Contact your Parish Council
APPLICATION: MA/10/1893 Date: 1 June 2011 Received: 1 June 2011
|
APPLICANT: |
Mrs E Black |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
LAND BETWEEN MILLERS WHARF AND, WHARF ROAD, TOVIL, KENT |
|
PARISH: |
Tovil |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Application for permission to lower and reinforce a river bank mooring as shown on drawing numbers BL/11/110.01, BL/11/110.02 and BL/11/110.03 received 1st June 2011. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
21st July 2011
Catherine Slade |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● Councillor Derek Mortimer has called the application in for the reasons set out in the report.
1. POLICIES
- Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:ENV6, ENV22, ED25
- South East Plan 2009: CC1, CC6, CC8, NRM2, NRM4, C5, BE1, S5
- Village Design Statement: Not applicable
· Government Policy: PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, PPG13 Transport, PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control, PPS25 Planning and Flood Risk
2. HISTORY
● MA/83/1848 - 233 houses with roads, ancillary works and garages – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
2.1 Prior to the submission of the current application, an alleged breach of planning control, being the erection of a fence, was investigated adjacent to the site under ENF/11373. The case was closed on 6th October 2010 for the reason that planning permission was not required for the development. The fence remains in place, and is not the subject of the current application.
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Tovil Parish Council: wish to see the application approved, with the caveat that the recommendation for approval be restricted to the extent of fencing proposed under the current application. The Parish Council also indicated their wish that “any matters relating to waste disposal and other matters associated with mooring boats on the river should be the subject of a further planning application”. The Parish Council also request that conditions be attached to any permission requiring mandatory safety precautions; that the Environment Agency permission be forwarded to consultees; and the height of the river bank be restored once the lease expires.
3.2 Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health Manager: raises no objection subject to the imposition of a pre-commencement condition requiring the implementation of the recommendations of the Soiltec Desk Study Report dated 21st February 2011.
3.3 Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Officer: raises no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a pre-commencement condition requiring the implementation of the recommendations of the SylvanArb Arboricultural Report dated 23rd March 2011.
3.4 Kent County Council Biodiversity and Ecology Officer: raises no objection to the proposal and confirm that no ecological surveys are required to be submitted.
3.5 Kent County Council Highway Services Officer: raises no objection to the proposal.
3.6 Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer: raises no objection to the proposal, and confirms that the path through the site is not a public right of way as recorded on the definitive map.
3.7 Environment Agency: raise no objection to the proposal, but advise that the prior written consent is required for any proposed works or structures, in under, over or within 8m of the top of the bank of the River Medway, designated a “main river”, under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and Southern Region Byelaws.
The Environment Agency have also confirmed in writing that no flood risk assessment is necessary in regard to this application.
3.8 Southern Water: raise no objection to the proposal, but make the following comment:
“The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is via an existing watercourse. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment of the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse.”
3.9 Upper Medway Drainage Board: No response to the consultation to date.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Councillor Derek Mortimer wished to call the application in to Planning Committee in the event of a recommendation for approval for the following reasons:
“1. Concerns regarding future permanent mooring of boats and possible living accommodation
2. Flood risk. This land floods regularly, water backs up onto Millers Wharf, Wharf Road and The Tail Race properties. The change of the line along the bank could affect the river current especially in flood.
3. Public footway access and safety.
4. This area of land is currently inaccessible by vehicle, any works carried out here would require the permission of adjoining land owners and the taking out of restriction posts to access the river bank. Wharf Road is unadopted.
5. Concerns about construction or installation of buildings on the site.”
Councillor Mortimer has since confirmed that his reasons for the call in remain, and that his main concerns in respect of the application are safety as a result of the lowering of the wall which would allow easy access from a busy footpath with no lighting; the spread of contamination; and alterations to the wharf wall resulting in future flooding. He has also requested that a condition be applied to prevent the erection of sheds, etc. on the site.
4.2 Councillor Mike Hogg wrote a letter in support of the application on the grounds of improving the environment, reducing crime, and safeguarding the health and safety of the public. Councillor Hogg raised two issues, the provision of a life ring and a safety notice, drawing attention to the dangers that the river poses.
4.3 Councillor Hogg also wrote a letter in support of the application prior to his election as a Member, on the grounds that the proposal would encourage use of the river and reduce crime, and also noted that the appearance of the site had improved as a result of the works to date on the land.
