Contact your Parish Council
APPLICATION: MA/10/2159 Date: 17 December 2010 Received: 16 June 2011
|
APPLICANT: |
St. Modwen Developments Ltd. |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
FORMER SYNGENTA WORKS, HAMPSTEAD LANE, YALDING, KENT |
|
PARISH: |
Nettlestead |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Erection of residential development with both outline and full details comprising: Outline up to 19 no. residential dwellings including means of access with all other matters reserved, the provision of a development platform, open space and landscaping on site 1. Full details for engineering operation including temporary access on site 1A as shown on drawing nos. 14543/PO1/revE (application site boundary plan), 210091/03 (proposed temporary access to site 1A), 210091/05revA (proposed site access to site 1), Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, Noise and Vibration Assessment, Ecology Walkover Survey, Transport Statement and Archaeological desk-based assessment received 17/12/2010, letter to Kent Highway Services dated 08/03/2011 and as amended by letter dated 15 June 2011, Amended Flood Risk Assessment, Amended Method Statement for Earthworks, Protected Species Ecological Report, drawing nos. 14543/106/revD (Site 1 Illustrative Masterplan), and 14543/107revD (Site 1 and Site 1A Land Use and Access Parameters Plan), PRF-SYK-DWG-008revP00 (sites 1 and 1a general arrangements), PRF-SYK-DWG-009revP00 (Site 1 earthworks plan deposition area), PRF-SYK-DWG-010revP00 (Site 1a earthworks plan excavation area), PRF-SYK-DWG-0011revP01 (Cross sections) and Confidential Information received 16/06/2011. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
13th October 2011
Steve Clarke |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● It is contrary to views expressed by Nettlestead Parish Council
● Cllr Nelson-Gracie has requested the application be reported to the Planning Committee for the reasons set out in the report.
● It is a departure from the Development Plan as the development proposed is for residential development on a designated employment site under saved policy ED2 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.
1. POLICIES
- Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV28, ENV30, ED2, ED11, T13, T23, CF1,
- South East Plan 2009: SP2, SP5, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, RE3, C4, NRM1, NRM4, NRM5, NRM10, NRM11, H3, H4, H5, S6, T4, AOSR6, AOSR7
- Government Policy: PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS7, PPS9, PPS23, PPS25, PPG13
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Since the withdrawal of a 2007 planning application relating to the entire former Syngenta site (see planning history below), there have been continuing discussions between the developers and the Environment Agency regarding flood risk on the Syngenta site as a whole. The applicants considered in mid 2010 that sufficient progress had been made in relation to the land known as Site 1 (north of Hampstead Lane) to enable a scheme to come forward in advance of the larger site 2 (lying to the south of Hampstead Lane) on which discussions regarding Flood Risk are still on-going with the Environment Agency.
2.2 The applicants thought that agreement in principle in relation to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) had been reached and prepared a scheme based on the development of site 1 through construction of a development platform to provide up to 19 dwellings to be created by removing soil to site 1 to provide a compensatory measure on the flood plain from land known as site 1A located on the south side of Hampstead Lane to the west of Yalding Railway Station. The application was received on 17 December 2010.
2.3 Following formal consultation on the application, the Environment Agency objected to the Flood Risk Assessment and the detailed measures proposed in the application due to them not being satisfied that the flood risk had been adequately addressed. There followed a further period of negotiation between the developers and the Agency which culminated in a revised FRA and amended details of the soil excavation and a revised level for the development platform being submitted in June 2011. The Agency have subsequently withdrawn their earlier objections.
2.4 A number of titles have been used in the report to describe the various parcels of land on the former Syngenta site. These terms were originally used in the 2004 Development Brief. To assist Members I describe the areas below;
Site 1: An cleared area of 0.96ha located on the north side of Hampstead Lane, bounded to the east by KM188 to the west by the Maidstone West – Paddock Wood railway line and Yalding Station and car park. This is the proposed site for the residential development and open space and was formerly occupied by some of the Syngenta site’s operational buildings.
Site 1A: An area of land currently an open field amounting to 1.32ha in area located on the south side of Hampstead Lane to the west of the railway line and Yalding Station. This is the proposed site for the compensatory soil movement to enable the construction of the development platform on Site 1.
Site 2: The larger portion of the former operational Syngenta Site lying to the south of Hampstead Lane and east of the railway line. This site has been cleared with the exception of the former office buildings opposite Yalding Station.
3. HISTORY
3.1 The site has an extensive planning history relating to its former industrial use. There has also been a more recent application for mixed use redevelopment proposals relating to the entire site. The most recent planning history is set out below.
3.2 When it became known the site was to close, a development brief was prepared and adopted following public consultation in 2004. The Development Brief was not saved in September 2007 as it was only possible to save formally adopted Development Plan policies.
3.3 Relating to the entire former Syngenta Site (Site 1 and Site 2)
· MA/08/2505: Scoping opinion sought in respect of an environmental assessment to be submitted in relation to a proposed development being the erection of a maximum of 250 dwellings, up to a maximum of 15,000 square metres of commercial floor space (B1/small scale B8), the provision of a recreation area for formal sports activities to the north of Hampstead Lane, and additional area of informal public open space, (forming the southern boundary of the proposed development) and a dedicated area for a nature reserve: ISSUED 13/02/2009
· MA/07/1148: Outline application for a mixed-use redevelopment comprising: Employment development B1/B8 use (up to a maximum 29,265sqm.); Residential Development (up to a maximum 350 dwellings); A small retail convenience store (A1) (up to a maximum of 250sqm.); The provision of a recreation area for formal sports activities (to the north of Hampstead Lane); An additional area of informal open space; A dedicated area for nature conservation; The minor re-grading of an adjoining field (to the west) to alleviate wider flooding concerns. With access to be decided at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration: WITHDRAWN 25/04/2008
· MA/06/2029 : Scoping opinion sought in respect of an environmental assessment to be submitted in relation to a proposed development being the erection of a maximum of 500 dwellings, up to a maximum of 350,000 square feet of commercial floor space (B1/small scale B8), a small retail convenience store (A1), the provision of a recreation area for formal sports activities to the north of Hampstead Lane, and additional area of informal public open space, (forming the southern boundary of the proposed development) and a dedicated area for a nature reserve: ISSUED 29/12/2006
· MA/06/1367:A consultation with Maidstone Borough Council by Kent County Council for remediation of the decommissioned Syngenta Works leaving the site contoured for future development (future development not part of application): NO OBJECTIONS 11/10/2006
· MA/06/1074: Erection of a hoarding to Hampstead Lane boundary to provide security and site safety: APPROVED 14/07/2006
3.4 Relating solely to Site 1
· MA/01/1733: Alterations to the external appearance of two buildings by virtue of the demolition of three buildings: APPROVED 21/12/2001
· MA/01/1201: Outline application for the replacement of existing buildings with laboratory and associated offices with external appearance, landscaping and design reserved for future consideration: APPROVED 27/12/2001
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Nettlestead Parish Council: (Sites 1 and 1A are located within Nettlestead Parish)
4.1.1 Nettlestead Parish Council originally objected to the application on 2 February 2011 on the following grounds.
· The applicants have not demonstrated there is a safe evacuation route from the site under the 1:100 flood condition, and therefore do not conform with the requirements of PPS25. Access to the adjacent railway station does not provide adequate ‘evacuation’ as the access road would be flooded on both sides of the railway.
· The proposed maximum building height is inappropriate in a rural setting.
· The applicants have overstated the provision of local bus services. There is no pavement or other safe walking path for pedestrians to use between the site and the route of the no. 6 service which runs along the B2015.
4.1.2 Following the consideration by the Parish Council following consultation on the revised Flood Risk Assessment, ecological statement and the revised parameter plans and other details received on 16 June 2011, they made the following further comments on 15 July 2011.
