Contact your Parish Council
APPLICATION: MA/08/1998 Date: 30 September 2008 Received: 11 February 2009
|
APPLICANT: |
Mr M. Hammond, Maidstone Housing Trust |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
BOWLING GREEN, LONGSHAW ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Erection of 18 (no) new bungalows and associated parking and central open space as shown on drawing numbers BG/01, BG/02, BG/10, BG/11, BG/12, BG/13, BG/14, BG/15, BG/16 and BG/17 received on 6/10/08 and as amended by additional documents being tree survey and report dated 13 November 2008 and drawing numbers BG/01a, BG/02a, BG/10a, BG/11, BG/12, BG/13, BG/14a, BG/17, BG/18, BG/20 and BG/21 received on 11/2/09. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
2nd April 2009
Peter Hockney |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● The Council owns the land
POLICIES
Maidstone
Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV23, T13
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006: SP1, QL1, HP2, HP4, HP7, TP19 NR1, IM1
Government Policy: PPS1, PPS3, PPG13
HISTORY
MA/93/0860 – Siting of portacabin for a temporary period for use as a pavilion for bowls club – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
MA/90/0212 – Temporary pavilion renewal of MA/85/0238 – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
MA/88/1110 – Outline application for a mobile hut for the use of the community – WITHDRAWN.
MA/85/0238 – Temporary pavilion (renewal of 80/1554) – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
MA/80/1554 – Temporary pavilion – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
MA/78/1519 – Pavilion for bowls club – WITHDRAWN.
CONSULTATIONS
West Kent PCT require a contribution of £11,592 based on £120 per person for a three year period on an average occupancy of 32.2 persons in total.
Mouchel have responded on behalf of Kent County Council requesting the following contributions:-
£227 per dwelling for libraries (£4086)
£180 per dwelling for adult education (£3240)
£1201 per dwelling for adult social services (£21618)
£827 per ‘applicable’ house for youth and community
Environment Agency has no objections to the scheme although wish to offer advice regarding soakaways.
Southern Water raise no objections and state that foul sewage disposal can be provided to the site.
Southern Gas Networks raise no objections to the proposed development.
Kent Police have no comments or observations to make on the application and have spoken to the applicant regarding Secured by Design.
Kent Highway Services have no objections to the proposals in respect of highway matters as the level of parking proposed is adequate and the proposed access onto Longshaw Road would be not cause a highway hazard.
MBC Landscape Officer wishes to see the application approved subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the removal of the existing trees and the maintenance of the replanting in accordance with the arboricultural report.
MBC Parks and Open Space raise concern regarding the loss of trees on the site and request a contribution of £28,350 for off site provision, upgrading and improvement of amenity spaces or play areas.
MBC Environmental Health Manager raises no objections to the application and recommend informatives are attached to any approval.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Royal British Legion have written in raising concern about potential complaints from future residents regarding the noise from the use of the adjacent premises.
One letter of objection has been received from a neighbour on the following grounds:-
· Loss of privacy.
· Overshadowing.
· Increased congestion on the roads.
· Amenities are stretched to the limit.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site, which is owned by Maidstone Borough Council, is located on the west side of Longshaw Road, Parkwood, approximately 50m south of its junction with Wallis Avenue.
The site itself is approximately square in shape and amounts to 0.45 hectares in area. It is bounded by existing trees and hedges although these are sparser on the boundary along Longshaw Road. The site was previously used as a bowling green, but more recently as a football pitch as evidenced by the goal-posts sited on the land. Previously a pavilion and other structures existed on the site. The use of the site as a bowling green ceased in 2004 and the pavilion and other buildings were demolished approximately a year later following an arson attack.
There are three Oak Trees on the site that are covered by TPO 35 of 2008, two are located towards the southern boundary, one in the south west corner, and another on the eastern side adjacent to Longshaw Road.
Approximately 15m south of the site is located the ‘Royal British Legion’ Pavilion this is a large utilitarian building with an extensive car parking area on its eastern side. Immediately to the west lies the large Parkwood Recreation Ground. This comprises an area of approximately 7ha in area. To the north and east of the site lies residential development comprising mostly terraced houses (two-storey) and flats (two, three and four-storeys).
