Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/10/1824             Date: 2 October 2010   Received: 27 October 2010

 

APPLICANT:	Mr R Lovitt, The Malta Moorings
LOCATION:	RIVERSIDE COTTAGE, SANDLING, MAIDSTONE,  KENT, ME14 3AS
PARISH:	Boxley
PROPOSAL:	Use of river bank to moor residential barges
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	30th June 2011   Amanda Marks

 

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

 

• It is a departure from the Development Plan

 

1.      POLICIES

 

• Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV26, ENV28, ENV31, ENV34, ED25
• South East Plan 2009: C4, NRM1, NRM4, CC1, T4
• Government Policy: PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPS5, PPS25

 

2.      HISTORY (most relevant)

 

MA/09/0601          - Riverside Cottage, Forstal Road, Aylesford.  Retrospective planning permission for change of use to moor residential barges from riverbank.  APPROVED

 

MA/92/0565 - Riverside Cottages, Forstal Road, Aylesford. Provision of moorings at 10 metre intervals along 245m of the north bank of the River Medway for residential ‘classic’ boats including sewage disposal facilities and parking for 15 cars. APPROVED

 

MA/90/1522 - River Medway and Castle View Farm. Moorings of boats, laying out of ancillary car parking and footpath. REFUSED

 

3.      CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1    Boxley Parish Council were notified and do not wish to object

 

3.2    Environment Agency: raise no objection but suggest the following informative:

 

‘The anchorages/moorings should account of the rise and fall of an extreme tide. We normally recommend that a 4 metre rise is considered, taken from the height of the nominal water level.

 

For information, under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Southern Region Byelaws , the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the River Medway, designated a ‘main river’.

 

3.3    KCC Footpaths: raise no objections

 

3.4    English Heritage: do not wish to comment

 

4.      REPRESENTATIONS:

 

4.1    One neighbour objection regarding lack of car parking, utilities and boundary ownership dispute.

 

5.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1     Site Description

 

5.1    This river site is located within the open countryside, a designated Special Landscape Area and Strategic Gap.   The site comprises 3 river boats moored along a 100m stretch on the north side of the river Medway. Policy ENV28 restricts development in the countryside unless it falls within strict criteria. New residential use is generally unacceptable and as such the proposal is a clear departure from the local plan and has been advertised as such. The proposal has also been advertised as affecting a PRoW (KH45) and the setting of a Listed Building.

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for residential moorings on a stretch of the northern riverbank of the River Medway 395m upstream of the Allington Lock. The application site comprises a length of 100m of the river, the adjacent river bank and some private land on the north side of the tow path.   There are 3 barges moored within the 100m stretch of river and it is for this section of the river that consent is sought for the change of use to residential. The operational development in terms of the moorings themselves have been in situ well in excess of 10 years and do not form part of the application.

 

 

 

 

5.3    History

 

5.3.1 Members may recall that a similar application was reported to Committee in August 2009 (MA/09/0601); this was on the adjoining 145m stretch of river immediately west of the application site.  Planning permission was previously granted covering both the 2009 application site and the current one for a temporary change of use in 1992.  Under the terms of condition 1 of MA/92/0565 the use should have ceased and the land/river returned to its former condition on or before 30 September 1997.  The use however continued unauthorised until August 2009 when the application was approved with regard to the use of 145m of the river and associated adjoining land.  The 2009 application only sought to regularise 145m of the residential use as this was all that was within the ownership of the applicant.    The remaining 100m which had previously been part of the 1992 had been sold on and is now the subject of this application.

 

5.3.2 The 1990 planning application referred to in the planning history was for a site opposite Allington Castle.  The application was refused on the grounds of inadequate parking, unacceptable sewerage arrangements, impact on the setting of Allington Castle and unacceptable residential development in the countryside. 

 

5.4    Planning Considerations

 

5.4.1 The main issues for consideration area as follows:

 

• Whether there are exceptional circumstances to override the policy presumption against residential development in the countryside;
• Whether the development affects the setting of a Listed Building;
• The impact of the development on the towpath a designated PRoW;
• Flooding/EA river uses;
• Amenity impact and provision;

 

5.5    Principle of the Development/Development in the Countryside

 

5.5.1 New residential development is generally unacceptable in policy terms and this is quite clearly the stance in PPS7.  Exceptions can be made to this if a dwelling is for the purposes of supporting an agricultural holding or if a case is made for exceptional circumstances.  Clearly this proposal is not for traditional residential development in the countryside as it is use of the river not land.  River traffic including moored boats is an expected and historic feature on main Rivers and the Medway is not an exception to this.   This stretch of the river is on the approach to Maidstone Town Centre and on a much used PRoW.  This area attracts a number of other leisure crafts and visitors to the attraction ‘Kent Life’ and adjacent restaurant and hotel accommodation.   The river barges are therefore highly visible from both on and off land.       However, Policy ENV28 strives to protect and preserve the character of the countryside and the assessment needs to be whether the river barges conflict with the purposes of the policy.  

 

5.5.2 There are no specific Development Plan policies for houseboats, however, as mentioned river traffic including permanent moorings are an expected feature on main rivers.   The principle of allowing such development was confirmed through the initial grant of a temporary planning permission in 1992 and more latterly through the 2009 application on the adjoining stretch of river.

 

5.5.3 The relatively minor nature of the development means that it would have a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area or the openness of the strategic gap.   Therefore I consider there would be no conflict with the respective policies aiming to preserve these designations.