‘The additional papers for this application were discussed at the Parish Council meeting on Wednesday. After consideration, Councillors wish to reiterate their earlier decision that this application should be refused on the following grounds:
· The applicants have not demonstrated there is a safe evacuation route from the site under the 1:100 flood condition, and therefore do not conform with the requirements of PPS25. Access to the adjacent railway station does not provide adequate ‘evacuation’ as the access road would be flooded on both sides of the railway.
· The proposed maximum building height is inappropriate in a rural setting.
· The applicants have overstated the provision of local bus services. There is no pavement or other safe walking path for pedestrians to use between the site and the route of the no. 6 service which runs along the B2015.
Please take these views into consideration when this application is dealt with by MBC’
4.2 Yalding Parish Council: (Consulted as adjoining Parish. Site 2 is within Yalding).
4.2.1 Yalding Parish Council originally objected on 2 February 2011 to the application on the following grounds:-
‘Yalding Parish Council objects to this planning application in its current form, and wishes to make the following observations.
1. PLANNING
We do not consider that the proposal to re-develop the wider Syngenta site by means of a number of ad-hoc, separate planning applications is the correct way to fully assess the impact of such a major development on the local environment. A Stakeholder cannot meaningfully comment on separate planning applications. Therefore we request that the LPA insist on a revised Development Brief to take into account the intent of the current applicant and which should be included in the LDF.
2. FLOODING
2.1. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25)
2.1.1. We reject the claim by the applicant at 3.23 of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) document that “Syngenta is the only site within the relevant area (i.e. the borough) that can be identified as being suitable to accommodate the type and scale, and functional requirements, of the development envisaged at the site in the adopted Development Brief: i.e. it is the sequentially most preferable site”.
2.1.2. The Sequential Test as set out in Para D1 of PPS25 states that “its aim is to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding”. This site clearly does not have the “lowest probability of flooding” within the borough.
2.1.3. For the Exception Test to be passed, it is necessary for the three parts of the Test (as set out in Para D9 of PPS25) to be satisfied;
a) The development provides wider benefits to the community that outweighs the flood risk
b) The development should be on Previously Developed Land
c) The development must be safe
In a flood situation the development is isolated by deep water therefore there would be no means for residents to escape safely from the site via the access road. It is only at 5.2.1 of the FRA that the applicant refers to any means of escape in times of flood. “Safe dry access for pedestrians will be provided by means of the public right of way on the southwest of the site and the footbridge over the railway line”.
There is nothing shown on the plans as to how this might be achieved; the proposal provides for access across the station car park onto platform one, then onto the footbridge over the railway lines to arrive at platform two. All this is property of Network Rail; have they agreed to the proposal?
On arriving at platform 2, there is currently nowhere to go other than back over the footbridge. The applicant has not shown how residents would leave platform two.
This means of escape would be totally unacceptable for disabled or elderly persons.
As the applicant has not demonstrated that he is able to provide a safe, dry escape route, the Exception Test is clearly not passed.
2.2. Other Flooding Issues
2.2.1. Compensation Area Site 1A
There is a complete lack of understanding by the applicant regarding the impact and nature of flooding of the site and the surrounding areas; any flood event in the Yalding area is preceded by a rise in the ground-water table. This would mean that the proposed compensation area would already be full of water before the flood arrived. Also, there is a raised railway embankment between Site 1A and Site 1.
2.2.2. FRA Correspondence
Kent Fire and Rescue have not been asked the relevant questions about their ability to evacuate vulnerable people from the site during a severe flood; they were only asked if they could fight a fire in a flood situation. Other emergency services do not appear to have been consulted.
3. OTHER MATTERS
3.1. Irrespective of the cost of remediation, Section 106 constraints should still apply.
3.2. Bus route number 6 does not serve Yalding village or this site and access to the stop would mean walking along a dangerous stretch of Hampstead Lane with no footway or any room to construct one.
3.3. There has been no formal consultation with Yalding Parish Council neither have we indicated to the applicant that we would support this application.
3.4. There are a number of minor errors contained within the documents, some of which were present in the 2007 application and were pointed out at that time but which the applicant has not corrected.
Finally, we would ask that this letter be fully reported to Members for their information.’
4.2.2 Following the receipt of the revised Flood Risk Assessment, ecological statement and the revised parameter plans and other details on 16 June 2011, Yalding PC made the following further comments by letter dated 1 August 2011.
‘Yalding Parish Council (YPC) withdraws its objection, in principle, to residential development on Site 1 but wishes the application to be placed before the Planning Committee as there are serious issues that need to be addressed before any planning permission is granted.
1. YPC has always maintained that the former Syngenta Works’ site should be dealt with as a whole but we note from the 2004 Development Brief that it was agreed that Site 1, being self-contained and not reliant on land to the southern side of Hampstead Lane to meet its development needs, could be developed independently from the rest of the site. However, it is now apparent that this will not to be the case as we note from the Environment Agency’s (EA) latest response to this application that Site 2 is to be used for flood storage compensation in respect of the development of Site 1. This quite clearly links the two sites and questions whether Site 1 can be developed independently.
2. It is quite clear from the EA’s latest response that Site 1A is not required for flood storage compensation and we see no reason for this site to be disturbed in any way. It is a mature meadow that is removed from both Sites 1 and 2 by the railway embankment and should not be permitted to form part of the development of either site. Aggregate needed for land-raising at Site 1, can easily be imported from Clubbs Limited, some half mile distant along the A228 East Peckham bypass.
3. We are still concerned that egress from the application site during a flood has not been properly demonstrated. We believe Section 106 monies should be spent to provide disabled access to Yalding station which in turn could create a pedestrian escape route. This should be coupled with improved lighting and CCTV cameras.
4. The applicant is telling us that the development of Site 1 should be viewed independently of Site 2 but fails to include within this application any provision for low-cost housing, intimating this and any other Section 106 funds will be included within the development proposals for Site 2. This is not acceptable and is another reason for the development proposals for both sites to be submitted together. It is otherwise impossible to understand what may, or may not, be provided for on Site 2.
As previously stated, YPC has no objection, in principle, to a residential development on Site 1 but we do not believe that Site 1 can now be developed independently of Site 2. If Members have a mind to grant permission, then we politely request that all of the EA’s conditions are included within the permission together with conditions covering the above.’
4.3 Environment Agency:
4.3.1 The Environment Agency first responded to the application on 3 March 2011 raising objections the application on the following grounds:-
‘In the
absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we OBJECT to the grant of
planning permission and recommend refusal on this basis for the following
reasons:
Reason: The FRA submitted with this application does not comply with the
requirements set out in Annex E, paragraph E3 of Planning Policy Statement 25
(PPS 25). The submitted FRA does not therefore, provide a suitable basis for
assessment to be made of the flood risk arising from the proposed development.
The wider development is situated within Zones 2 and 3 which represents areas
which are associated with a medium and high probability of flooding, as defined
by Table D1: Flood Zones within PPS25.
We note that the site has been sequentially designed so that the residential
development is situated within Zone 2 which represents a medium probability of
flooding, and as such, the development is deemed appropriate in accordance with
Table D3: Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Risk Compatibility. Notwithstanding,
the supporting Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should meet the minimum
requirements set out in Annex E which includes a requirement which states that
the FRA needs to be supported by appropriate data and information.
On review, it is apparent that the FRA (with particular reference to the
hydraulic modelling) lacks the appropriate level of detail for us to make an
informed decision on the suitability of the development proposals.
Following on from the above issue, we are therefore unable to ascertain which
parts of the site have been raised, and which have been lowered in order to
compensate for any loss of flood storage. As well as modelling outputs,
we’d expect the FRA to include supporting calculations detailing the volume
losses/gains resulting from the development. We also have concerns
regarding the effectiveness of the proposed compensation. The site
proposed to be lowered for compensation is some distance from the river and the
site itself, so it is questionable whether this can be classified as
“effective” compensation. If this area fills with water at the same time
as the development site it may be deemed acceptable. However, we are
unable to provide advice on the suitability of the compensation without the
supporting calculations because it is not entirely clear why the compensation
is required. We assume it is because of the land contouring on the actual
development site though this issue is not fully appraised within the FRA.