The topography of the area is generally flat and therefore, the site is visible from Brishing Lane, some 210m directly west of the site across the recreation ground. It is seen however, in the context of the apartment blocks (two and four storeys) that bound the northern edge of the recreation ground and the existing trees along the northern boundary of the site itself.
The site is within the defined urban area of Maidstone but has no other specific designation in the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000).
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks full planning permission for the provision of affordable housing with the erection of 18 bungalows units on the site for occupation by persons over 55 years in age. The proposed units are all bungalows comprising 8 one bedroom units and 10 two bedroom units. The scheme is a contemporary bespoke design for the site with a particularly striking roof design.
A terrace of eight bungalows would be located towards the western boundary of the site in the form of a ‘crescent’ shape. To the east of these at either end of the crescent would be a pair of semi-detached units. The remaining units are formed into two further curved terraces of 3 units each located either side of the 3.1 metre wide access from Longshaw Road.
The central area of the site, which the proposed units all front onto, provides a landscaped amenity area with formal planting and seating and a planted pergola above a central pathway together with a car parking area providing 18 spaces (1 space/unit) including 4 spaces designated for use by persons with impaired mobility.
The plans indicate the loss of one existing protected mature Oak tree along the southern boundary, two existing and protected mature Oaks are to be retained, one in the south west corner and one adjacent to the site access off Longshaw Road. The applicants have indicated that the entire site will be bounded by a Hawthorn/Beech hedge, which will return into the site along the access road. In addition, semi-mature trees are indicated to be planted in the north west, north east and south east corners of the site (5m high, 18-20cm girth Oaks) with a further two planted in the central amenity area (5m high 18-20cm girth London Plane).
The units would be ‘semi-sheltered’ and for social rent. As indicated earlier, the design of the units is bespoke and contemporary in form. The units are designed with curved and angled mono-pitched roofs at a 12.5o pitch falling from approximately 4.5 metres in height to 2.5 metres. The rear terrace comprises 8 units and the roofs have been designed so that the centre two units form a ‘V’ shape with a valley gutter, with the roofs of the outer 3 units either side of the centre pair mimicking the angle and slope of the respective roof of the centre pair. The roofs oversail the eaves considerably.
This arrangement is copied for the three unit terraces either side of the site access road, i.e. the roofs on the units north of the site access face south and those on the southern side face north.
The two pairs of semi-detached units to the north and south of the site have ‘V’ shaped roofs mimicking the centre of the rear terrace group.
The roofs would be a single membrane-type coloured chestnut brown. The first 1.2m (approx) above ground level would be faced in a yellow multi-stock brick with a protruding string course with the remainder partly rendered (off white smooth render) or clad in red cedar (in the central sections framing the door and window openings. The windows would be double-glazed softwood and stained light oak, doors would be GPP ‘oak effect’ but compliant with pass 23/24 security standards.
The applicants have indicated that they are content for a condition to be imposed to ensure that the exposed flank walls of units 1 and 18 have frames applied to them to allow plants to grow up thus softening the appearance of the development further and in effect creating a green wall.
The dwellings have been designed to meet level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and to meet the majority of ‘Lifetime Homes’ requirements. A pre-assessment has been submitted indicating that the development would achieve level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
The application site is clearly located within the defined urban area of Maidstone as defined in the Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.
The definition of previously developed land set out in annex B to PPS3 states ‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure,
including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.’ It specifically excludes, however, ‘Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings has not been previously developed.’
Given this definition, the site does not technically fall within the definition of previously developed land. However, there is clear visual evidence that the land has been subject to development as evidenced by the concrete remains that exist on the site. Furthermore, the site is located within the urban area in a sustainable location close to community facilities and adjoined by and contiguous with existing residential development and is clearly suitable for the use proposed. The fact that the site would be developed for affordable housing for which there is a clear need within the Borough is also a factor that should be given considerable weight.
In addition, the site was a distinct and separate element of the wider Parkwood recreation ground and following its fall into disuse was subject to complaints regarding anti-social behaviour. The site was formally declared non-operational and surplus to requirements in October 2006 during this assessment a view would have been taken regarding the demand for such a facility with regard to a sports facility or informal open space. It was formally advertised for disposal in January 2007, with a view to the land being disposed of for housing purposes. This is a consideration that should also be taken into account by Members.
