SUMMARY REPORTApplication Ref: 20190169

Site Address: Cobham Lodge, Valley Drive, Gravesend, DA12 5UE.

Application Description:

Demolition of existing house and outbuildings and erection of a part four storey and part three storey building for the residential development of 20no. one bedroom, 41no. two bedroom and 3no. three bedroom apartments with associated car parking.

Applicant: Mr Ravinder Shetra

Agent: Mr Darren Bland

Ward: Singlewell

Parish: Non-Parish Area

Decision Due Date: 23 May 2019

Publicity Expiry Date: 29 March 2019

Decision Level: Planning Regulatory Board – 12 June 2019

Reason for referral: Major development proposal

Recommendation: Refusal

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation

The proposal is to demolish the existing house and all outbuildings on the site and construct a part four storey and three storey building to provide 20 X one bedroom, 41 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom apartments.

In this case there are significant objections to the development relating to the siting, size, bulk, massing, design, impact on the street scene, adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and poor amenity for future occupiers. Furthermore this proposal is failing to provide affordable housing or any S.106 contributions.

As such it is considered that this planning permission cannot be supported

1. Proposal

1.1 The proposal is to demolish the existing house and all outbuildings on the site and construct a part four storey and three storey building to provide 20 X one bedroom, 41 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom apartments .

1.2 The proposal includes a total of 76 car parking spaces with 10 of those spaces indicated to be visitor spaces and in addition 93 cycle parking spaces are proposed.

1.3 Access to the development will utilise the two existing vehicular accesses to the site.

2. Relevant Planning History

2.1 Since the construction of the dwellings there have been various application on the site with the only relevant application being the following:

20130399 - Erection of detached building within the rear garden to form games room, TV lounge, gym, study, kitchenette, two wc's and shower room at ground floor level with sensory room, day room and office in the roof space. Permitted 09.07.2013

3. Planning Policies

Development Plan

Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2014):• CS01 – Sustainable Development• CS02 – Scale & Distribution of Development• CS10 – Physical and Social Infrastructure• CS11 – Transport• CS12 - Green Infrastructure• CS13 – Green Space, Sport and Recreation• CS14 – Housing Type and Size• CS15 - Housing Density• CS16 - Affordable Housing• CS18 - Climate Change• CS19 - Design & Development Principles

Saved Policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (November 1994):• P3 – Vehicle Parking Standards• T1 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network• T5 – New Access onto Highway Network• LT6 – Additional Open Space in New Housing Developments

Other material considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (2019)● Section 2 – Achieving sustainable development• Section 4 – Decision-making• Section 5 – Delivering a sufficient supply of homes• Section 8 – Promoting healthy and safe communities • Section 9 – Promoting Sustainable Transport• Section 11 – Making effective use of land • Section 12 – Achieving well-designed places• Section 14 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.• Section 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Supplementary Planning Guidance• SPG2 - Residential Layout Guidelines (1996)• SPG 4 - KCC Parking Standards (2006)• Housing Standards Policy Statement, 1st October, 2015; and• Technical Housing Standards: Nationally Described Space Standards• KCC Guide to Development Contributions and the Provision of Community

Infrastructure

4. Consultations, Publicity and Representations

Internal

Waste ManagementFrom the plans it appears refuse storage areas have been provided although there is no detail on the quantity of bins per bin storeThe following provision is required● Refuse - 1 x 1100ltr bin per 6 flats● Recycling – 1 x 1100ltr bin per 6 flats with special recycling lid● Food Waste – 1 x 140ltr bin per 10 flats with an individual 5ltr caddy per flatGravesham Borough Council operates a fortnightly collection of refuse and recycling.The immediate area outside the bin store should be level with the road, should not include an incline and the installation of a drop kerb where necessary is mandatory. Car parking spaces should not be allocated immediately in front of the access to the bin store.

Regulatory Services Based on the review of:

● Phase 1 Desk Study Report (STM Environmental, 29th June 2018)

The report adequately reviews the history and environmental setting of the site. It identifies the potential for contaminated made ground on the site due to its previous use as a pub. It is recommended that a limited site investigation is undertaken to confirm the suitability of the soils on site. I therefore recommend the following condition:No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (in accordance with the CLEA guidelines and CLR 11 methodology) and if necessary an associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval

Highway Development Management Officer

Parking provision complies with the Council’s Policies, and given the level of car ownership is unlikely to result in residents parking in the surrounding area, although if car ownership is higher than anticipated visitor parking could be under pressure.The applicant has demonstrated that all likely vehicle turning requirements can be readily accommodate on site and the access widths are adequate providing they are suitably lit. However, there is concern that there is inadequate visibility at the two access points, as a minimum I would expect sight lines of 43m x 2.4m x 43m to be provided, which is the Manual for Streets requirements for a 30mph road, lower sight lines may be appropriate if supported by a speed survey. But I cannot trace either a sight line drawing or a speed survey to support the sight line requirements.