Taking all the above comments into account, we are unable to determine the
suitability of the development based on the model submitted. We have
advised previously that the model and development proposals need to be agreed
in principle, prior to the submission of a formal planning application, and we
are disappointed that the benefit of this consultation has not been taken
advantage of. We are therefore obliged to object to the planning
application.’
4.3.2 Following the submission of the revised FRA and other supporting documentation on 16 June 2011and having considered the assessments and material, the Agency made the following further comments on 11 July 2011
‘Following review of the amended Flood Risk Assessment, we are now willing to remove our objection to this application. However, this is subject to the following four conditions being attached to any permission granted.
Condition 1: The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) ref. June 2011 /PRFSYKD013/Halcrow for St Modwen Properties PLC and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
1. Provision of compensatory flood storage on / or in the vicinity of the site to a <100 year climate change standard.
2. Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the site to an appropriate safe haven.
3. Finished floor levels for living and sleeping accommodation are set no lower than <12.8 and 13.1>m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) for living and sleeping accommodation respectively.
Reasons:
1. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided. To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site.
2. To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site.
3. To
reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.
Condition 2 : The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced
until such time as a scheme to dispose of surface water has been submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented as approved.
Reason : To ensure adequate and appropriate disposal of surface
water.
Condition 3 : The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to ensure the development will not impact on the remediation works carried out at the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason : To comply with PPS23 by ensuring that works do not interfere with or damage back-placed materials and infrastructure such as the in-ground barrier.
Condition 4 : Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To comply with PPS23 by ensuring that works do not interfere
with or damage back-placed materials and infrastructure such as the in-ground
barrier.
Flood Risk
We are now satisfied with the set up and outputs of the hydraulic model, and with the supporting information contained within the amended FRA. The hydraulic model indicates that there is no increase in flood risk as a result of the development. That, considered with the combination of raised floor levels, and the provision of safe access/egress, satisfies Part C of the Exception Test.
Flood storage compensation is proposed at two sites, one south of the
development site (providing 16,500m3) and the other at agricultural
land to the west of the railway line (which is to provide 3,100m3). We
note that the hydraulic model indicates that the second site will provide
additional storage, however, we question the requirement for the provision of
storage at this area, given that the area to the south of the site provides
more than a sufficient amount of storage. The FRA states that this storage
area will reduce the flood level to the west of the area which will result in a
corresponding reduction in the volume of flow through Hampstead
Lane. In reality, any reduction is likely to be minimal. The
animations derived from the hydraulic model indicate similar depths for the
area for both pre and post development scenarios, even with the presence of
this storage area. Notwithstanding, we are satisfied that the removal of
the bunds at the main Syngenta site, will provide sufficient storage for the
displacement of 1,150m3 at the development site.
Surface Water
The ponds must be designed in such a manner so as not to interact with emplaced materials or the in-ground barrier in an adverse way.
Groundwater & Land Contamination
This proposal site was previously used for commercial/industrial use related to agri-chemicals production. The site facilities have been decommissioned and removed and an extensive clean-up of site contamination has been undertaken under a separate planning permission.
The development proposed should therefore undertake an assessment of final validation reports produced for the clean-up operations and assess any interactions with back-placed materials and infrastructure such as the in-ground barrier and the future development.’
4.3.3 The Agency therefore no longer object to the development subject to the conditions set out above.
4.4 Southern Water: Originally commented on 14/01/2011. They request that an informative is attached to any permission advising the developer of the need to make a formal application for connection to the private sewer. They also comment that it is not clear how SUDS facilities can be accommodated in the proposed layout. They request a condition requiring details of surface water to be submitted and agreed if permission is granted. They also advise that a public sewer crosses land within the confines of site 1A and request a condition requiring details to be submitted of measures to protect public sewers prior to the commencement of the development. They confirmed on 1 July 2011 in respect of the additional information that their previous comments stood and remained unchanged.
4.5 Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board (25/01/2011):
‘The area concerned is inside the drainage district and the Board would have no objection to the application from a land drainage viewpoint, as the site is adjacent to a Main River and site 1A is not going to impact the drainage district or affect the drainage in the surrounding area’
4.6 UK Power Networks (30/12/2010): No objections
4.7 Network Rail (11/02/2011):
‘Network Rail would like to express its concern regarding application MA/10/2159. Network Rail runs, maintains and develops Kent’s tracks, signalling, rail bridges, tunnels, viaducts and level crossings and has a duty to maintain a safe railway. The proposed development is located close to an unprotected foot crossing and consequently it is of our concern that as a result of the development, the foot crossing could be subject to increased use creating an unacceptable increase in risk to safety and performance of the operational railway.
It should also be noted that the sighting of approaching trains from the crossing is inadequate to give sufficient warning to users. This is currently mitigated by the provision of whistle boards, meaning trains sound their horns on approaching the crossing. In the event that residents in the new housing development object to the noise of trains sounding horns Network Rail could be forced to investigate alternative ‘quieter’ warning systems which would be very costly. Therefore any costs associated with upgrading the crossing warning systems to reduce risk or manage noise pollution should be borne by the developer.
Therefore Network Rail suggests the most logical solution to the above is to divert the footpath and close the level crossing.
Policy Assessment
From Maidstone Local Plan adopted 2000
POLICY ENV26
PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY UNLESS THE PROPOSALS INCLUDE EITHER THE MAINTENANCE OR THE DIVERSION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS A ROUTE NO LESS ATTRACTIVE, SAFE AND CONVENIENT FOR PUBLIC USE.
The diversion of the footpath at McDougall foot crossing would be safe and convenient for public use and allow the safe continued operation of the railway.’
4.8 Kent Highway Services:
4.8.1 Original comments were made on 3 February 2011.
‘The Kent Design Guide Interim Guidance Note 3 - Residential parking recommends, for village/rural locations, a minimum of 1.5spaces for each 2 bedroom dwelling and 2 spaces per 3 and 4 bedroom properties with an additional 0.2 spaces per property for visitors. This equates to a recommended parking provision of 40 spaces. The advice also recommends that the spaces should be independently accessible and garages provided in addition to the minimum parking provision.
The application proposes a total of 38 parking spaces which include garaging and driveway spacing in front of garages. 31 of the spaces are independently accessible. It is recommended that additional parking is provided to prevent congestion and obstruction occurring in the access road.
A new access is proposed onto the B2162 Hampstead Lane to serve the site. This being 5.5m in width with footways each side. The existing access is to be closed. Visibility from the new access measures 2.4 x 90m which is adequate for this location where there is a 40mph speed limit and speeds are restricted due to the road alignment. Tracking diagrams have been submitted which indicate that adequate space is available within the site for HGV's to turn and leave the site in a forward gear.
TRICS has been used to estimate the traffic likely to be generated from the development of the site. The results indicate that 9 trips would result in the morning peak hour and 10 during the evening peak hour which would be a reduction when compared to the traffic generated by the previous use of the site.
A Picady assessment indicates that the new junction will operate without capacity problems in the 2015 design year.
The site lies adjacent to Yalding Rail Station and opposite a larger development site which is also within the applicant's control. In order to facilitate improved access between the two sites and the station I would recommend that the footway leading into the site and along the site frontage is extended as far as possible to the station access and also increased in width to allow for use as a cycle/footway. Dropped kerb crossings should also be provided on each side of Hampstead Lane in order that pedestrians can cross from the site to the footway on the opposite side of Hampstead Lane which leads into the village of Yalding.
A temporary access is also proposed to extract material to raise the ground level of the development site. An access road of 5.5m with 4.5m x 90m visibility splays is proposed and although this is likely to be acceptable for this use, some indication of the number of vehicles using the temporary access is required and the length of time the access is likely to be in operation.
