Contact your Parish Council

Report - MA110580

APPLICATION: �� MA/11/0580�� Date: 8 April 2011�� Received: 12 April 2011

APPLICANT:	Mr A P� Stone

LOCATION:	LAND AT HAYLE PLACE, POSTLEY ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT ��
PARISH:	Maidstone, Tovil

PROPOSAL:	Application to extend the time limit for implementing permission MA/02/0180 for the erection of dwellings with garages and access and the use of the land as a country park with the provision of access and car parking with layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval as accompanied by covering letter, planning application form, planning statement and draft s106 agreement received 12/04/2011.
AGENDA DATE: CASE OFFICER:	24th November 2011 Steve Clarke

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

●� The Council has a land ownership interest in relation to a parcel of land adjacent to Postley Road.

1. �� POLICIES

� Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV24, ENV35, ENV49, H1,

�� H14, T13, CF1��

� South East Plan 2009: CC1, CC4, CC6, H3, H4, H5, T4, T5, S6, BE1, BE6, AOSR6, AOSR7

� Government Policy: PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS9, PPG13

� MBC Affordable Housing DPD 2006

� MBC Open Space DPD 2006

2.�� HISTORY

2.1�� Previous planning history on the site is as follows:

� MA/02/0180: An outline application for the erection of dwellings with garages and access and the use of the land as a country park with the provision of access and car parking. Matters of external appearance, means of access, siting, landscaping and design are reserved for future consideration: APPROVED 22/12/2008. (A copy of the previous report is attached at Appendix One)

� MA/96/1679: Removal of condition (vi) of permission MA/79/1037W to allow unrestricted use of the property as a single family dwelling house: Withdrawn

� MA/95/0419: Erection of first floor extension over stable block, ground floor link and change of use to 40 bed nursing home: Refused

� MA/93/0484: Temporary stationing of a mobile home: Refused

� MA/92/1647: Demolition of existing buildings and outline application for the erection of dwellings: Refused

� MA/86/1444�� : Temporary consent for lion cage and 4m high perimeter fence: Refused

� MA/85/1126: Change of use for multi-occupation by elderly people with warden accommodation: Refused

� MA/84/1335�� : Change of use to multi occupancy by old people: Refused

� MA/83/0589: Alterations and extensions to from stables, garages and swimming pool: Refused

� MA/81/1409: Temporary stationing of caravans: Approved

� MA/81/1408�� : Temporary stables: Approved

� MA/79/1037: Stud Farm (Full application): Approved 15/01/1980

� MA/78/1339�� : Outline application for a Stud Farm: Approved 12/12/1979 Section 52 Legal agreement also completed 12/12/1979.

3.�� CONSULTATIONS

�� Tovil Parish Council:

�� Agreed to raise no objection to the application or to the new proposed S106 �� agreements.

However, Cllrs noted the changes to the PCT and children�s play areas and TPC would wish to see contributions towards the maintenance of the existing play areas ring fenced to facilities in the parish of Tovil.

With regards to the funding for the PCT, Cllrs would wish to see the whole or part of this money ring fenced for facilities within the parish, e.g. towards the purchase of new community facilities within Tovil at the existing school building in Church Road which will become vacant in January 2012.

If MBC was mindful to reduce the percentage of affordable housing on this development, bearing in mind that all the units on the old MBC depot site in Armstrong Road and the Park and Ride site in Enterprise Road will be affordable, TPC would have no objections, especially if any additional funds arising from such action could be allocated to community facilities within Tovil.�

�� KCC Biodiversity: Given the management of the overall site has not changed �� since the last ecological surveys were undertaken it is considered that �� subject to �� the previous conditions being imposed as recommended by Natural England at �� the time, permission can be granted.

�� Kent Wildlife Trust: No objections subject to conditions of permission �� and the terms of agreement that seek to implement the wildlife � management of the country park and to protect and enhance wildlife interests generally as envisaged in 2008.

They confirm that the broad thrust of the Country Park Management Plan dated March 2008 is welcomed by the Trust, but emphasise that the Trust�s support for the document does not indicate its agreement to any of the suggestions for its direct involvement in the management arrangements. The Trust doesn�t rule out the prospect of its involvement but wishes to reserve its position pending an opportunity to consider the terms of such a contractual (or otherwise) arrangement at that time.