In terms of traffic generation, I do have concerns that this proposal will increase the right turn demand on Valley Drive to gain access to the site and hence the risk of rear end shunts, but unfortunately the levels of turning movements do not support the requirement for a right turning lane. (Kent Design suggests only required if vehicle movements exceed 300 vph from the side road).

With regards to electric vehicle charging, in view of the Governments statements regarding the future manufacture of fossil fuelled vehicles the proposed level of EV charging appears to be inadequate and should be 100% provision.

Planning Policy

Planning Policy has provided comments on the proposal which have been incorporated within Planning Manager (Development Management) Appraisal within this report.

External

National Grid

No objection but provides details on standing advice.

Natural England

No objection subject to securing appropriate mitigation

Environment Agency

No objection subject to suggested conditions being included regarding a watching brief in regard to contamination.

Kent Police (Secure by Design)The following security issues need to be addressed including: 1. Development layout and permeability 2. Perimeter, boundary and divisional treatments 3. Parking inc. visitor 4. Lighting and CCTV 5. Access Control 6. Doorsets 7. Windows 8. Security Compartmentalisation will be required on all levels as the scheme is over the 25 unit threshold where compartmentalisation will be required for SBD. This can be achieved by access control measures installed on PAS24:2016 doorsets serving each floor or by using access control measures to protect any lift and stair cores.

Dartford Gravesham and Swanley Clinical Commissioning Group

Requests Developer’s Contribution of £55,296.

Kent County Council Economic Development

Kent Highway & Transportation Services

Extensive comments provided which are attached as appendix 1

Highways England

No objection

Publicity

4.1 This application was advertised as a major development proposal by publication of a press notice, display of a site notice and by neighbour notification letters sent to 17 addresses in the vicinity of the site.

4.2 As a result of the consultation process 61 responses were received with 36 being in favour and 25 objecting to the proposal. It should be noted the majority of the support letters are from the existing dwelling to be demolished, the employees within Avla house and not from the surrounding area. The comments are summarised as follows:

Objections Out of keeping with the character of the area. Overbearing/dominant development within the street scene Adverse impact on the surrounding highway network Result in overlooking into surrounding properties gardens/windows Too close to boundaries of surrounding properties Would increase the demand for onsite street parking Balconies on north and south will overlook surrounding properties Concern this proposal would have an adverse impact on Lower Thames Crossing. Development would adversely impact on Claylane Woods Insufficient sightlines to serve the development for highway users Flats are not appropriate to the area. Adverse impact on wildlife

Impact on the surrounding SSSI Loss of light to surrounding properties. Adverse impact on surrounding water supplies Concern that fire engines could not sufficiently access the site Poor design Increase in noise levels The applicant has not followed the Council’s pre-application advice on the proposal. New Dwellings should be constructed away from new roads Adverse impact on Air Quality. Loss of trees on site Loss of an existing large dwelling. Too many one bedrooms flats within the development

4.3 A number of non-material planning considerations are also raised by neighbour representation letters. As they are non-material considerations they are not summarised.

5. Planning Manager (Development Management) Comments

Site History and Context

5.1 The application site comprises of a large detached two storey dwelling with a two storey outbuilding in the rear permitted under reference 20130399.

5.2 The northern portion of the site is the former rear garden of the property known as ‘Alva’ which has been incorporated into the garden of the application site. Alva is a mixed use premises of various business uses with one self-contained flat in the building. This was permitted under reference 20130643.

5.3 To the south of the site is mixture of detached houses many of which are recent infill/redevelopments of sites such as Sheldon Heights and the rear garden of the property known as The Ridges.

5.4 East of the site the ancient woodland known as Clay Lane (Which is also designated Green Belt land) and beyond that the land is safeguarded for the Lower Thames Crossing.

5.5 West of the site is the lorry park owned by Highways England which is currently closed to lorries and is subject to an application (20190482) for the erection of temporary portable cabins with associated fenced off laydown area and car parking area with 3m fence around the site, lighting and perimeter landscaping. This application is in association with the Lower Thames Crossing exploratory works.