Subject to the above I have no objections to the proposals in respect of highway matters.’
4.8.2 Kent Highways recommend a number of conditions and informatives to be attached to any permission. The suggested conditions relate to the provision of a footway/cycleway along the site frontage to Hampstead Lane prior to first occupation of the development, a requirement for 40 independently accessible parking spaces, the provision and maintenance thereafter of the visibility splays indicated on the submitted plans at the site access, the permanent stopping–up of the existing access in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the LPA, completion of footpaths and access roads with the exception of the wearing course prior to first occupation and the provision of agreed parking provision before first occupation. Informatives would govern wheel washing facilities, site drainage to prevent surface water draining onto the highway and provision of parking on site for operatives and delivery vehicles.
4.8.3 Following clarification of the number and extent of movements associated with site 1A, the following further comments were received on 11 March 2011
‘Thank you for providing the additional information regarding the temporary access to site 1a along Hampstead Lane. The information indicates that 3 10T vehicles will operate over 8 hours a day for a period of 14 days (weekdays only). The number of vehicle movements is likely to be in the region of 48 per day. I can confirm that this is acceptable.’
4.9 KCC Ecology (18/07/2011): Do not object to the proposals subject to appropriate mitigation being provided.
They have made the following detailed comments on assessment of the submitted ecological information.
‘Under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. In order to
comply with this ‘Biodiversity Duty’, planning decisions must ensure that they adequately
consider the potential impacts of a proposed development on protected species.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation states that “the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity”.
Paragraph 99 of Government Circular (ODPM 06/2005) Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation - Statutory Obligations & Their Impact Within the Planning System states that
‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.’
Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species and Ancient Woodland. When determining an application for development that is covered by the Standing Advice, Local Planning Authorities must take into account the Standing Advice. The Standing Advice is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as a letter received from Natural England following consultation.
We are satisfied that the ecological walkover and the protected species survey reports have adequately considered the potential for impacts on protected species, on site 1 and site 1a, as a result of the proposed development.
Site 1a
The protected species surveys have identified that great crested newts and reptiles are present on site 1a. A mitigation strategy must be submitted for comments incorporating the mitigation detailed in chapter 4 (protected species surveys). This must be produced as a condition of planning permission.
The report states that no compensation or enhancements are required as the habitat would only be lost temporarily. However some enhancements must be incorporated in to the temporary receptor site to ensure that the carrying capacity of the site is not exceeded.
No details have been supplied in the report about how site 1a is proposed to be restored – the restoration must provided suitable habitat for great crested newts and reptiles. In line with PPS 9 the restoration must also incorporate ways to enhance the site for biodiversity.
As detailed within the report if the proposed development is delayed by 2 years (of the date of the surveys) an additional walk over survey of both site 1 and 1a must be carried out – the survey must recommend if any updated surveys are required.
Bats
No recommendations have been made in the ecological surveys to mimimise the impact that the proposed development may have on any foraging or commuting bats. Bats have been recorded within 1km of the development so there is a possibility that bats will use the site for foraging or commuting. When designing the lighting scheme for the proposed development the recommendations by the Bat Conservation Trust must be considered (where applicable)
a) Low-pressure sodium lamps or high-pressure sodium must be used instead of mercury
OR metal halide lamps where glass glazing is preferred due to its UV filtration characteristics.
b) Lighting must be directed to where it is needed and light spillage avoided. Hoods must
be used on each light to direct the light and reduce spillage.
c) The times during which the lighting is on must be limited to provide some dark periods. If the light is fitted with a timer this must be adjusted to the minimum to reduce the amount of ‘lit time’.
d) Lamps of greater than 2000 lumens (150 W) must not be used.
e) Movement sensors must be used. They must be well installed and well aimed to reduce the amount of time a light is on each night.
f) The light must be aimed to illuminate only the immediate area required by using as sharp a downward angle as possible. This lit area must avoid being directed at, or close to, any bats’ roost access points or flight paths from the roost. A shield or hood can be used to control or restrict the area to be lit. Avoid illuminating at a wider angle as this will be more disturbing to foraging and commuting bats as well as people and other wildlife.
g) The lights on any upper levels must be directed downwards to avoid light spill and ecological impact.
h) The lighting must not illuminate any bat bricks and boxes placed on the buildings or the trees in the grounds
Enhancements
The key principles of PPS9 are not only to avoid, mitigate or compensate for harm to biodiversity but also to incorporate ways to enhance and restore it. Drawing site 1 illustrative Masterplan shows that much of site 1 is to be converted to public open space and an attenuation pond is proposed. This area should be designed to incorporate habitat which is beneficial to biodiversity. We realise that the attenuation pond has been included in to the site for drainage – however it can be designed to benefit biodiversity.’
4.10 MBC Environmental Health (06/01/2011 & 08/07/2011):
‘My comments, made for a previous residential application on this site, MA/07/1148, are still largely relevant for this application. This site was formerly a pesticide manufacturing site, but was successfully and voluntarily remediated in 2007 following over 100 years of production (and contamination). However, despite all the remediation work that has been carried out, a contaminated land condition should still be imposed to check the validity of the work, especially as I note that significant quantities of topsoil are to be excavated and reused. I note that a noise assessment has been included with the application paperwork. It is, however, dated May 2006 and is therefore outdated and now unnecessary as it was only of relevance when the remediation works were being carried out and extensive plant and machinery were present.’
No objections were raised subject to a contaminated land condition and informatives covering wheel washing, dust management, the need for a site waste management plan and hours of operation and conduct on site during construction.
4.11 MBC Corporate Property Manager
‘I have read through the supporting documentation relating to the Syngenta site and also researched Land Remediation Relief (LRR). According to the HMRC documentation LRR is not available to benefit the principal polluter, as I understand matters, Syngenta has cleared the site of contamination and therefore no Relief is payable. According to my assessment the project demonstrates a negative land value of -£680,000. I have arrived at these figures upon the understanding that Syngenta has paid the equivalent of £1.8m in clean-up cost for this area of the site and that the land in a clean state has an equivalent land value of £1,500,000, this would realistically produce a land value of £3,200,000 against a market value of £1.5m. It is therefore my conclusion that this development is not financially sustainable.’
4.12 MBC Economic Development
‘I am in favour of this development, albeit that it is technically a departure from the Local Plan and provided of course that the site specifics will not compromise future delivery of employment generating and other uses. The development will provide valuable family housing within a part of the original allocation that should not compromise the achievement of a future mix of employment generating uses. It is also broadly consistent with the thrust of collaborative discussions held with the owners over the course of several years, with the intention of bringing the site forward. Permitting development adjacent to the Station will raise the profile of the wider site and potentially kick start development of its remainder by unlocking value and enabling further investment in a comprehensive regeneration scheme.’
5. REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Cllr Nelson-Gracie has requested that the application be reported to the Planning Committee for the following reasons:-
‘This is an application of considerable local interest (as part of a potentially much larger application relating to the whole site) and the LPA's proceedings in this matter should be transparent and available for public scrutiny’
5.2 SEVEN letters of representation from local residents, Kent Community Rail Partnership and Maidstone CPRE were received following consultation on the originally submitted proposals. Issues raised are (summarised) as follows:-
· The development is likely to lead to unacceptable increase in vehicular traffic along unsuitable roads that have been subjected to increased HGV traffic in recent years
· It is common to meet HGVs straddling the centre line of the road due to its narrowness. This development and the traffic associated with it will make conditions of highway safety worse and add to existing congestion when the level crossing is closed.
· The development should not be considered in isolation from Site 2 and should be a mixed development as previously envisaged
· The access road with a slope of 1:12 and no level approach where it meets Hampstead Lane will result in safety hazards in winter conditions
· Raising the development platform on the site will make the development visually intrusive.
· The applicants have failed to properly address flooding issues
· The development will result in an adverse impact, when flood events occur on existing local residents eg. In 2000 several local residents left their cars safely in the station car park until the flood waters receded, with an additional 38 cars, space within the car park would be at premium and some residents would have their cars damaged if a similar event occurred.
