Refusal 1 The proposed change of use would result in a proliferation of Class A5 (takeaway)

uses in a small Neighbourhood Centre which would restrict the opportunity for local retailing and access to a range of services. As such the loss of the existing retail unit is unacceptable and contrary to the provisions of Policy R10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2 The proposed change of use of this corner plot to a takeway (Class A5) use which

is adjacent to an existing takeway establishment would give rise to an increase in traffic movements and parking in the immediate vicinity. The passing nature of the trade associated with a takeaway establishment would give rise to indiscriminate and illegal parking in the vicinity and would exacerbate existing parking problems. The presence of two takeaway establishments in the immediate vicinity would have a detrimental cumulative impact on highway safety, particularly at the junction of Brasenose Road and Barnsole Road. The proposals are therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

3 The proposed change of use would be prejudicial to the residential amenities of the

area by virtue of increased activity and vehicular movements in the vicinity causing inconvenience and general disturbance to local residents and would thereby be in conflict with Policies R18 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Site Description The site comprises a vacant shop unit on the junction with Barnsole Road and Brasenose Road. There is shop frontage to both roads and there is a modern shop frontage/fascia board at the property. The site lies at the end of a row of 3 commercial properties. The site immediately adjacent is currently a fish bar and the property at number 157 is currently in retail use (classA1) as an electrical shop. There is restricted parking to the front of the site. The property lies within the built confines of the main urban area and no’s 151 – 157 Barnsole road (split into 3 commercial properties) collectively comprise a ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ identified in the Medway Local Plan and are therefore subject to the provisions of Policy R10.

DC0902MW Page 102

Apart from these 3 commercial properties the surrounding area is predominantly residential with a mix of dwelling types and a maternity home situated on the corner opposite the site. Proposal The proposals seek full planning permission for a change of use from retail (class A1) to a take-away (class A5). No external works are proposed as part of the scheme and no off road parking is to be provided. Representations The application has been advertised by way of a site notice and the owners and occupiers of numbers 126, 128, 130, 132, 149 & 151 Brasenose Road and numbers 155, 157 & 157 a - c Barnsole Road have been notified of the application. A petition was submitted with the planning application containing 17 signatures supporting the proposals. 9 letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:

- Smells - Problems with vermin - Increased noise and disturbance - Litter - Traffic problems/parking issues - Negative impact of longer opening hours - Already a takeaway next door - Enough takeaway’s in the general area - Concerns over loss of shop/ local shop needed - Use is inappropriate in a residential area - Takeaway will have a negative impact on the quality of life for residents - Problems of noise/disturbance and litter/rubbish etc from existing takeaway - Previous application (1985) refused and so this one should be - Concern over antisocial behaviour/alcohol related incidents that will be encouraged by

the proposed use Councillor W Purdy has written to object to the proposals on the basis that there are sufficient takeaways in the area, the inconvenience that would be caused to local residents and increased traffic/parking issues. Development Plan Policies Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy ENV15 (Built Environment) Policy T17 (Parking Standards)


Policy BNE1 (General Principles for Built Development) Policy BNE2 (Amenity Protection)

DC0902MW Page 103

Policy T1 (Impact of Development) Policy T13 (Parking Standards) Policy R10 (Neighbourhood Centres) Policy R18 (Takeaways)

Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Version 2003

Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) Policy T19 (Vehicle Parking Standards)

Planning Appraisal

Principle The site lies within the built confines of the main urban area and is within a designated Neighbourhood Centre (local groups and parades of shops). As such, conversions to class A5 (take away) uses are acceptable in principle subject, in particular, to the provisions of Policy R10. This policy seeks to protect class A1 (retail) uses in Neighbourhood Centres and avoid an over concentration of one type of use. The main thrust of Policy R10 is to provide locally accessible retailing and access to other services, which in turn help to promote sustainable living patterns and reduce dependence on travel by car. Given that this particular Neighbourhood Centre designation covers a row of just three commercial properties, and that one of the existing properties is already in take away use, the proposed additional change of use at this site is significant. It is broadly accepted that takeaway facilities can contribute to the ‘other services’ that would be expected to be available within Neighbourhood Centres. However, in this instance due to the small scale of the Neighbourhood Centre designation, and the fact that there is an existing takeaway immediately adjacent to the site, an additional takeaway (leading to 2 out of the 3 designated units being in take away usage) would undermine the function of the Neighbourhood Centre designation. Consequently the loss of this retail unit is unacceptable. The proposals cannot therefore, be deemed to comply with the provisions of Policy R10. Neighbours’ amenities Policies R18 and BNE2, are also relevant and these seek to protect the residential amenities of the surrounding area. The key issue in this instance is the impact of the proposals on residential amenity. In particular, it is necessary to consider the cumulative impact of 2 takeaway in such close proximity. Criterion (iii) of Policy BNE2 seeks to ensure that all development should have regard to ‘activity levels and traffic generation’. More specifically criterion (i) of Policy R18 requires that any change of use to a takeaway must have ‘no significant detrimental impact on neighbouring land uses or to residential amenity’. The proposed use would give rise to increased traffic movements and activity levels by virtue of the short trips associated with takeaway establishments. Notwithstanding that there is a lawful takeaway use in the vicinity, this has serious implications for the amenity of local residents. An additional takeaway in this location is an incompatible use within a predominantly residential area, as this would prejudice the level of amenity afforded to local residents through the cumulative impacts of noise and disturbance caused by increased activity levels and vehicle movements.

DC0902MW Page 104

Highway Safety An additional takeaway use in the locality would be likely to result in an increase in vehicle movements which would exacerbate existing parking problems. Due to the short trip length associated with takeaway establishments this would be likely to lead to indiscriminate and illegal parking in the immediate vicinity. Given that the site is a corner plot this could prejudice highway safety particularly on the junction with Brasnose Road and Barnsole Road in a manner contrary to Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan. Street scene and design Given that there are no external alterations proposed to the building at this stage, there are no street scene or design issues to consider.

Conclusions and reasons for refusal The proposed change of use from retail to a takeaway in this designated Neighbourhood Centre would give rise to an unacceptable loss of locally available retailing and would lead to a proliferation of takeaway uses in the Neighbourhood Centre in a manner contrary to the provisions of Policy R10 of he Medway Local Plan 2003. In addition the proposed additional take away use in this predominantly residential area would give rise to unacceptable cumulative impacts of noise and disturbance through increased traffic movements and vehicles manoeuvring in residential streets, prejudicial to the residential amenity of local residents and contrary to the provisions of Policy BNE2 and R18 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. The passing nature of the trade associated with a takeaway use would give rise to indiscriminate and illegal parking in the vicinity, to the detriment of the amenity of the area and to the detriment of highway safety in a manner contrary to Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. The application is accordingly recommended for refusal. [This application would normally fall to be determined under Officer’s powers but is being reported for Members consideration due to the extent of representations that have been received contrary to the Officer recommendation.]

Documents

TH MARCH 2006 - Medway