The other main issue to consider is the loss of the existing facility. Policy ENV23 of the Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 seeks to prevent the loss of existing areas of open space, sports facilities or recreation facilities. This policy states that the loss of such facilities will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for the development and either there is no deficiency of open space or recreation facilities in the locality or alternative provision of an equivalent community benefit can be provided to replace the loss.
As set-out above, the land has been declared non-operational and surplus to requirements. Although previously a bowling green, the site has not fulfilled this use for a number of years (since at least 2004). The site currently provides an informal area for recreation due to it being unsecured and open.
The loss of 0.45ha in the context of the 7ha of the Parkwood Recreation ground is not, in this case, considered to be unacceptable given the tightly constrained nature of the site and the fact that the development would not encroach beyond the existing boundary of the former bowling green area. The alternative open space of Parkwood Recreation Ground is immediately adjacent to the site.
In addition, the proposed development would include an area of informal open space with formal planting and seating areas and a pergola with additional landscaping. The use of this area would not be restricted to the residents of the proposed dwellings. In my view this would serve in some way as a compensatory measure in accordance with the requirements of Policy ENV23.
In conclusion on this issue, therefore, I consider that the principle of residential development on the site is acceptable for the following reasons:-
a) The site is within the defined urban area, and whilst not meeting the technical definition of previously developed land in PPS3, it is the case that the site is not unspoilt land that has never been developed, as evidenced by the clear remains of the former buildings. It is closer related in character and appearance to the urban area rather than open countryside.
a) The site is well-suited for residential development due to its sustainable location close to community facilities, public transport and other residential development.
b) The loss of the 0.45ha area which is tightly constrained and well-defined and given the element of compensatory open space within the scheme, it is not, in the context of the 7ha (approx) of the recreation ground that would be retained, contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV23 of the Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.
The proposed development is for affordable ‘semi-sheltered’ housing for which there is a significant and unmet need in the Borough.
The land has also been declared non-operational and surplus to requirements and has formally been advertised for disposal for housing purposes. This is an important material consideration when assessing this application.
DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT
The proposed development would be a contemporary bespoke design. Whilst it would not take much reference from the surrounding buildings it would be a development of high quality, both in terms of the architecture, the layout and the landscaping.
The site itself is surrounded by development other than to the north west, where Parkwood Recreation Ground lies.
The proposed development would be a low rise development maintaining a significant amount of space between the blocks of bungalows. This would result in a development that would respect its position adjacent to Parkwood Recreation Ground and due to the low rise nature, with a maximum height of approximately 4.5 metres, and proposed landscaping surrounding the site would not form a dominant feature from any vantage points. The design of the dwellings would ensure that there are a number of significant visual breaks between the dwellings that would ensure the scale of the development is kept to a minimum.
There would be some views of the development from wider areas, specifically across Parkwood Recreation Ground. However, this would not be harmful in the context of the area, which includes two, three and four storey buildings in the vicinity.
The general layout and design of the development has been altered since its original submission through negotiations with the applicant in order to result in improvements to the scheme. The change in layout and movement of the access has lead to two of the protected trees being retained rather than just one, this issue will be examined further in the Landscape Considerations below. There is a significant amount of landscaping proposed as part of the development and this would continue the soft edge of Parkwood Recreation Ground.
Individual waste bins are to be provided for the future residents in close proximity to their dwellings in order to prevent longer trips to a central communal bin store. The waste bins would be shrouded in planting in order to sufficiently screen them. Recycling bins would still be provided in a communal area.
LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS
Within the application site there are three oak trees covered by Tree Preservation Order 35 of 2008. The tree located in the south western corner of the site and the one adjacent to Longshaw Road would be retained as part of the development with one tree adjacent to the southern boundary to be removed.
A tree survey in accordance with BS5837 ‘Trees in relation to construction’ has been submitted as part of the application, which examines the existing trees on site and proposes protection measures in order to secure the retention of the identified trees on the site. Despite the loss of one of the protected trees on the site there is a good level of replacement tree planting with an additional five semi mature trees of both Oak and London Plane species proposed. The full details of landscaping will be submitted as part of a landscaping condition. The Council’s Landscape Officer has examined the proposed development and the submitted tree report and is satisfied with the findings of the report, the loss of he tree and the proposed level of replacement planting and recommends that the application is approved.