· The Community Rail Partnership support the principle of residential and employment development of the former Syngenta site, but are concerned that development may take place in a piecemeal manner. They believe that the developers should submit a master plan for the whole site so that the long term effects on local infrastructure and services can be properly assessed.
· This application is too small to take account of public transport needs and if there is to be a series of small applications in the future, opportunities for infrastructure improvements will be lost. In particular the Partnership comment that local roads do not lend themselves to bus services and that the adjacent railway station will provide the best option for commuters to Maidstone, Tonbridge and London, be they workers or students. Full development of the site would put pressure on the existing station facilities and there would be a case for improvements, for example step-free access to the Maidstone bound platform and better shelters and seating.
· Site 1A has been added to the development proposals and therefore there should be a comprehensive site-wide masterplan.
· As a brownfield and de-contaminated site, the principle of residential development is acceptable bearing in mind that its employment designation was given before the decision to close the facility was taken.
· There is no mention of affordable housing despite the threshold in the DPD being exceeded if 19 dwellings are built.
· The future of the open space should also be secured.
· Site 1A is in the Green Belt and therefore sensitive, although it is accepted that there will not be any permanent development on the land.
· Why is there the need to remove so much sub-soil from site 1A?
5.3 TWO further letters from local residents reiterating previously expressed objections were received as a result of the consultation on the additional details received on 16 June 2011. Maidstone CPRE also commented on the revised details stating that with the consent of the Environment Agency the applicant has now been able to reduce the height of the development platform on site 1 thus reducing the extent of soil removal from site 1A and subsequently reducing HGV movements. Affordable housing and open space have not been addressed.
6. CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Site Description
6.1.1 The Application site comprises two areas forming part of the overall land holding of the owners. One located immediately to the east of Yalding Railway Station on the north side of Hampstead Lane and other located to the west of the railway line, on the south side of Hampstead Lane, some 80m west of the level crossing on Hampstead Lane. The former Syngenta site has not been split into separate land ownerships.
6.1.2 Site 1 is an elongated triangular shape, and is bounded to the west by the Medway Valley Railway line, to the east by the Greensand Way (KM188), Medway Valley Walk (KM330) and Little Venice Marina, and to the south by Hampstead Lane (B2162). Site 1 has been cleared of buildings and has been decontaminated. The site is fenced and there is a wall and railings along the Hampstead Lane frontage. The site amounts to some 0.96ha in area.
6.1.3 Site 1a comprises part of ‘the field’ which is roughly rectangular in shape and is bound to the south by a footpath, to the west by a further arable field and to the north by a number of residential dwellings and Hampstead Lane. This site amounts to 1.32ha in area.
6.1.4 Site 1 is designated as an employment site under saved policy ED2 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 and is also subject to site specific and saved policy ED11. Site 1A lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
6.1.5 Both Site 1 and Site 1A lie wholly within land designated by the Environment Agency as Flood Zone 2 and parts of both sites are within Flood Zone 3.
6.2 Proposal
6.2.1 The application has two elements.
Site 1
6.2.2 That which relates to Site 1 is an Outline application seeking planning permission for up to 19 no. residential dwellings, the provision of a development platform, open space and landscaping. Access is to be determined and all other matters are reserved for subsequent approval.
6.2.3 Parameter plans and an illustrative site layout plan have been submitted with the application. The residential development would be located to the western part of the site on a newly created development platform some 12.5m AOD. The finished floor level of the units would be set at 12.8m AOD. This was changed following discussions with the Environment Agency and agreed in the revised Flood Risk Assessment as the original parameter plan assumed the finished floor levels to be 600mm above the development platform.
6.2.4 The illustrative site layout indicatively shows 19 dwellings (2, 3 and 4 bedroom terraced semi-detached and detached). A total of 38 parking spaces within the site are also indicated provided in a mixture of garages and parking areas. Along the Hampstead Lane frontage of the site two areas of landscaped open space would be provided including an attenuation pond and swales.
6.2.5 The amended parameter plan indicates that the dwellings would have a maximum eaves height of 19m AOD and a maximum ridge height of 23.3m AOD. This would result in a maximum overall eaves height above the proposed finished floor level in the region of 6.2m and an overall maximum ridge height above the proposed finished floor level of 10.5m.
6.2.6 The applicants have agreed to a condition seeking to ensure the dwellings will meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
6.2.7 The means of access to the site is to be determined at this stage and shows the provision of a new 5.5m wide access to Hampstead Lane with 2.4m x 90m visibility splays. This would have a 1:12 slope upwards away from Hampstead Lane towards the parking and development platform area.
Site 1A
6.2.8 The element that relates to Site 1A is fully detailed and seeks full planning permission for an engineering operation to remove subsoil from the site. This would be re-used on Site 1 and used to create the development platform. Permission is sought for a wide temporary access to Hampstead Lane with 4.5m x 90m visibility splays and a temporary 5.5m wide haul road within the site. Both of these elements would be removed and topsoil replaced on completion of the soil relocation.
6.2.9 The proposals for the land within Site 1A are as follows:-
1. Stripping of some 1,100m of topsoil (nominal 150mm thick) over an area of 7,300m and temporarily stockpiling on site. To allow access to subsoil material that is expected to be suitable for use as general fill for the land-raising to create the development platform on Site 1.
2. Excavation of some 3,100m (≈ 4,000m bulked) of subsoil, at depths ranging between 0m at the edge of the excavation area and 0.9m at the centre to reduce ground levels from a maximum of 13.5m AOD to approx. 12.5m AOD.
3. The haulage of material is proposed to be undertaken by 3 no. 10 Tonne lorries operating 8 hours/day. Based on a turn around time per lorry of 30 minutes and a lorry capacity of 6m the estimated volume of material that can be transported per day is 288m. Based on the fill volume required (1,150m ≈ 1,500mbulked) the duration of the earthmoving will be 6 days (i.e. 1,500/288) assuming only weekday working.
4. Reinstatement of previously removed topsoil (as per stage 2) to achieve a finished ground level of 12.5m AOD (similar to adjacent ground levels) and as shown in the post development flood modelling, including grass seeding.
5. Removal of temporary haul roads and reinstatement to similar condition as above.
6.2.10 The application has been supported by a fully detailed and revised Flood Risk Assessment that has been the subject of lengthy and detailed negotiations with the Environment Agency who objected following the initial submission. Ecological assessments of both sites have been undertaken and the details submitted. Other supporting information includes a transport assessment, planning and design and access statements, archaeological assessment and a noise and vibration assessment. A method statement and detailed plans for the proposed works to Site 1A have also been submitted.
6.2.11 The applicants have submitted detailed confidential financial information as to why the scheme is not viable to support the making of any s106 contributions in respect of the development. This is referred to later in the report in more detail.
6.3 Principle of Development
6.3.1 The site is designated as a retained employment site under saved Policies ED2 and ED11 of the Borough-wide Local Plan 2000. This is the reason why the application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan.
6.3.2 The site was allocated as a retained employment site under Policy ED2 and the site specific Policy ED 11 formulated at a time when it was assumed that Syngenta would continue to occupy the site, whilst ‘thinning-out’ some of the older buildings on the site rather than pursuing large scale expansion plans, a legacy from the policies contained in the 1993 Maidstone Borough Local Plan and a development brief published in 1994.
6.3.3 However, it was announced in 2001 that the works would close and production was scaled-down and subsequently ceased altogether at the end of 2003.
6.3.4 The Borough Council adopted a Development Brief for the former Syngenta Works in December 2004. The brief explored three scenarios for the redevelopment of the Syngenta Works site, as follows:
• Scenario 1 – that the entire site is sold as a single production unit
• Scenario 2 – that the developed area of the site is disposed of for speculative
employment development
• Scenario 3 – longer term development possibilities – should no interest be
expressed in continuing the use of the whole site for employment use and the
employment supply position in the Borough justifies loss from Class B uses.