Housing need and the Principle of Development

5.6 In regard to housing need, Policy CS02 (LPCS) sets out the Borough’s objectively assessed need for housing over the Plan period (up to the year 2028) and finds that there is a need for at least 6,170 new dwellings during the period. Evidence now available shows that the Council is not able to demonstrate a five-year housing supply. This engages the first part of footnote 7 of the NPPF and this means for decision-taking

that planning permission for applications involving the provision of housing should granted in line with the requirements of the NPPF Para 11(d) unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework (the NPPF) that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

5.7 The proposed development for a net increase of ‘63’ no. dwellings would offer a modest contribution towards meeting this local need and, accordingly, officers considers that this should be accorded moderate weight in support of the application. However, this has to be balanced against other requirements of the NPPF and in particular paragraph 127 and 130 of the NPPF which requires development to be add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive, sympathetic to local character and create acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

5.8 Whilst officers accord significant weight to the housing contribution the proposal would make including associated economic benefits, these benefits do not clearly outweigh the identified harm the proposed development would in regard to amenity, design, lack of affordable housing and any S.106 contributions.

5.9 In addition, the applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the proposed scheme would not adversely affect the integrity of habitats sites i.e. carried out an appropriate assessment, therefore in keeping with Para 177 of the NPPF the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply to this application. As alone or in combination with other development the proposed scheme is likely to have a significant effect on habitats sites.

5.10 In regard to the principles of development more generally, Policy CS02 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (LPCS) prioritises development in the urban area as a sustainable location for development. It seeks to achieve this by promoting regeneration by prioritising redevelopment and recycling of previously developed land. The site contains a single detached dwelling within a built-up area and therefore whilst the permanent structures and any associated fixed surface infrastructure constitutes previously developed land, the residential garden and associated land does not. Consequently, whilst the principle of redeveloping the existing dwelling can be accepted, the loss of non-previously developed land would be consolidated if the current proposal were to be accepted. Therefore the issue of the principle of development being acceptable on this site needs to be fully considered.

5.11 Paragraphs 122 and 127 of the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF) are also material considerations. Paragraph 122, while supporting development that makes efficient use of land, also requires the maintenance of an area’s prevailing character and setting to be taken into consideration. The prevailing character of the area does not consist of blocks of flats. Paragraph 127 also requires proposed development to be sympathetic to local character, which this proposal fails to do.

5.12 Development on this site should meet the requirements of Policy CS14 (LPCS), where the Council expects new housing development to provide a range of dwelling types and sizes, taking into account the existing character of the area. The proposal comprises of 20 x one bedroom, 41 x two bedroom and 3 x three bedroom apartments and fails to

take into account the existing character of the area, failing to provide a range of dwelling types, consisting as it does, solely of flatted development.

5.13 Unlike the character of the surrounding area, which can be read as a series of individual buildings, interspersed by open space in the form of gardens, the submitted elevation drawings clearly show that the scheme comprises a single monolithic block.

5.14 Policy CS15 (LPCS) requires that all new housing will be developed at a density which is consistent with achieving good design and does not compromise the distinctive character of the area in which it is situated. Subject to this overriding consideration, new residential development within the urban area will be expected to achieve a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare. It is clear that whilst Policy CS15 (LPCS) seeks to achieve this minimum density, this should not be at the expense of compromising the character of the surrounding area. Consequently, given that the proposal compromises the character of the area due to its height, massing, and orientation it cannot be justified solely on the grounds that it produces a higher density of development. Whilst 40dph may or may not be achievable on this site, it is not considered that the proposed density of 135dph can be successfully achieved within the context of policy CS15 (LPCS).

5.15 The agent claims that the proposal complies with policy CS15, by providing 135 units per hectare, well in excess of the required 40 units per hectare. The applicant has failed to explore an adequate mix of dwelling types and sizes, which was one of the concerns raised by the planning department during the pre-application discussions. It is considered that the site is of sufficient size that a mix of different dwelling types could be explored on site by the applicant.

5.16 Policy CS15 (LPCS) states that in suitable locations close to the transport hubs of Gravesend Town Centre and Ebbsfleet, higher densities will be sought. The submitted Statement claims that the site is well positioned to give excellent access to Ebbsfleet Railway Station and so to the high speed link to London and therefore a relatively high density is justified. However, paragraph 5.11.3 of the Core Strategy, sets out the reasoned justification to policy CS15, explains that higher densities will be sought in the Gravesend Town Centre and Ebbsfleet Opportunity Areas as they are transport hubs with good access to public transport. As the application site lies at a reasonable distance from these identified Opportunity Areas it is not considered to be an appropriate location for such a high density development

5.17 In conclusion whilst the site is within the urban area of Gravesend the principle of redevelopment on this site might be acceptable. However, the development of 64 flats on this site is not considered to be acceptable and fails to meet the requirement of Policy CS15 (LPCS), which at 5.11.16 states all new housing will be developed at a density that is consistent with achieving good design and does not compromise the distinctive character of the area in which it is situated.

