Contact your Parish Council
APPLICATION: MA/09/1764 Date: 29 September 2009 Received: 1 October 2009
|
APPLICANT: |
Mr B. Morgan, Morgan Restoration |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
TOVIL BRIDGE BOATYARD, WHARF ROAD, TOVIL, KENT |
|
PARISH: |
Tovil |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Application for amendments to the development (originally permitted under reference MA/03/1595 as the erection of 9 three bedroom houses and 1 one bedroom maisonette with associated parking) seeking retention of the buildings as sited and alterations to the elevational treatment as constructed comprising; amended roof profiles to Blocks A & B, repositioning of main entrance to the maisonette unit to the west elevation (block B), changing entrance door to the maisonette unit to south elevation to a window (block B), repositioning northern balcony to first floor level (block B), utilising single access structure to block B and extending this to allow access to access to maisonette unit complete with disabled access ramp, removal of side entrance deck to maisonette unit, Introduction of small first floor windows in west and north elevations (block B), reduction in glazed area to north elevation (block B), introduction of first floor terrace to maisonette unit to east elevation (block B), amendments to layout of balconies at first floor (block A), removal of second floor balcony to south elevation (block A), reduction in curtain wall glazing and introduction of 3 small windows to east elevation (block A), introduction of 2 small windows west elevation (block A) and general relocation of materials (blocks A&B) as shown on site location plan and drawing nos. 09-1013-02 and 09-1013-03A and design and access statement received 01/10/2009 and drawing no. 09-1013-01C received 11/11/2009. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
26th November 2009
Steve Clarke |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● The recommendation is contrary to the views of Tovil Parish Council
· Councillor Chittenden has requested it be reported for the reasons set out in the report
POLICIES
Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV7, H9, T13
South East Plan 2009: SP2, SP3, CC1, CC4, CC6, H2, H4, H5, T4, NRM4, BE1, AOSR6, AOSR7
Government Policy: PPS1, PPS3
1 HISTORY
· MA/09/1468: An application to discharge conditions relating to MA/03/1595 - (Erection of 9 three bedroom houses and 1 one bedroom maisonette with associated parking. Access via Wharf Road and Beaconsfield Road) namely Conditions 4, 10, 11, 12, 15, 21 and 26: APPROVED 10/11/2009
- MA/03/1595: Erection of 9 three bedroom houses and 1 one bedroom maisonette with associated parking. Access via Wharf Road and Beaconsfield Road: APPROVED 24/11/2004
SITE HISTORY CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 Planning permission MA/03/1595 was subject to a s106 legal agreement that secured the following;
· A contribution towards Primary Health Care facilities (£2500) payable on occupation of the 7th unit
· The provision of a riverside walk and cycle way
1.2 Work commenced on the development but without discharge of pre-commencement conditions. Members will note that these conditions have now been agreed.
1.3 The development undertaken was not in compliance with the approved plans.
1.4 The key areas of non-compliance were in relation to the elevational treatment which saw the removal of previously approved balconies and the introduction of white horizontal rendered bands rather than balconies to the glazed sections and secondly, the roof design which differed in its profile and form to the approved scheme but not in height.
1.5 Enforcement notices were served requiring the demolition of the development. Following withdrawal of a subsequent appeal, these notices are still effective and valid.
1.6 Works ceased on site towards the end of 2007/early 2008 when the enforcement notices were served. The original developers subsequently went into administration. The site was re-marketed by the administrators and purchased by the current applicant who is seeking to complete the development should this application be approved.
2 CONSULTATIONS
2.1 Tovil Parish Council (11/11/2009): ‘Tovil Parish Council discussed this application and agreed to repeat its original objections to the original application (MA/03/1595) and to agree with the points made by Cllr Chittenden in his resume of the position to you.
1. How does the height of the buildings and roof lines for this application compare with the original approved application?