Kent Highway Services: No objections

�The application seeks to renew outline planning permission MA/02/0180 to develop Hayle Place, providing approximately 130 dwellings and a country park. Access is to be made from Postley Road along with an additional emergency access. The access should take the form of a 'minor access road' as described in the Kent Design Guide. Parking provision should be in accordance with the advice given in the Kent Design Guide � Interim Guidance Note 3.

The application was previously granted permission in 2008 and no highway related objection was made.

A Transport Assessment was submitted with the original application and this estimated that the number of traffic movements generated by a residential development of 148 dwellings and a country park would be 40 arrivals and 104 departures during the morning peak hour and 112 arrivals and 70 departures during the evening peak hour.

The current application seeks to provide 130 dwellings and therefore the traffic generation will be reduced from that originally expected. I note that the Country Park is to be managed with an emphasis on biodiversity and ecology and that no specific parking provision will now be made for this. This is also likely to lower traffic generation.

There have been changes within the area since the original application was submitted and subsequently renewed; an industrial centre in Postley Road has been replaced by housing, the Council Depot has closed and planning permission granted for housing and the Park and Ride site has also been approved for a housing development. I do not consider that these changes are likely to lead to a significant increase in the traffic flows in this area; however the number of HGV movements would be reduced.

In view of the above I have no objection to the renewal of this proposal subject to the submission and approval of a Travel Plan, details to be agreed by our Sustainable Transport Team together with a contribution of �5000 for the monitoring of the Travel Plan.�

Southern Gas Networks: No objections but have submitted a plan showing their apparatus in the area which is indicated in Gleneagles Drive and through the play area at the northern end of Richmond Way.

UK Power Networks: No objections

Kent County Council (Mouchel): Have requested contributions for bookstock at the new library and history centre in Maidstone of �7492.13 and a sum of �27,970.31 for the Youth and Community Service to meet the cost of providing three youth workers to accommodate the additional demand likely to be created by the development��

West Kent PCT: Have accepted the methodology set out in the applicant�s draft s106 agreement and have requested a contribution of �101,088. They have advised that a health care need has been identified for contributions to support Shepway Medical Centre and/or Marsham Street surgery and/or King Street. This contribution will be directly related to these developments for redevelopment and/or refurbishment.

�

MBC Conservation Officer: �This site remains allocated for housing development and permission has previously been granted under ref. MA/02/0180. In these circumstances it is difficult to resist this application despite my previously expressed concern at the potential impact on the setting of the listed building at Hayle Place, its parkland and the setting of the Loose Valley Conservation Area.�

MBC Parks and Leisure: Have provided details confirming the extent of work and likely costs (albeit based on 2006 estimates) for the outstanding improvement works to South Park. They have shown that these works are in excess of the �150,000 previously secured in the original s106 agreement and have also demonstrated that s106 contribution secured on other development sites have already been earmarked for projects in the park and that even if these were completed, works in excess of �150,000 remain to be carried out, such as the improvement of the existing pavilion.��

4.�� REPRESENTATIONS

4.1�� Thirteen letters of representations have been received. These include comments from the Valley Conservation Society, the Maidstone branch of CPRE Protect Kent North Loose Residents Association and 10 individual letters from local residents. In summary the comments made are as follows:-

� In the Planning Statement dated March 2011, reference is made to the provision of local play areas. Paragraph 1.4.9 states �there is an existing facility immediately adjacent to the proposed development at the rear of Richmond Way.� This is incorrect as this play area is not classed as a local play area (LAP).

� Over recent years, the North Loose Residents Association, in conjunction with Maidstone Borough Council and Kent County Council, and with the support of funding from KCC, has worked to improve the green space at the bottom of Richmond Way. This was without any support from the owner of the Hayle Place land and we do not consider it appropriate for the developers to start quoting the use of this land as an alternative to any obligations they have under the S106 Agreement for their land.

�� We therefore wish to raise an OBJECTION to this proposal.

� Paragraph 1.4.10 states: �In any event, if an additional LAP was needed, it could be incorporated into the margin of the proposed Country Park, this being open land with public access.� Maidstone Borough Council have included an Informative (INF8) on the original application that the aim is to secure the designation of the country park as a local nature reserve in due course, and we therefore also wish to raise an OBJECTION to the developer�s proposal to incorporate a LAP into the Country Park.

� We would be grateful if our comments could be noted by the Planning Officer, and believe that it would be better to dismiss the idea of a LAP within the development rather than prejudice the two areas mentioned above by its inclusion. There is an objection to the proposals to drop the play area within the development.