5.18 The key issues to be considered are as follows:

● Design, Character and appearance● Amenity of Future Occupiers● Refuse Storage and Collection Arrangements ● Neighbouring Amenity● Drainage ● Contaminated Land● Highway Impacts and Vehicle Parking

● Planning Obligations/Affordable Housing● Ecology and Biodiversity● Housing need

Design, Character and appearance

5.19 Policy CS19 (LPCS) states that the design, layout and form of new development will be derived from a robust analysis of local context and character and will make a positive contribution to the street scene, the quality of the public realm and the character of the area. The NPPF sets out that the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development.

5.20 It also states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents.

5.21 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF, states that the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Being clear about design expectations is essential, as is effective engagement between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other interests throughout the process. Paragraphs 39 to 42 of the NPPF also emphasise the importance of pre-application engagement. The Design Statement includes no evidence of effective engagement with the local community in the vicinity of the site and has largely ignored the views of the Council in response to the pre-application proposals.

5.22 As established in the previous section (Principle of Development) of this report the site is located within an area which is characterised by single family dwellings on large spacious plots. The area where the application site is located is less urbanised part of Valley Drive and there are no flatted developments in the immediate vicinity. The loss of the existing building would be unfortunate as the building is characterised by its typical 1920’s /1930’s design style.

5.23 The Design & Access Statement introduction describes the proposal as being a residential building (singular), the document goes on to say that the development will be read as a collection of smaller blocks gathered together. Unlike the character of the surrounding area, which can be read as a series of individual buildings, interspersed by open space in the form of gardens, the submitted elevation drawings clearly show that the scheme comprises a single monolithic block.

5.24 This is demonstrated on the below images.

5.25 One of the key characteristics of the area is permeability to the existing arrangement of buildings, both on Valley Drive and on Sheldon Heights, which would be completely disrupted by the proposal, if it was developed along the lines proposed in this submission.

5.26 From the west the proposed development is utterly out of keeping with the character and appearance of Valley Drive and would be an overbearing development when considered against the context of the adjacent properties. This is highlighted on the below image and it should be noted as the site is on a hill this only further increases the overbearing impact of the development on the properties to the north.

5.27 Turning to external facing materials, the plans show materials that are out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and are not considered to be appropriate in this location.

5.28 In conclusion the proposed development by virtue of its scale, bulk, massing and design would constitute an overly dominant and incongruous development. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS19 (LPCS) and sections 11 and 12 of the (NPPF), which require development to be visually attractive and to conserve and enhance the character of the local built environment.

Amenity of Future Occupiers

5.29 Policy CS19 (LPCS) requires that all development should be ‘fit for purpose’ and be ‘adaptable to allow changes to meet the need of users’ and that ‘the design and layout of new residential development, including conversion, will accord with the adopted

Residential Layout Guidelines’. On 25 March 2015, the Government issued a written ministerial statement which introduced new technical housing standards in England.

5.30 Internally all the room sizes meet the National space standards as indicated on the following table and the agent has confirmed that all flats are provided with internal storage space (1.5m² for one bedroom, 2m² for the two bedrooms). In addition the agent has confirmed that the internal layout of flats has been designed in such a way to provide a good layout for furniture.

5.31 In addition a large portion of the flats have private balconies to provide private amenity space for future occupiers.

5.32 A number of flats proposed could be occupied by families’ significant weight is attached to the need to provide open space to meet the needs of future residents as required through LPCS Policy CS13. The NPPF recognises that access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.

5.33 Saved Policy LT6 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review requires proposals for new housing development to make provision for open space and play space appropriate to the scale of development and type of housing, having regard to the provision and proximity to existing open space in the locality.

5.34 The explanatory text states that as a guide, open space should be provided in accordance with the National Playing Fields Association recommended minimum standard for outdoor play space. This has now been updated in “Guidance for Outdoor Sport and Play: Beyond the Six Acre Standard” published by Fields in Trust (FIT).

5.35 The only communal amenity space provided is a play area around 135m² which is located in the south east corner of the site is appears largely isolated from dwellings and there are poor access links for pedestrians trying to use this space.

5.36 In addition access to the playspace would be car dominated with the access along the south being a 70 metre long footpath which has 5 car parking spaces on the north and there is no clear access to the rear of the site from the front. You would be required to

walk in front of car parking spaces would lead to pedestrians and vehicles being in conflict with each other.