2. Please confirm that the emergency access road is only for the use of vehicles from the parking area at times of severe flooding which could block off the main access road. Please confirm that it is not intended as an access route for emergency vehicles.
3. How would the emergency access gate be managed?
4. How will the removal of waste be managed from the main access road?
5. Please confirm the number of parking spaces that would be lost in Beaconsfield Road as a result of the provision of the emergency access road.
6. Please confirm the situation with regard to that part of Wharf Road that is unadopted and in a very poor state. Is it intended that the developers will pay for or contribute for road improvement?
7. There is still concern that the buildings are in the wrong place, being too close to the rear fences of adjacent gardens. I understand they are shown in the same position on the new application, but have they actually been built in that position?
8. Please clarify if part of this development provides continuity for the cycle path under construction as part of the Cartem development?
Please also clarify whether the cosmetic alterations and additions to the overall site, eg slipway and moorings, footpath along the river are in accordance with the original permission.
Please also clarify the position regarding the Enforcement Notice issued by Maidstone Borough Council. How is the Enforcement Notice to be enforced?’
3 REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Cllr Chittenden wishes the application to be reported to the Planning Committee if recommended for approval for the following reasons:-
· ‘This has been a highly controversial development which seriously affects the amenity of local residents.
· There was and still is considerable concern over the access arrangements from Beaconsfield Road which is very narrow and will result in the loss of parking spaces.’
A subsequent e-mail from Cllr. Chittenden dated 29 October 2009 has raised the following further questions
‘I would now like to clarify the points raised by residents that need to be clarified as part of the consideration of this application as follows:
1. How does the height of the buildings and roof lines for this application compare with the original approved application?
1. Please confirm that the emergency access road is only for the use of vehicles from the parking area at times of severe flooding which could block off the main access road. Please confirm that it is not intended as an access route for emergency vehicles.
2. How would the emergency access gate be managed?
3. How will the removal of waste be managed from the main access road?
4. Please confirm the number of parking spaces that would be lost in Beaconsfield as a result of the provision of the emergency access road.
5. Please confirm the situation with regard to that part of Wharf Road that is unadopted and in a very poor state. Is it intended that the developers will pay for or contribute for road improvement.
6. There is still concern that the buildings are in the wrong place, being too close to the rear fences of adjacent gardens. I understand they are shown in the same position on the new application, but have they actually been built in that position?
7. Please clarify if part of this development provides continuity for the cycle path under construction as part of the Cartem development?
Letters from two local residents have been received to-date;
3.2 One supports the application on the basis that;
· The development will allow the project which has stood incomplete and uninhabited for some while to be completed and occupied.
· The overall design attention to detail and use of materials is of an excellent standard and far better than many of the neighbouring developments completed in the past few years.
· The completed buildings will have a positive effect on the character of the area providing much needed family housing and also provide security and overlooking of the nearby footbridge.
3.3 One objects to the development on the basis that;
· Block A has moved eastwards causing overlooking to their property and obstructing the view.
· The design of the roofs is not in keeping with other properties in the area.
· Concerns regarding the extent of use of the access between 11 and 13 Beaconsfield Road and strong objections to the loss of any parking spaces in Beaconsfield Road, which are at a premium.
· The development is on a flood plain and in such areas the government advise against development,
· If permission is refused the enforcement notice should be enforced and the development demolished.
3.4 Any further views received as a result of the further consultation on the change to the description and the additional plan will be reported to Members at the meeting.
CONSIDERATIONS
4 Site location and description
4.1 The application site comprises the site of the former Tovil Boatyard located to the east of and at the northern end of Wharf Road, Tovil. As the site address implies, the northern boundary of the site is with the River Medway. There are residential properties on higher land to the south and industrial premises to its west. Wharf Road is not adopted by the Highway Authority and ends in a well used public footpath which crosses over the River Medway via a pedestrian footbridge.