 

5.6    Impact on the Setting of a Listed Building

 

5.6.1 On the southern side of the River further upstream to the south east is Allington Castle a Grade I Listed Building.  Policy BE6 of the South East Plan requires local planning authorities to have regard to the historic environment and support proposals which will enhance, protect and conserve as necessary. There are very limited views of the castle from the application site and then only when you get close to the end of the 100m strip.   Whilst the application has been advertised as affecting the setting of a Listed Building, in a similar vein to the 2009 application, it is my opinion that there is sufficient distance between this site and the castle not to affect the historic setting.  The Conservation Officer has not raised objection to the application and English Heritage do not wish to comment.

 

5.6.2  As stated earlier moorings have been a historic feature with this area for hundreds of years.   Policy ED25 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 allows for further small scale short term moorings; there is no specific policy for long term moorings such as those within this application.    

 

5.7    Public Right of Way

 

5.7.2 Previously KCC PRoW have raised concerns over the condition of the riverbank along this stretch of towpath and it was considered that the boats contribute to riverbank erosion.    This matter was fully explored at the time of the earlier applications and repair works were undertaken a few years ago due to slippage.   There are no objections to the current application from KCC PRoW or the Environment Agency and therefore the matter is not an issue for this application. 

 

 

 

 

5.8    Flooding

 

5.8.1  A flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application. This report is the same as that submitted under the 2009 application.   The report and conclusions were accepted previously and the Environment Agency has not raised any new concerns.  There are no objections on the grounds of flooding.

 

5.9 Amenity Issues

 

5.9.1  One of the main differences between this application and the 2009 application is that there is no guarantee of a parking area.  Whilst the applicant states that there is an arrangement with Malcolm Kerr to provide 8 car park spaces on his land at his boat yard in Gabriels Wharf, this is by no means legally binding and cannot be taken as a definite and lasting arrangement.   Furthermore, Gabriels Wharf is the opposite side of the river and to the west of the lock.   I therefore feel the application should be considered on the basis of there being no formal car parking.      This being said no complaints have been received with regard to residents parking in an unneighbourly manner in the vicinity.

 

5.9.2  The residents have the benefit of fresh water and are able to connect their systems on a regular basis to fill up their tanks.   There are no restrictions on their usage.  Power has been supplied to the residents by providing generators for their usage.    With regard to foul sewerage the residents empty their tanks at a pump out facility at the Locks.    With regard to bin storage, the residents pay Council tax to MBC and have been provided with bins.  Refuse is either retained on board or stored on land through a gate at the back of the towpath within an enclosure and then and taken to the Malta Inn for collection.  

 

5.9.3 Whilst the 100m application site does not have the same level of service provision as the previously approved 145m (i.e. no permanent parking provision or on land bin storage), the fact still remains that barges have been moored here for residential use in excess of 10 years.    The application is really to allow more certainty to the residents in terms of their future.    The reason for this application as opposed to the submission of a Certificate of Lawfulness was to remain consistent with the 2009 application.

 

5.10 Other Matters

 

5.10.1 The site is located within the countryside, however, it is not isolated in location. The site is approximately 200m outside the urban boundary of Maidstone.  Therefore it is considered that the barges are in a fairly sustainable location near to Maidstone and the amenities that it offers.  The tow path leads directly into the town for pedestrian and cycle routes from the application site.

 

5.10.2 The 1992 planning permission restricted the number of boats to ten within a stretch of 245m.   The 2009 application restricted this number to six over 145m.   There are currently 3 boats within the 100m application site, but I consider a condition restricting this to four is appropriate and would thereby equal the 10 restriction when both sites were as one.    Further, one of the currently moored is substantial and if the boats change then four could be accommodated within the application site. 

 

5.10.3 With regard to ecology, this has never been raised on any of the previous applications.  The residential use of the site has been in situ for approximately 20 years and the boats are an established part of the environment both visually and in terms of their potential impact on ecology.  There are no adverse ecological implications arising as a result of the development.

 

6.      CONCLUSION

 

6.1    In light of the above circumstances, I consider that there are exceptional circumstances in this instance as to why residential accommodation is appropriate in the countryside.  This is not traditional residential development of bricks and mortar, and the barges do contribute to the character and history of the River Medway.    I therefore recommend approval.

 

7.      RECOMMENDATION

 

I recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:       

 

1.   The maximum number of vessels that may be moored along that part of the riverbank within the application site shall not exceed 4 craft at any time.

Reason: In order to prevent the over-intensive use of the riverbank for mooring of vessels and to limit the impact of off site car parking in accordance with policies ENV28 and T13 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

2.   No sewerage shall be discharged to any surface water drainage system or watercourse.

Reason: To prevent any contamination of the water environment and in accordance with Policy ED25 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 20

Informatives set out below

The applicant is advised that under the Water Resources Act 1991 and associated byelaws, the River Medway is designated as a main river and as such, the prior written consent of the Agency is required for any works, in, on ,over, under or adjacent to the main river.   The byelaw margin for non-tidal main river is eight metres from the top of the bank or toe of flood defenence embankment or wall.

The anchorages/moorings should account of the rise and fall of an extreme tide. We normally recommend that a 4 metre rise is considered, taken from the height of the nominal water level.
Although the Agency has a right to enter onto land to carry out maintenance and repairs to the riverbank, it is not under any obligation to do such work.  In the absence of any express agreement to the contrary, maintenance or repair of the riverbank and any structure affecting the channel is the responsibility of the riparian owner.

 

 

 

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 the South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.