The proposed double staggered hedgerow of a Hawthorn and Beech mix around the site would screen the site and considerably soften the edge of the development. This combined with the retained and proposed trees on the site would maintain the green environment of this site and assist the development in merging with the adjacent Parkwood Recreation Ground.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The nearest residential properties to the development would be in Fairfax House approximately 8 metres from the development and screened by mature landscaping and on the opposite side a public road approximately 22 metres away in Longshaw Road. The low rise nature of the proposed development would ensure that there would be no loss of light or overwhelming impact from the proposed development. The single storey nature of the proposed dwellings and the proposed boundary treatments would ensure that there would be no loss of privacy to occupiers of existing properties.
The proposed units would each have a private garden area as well as access to the central communal landscaped seating area. This would provide sufficient amenity space for the proposed future occupiers of the development. The units with smaller garden areas, units 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are one bedroom properties with the two bedroom properties having larger garden areas.
The Environmental Health Manager has assessed the potential noise impact on the future occupiers and raises no objections to the proposed development. The units would be a minimum of approximately 20m from the existing Royal British Legion premises and this distance, the boundary planting and the single storey nature would mean that an acceptable level of amenity could be enjoyed by the occupiers without noise disturbance.
SUSTAINABILITY
The development would be located in a very sustainable location in the urban area of Maidstone close to the local amenities of Parkwood and public transport links.
As a Registered Social Landlord, the applicant’s have a requirement for developments to meet level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. This level will be achieved in this case and compliance ensured by imposition of a condition.
A pre-assessment has been submitted, which identifies that the development will as a whole achieve level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes with a score of 60.58%. This is achieved including 100% being scored in the sections for surface water, pollution and waste.
FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND PLANNING GAIN
Circular 05/2005 gives guidance on the use of Planning Obligations with regard to proposed development. Within the Circular it states:-
“In some instances, perhaps arising from different regional or site-specific circumstances, it may not be feasible for the proposed development to meet all the requirements set out in local, regional and national planning policies and still be economically viable. In such cases, and where the development is needed to meet the aims of the development plan, it is for the local authority and other public sector agencies to decide what is to be the balance of contributions made by developers…”
In terms of the development, contributions have been requested from Parks and Public Open Space, Primary Health Care and Kent County Council totalling almost £69000.
The Council’s joint number one priorities for Section 106 contributions are affordable housing and public open space. This development provides 100% affordable housing for people over 55 years old and therefore clearly meets one of the joint number one priorities.
A financial appraisal has been submitted on behalf of the applicant by Cluttons which identifies that the financial margins for the development would not cope with the requirement for contributions towards planning gain. Any requests for contributions would result the price paid for the land needing to be reduced. This would not be appropriate as the price quoted in the financial appraisal correlates with the value given to the land by the District Valuer. I attach a copy of the financial appraisal from Cluttons as exempt Appendix 1 and the District Valuers report as exempt Appendix 2 in part 2 for member’s information.
It is clear from the evidence contained within this financial appraisal that there would be no surplus for S.106 contributions towards any requested financial contributions. I consider that the delivery of 18 affordable units which would meet an identified need would outweigh the necessity to provide contributions to other services.
In terms of further consideration of this issue, a contribution is requested by MBCs Parks and Public Open Space department for the upgrade, improvement and renewal to amenity spaces or play areas within a two mile radius. I consider that given the future occupiers of the site, being over 55 years of age, that the likelihood of the occupiers utilising play areas would be extremely low. The site lies immediately adjacent to Parkwood Recreation Ground with its associated facilities. The scheme, as proposed, includes a significant area of open space within the central portion of the site. This would provide a planted and maintained area with formal seating and lighting for security. The area of open space would not be a private area for the residents of the new development and would be open to use by the wider community. The financial appraisal combined with the nature of the occupiers, the location of the adjacent recreation ground and the provision of some open space within the scheme leads me to consider that a contribution for Public Open Space would not be appropriate.
If the Council considers the provision and/or upgrading and improvement of open space in the area a priority then money from the sale of the land could be used for this purpose.
The proposed development is for affordable rented properties for those persons over 55 years in age. This means that the development includes no ‘applicable’ dwellings for the purposes of youth and community contributions.