4.4 Seven representations were received objecting to the application, which raised the following concerns:
● Prevention of access to the footpath adjacent to the River Medway to the south of the proposal site.
● Increased flooding.
● Increased disturbance due to recreational activities.
● Harm to the quality of the environment.
● Ownership of the land.
● Health and safety issues caused by the introduction of fencing, the uneven ground surface and lack of lighting.
● Compromise of future development to the south of the site.
● Overprovision of moorings on the River Medway.
● Impediment to navigation of the River Medway.
5. CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Site Description
5.1.1 The proposal site, as identified on drawing BL/11/110.01, comprises a strip of the southern bank of the River Medway with an area of approximately 0.01Ha. The site is level, and is formed of made land stabilised through a retaining wall which forms the river side in this location. A bollard and two mooring rings are located within the proposal site for the purposes of mooring vessels. Although the site has not been formally landscaped, and is in fact hard surfaced, grass and other forms of vegetation have colonised the land, including self sown tree specimens such as a sycamore tree and group of ash and sycamore trees.
5.1.2 The site is located in the parish of Tovil, within the urban area of Maidstone as defined in the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000. The southern river bank represents the boundary of the urban area in this location, however the River Medway itself and the land immediately to the north of the river, comprising the northern river bank and Medway Valley railway, is designated as falling within the open countryside.
5.1.3 The proposal site is located within the flood plain area associated with the river. A Public Right of Way (PROW), the KB11, runs along the north bank opposite the proposal site.
5.1.4 The Riverside Zone of Special Townscape Importance ends approximately 29m to the east of the site, at the Tovil footbridge which provides pedestrian access between the land to the north and south of the river. Opposite the site are the remains of a former railway bridge, which appears to have previously continued across the river to the application site, from where it served various mills and works. As a result of this historic land usage of the proposal site and the surrounding area, it is likely that there is contaminated land on, or in close proximity to, the proposal site.
5.1.5 Notwithstanding the above, the current land uses in the immediate proximity of the proposal site are predominantly late twentieth century residential development to the south west and the Bridge Industrial Area to the south east of the site.
5.2 Proposal
5.2.1 The proposed development comprises engineering operations to lower the river bank to provide better access to the River Medway for boat users. The proposed development includes the excavation of the existing river bank: the introduction of a new retaining wall and access steps from existing ground level to the lowered area; the provision of 6 bank side mooring poles; and the introduction of a fence to enclose the lowered area.
5.2.2 The proposed engineering operations would result in the lowering of the river bank by 1m relative to its current surface level. The lowered area would extend approximately 25.3m along the river front, and would have a width of approximately 1.5m, although this would vary due to the course of the River Medway in this location. Steps are proposed in the west of the site to provide pedestrian access between the two land levels.
5.2.3 The retaining wall and surfacing of the lowered area are shown on drawing BL/11/110.03 to be formed of reinforced concrete. The bank side mooring poles would be bolted into the upper surface of the lowered level, and to project 100mm into the river. The poles, which would have a diameter of 80mm, are proposed to be installed vertically adjacent to the river bank, for the purpose of allowing ropes to be passed around them for securing vessel. They would extend to a height of 2m above existing ground level, and 3m above the lowered ground level, and would be anchored into the river bed.
5.2.4 The tubular post and rail fence would be located immediately adjacent to the upper level for the purpose of providing a barrier to prevent harm to public safety. The fence would have a height of 1.2m above existing ground level.
5.2.5 For the purposes of clarity, I would like to make explicit that the application does not include a change of use of the land, nor the fencing to the south of the application site.
5.2.6 The use of the land is considered to be ancillary to the enjoyment of the river for public recreational use, and the application does not aim to secure its use for any other purpose, such as permanent or residential river moorings. The use of the structures for the mooring of craft on an ad hoc basis is considered to represent a purpose ancillary to activities associated with the use of the River Medway for recreational activities, and as such the use of the moorings is considered to be equivalent to the use of the public highway for the parking of motor vehicles. It is therefore considered that the use of the bollards as set out in the covering letter dated 1st June 2011 does not require planning permission.
5.2.7 The post and rail and stock fencing currently on land to the south of the application site does not require planning permission, and is not included within the scope of this application.
5.3 Principle of Development
5.3.1 The proposal site is predominantly located within the defined urban area of Maidstone, although the vertical elements of the proposal would project into the River Medway, which in this location is designated as being within the open countryside. The proposal is for operational development that would facilitate the use of the River Medway for recreational purposes, and as such the principle of the development is in general accord with Local Plan policy ED25, which supports the provision of small scale and shorter term moorings, subject to there being no loss of flood plain or land raising; harm to landscape or ecological quality of the locality; detrimental impact on highway safety; or harm to residential amenity.