The development brief was not subsequently ‘saved’ in September 2007 as it was only possible to save formally adopted Development Plan policies. The brief therefore carries only minor weight in the determination of this application but nevertheless is a material consideration and is useful in setting out the Council’s position on the consideration of the future uses of the site when it was prepared.
6.3.5 In anticipation of the closure of the Syngenta Works, consultants were appointed by the then owners to seek to identify a single prospective occupier in 2002/03 [Scenario 1]. This marketing exercise proved unsuccessful and further consultants were appointed to market the site to wider potential interests. These findings were published in September 2003 (Cushman & Wakefield) and concluded it unlikely that the comprehensive redevelopment of the site on a speculative employment basis would be achievable. In the light of these findings, it became increasingly apparent that is was unlikely that the whole site could be re-used for employment purposes, either by a single end user or multiple occupiers [Scenario 2].
6.3.6 Given these findings, the applicants sought to prepare an employment-led mixed-use redevelopment of the whole site, and discussions were held with the Council, statutory consultees and local residents on this basis in around 2006/2007. Initial discussions examined the possibility of providing up to 32,515m (350,000sqft) and up to 500 dwellings, but this was subsequently reduced to the level proposed in application MA/07/1148 (see history at section 3.3).
6.3.7 Application MA/07/1148 therefore responded to Scenario 3’s requirement for a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment of the entire former Syngenta works site, retaining a significant element of employment use, alongside the provision of residential accommodation and significant areas of public open space.
6.3.8 The application proposed,
· Employment development B1/B8 use (up to a maximum 29,265sqm.);
· Residential Development (up to a maximum 350 dwellings);
· A small retail convenience store (A1) (up to a maximum of 250sqm.);
· The provision of a recreation area for formal sports activities (to the north of Hampstead Lane);
· An additional area of informal open space;
· A dedicated area for nature conservation;
· The minor re-grading of an adjoining field (to the west) to alleviate wider flooding concerns. (Current site 1A)
The application was withdrawn following the Environment Agency’s objections on flooding grounds.
6.3.9 The development brief recognised the designated employment status of the site but stated that in the event that it was demonstrated that there is no market for the continued use of the site for employment purposes, the local planning authority would be prepared to give consideration to the redevelopment of the site to provide a range of residential, employment, social and leisure facilities.
6.3.10 The brief also recognised the current Site 1 as an independent and stand-alone self-contained site, which is largely distinct from the remainder of the wider former Syngenta land.
6.3.11 In particular, Site 1 is the part of the wider former Syngenta site which is most suitable for residential development: it is sequentially preferable in flooding terms (being of an elevated level comparable to the 1 in 100 year flood event level (plus an allowance for climate change), is in close proximity to Yalding railway station, is available for development now and the delivery of housing upon it is achievable within a reasonable timescale.
6.3.12 Furthermore, it is important that development is realised on at least part of the wider former Syngenta works. The sterile material presently situated upon the previously developed components of the wider site will become increasingly subject to wind and water erosion.
6.3.13 Concern has been expressed by a number of people and organisations including the two local Parish Councils, regarding the piecemeal nature of the development and that this has come forward in advance of a solution for the whole site. As can be seen the previous mixed-use application was withdrawn following objections by the Environment Agency. The discussion between the applicants and the Agency has been protracted and has only resolved the position in relation to Site 1 so far. The applicants are committed to the long term development of the wider site but are still seeking to address flooding risk issues and agree a position with the Agency in this respect.
6.3.14 Clearly it is not unreasonable for the applicants to seek to recoup some of the expenditure in clearing and cleaning the site. In addition, given that it is now over three years since the 2007 application was withdrawn and the fact that the flood risk position remains to be resolved on the larger site and no indicated timescale when this will occur is available, I do consider that to force the applicants to wait until the position has been clarified would be unreasonable given as I have already stated that Site 1 is a stand-alone site that is available and deliverable..
6.3.15 Employment development has not come forward to-date despite extensive marketing by the former and current owner. On balance I consider that in principle, residential development on Site 1 is acceptable as the site is available and deliverable. I do not consider that the development of this site in advance of the wider former Syngenta works area will prejudice delivery of that element and that nor will it prejudice the provision of employment related development as part of any development on the larger site 2. These views have also been expressed by the Economic Development Manager and no objections have been raised to the provision of housing on this part of the wider site from the Spatial Policy Team, due to the development brief, whilst recognising that in itself there is not a need to provide housing on the site in terms of the Council’s land supply
6.3.16 I have also considered the draft National Planning Policy Framework in relation to this application. Clearly the document has some relevance to the proposed development and carries some weight as a material consideration. However given the fact that the document is still at consultation stage that weight is limited and the decision on the application does not turn on the draft NPPF.
6.4 Visual Impact
6.4.1 Site 1A on the south side of Hampstead Lane west of the railway is located in the Green Belt. The proposed works are of a temporary nature and will be reversed and the land restored once the soil has been moved to Site 1. I do not consider therefore that the proposals will have a long term impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the site itself and that as result the visual impact is acceptable.
6.4.2 Site 1 was previously occupied by buildings and plant and these have now been cleared. There will be an impact arising from the residential development and associated development. The development platform and finished floor levels of the dwellings is likely to be in the region of 2.5m higher than the level of Hampstead Lane. The illustrative plan indicates that the open space areas adjacent to Hampstead Lane will be contoured and also higher than the level of the road. The proposed dwellings are also likely to be set back some 35m or more from the road, reducing their immediate impact further. The parameters, which are maxima, provide for a maximum ridge height of 10.5m above the finished floor level.
6.4.3 I have raised the issue of the parameters with the applicants, who have advised that they do not wish to see the parameters lowered by the 1m suggested. The reasoning for this is that they;
‘do not consider the proposed ridge heights (10.5m) are particularly onerous and currently provide for sufficient flexibility at this stage of the planning process in order to progress the ‘principle of development’ and bring forward detailed proposals at a later date.
It is considered that when assessed against the buildings that were previously on the site, and that the site is not viewed in isolation but in the context of the remaining buildings on Site 2, the Railway Station and the Bridge, the building heights as proposed are acceptable and the reduction of 1m will not provide for any visible material change.
We recognise the Parish Councils’ comments on the application, and whilst this may be considered a ‘rural location’, we are not located in a sensitive environment insofar that it is not an AONB location or any other such designation.’
The overall height of the buildings can be subject to detailed negotiation at reserved matters stage when comparison between the proposed dwellings and their surroundings can be more accurately made. I consider that at detailed design stage it will be possible to ensure that the proposed dwellings units will be of a high standard of design drawing cues from the local vernacular and resulting in a development that does not detract from the character of the area.
6.4.4 The site itself is largely screened from view travelling westwards along Hampstead Lane beyond the canal bridge which is a raised feature in the landscape. From the west side of the railway station and line the site is also largely screened due to the intervening station buildings and infrastructure which are on higher land than the site. The site is however prominent from the station platform and footbridge and also from the footpath along the canal and River Medway. This was of course the case with the previous industrial buildings on the site. The retained former Syngenta office building on the south side of Hampstead Lane opposite the station forms a prominent and tall backdrop to the site. in my view development on the site will therefore have some impact but in short distance views rather than medium to long views.
6.4.5 I do not consider that either elements of the proposal will have an unacceptable visual impact.
6.5 Residential Amenity
6.5.1 In terms of Site 1, there are no nearby residential properties that would be affected by the development.
6.5.2 Site 1A is currently an open field but has existing dwellings located either side. The works access is sited on the centre of the field some 20m from the property to the east and 18m from the property to the west. The boundary of the work area is between 45m and 50m from the nearest dwellings. There will clearly be some disturbance as the access and haul road are formed and earthworks are undertaken. As set out earlier, the actual movement of the soil once the site has been prepared is expected to take about 6 days given the quantities involved. The method statement suggests an 8 hour working day with no weekend working. Working hours are covered under Environmental Health legislation and appropriate informatives can be applied to any permission.