5.37 Overall it is considered that future occupiers would be faced with a car dominated scheme which would not provide a safe and secure access for future occupiers. Furthermore, there is a lack of communal amenity space to serve a large development of this nature, which will be likely be occupied by families.

5.38 In summary the proposed development would provide poor living conditions to the future occupiers of the development and would cause material harm to their amenity. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CS19 (LPCS) 2014 and Section 12 of the NPPF.

Refuse Storage and Collection Arrangements

5.39 Within this proposal the communal refuse store for the development is served over 3 locations. Gravesham Waste Management has been consulted and states the bin stores appear to be in suitable locations.

5.40 In order to ensure the bin stores are secured this would be achieved through ensuring all bin stores are fitted with a lock which is accessed via key or key code. To ensure this happens details of securing refuse stores will be conditioned should the application be granted planning permission.

5.41 In summary with regard to refuse arrangements the development complies with Policy CS19 (LPCS).

Neighbouring Amenity

5.42 Policy CS19 (LPCS) requires new development to safeguard the amenity, including privacy, daylight and sunlight, of its occupants and those of neighbouring properties and land and paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires development to have a high standard of amenity for existing users (In this case surrounding properties).

5.43 It is considered that this development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the existing/future occupiers of surrounding residential properties which results in the proposal being contrary to adopted planning policy. The reasoning for this is explored below by analysing the impact on each property surrounding the site.

5.44 It should be noted the applicant has provided a daylight/sunlight assessment which concludes the impact of the development will be acceptable apart from an impact on no.3 Sheldon Heights and the loss of light to the ground floor of this property would be negligible.

The Ridges5.45 The Ridges is located to the south of the site and fronts onto Valley Drive and the

occupiers’ amenity will be harmed by this development due to the access road running directly along the northern boundary of their garden which will result in a noise impact from vehicle movements (This is the same for all the dwelling abutting the southern boundary of the application site). A further concern with this proposal is that the garden both the front and rear will be overlooked by numerous balconies and habitable windows which will destroy any sense of privacy for existing/future occupier of the dwelling. In this instance from the proposed development into the rear garden a distance of between 11 and 20 metre is maintained which is considered to be

unacceptable. The following diagram illustrates the amount of overlooking into the dwelling from the development.

Shorne View

5.46 Shorne View is the next dwelling along and this property has its private garden to the north abutting the application site. There is a distance of 28m maintained between the dwelling which whilst maintaining the 25m window to window distance as set out in the Council’s Residential Layout Guidelines having a three/four storey development with balconies a minimum of 9.7m from the rear garden boundary will result in occupiers of Shorne View garden being overlooked and any sense of privacy of occupiers of this dwelling would be lost.

Sheldon Heights

5.47 At the eastern end of the site boundary is the development of Sheldon Heights which has three dwellings being a minimums distance of 2.2m from the north boundary to a maximum of 11m. As a result of this two of the dwellings will be significantly overlooked by this development and there is failure to meet the 25m distance rule between two habitable windows and two of three gardens will be overlooked to unacceptable level by future occupiers of the development.

Ambleside

5.48 North of the site is the dwelling of Ambelside which has a long garden stretching some 70m from the rear elevation of the dwelling. As such this development would not have an impact on the amenity of the first portion of the garden. However, the remaining 50 metres of the garden would be faced with an unneighbourly/overbearing form of development being three to four storeys in height. However with this site being a lower level it would have of an appearance of being larger than three/four storeys. In addition the north elevation of the development being some 7m to 10m from this boundary unacceptable levels of overlooking into the garden which will unacceptable to occupiers of the dwelling.

Alva

5.49 West of the site is Alva which is a business use with one self-contained flat within the building. It is not considered this proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenity of this property.

5.50 To fully appreciate the scale of overlooking for this scheme the below image shows the full extent of overlooking into surrounding residential properties.

5.51 In summary the position of habitable windows, along with balconies would be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding dwellings.

5.52 A number of neighbour comments raise concern in regard to access for fire appliances to the site. This would be dealt with under Building Control Regulations.

5.53 As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS19 (LPCS), which states that new development will be located, designed and constructed to safeguard the amenity, including privacy, daylight and sunlight, of its occupants and those of neighbouring properties and land.

Drainage

5.54 The application site lies within Ground Source Protection Zone 3 and is not within a flood zone. The Environment Agency has been consulted and their response raised no objection but requires a condition for watching brief related to contamination.