5.3.2 In light of the location of the site in close proximity to the town centre, and within the defined boundaries of Maidstone, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in principle.
5.3.3 The key areas for consideration are therefore the visual impact of the development, the impact on residential amenity, implications of disturbance of contaminated land, and the impact on trees, as well as ecology and flooding.
5.4 Visual Impact
5.4.1 The works are proposed to an area which is industrial in origin, comprising hard surfacing and made ground with associated bollards and mooring rings, albeit overgrown with grass and some self sown trees. Furthermore, the proposal would result in limited built development above existing ground level, and would be viewed from the key public vantage point on the north of the river in the context of the concrete and metal pilings which support the river bank in this location, and the brick foundation of the now demolished railway siding.
5.4.2 Whilst a condition requiring the imposition of a landscaping scheme has been considered, in the circumstances of this case it is considered that the extent of the land within the control of applicants available for landscaping and the limited additional harm that would be caused by the proposed development are such that such a condition is unnecessary and unachievable.
5.4.3 For these reasons, in the circumstances of this case it is considered that the visual impact of the proposal would be limited, and acceptable, and that in the circumstances of this case a landscape condition is neither necessary nor achievable.
5.5 Residential Amenity
5.5.1 The nearest property is located approximately 24.5m from the site. Whilst objections received on the grounds of disturbance resulting from use of the mooring points are noted, there are existing structures on the site that can be used for such purposes, and therefore it is concluded that any additional harm caused by the proposed development would be limited.
5.6 Contaminated land
5.6.1 As stated above, the proposal site is located on land known to have been formerly occupied by a railway siding serving land with an extensive history of heavy industrial use, and as such is likely to be contaminated with potentially harmful substances such as heavy metals.
5.6.2 The existing river bank represents a barrier between the contamination source and the river, and the proposal would result in the disturbance of this relationship, with potential for contamination of the aquatic and atmospheric environments to occur.
5.6.3 This hypothesis is supported by the desk top study submitted in support of the application.
5.6.4 The report identifies the potential for contamination firstly to be present, and secondly to migrate in paragraphs 74.1, 74.2 and 74.3 of the report. The report goes on in Section 7.5 to set out a programme for the investigation and remediation of land contamination. The Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the findings and recommendations of the report are accepted, and therefore that no objection is raised subject to the imposition of a pre-commencement condition requiring the implementation of the recommendations of the Soiltec Desk Study Report dated 21st February 2011. The Environment Agency were consulted with regard to the report, and raise no objection to the proposal.
5.6.5 For the reasons set out above, I consider that the applicant has adequately addressed potential issues of contaminated land, and that therefore there is no objection to the proposal on these grounds, subject to the condition referred to above.
5.7 Landscaping
5.7.1 The applicant has submitted an arboricultural report in support of the application, which concludes that the proposal would result in the loss of a sycamore tree and sycamore/ash group, both of which are located in close proximity to the existing river wall, and are self seeded. The report concludes that the loss of these specimens is acceptable, and the Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Officer concurs with the findings of the report, subject to the a condition requiring implementation of the recommendations of the report in respect of protection measures for the remaining specimens to the south of the proposal site, and replacement planting in a more sustainable location adjacent to the site.
5.7.2 Notwithstanding the comments of the Landscape Officer, in this case, given the limitations on the extent of the proposal site it is not considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the planting of a replacement tree or additional landscaping. A condition should, however, be imposed requiring adherence to the recommendations of the SylvanArb report in order to safeguard the survival of the specimens to be retained, which would play a positive role in maintaining the character and appearance of the river bank in this location, particularly when viewed from the public footpath on the northern bank of the river and the foot bridge.
5.8 Other Matters
5.8.1 The Kent County Council Biodiversity and Ecology and Highway Services Officers raise no objection to the proposal.
5.8.2 Concern has been raised with regard to the implications of the proposed development on flood risk. Whilst the site is known to be located in an area recorded by the Environment Agency as being prone to flood, the proposed development is considered to be flood compatible, and it is not considered that the development would result in increased flood risk elsewhere. The Environment Agency have raised no objection to the proposal, and it is concluded on these grounds that there is no objection to the proposal for reasons related to flood risk.