6.5.3 I consider that because of the temporary nature of the works that they are acceptable and would not with appropriate safeguarding conditions result in unacceptable disturbance to residential properties in the vicinity. Clearly there will be some disturbance as works are undertaken but this would be of a temporary nature, and the land would be restored to its previous state once works have been completed.
6.6 Highways
6.6.1 There are no highway objections to the proposal on highway safety or highway capacity grounds. Traffic generation will be at considerable lower levels than the previous industrial use and contain far fewer HGV movements. The visibility splays can be secured by condition.
6.6.2 Kent Highway Services have indicated that they wish to see 40 independently accessible parking spaces on the site. A ratio of 2 spaces per dwelling is indicatively shown amount to a total of 38 spaces including garages and open parking bays. I consider this to be an appropriate level of car parking provision, that strikes an appropriate balance between provision and the proposed extent of the landscaping and open space areas within the site. Paragraph 51 of PPG13 advises that developers should not require developers to provide more parking than they themselves wish and also promotes sustainable travel choices. Members will be aware that the site is located immediately adjacent to Yalding railway station which offers a realistic alternative to the use of the car for journeys.
6.6.3 I do consider it important that the existing footpath on the northern side of Hampstead Lane is maintained and also that it should be extended towards the station and extended when the existing access is closed off. This can be conditioned by means of a ‘Grampian’ style condition.
6.7 Ecology
6.7.1 The sites have been assessed for their ecological value and the applicant’s assessment and recommendations considered by the Council’s retained ecological consultants.
6.7.2 The findings of the assessment show that the most sensitive site in ecological terms is site 1A. As can be seen from section 3.9 of the report Great Crested Newts and reptiles have been found. Mitigation measures have been recommended in the assessment and can be secured by condition. I do consider it appropriate to ensure that the temporary receptor site is enhanced to ensure sufficient capacity as recommend by KCC ecology. In addition, the attenuation pond, swale and open areas on Site 1 can be designed in such a way as to enhance biodiversity in accordance with the advice in PPS9. Such measures can be the subject of conditions guiding the submission of reserved matters.
6.7.3 There are no grounds to object to the development in terms of its impact on ecology and biodiversity.
6.8 Flooding and site contamination
6.8.1 Flood risk has been the major issue and concern in relation to this application. The discussions between the applicants and the Environment Agency who originally objected have been protracted. This is the reason why the application has taken until now to reach Members.
6.8.2 Members will have seen from paragraph 4.3.3 above that the Agency no longer object to the development as now proposed.
6.8.3 A fully detailed FRA has been submitted in accordance with the advice in PPS25. This has been revised as a result of the Environment Agency’s concerns and the Agency has now confirmed that its original objections have been overcome. They do no object to the principle of residential development on the site. They do however recommend a number of conditions which are set in section 3.3.2 of the report. These relate to ensuring the recommendations of the FRA and specified finished floor levels are carried out and also relate to surface water drainage details.
6.8.4 Both the Agency and the Council’s Environmental Health section wish to see conditions imposed to ensure and validate that the previous decontamination and remediation works have been successful and that any imported material brought onto the site is also uncontaminated. In addition the Agency also wish to see any piling on the site controlled to ensure that there is no risk to groundwater due to the site’s previous use.
6.8.5 I consider that given the Environment Agency, the statutory consultee on this issue, have removed their objections to the development and subject to the appropriate conditions specified, that no objections should be raised to the development on Flood Risk or contamination grounds.
6.9 Planning obligations
6.9.1 The applicants have submitted confidential financial information including a statement as to the remediation costs already borne on the site and a development appraisal. The overall contamination remediation costs were in the region of £29.9million with approximately £1.8million of this attributable to the current site. This indicates that due to a number of factors including the limited developable area due to the flood zoning and the need for deeper foundations, that build costs/unit are likely to be higher than a ‘usual’ development site. The land value as a clean site is less than the amount expended on site decontamination and results in a negative figure of some £300,000. The developers are aware that the site is unviable but wish to bring the site forward to make some contribution towards the costs incurred to-date and to deliver housing on this site.
6.9.2 Given the financial information the applicants have indicated that they cannot provide affordable housing or make any other contributions resulting from the development.
6.9.3 The Corporate Property Manager has assessed the information and concurs with the applicant’s conclusion, that the development is unviable.
6.9.4 However, as the development is not currently not proposing to provide any contributions, due in part to market circumstances, I consider it appropriate to safeguard against future changes in the economy and in view of the importance of delivering the housing, to require the submission of a fresh viability assessment if works have not commenced on site within 24 months. It is also the case that development on the rest of the much larger site if and when it comes forward may be profitable and generate the need for appropriate s106 contributions in its own right.
6.9.5 This would enable a fresh assessment of this matter. This should constitute a clause within a S106 agreement. The applicants have agreed to this approach and indicated that they are prepared to enter into such an agreement with based on the suggested Head of Terms set out in the recommendation below.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 It is considered that whilst these development proposals represent a departure from the Development Plan, the proposals are acceptable and will provide the start of regenerating this previous industrial site.
7.2 The works on site 1A are temporary and reversible and will have no long-term impact on the character of the area or the openness of the Green Belt.
7.3 Housing development is considered to be appropriate for Site 1 having been earmarked as such in the development brief, albeit that this now carries little weight. The site is clearly previously developed land and will make a modest contribution to housing supply. The illustrative proposals indicate that an appropriate quality setting for the development can be provided and that there is potential to enhance ecology and biodiversity within the site.
7.4 Subject to the s106 agreement which seeks to secure a start on site within 24 months and appropriate conditions I consider the development to be acceptable and recommend accordingly.
8. RECOMMENDATION
SUBJECT TO:
A: THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A S106 AGREEMENT to secure:
(i) That in the event the construction of the dwellings has not commenced on site 1 within 24 months from the date of the agreement, that the applicants undertake to provide an updated viability assessment to be independently assessed by the District Valuer (or equivalent body) to enable reconsideration to be given to the potential for s106 contributions to be made in relation to the development.
B: The Head of Development Management be given DELEGATED POWER TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions and informatives apply to the development proposed on site 1:
1. The development shall not commence
until approval of the following reserved matters has been obtained in writing
from the Local Planning Authority:-
a. Layout b. Scale c. Appearance d. Landscaping
Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this
permission.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two
years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved;
Reason: No such details have been submitted and in accordance with the
provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) ref. June 2011 /PRFSYKD013/Halcrow for St Modwen Properties PLC and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
1. Provision of compensatory flood storage on/or in the vicinity of the site to a <100 year climate change standard.
2. Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the site to an appropriate safe haven.
3. Finished floor levels for living and sleeping accommodation are set no lower than <12.8m and 13.1>m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) for living and sleeping accommodation respectively.
Reason: To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided. To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. In accordance with the advice in PPS25 and policy NRM4 of the South East Plan 2009.
3.
The
development shall not commence until such time as a scheme to dispose of
surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The submitted scheme shall provide details of the proposed
SUDS methods to be used in draining the site. The scheme shall thereafter be
implemented as approved.
Reason : To ensure adequate and appropriate disposal of surface water pursuant
to policy NRM4 of the South East Plan 2009.
4.
The
development shall not commence until such time as a scheme to ensure the
development will not impact on the remediation works carried out at the site
has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented as approved.
Reason : To comply with PPS23 by ensuring that works do not interfere with or
damage back-placed materials and infrastructure such as the in-ground barrier.
5.
Piling
or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be
permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been
demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason : To comply with PPS23 by ensuring that works do not interfere with or
damage back-placed materials and infrastructure such as the in-ground barrier.
6.
The
dwelling units shall achieve a minimum of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable
Homes. No dwelling unit shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has
been issued for it certifying that a minimum of Code Level 4 has been achieved.