5.55 Policy CS18 (LPCS) sets out the requirements for dealing with sustainable drainage and surface water run-off. Kent County Council (KCC) is the Lead Local Flood Authority and have been consulted on the application and their comments are awaited. As KCC have provided comments on similar size developments within the borough if the application was to be supported the standard KCC condition on sustainable surface water drainage would be included which would require the following:

1. Development shall not begin until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to (and approved in writing by) the Council.

2. Details of operation and maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage scheme.

3. Verification Report pertaining to the surface water drainage system.4. Details of infiltration if used to manage flood water.

5.56 In summary it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with Policy CS18 (LPCS) in regard to drainage matters.

Contaminated Land

5.57 Policy CS19 (LPCS) and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF requires new development to avoid adverse environmental impacts of land contamination and remediating contaminated land.

5.58 Gravesham Scientific officer has reviewed the Phase 1 Environmental Report (Go Contaminated Land Solutions, 6th February 2019) and concludes the following:

The report presents the findings of a desk study and site walkover. It adequately reviews the history and environmental setting of the site. No significant sources of contamination have been identified other than the potential for made ground from the currently existing buildings. An intrusive investigation is not considered necessary at this time, but it would be appropriate to maintain a watching brief during demolition and groundworks.

Recommends standard watching brief condition.

5.59 Subject to the recommended condition no conflict with Policy CS19 (LPCS) or Paragraph 170 of the NPPF is considered to occur in terms of land contamination issues.

Highway Impacts and Vehicle Parking

5.60 The proposed development needs to be considered against Policy CS11 (LPCS) which states that new development should mitigate their impact on the public highway and that transport assessments should be provided and implemented to ensure delivery of travel choice and sustainable opportunities for travel. Furthermore, it states that sufficient car parking in new developments will be provided in accordance with adopted standards which will reflect the availability of alternative means of transport accessibility to services and facilities. This stance is reflected in the NPPF which states at paragraph 109 development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the cumulative impact of development are severe.

5.61 A total of 76 spaces are being provided of which are being split as follows:● 66 spaces in the spaces for residents● 10 visitor spaces

5.62 Concern is raised from Gravesham’s Highway Development Management officer that this proposal provides inadequate visibility at the two access points, as a minimum the officer would expect sight lines of 43m x 2.4m x 43m to be provided, which is the Manual for Streets requirements for a 30mph road. However the officer states lower sight lines may be appropriate if supported by a speed. However, no speed survey was submitted by the applicant in support of this proposal.

5.63 Gravesham’s Highway Development Management Officer also raises concern that this proposal will increase the right turn demand on Valley Drive to gain access to the site and hence increase the risk of rear end shunts.

5.64 KCC have been consulted and raise no objection to the development in regard to highway movements subject to the following being conditioned:

● Residents parking remains unallocated● Visibility splays to be provided prior to first occupation ● Revised internal path increased to 1.8m to facilities wheelchair/buggy access● Construction Management Plan

5.65 KCC have requested a section 278 agreement would be required to provide additional foot way along Franklin Road. As the land is within the ownership of KCC this can be achieved. If the scheme was to have been supported this would be explored further.

5.66 With regard to Lower Thames Crossing Highways England have been consulted and raise no objection to the scheme.

5.67 Should the application be supported, conditions as set out in paragraph 5.64 above would need to be imposed to address the highway and pedestrian safety issues identified above.

Gas Pipelines

5.68 The rear quarter of the application site is within the consultation zone for at least one major pipeline and as such the HSE and National grid have been consulted. Whilst

Cadent/National Grid have no objection to this proposal the HSE have been consulted directly and their views will follow within a supplementary report.

Ecology and Biodiversity

5.69 The application site falls within 6km of the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) classified in accordance with the European Birds Directive which requires Member States to classify sites that are important for bird species listed on Annex 1 of the European Directive, which are rare and/or vulnerable in a European context, and also sites that form a critically important network for birds on migration. It is also listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Site). Studies have shown marked declines in key bird species, particularly in areas that are busiest with recreational activity. Research conducted in 2011 found that additional dwellings were likely to result in additional recreational activity, causing disturbance to protected bird species that over-winter or breed on the SPA and Ramsar Site. The studies found that 75% of recreational visitors to the North Kent coast originate from within 6 km of the SPA boundary and Ramsar Site. The impacts of recreational disturbance can be such that they affect the status and distribution of key bird species and therefore act against the stated conservation objectives of the European Sites.

5.70 The Local Planning Authority has mitigated out the impacts of this on each and every planning application for a new residential development of one or more units within the 6km zone since September 2015 by accepting a Strategic Access Mitigation and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) (tariff) payment (currently £245.56 per dwelling). This approach is approved by Natural England for all new residential developments.