5.8.3 Significant concern has been raised with regard to the pathway to the south of the river bank. This footpath is not a public right of way, and is not included within the proposal site. As such it is not a matter for consideration in the determination of the application.
5.8.4 The ownership of the land has also been queried by interested parties, however the applicant has supplied ownership certificate D (identity of owners unknown) and published a press notice, and as such the requirements in relation to ownership of the land have been satisfied in respect of the application.
5.8.5 Concern has also been raised with regard to potential impediment of navigation of the river as a result of mooring of boats. The river in this location has a width of 22.5m, and as such it is considered that the mooring of vessels of the scale capable of using the Medway above Allington Lock is unlikely to prevent other craft from using the waterway.
5.8.6 Whilst concerns have been raised with regard to the use of the proposed moorings for residential occupation, such a use would require planning permission, and is not included in the scope of the current application.
5.8.7 Various conditions have been requested by consultees including Local Members and the Parish Council. Of these, the suggestion that safety notices and a life belt be provided on the site is considered to be appropriately dealt with as an informative, as is the suggestion that any Environment Agency consent obtained be forwarded to the Parish Council, as set out below. The requirement for the river bank to be restored to its previous conditions is considered to be excessive, and to fail the tests of Circular 11 of 1995, in as far as the proposal is acceptable in principle, and therefore that the condition would be unnecessary. Likewise, the condition suggested by Councillor Mortimer is considered to be inappropriate in this case, as any future permanent built development on the site would require the benefit of a further planning application.
6 CONCLUSION
6.1 For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal would be visually appropriate in the context of the setting, and would not result in significant harm to amenity or the quality of the surrounding area.
6.2 It is therefore concluded that the application should be approved subject to conditions, as set out below.
7 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.
All
trees to be retained must be protected by barriers and/or ground protection in
accordance with BS 5837 (2005) 'Trees in Relation to
Construction-Recommendations' and as per the recommendations set out within the
SylvanArb Arboricultural Report dated 23rd March 2011. No work shall take place
on site until full details of protection have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved barriers and/or ground
protection shall be erected before any equipment, machinery or materials are
brought onto the site and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery
and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored
or placed, nor fires lit, within any of the areas protected in accordance with
this condition. The sitting of barriers/ground protection shall not be altered,
nor ground levels changed, nor excavations made within these areas without the
written consent of the Local Planning Authority;
Reason: To safeguard existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory
setting and appearance to the development in accordance with policies ENV6 of
the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and CC1 and CC6 of the South East
Plan 2009 and central government planning policy and guidance in PPS1
Delivering Sustainable Development.
3.
No
development shall take place until:
1. The application site has been subjected to a detailed scheme for the
investigation and recording of site contamination and a report has been submitted
to and approved by the Local planning authority. The investigation strategy
shall be based upon relevant information discovered by a desk study. The report
shall include a risk assessment and detail how site monitoring during
decontamination shall be carried out. The site investigation shall be carried
out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance
with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology and these details
recorded.
2. Detailed proposals in line with current best practice for removal,
containment or otherwise rendering harmless such contamination (the
'Contamination Proposals') have been submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The Contamination Proposals shall detail sources of best
practice employed.
3. Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a
Quality Assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
methodology. If, during any works, contamination is identified which has not
previously been identified additional contamination proposals shall be
submitted to and approved by, the Local Planning Authority.
4. Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a
closure report has been submitted to and approved by the local planning
authority. The closure report shall include full details of the works and
certification that the works have been carried out in accordance with the
approved methodology. The closure report shall include details of any post
remediation sampling and analysis together with documentation certifying
quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from
the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;
Reason: To prevent harm to human health and pollution of the environment in
accordance with the provisions set out in Planning Policy Statement 23 Planning
and Pollution Control.
Informatives set out below
Removal of existing trees or hedgerows containing nesting birds shall take place outside of the bird-breeding season (generally March to August).
A lifebelt (or similar) and warning sign should be permanently affixed to the fencing hereby permitted and maintained hereafter in order to prevent harm to human life.
The applicant is advised that the Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer should be contacted in the event that the adoption of the footpath to the south of the proposal site as a public right of way is sought.
The applicant is advised that copies of any consents obtained from the Environment Agency in respect of the development hereby permitted should be provided to the Parish Council.
Please note that the use of the site for long term or permanent residential moorings, or the introduction of any further built development (unless permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended)) will require the benefit of planning permission.
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.