4.2 The site is in the urban area and is within the Riverside Zone of Special Townscape importance as defined by policy ENV7 and forms part of the allocated residential development site under Policy H9 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000. It has no other Local Plan designation.
4.3 The site is currently occupied by a partially constructed residential development upon which works ceased in late 2007/early 2008. The partially built-out development comprises 10 residential units in two terraced blocks of 5 units each. Block ‘A,’ faces towards the river and Bock ‘B’ is located at 90˚ to the river. The walls, roofs and glazing of the terraced blocks were completed prior to works ceasing.
4.4 Block A has three floors of residential accommodation above a garage level. From the rear (south) only three storeys are visible due to the fall in level across the site from south to north towards the river.
4.5 Block B comprises one two-storey unit at its southern end and four three-storey units. Due to the fall in land levels towards the river the unit closest to the river has a void underneath it that is currently partially in-filled.
4.6 Access to the site is gained from Wharf Road at the western end of the site. The 5 units facing the river have garages underneath whilst the other units are served by a car park, accessed via a ramp from the front section of the site. A gated emergency egress to Beaconsfield Road is shown from this car park.
5 Proposals
5.1 The application is a full application and seeks to retain the buildings as sited and to enable the undertaking of a number of alterations to the elevational treatment as constructed comprising the following (summarised) works;
1. Roofs: The main proposed change is to the roofs of the buildings on both blocks. The application seeks to cut-back the front facing vertical strut elements of the eaves of the roof by some 500mm. This provides for a ‘V’ shaped profile to the roof rather than the continuous profile of the roof and eaves detailing as currently constructed.
2. Balconies: It is also proposed to reinstate the first floor north-facing balconies to Block A introduce a common access deck including ramped access to the west facing (front) elevation of Block B and install a balcony at first floor level of the northern most unit in Block B.
3. The second floor balconies to the south facing (rear elevation) of Block A, are now deleted.
4. The entrance to the southern unit on Block B is also to be moved to the front (west facing) elevation from the southern elevation.
5. Elevational detailing: The other main elevational changes proposed relate to the repositioning of windows and reduction the area of curtain wall glazing on the east elevation of Block A and the insertion of 2 windows on the west elevation of Block A facing Wharf Road. The disposition of the cladding and rendered areas on parts of both blocks has also been changed.
6 Assessment
6.1. The principle of development was established by the earlier planning permission which secured through the extant s106 agreement the completion of the riverside walkway. Central Government policy requires the rehabilitation of derelict sites. The site is allocated for residential development in the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan. There has been no change in Development Plan policy since the previous permission was granted and the principle of residential development remains acceptable.
6.2 Members will be aware from the site history considerations set out earlier in the report that the site is subject to a valid enforcement notice. If planning permission was granted for this application to regularise matters and permit the currently proposed changes to the buildings, the terms of the enforcement notice would be superseded.
6.3 The enforcement notice was primarily served because of the objections to the design of the development’s roof as constructed through the loss of the previously approved ‘wave’ form which gave movement/rhythm to the roof design and the lack of certain architectural detailing such as the approved balconies. Changes had also been made to the elevation treatment through the introduction of white rendered horizontal banding across the glazing frames.
6.4 This application seeks to address these concerns and Members’ consideration of this application must solely be directed to the changes detailed in the application.
7 Siting
7.1 In respect of siting, Block A has moved approximately 1m eastwards. I do not consider this to be a significant change in terms of its impact.
7.2 The properties in Block A are sited between 32m to 35m north of the terraced dwellings in Beaconsfield Road. I consider this to be a satisfactory separation and that an unacceptable loss of amenity or privacy sufficient to justify and sustain refusal on these grounds would not result. The removal of the balconies on the first floor south elevation of Block A (facing Beaconsfield Road) assists in terms of privacy and amenity.
7.3 The movement eastwards of Block A, given the separation between the buildings in Beaconsfield Road and the new dwellings, is considered to be acceptable and again the change is not sufficient to warrant or sustain refusal on these grounds. As Members will be aware, loss of a view is not a consideration on which permission can be refused.