5.71 For every planning application for a new dwelling (including new flats), which does not require any other contributions to be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking the tariff has been secured through a contribution agreement.

5.72 The tariff has previously been accepted effectively in lieu of an Appropriate Assessment (AA). However in a recent Court of Justice European Union (CJEU) ruling this approach not considered to be valid, as the CJEU ruling considered the first stage to be a screening assessment as to whether the development either alone or in combination, is likely to have significant effects on a designated site without mitigation. The CJEU sees a distinction between “the plan or project” itself and “measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of a plan or project on a European site”. This means that mitigation measures, which are intended to avoid or reduce effects, should be assessed within the framework of an AA and that mitigation measures cannot be taken into account at the screening stage.

5.73 An AA could conclude that mitigation measures (in the form of a tariff payment) are required and such payments would still need to be secured. However, adequate information to inform an AA has not been submitted, nor has any contribution agreement been provided, therefore it is not been possible to undertaken an AA or satisfactorily conclude that adequate measures could be put in place to mitigate the significant adverse effects of permitting the development on the designated site of the North Kent Marshes SPA/Ramsar.

5.74 This proposal is considered to be contrary to Paragraphs 175 and 176 of the NPPF and Policy CS12 (LPCS).

5.75 In addition ancient woodland of Claylane Woods adjoins the site to the east. However, as this building would be constructed within 0.55m of the boundary of the ancient woodland it is likely that the foundations would have an adverse impact on the ancient woodlands. The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment fails to address the impact on Claylane Woods.

Planning Obligations Procedural issue

5.76 Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism that we as a Council, often use to secure financial contributions or other forms of mitigation such as affordable housing from developers, make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms.

5.77 In order for the Local Planning Authority to request financial contributions on behalf of third parties any contributions will need to meet all of the tests relating to paragraph 56 of the NPPF which are as follows:

(A) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(B) directly related to the development;

(C) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development; and

(D) that: (i) the obligation (obligation A) provides for the funding or provision of an infrastructure project or type of infrastructure; and (ii) five or more separate planning obligations that: (a) relate to planning permissions granted for development within the area of the charging authority; and (b) which provide for the funding or provision of that project, or type of infrastructure, have been entered into before the date that obligation A was entered into.

Affordable Housing

5.78 The Borough Council’s position on affordable housing, as set out in LPCS Policy CS16, is that it will be required at a provision of 30% on sites in the urban area proposing 15 or more dwellings. LPCS Policy CS16 seeks a broad mix of 70% rented and 30% shared ownership (negotiable), although the tenure mix should meet local needs and achieve a socially inclusive development.

5.79 In this instance the applicant is not willing to provide any affordable housing and has submitted a viability report to demonstrate this.

5.80 The NPPF provides clear guidance on the objectives and methodology for economic viability assessments and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF are as follows:

5.81 Further clarification on economic viability assessments is provided in the form of National Planning Practice Guidance Notes.

5.82 The applicant’s agent has submitted a viability report (January 2019), which in their view sets out that the proposed would not be viable if provision is made for affordable housing. The applicant’s viability assessment identifies a deficit of £1,845,000 if 19 affordable dwellings are sought and a deficit of £1,167,000 if it is a 100% private scheme with a profit level of 20% on Gross Development Value (GDV). Based on the applicant’s own evidence the scheme is not viable and as a result it is unlikely to come forward in the present form. The applicant argues that it could be brought forward if they sought a lower profit level of 9% on GDV, however this would be an unrealistic scenario as the applicant’s agent points out, “schemes should make a minimum of 20% profit on sales over cost.”

5.83 Having reviewed the applicant’s viability report, the Borough Council concluded that the report and its findings needed to be independently verified. The Council’s appointed independent viability consultant has reviewed the applicant’s evidence and concluded that the scheme, as proposed, is viable and capable of delivering 19 affordable dwellings together with fanatical contributions up to the £110,000.

5.84 The applicant considers the total residential value of the scheme to be £11,228,307, whilst the Council’s consultant considers the total residential value of the scheme to be £13,345,717. The applicant’s total costs conversely are set out as being £13,515,365, whilst the Council’s viability consultant identifies total costs of £12,234,016. It should be noted that the applicant’s approach to viability is to identify the surplus or deficit arising from the scheme once developer profit and land valuation is taken into account, whilst the Council’s viability consultant has approach the viability assessment by not taking the land valuation onboard as a cost, but to calculate the residual land value, i.e. the sum of money available to purchase the land.

5.85 It is considered that the residual land value identified by the Council’s consultant is at a sufficient level at which a reasonable landowner would be willing to sell their land whilst delivering a competitive return to a developer with policy levels of affordable housing provision.