The applicant has demonstrated that the scheme is not economically viable if contributions are sought. Whilst it is regretted that the S.106 contributions cannot be met, there is an identified need for affordable housing in this area and the scheme can be delivered. Central Government are encouraging Local Planning Authorities to be flexible in recognition of the recession and I consider hat an appropriate balance is being struck here.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant has met with Kent Police and the scheme will include Secured by Design principles. This would include some low level lighting, the details of which are required as a condition.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development would be for 18 bungalows of bespoke design for occupation by persons over 55 in need of affordable housing. The development would be a good use of previous developed land within the urban area. It would involve the loss of an area used for informal open space, however, as a result of the design and layout a replacement area of open space would be provided and this would ensure the development complies with the relevant national and local policies.
There would be no significant impact on the residential amenity of existing nearby residents and the future occupiers of the dwellings would have an adequate level of amenity.
The development would not be viable if Section 106 contributions are requested and an appraisal has been submitted to demonstrate this. Therefore no contributions are being requested for this 100% affordable development.
Overall I consider that the application is acceptable.
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.
Prior
to the commencement of the development, written details and samples of the
materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
building(s) hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed using the
approved materials;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance
with policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).
3.
Prior
to the commencement of development full details of the proposed communal area
including details of the pergola, seating, lighting and bin storage areas
proposed and details of the frames to be fixed to the flank elevations of units
1 and 18 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority and the proposed development shall be completed in accordance with
the approved details;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance
with policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).
4.
The
dwellings shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling
shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it
certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved;
Reason: To ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development
pursuant to policies SP1 & NR1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006
and the advice in PPS1.
5.
No
development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, using
indigenous species which shall include indications of all existing trees and
hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with
measures for their protection in the course of development and a programme for
the approved scheme's implementation and long term management. The scheme shall
be designed using the principles established in the Council's adopted Landscape
Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines;
Reason: No such details have been submitted in accordance with policies ENV6 of
the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) and QL1 of the Kent and Medway
Structure Plan (2006).
6.
All
planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping
shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the
occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever
is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from
the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged
or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of
similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written
consent to any variation;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the
development in accordance with policies ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide
Local Plan (2000) and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).
7.
Prior
to the commencement of the development details of surface water disposal have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;
Reason: To ensure satisfactory surface water disposal in accordance with
policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006.
8.
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking
and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within
Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A and B shall be carried out without the permission
of the Local Planning Authority;
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the development and the
enjoyment of their properties by existing and prospective occupiers in
accordance with policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).
9.
Prior
to the commencement of the development, details of all fencing, walling and
other boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details before the first occupation of the building(s) or
land and maintained thereafter;
To safeguard the character and appearance of the development in accordance with
policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).
10.
Not
less than three working days' notice shall be given to the Local Planning
Authority of the date on which the work to remove the Oak tree identified as T19
is to begin in order that an Officer of the Local Planning Authority may be in
attendance;
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and good arboricultural practice and
for the avoidance of doubt in accordance with policies QL1 and EN9 of the Kent
and Medway Structure Plan (2006).
11.
The
recommendations contained within the Tree Report carried out by John Gillbert
of Treeventures Ltd dated 13 November 2008 including the Arboricultural Method
Statement shall be adhered to throughout the development of the site from site
clearance stage to completion of the development;
Reason: To ensure the trees on site are protected in accordance with policies
QL1 and EN9 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).
12.
The
dwellings hereby permitted shall only be occupied by those persons over 55
years of age;
Reason: To ensure additional pressure on local services is not exacerbated in
accordance with policy CF1 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000).
Informatives set out below
All soakaways must discharge into clean, uncontaminated natural ground, above the water table.
A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. to initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk'.
Clearance and subsequent burning of existing woodland or rubbish must be carried out without nuisance from smoke, etc. to nearby residential properties. Advice on minimising any potential nuisance is available from the Environmental Health Manager.
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.
Reasonable and practicable steps should be used during any demolition or removal of existing structure and fixtures, to dampen down, using suitable water or liquid spray system, the general site area, to prevent dust and dirt being blown about so as to cause a nuisance to occupiers of nearby premises.
Where practicable, cover all loose material on the site during the demolition and construction process so as to prevent dust and dirt being blown about so as to cause a nuisance to occupiers of nearby premises.
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 Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.