8 Roof
8.1 As approved, the roofs of the development had prominent over-sailing shapes designed to simulate wave forms, providing rhythm and movement to the design and appearance of the development.
8.2 As constructed this movement was lost with the roof planes being interconnected to form one continuous structure.
8.3 The cutting-back of the vertical elements of the roof supports now proposed allows for a greater overhang and layering on the building. The recently approved darkening of the render at eaves level provides for greater shadowing. The result of the changes is that the roof elements again over-sail, albeit not to the same extent as the original approval.
8.4 The rhythm of the roofs, and their form was a fundamental part of the original design. It was the opinion of this Authority that the development, as built, had resulted in the loss of this rhythm, which was fundamental to the design-led approach of the original application.
8.5 It is accepted that the roof is not as thin in profile as originally proposed. However, with the changes now proposed, the fundamental form of the buildings and the oversailing roof elements would be introduced once more. This would result in the loss of the rather monotonous and ‘top-heavy’ appearance of the buildings as they are in situ and replacement by more articulated roof forms above each residential unit.
8.6 The changes provide an acceptable form for the roof design and most importantly have restored its rhythm and movement. It is therefore considered that the changes made to the roof as a result of this proposal, are acceptable, and accord with the policies within the Development Plan.
9 Balconies
9.1 Similarly, the re-introduction of the balconies to Block A, and the provision of the access decking on Block B has further improved the detailing and layering of the development. The relocation of the entrance to the maisonette unit from the south to the west elevation of Block B and insertion of window, in-lieu of the previously proposed doorway, is acceptable. No objections are raised to the repositioned balcony on the northern end of Block B facing the River as no loss of privacy or amenity will occur and the fact that further interest and vitality is added to this elevation.
10 Other changes
10.1 The changes to the fenestration to insert three additional small windows in the east and two to the west elevations of Block A are acceptable and will not result in any unacceptable loss of privacy to nearby properties. The changes to the juxtaposition of the render and cladding on the buildings is also acceptable and does not detract from their character or appearance.
11 Other issues
11.1 In terms of the issues raised by the Parish Council and Cllr Chittenden that are not specifically addressed earlier in the report, these are not relevant to the consideration of this application as they related to matters that were considered when the previous application was determined and approved.
11.2 I can however advise Members that approval has been given to a landscaping scheme for the site and this will ensure the frontage of the site to the river is acceptable. The applicant is still obliged under the terms of the existing s106 agreement to complete the riverside walkway/cycle way to the site’s eastern boundary and offer this to the council under the terms of the agreement. Clearly, land ownership issues prevent this pathway linking to the ‘Cartem’ site.
11.3 Members will see from the site plan that access to the parking area of Block B is to be via a ramp from the access road to the front of Block A. The access between 11 and 13 Beaconsfield Road is indicated to be an emergency site egress only (primarily as a dry, secondary means of escape in a flood) and is clearly shown gated on the plan.
11.4 The improvement of Wharf Road is not part of the consideration of this application.
CONCLUSION
12.1 As stated earlier Members’ considerations should be directed solely to the changes proposed as set out in the application. Other issues and the principle of the development are not for determination.
12.2 In respect of those changes, the design of the development as now proposed has restored the rhythm of the roof and the architectural detailing of the previously approved scheme.
12.3 The resultant design and external appearance of the development is acceptable and the changes should be approved. There is no justification for refusal.
12.4 Permitting the application will result in a currently untidy and unfinished site being completed and brought into beneficial use and the river frontage also improved to the benefit of the overall character and appearance of the area.
12.5 The following recommendation is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
1.
The
development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission;
Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2.
The
open area at lower ground floor level of Block B shall remain open and shall
not be in-filled except with the written approval of the local planning
authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development pursuant to
policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009.
The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated, is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.