5.86 As the applicant is not willing to provide any affordable housing on site the scheme as proposed is deemed to be contrary to Policy CS16 (LPCS) and section 5 of the NPPF.

Developer Contributions

5.87 Dartford and Swanley Commissioning Group have requested £41,472 towards Oakfield Health Centre Practice Surgery.

5.88 KCC Have requested the following:

Contribution Amount KCC Secondary Education £45,276.00 KCC Community Learning £1423.05KCC Library Bookstock £3025.26KCC Youth Service £1,759.20 KCC Social Care £2,932.65

5.89 It is considered that both Dartford and Swanley Commissioning Group and Kent County Council planning obligations meet the statutory tests of paragraph 56 of the NPPF that requires planning obligations to be necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

5.90 Below is the list of the total contributions being sought for this development.

Obligation Sum TriggerKCC Secondary Education £45,276.00 Prior to commencement.KCC Community Learning £1423.05 Prior to commencement.KCC Library Bookstock £3025.26 vKCC Youth Service £1,759.20 Prior to commencement.KCC Social Care £2,932.65 Prior to commencement.Dartford and Swanley Commissioning Group

£55,296* Prior to commencement.

Financial contribution towards SAMMS

£15,470.28 Paid via SAMMS Contribution Agreement letter

Affordable Housing 19 Units To be provided on site.

5.91 The agent has stated due to viability issues the applicant is not willing to provide any contributions to offset the impact of the additional 63 dwellings in the area.

5.92 The view from officers is that the scheme would be viable with contributions up to a £110,000 plus the affordable housing at a level of 19 residential units.

5.93 As such in the absence of any S.106 contributions the development is contrary to Policy CS16 (LPCS) and Policy CS10 (LPCS) and section 4 of the NPPF.

Financial Considerations

5.94 In terms of other financial benefits, it is noted that these will accrue to the area as and when permissions are granted. The Government wishes to ensure that the decision making process for planning applications is a transparent as possible, so that local communities are more aware of the financial benefits that development can bring to their area. In this instance the proposed new residential units would generate the New Homes Bonus and Council Tax receipts. It is anticipated that Business Rate may be accrued form the commercial units.

6. Conclusion

6.1 In this case there are significant objections to the development relating to the siting, size, bulk, massing, design, impact on the street scene, adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and poor amenity for future occupiers. Furthermore this proposal fails to provide any affordable housing or any Section 106 contributions and is also considered to be unacceptable in this regard.

6.2 In the absence of adequate information to inform an AA the Council are unable to satisfactorily conclude that adequate measures could be put in place to mitigate the significant adverse effects of permitting the development on the designated site of the North Kent Marshes SPA/Ramsar. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Paragraphs 175 and 176 of the NPPF and Policy CS12 (LPCS).

6.3 Bearing all of the above in mind, it is not considered that this proposal can be supported and is recommended for refusal accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________________

Recommendation

REFUSAL on the following grounds:

1. The proposal by virtue of its siting, size, bulk, massing and design would create an overly dominant development that would not relate well to the character of the street scene and would not integrate well with the surrounding local area. As such the proposed development would, if permitted, fail to maintain the prevailing character of the area contrary to the objectives of Policies CS15 and CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and section 11 and 12 of the NPPF of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2. The proposed development, if permitted, would result in inadequate and unsatisfactory communal amenity space for future occupiers and would provide a poor layout which is car dominated putting pedestrians into conflict with vehicles. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Section 12 of The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and saved policy LT6 of Gravesham Local plan First Review (1994)which seek to ensure that proposed developments provide a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings, as well as maintaining the amenity of surrounding properties.

3. The proposed development by virtue of its siting, size, bulk, massing and design would create an overly dominant addition and unneighbourly form of development that would adversely affect the outlook and the private amenity space of numerous surrounding dwellings. As such, it would be contrary to Policy CS19 (Development and Design Principles) of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2014), which amongst other criteria requires new development safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties and to integrate well with the surrounding area.

4. The applicant has failed to provide any ecological evidence to inform a habitat regulations assessment covering the impact of the development on the SPA/Ramsar site or offered a financial contribution towards mitigation measures to address the impact of the development on the SPA/Ramsar site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS12 (Green Infrastructure) of the Borough Council's adopted Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2014) which seeks to ensure that detrimental effects on the integrity of SPA/Ramsar sites are avoided.

5. The proposed development fails to make any provision for affordable housing, or any other developer contributions. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy CS10 and CS16

of the Borough Council's adopted Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2014) and National Planning Policy Framework.