Reason: to ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development in
accordance with Kent Design and PPS1 and policy CC4 of the South East Plan
2009.
7.
If
the details of reserved matters submitted pursuant to condition 1 above propose
the construction of more than 10 units, the details of reserved matters shall
include measures showing that at least 10% of the energy requirements of the
dwellings are to be met from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.
Reason: To ensure an energy efficient design for the dwellings pursuant to
policy NRM11 of the South East Plan 2009.
8.
The
details of reserved matters of layout, scale and appearance submitted pursuant
to condition 1 above shall show inter-alia:
i) The development platform no lower than 12.5m AOD
ii) The finished floor level of the dwellings no lower than 12.8m AOD
iii) A maximum eaves height of no higher than 19m AOD
iv) A maximum height to ridge of no higher than 23.3m AOD
v) The development areas on site 1 in accordance with the Land Use and Access
Parameters Plan (drawing no. 14543/107revD received 16 June 2011).
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the
subsequently approved details.
Reason: To protect the occupiers of the dwellings in the event of a flood event
and to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development pursuant to polices
CC6 and NRM4 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS1 and PPS25.
9.
The
details of the reserved matters of landscaping and layout submitted pursuant to
condition 1 above shall include the following;
i) Full details of the layout and form of the open space areas including any
seating and informal play areas
ii) Details of the attenuation ponds and swales. The details shall include
their form and profile, the materials used in their construction, and proposed
planting regime using native species of local provenance
iii) Details of the boundary and landscape treatment between the site and Pubic
Right of Way KM188 and the site and Hampstead Lane.
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the
subsequently approved details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance to the development and in
the interests of ecology and biodiversity pursuant to policies CC6 and NRM5 of
the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS9.
10.
No
residential unit within the development shall be occupied until a
footway/cycleway together with 'dropped-kerb' crossing points either side of
Hampstead Lane has been provided along the site frontage to Hampstead Lane from
Public Right of Way KM188 as far as the access to Yalding Railway Station car
park together with the permanent closure of the existing redundant vehicular
access onto Hampstead Lane.
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety pursuant to the
advice in PPG13.
11.
Prior
to the first occupation of the any of the dwellings, the junction of the site
access road with Hampstead Lane shall be provided with the 2.4m x 90m
visibility splays and 2.4m x 90m tangential splay as shown on drawing no 210091/05revA
received 17/12/2010. The splays shall be maintained thereafter and kept free
from obstructions above 0.9m in height within the splays.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety pursuant to the advice in PPG13.
Informatives set out below
You are advised that the details of reserved matters should incorporate the use of bat/swift bricks on the proposed dwellings.
The details of reserved matters of appearance and layout should provide for a high quality of design and layout using design cues drawn from the local vernacular.
When designing the lighting scheme for the proposed development the recommendations by the Bat Conservation Trust must be considered (where applicable):
a) Low-pressure sodium lamps or high-pressure sodium must be used instead of mercury or metal halide lamps where glass glazing is preferred due to its UV filtration characteristics.
b) Lighting must be directed to where it is needed and light spillage avoided. Hoods must be used on each light to direct the light and reduce spillage.
c) The times during which the lighting is on must be limited to provide some dark periods. If the light is fitted with a timer this must be adjusted to the minimum to reduce the amount of 'lit time'.
d) Lamps of greater than 2000 lumens (150 W) must not be used.
e) Movement sensors must be used. They must be well installed and well aimed to reduce the amount of time a light is on each night.
f) The light must be aimed to illuminate only the immediate area required by using as sharp a downward angle as possible. This lit area must avoid being directed at, or close to, any bats' roost access points or flight paths from the roost. A shield or hood can be used to control or restrict the area to be lit. Avoid illuminating at a wider angle as this will be more disturbing to foraging and commuting bats as well as people and other wildlife.
g) The lights on any upper levels must be directed downwards to avoid light spill and ecological impact.
h) The lighting must not illuminate any bat bricks and boxes placed on the buildings or the trees in the grounds
The developer shall implement a scheme for the use of wheel cleaning, dust laying and road sweeping, to ensure that vehicles do not deposit mud and other materials on the public highway in the vicinity of the site or create a dust nuisance.
The importance of notifying local residents in advance of any unavoidably noisy operations, particularly when these are to take place outside of the normal working hours is advisable.
Attention is drawn to Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and to the Associated British Standard Code of practice BS5228:1997 for noise control on construction sites. Statutory requirements are laid down for control of noise during works of construction and demolition and you are advised to contact the Environmental Health Manager regarding noise control requirements.
Plant and machinery used for demolition and construction shall only be operated within the application site between 0800 hours and 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sunday and Bank Holidays.
No vehicles may arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the general site except between the hours of 0800 and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
The following conditions and informatives apply to the development on site 1A.
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
temporary access road shall be provided with the 4.5m x 90m visibility splays
shown on drawing no. 210091/03 received 17/12/2010. The splays shall be
maintained free of obstruction to visibility above 0.9m in height whilst the
access is in use.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety pursuant to the advice in PPG13
3.
The
works hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the details shown
on the Amended Method Statement for Earthworks and PRF-SYK-DWG-008revP00 (sites
1 and 1a general arrangements), PRF-SYK-DWG-009revP00, (Site 1 earthworks plan
deposition area), PRF-SYK-DWG-010revP00 (Site 1a earthworks plan excavation
area), PRF-SYK-DWG-0011revP01 (Cross sections) received 16/06/2011. Following
completion of the excavation works, all temporary haul roads, accesses, storage
areas, structures and other materials brought onto the site in connection with
the works shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with the details
of a scheme that shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning
authority before the commencement of the development. The restoration scheme
shall include measures that will provide for a restored habitat for Great
Crested Newts and reptiles together with measures that will enhance its
suitability for such species. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in
accordance with the subsequently approved details.
Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and in the interests of
flood prevention pursuant to the advice in PPS25 and in the interests of
ecology and biodiversity pursuant to policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009
and the advice in PPS9.
4.
The
development shall not commence until details of measures to protect the public
sewer which crosses site 1A have been submitted to and approved by the local
planning authority. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in
accordance with the subsequently approved details.
Reason: In the interests of flood prevention pursuant to the advice in PPS25.
5.
The
development shall not commence until a detailed mitigation strategy for Great
Crested Newts and reptiles affected by the development has been submitted to
and approved by the local planning authority incorporating the measures set out
in chapter 4 of the Protected Species Survey Report (SLR-ref 423-03120-0002)
received 16/06/2011. In addition, the mitigation proposed shall include
measures for the enhancement of the temporary receptor sites to ensure that the
carrying capacity of the site is not exceeded. The development shall thereafter
be carried out in accordance with the subsequently approved details.
Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity pursuant to policy NRM5 of
the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS9
Informatives set out below
The importance of notifying local residents in advance of any unavoidably noisy operations, particularly when these are to take place outside of the normal working hours is advisable.
The developer shall implement a scheme for the use of wheel cleaning, dust laying and road sweeping, to ensure that vehicles do not deposit mud and other materials on the public highway in the vicinity of the site or create a dust nuisance.
Attention is drawn to Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and to the Associated British Standard Code of practice BS5228:1997 for noise control on construction sites. Statutory requirements are laid down for control of noise during works of construction and demolition and you are advised to contact the Environmental Health Manager regarding noise control requirements.
Plant and machinery used for demolition and construction shall only be operated within the application site between 0800 hours and 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sunday and Bank Holidays.
No vehicles may arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the general site except between the hours of 0800 and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason for Approval
The proposed development whilst not complying with policies ED2 and ED11 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 is not considered to cause harm to the vitality and viability of employment provision within the Borough or cause harm to the appearance of the surrounding area or result in unacceptable flood risk. The development will also enable the commencement of the regeneration of this brownfield former industrial site. Subject to the conditions stated, there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.