� The residents of Hayle Place Manor are opposed to the Postley Rd. extension which would give public access to what is now a private driveway. This change of use would create increased foot, cycle, and vehicle traffic and with it the associated noise and disturbance to the current residents of Hayle Place. This increase in traffic would negatively affect the peaceful setting of the Manor, which is a listed building

� Not enough school places to serve the estate

� Unacceptable impact on local doctors� surgeries

� Unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area and adjacent listed buildings

� More traffic

� Loss of trees and impact on wildlife

� There should be no parking facilities for visitors to the country park/nature reserve

� The original intention to manage the country park as a nature reserve must be adhered to.

� We don�t need the additional housing

5.�� CONSIDERATIONS

5.1�� Site Description

5.1.1 The application site lies within the parish of Tovil.� It extends to some 16.34ha in area. The site once formed part of the grounds of Hayle Place. Hayle Place is a Grade II listed building. The site is laid to grass with wooded areas and specimen park trees.

5.1.2 The site lies partly within the urban area as defined by the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 and partly in the countryside. Part of the application site lies within the Loose Valley Conservation Area and also within the Loose Valley Area of Local Landscape Importance (Borough-wide Local Plan policy ENV35). Part of the site is also allocated as public open space under policy ENV24 of the Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 and the part within the urban area allocated for housing development under policy H1.�

5.1.3 Many of the trees on the site form part of the historic landscaping of the parkland grounds of Hayle Place.� There are two avenues, which radiate out from Hayle Place. One runs along the original access road to Hayle Place at the southern end of this application site, this avenue however is in a very poor state due to having been mainly planted of Elms that have succumbed to disease and died in the last 30 years. The other avenue runs in a north-north easterly direction from Hayle Place and comprises mainly Horse Chestnut and Red Horse Chestnut. The east north and west boundaries of the site are marked by large trees typical of boundary planting for large houses of this era.�

5.1.4 Toward the eastern side of the application site there is a substantial dwelling house in a poor state of repair with a stable block to the west and another stable block in the central wooded part of the site.

5.1.5 The land to the north of the site is the rear of houses located on Gleneagles Drive and Caernarvon Drive. The land immediately to the east is the recently built Fountain Park residential development. The land to the south of the application site also forms part of the original grounds of Hayle Place. A large amount of this land again is laid to grass. Hayle Place and outbuildings lie in this southern area, a number of the outbuildings have been converted to dwellings and Hayle Place itself has been subdivided in to flats, however the area retains the character of a grand rural house in substantial grounds. The land to the west is open countryside with a number of dwellings. In essence therefore the land to the north and east of this site is the urban boundary of Maidstone town and is characterised by the backs of houses, whereas the land to the south and west is of a very rural character being open countryside with a few traditional houses and cottages.

5.2�� Proposal

5.2.1 This application seeks to extend the time limit for the implementation of the �� outline planning permission granted under planning application reference�� MA/02/0180. A draft s106 agreement has been submitted with this current application seeking to re-establish the obligations secured under the agreement signed in 2008. Those obligations are summarised in paragraph 5.2.4 below.

5.2.2 Members will note from the planning history set out above that the original outline planning permission remains extant.

5.2.3 The previous permission was an outline application with all matters reserved for future consideration for the erection of dwellings with garages and access and the use of land as a country park with the provision of access and car parking.� An illustrative land use plan was supplied with the application showing the site for the proposed country park and the housing allocation. This plan followed the allocations of uses of land indicated in the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan. Approximately 12.5ha of the site would be managed as a country park with the emphasis placed on a management regime that seeks to ensure the enhancement of ecology and biodiversity. The remaining approximately 3.9ha of the site would be the residential development �zone�, although clearly not all of this land would be covered by dwellings and roadways etc. Critically, the site was categorised as previously developed land. The number of houses is not fixed but is considered likely to be in the region of 130 units.��

5.2.4 The previous permission was subject to a s106 agreement that secured the following obligations.

� Off site open space contribution: �150,000 towards the improvement refurbishment and renewal of South Park, Armstrong Road

� On-site open space to be provided as identified in the approved Master Plan

� Primary Health Care contribution: �350/dwelling unit

� Affordable Housing: 40% of the dwelling units to be affordable units (60% rental units 40% shared ownership)

� Master Plan: The owners covenanted to seek to ensure that any applications for approval of reserved matters should reflect the details and development principles within the approved Master Plan

� Transfer of the Country Park.

� Payment of �500,000 to cover the cost of establishing the Country Park (�125,000) and thereafter maintaining it (�375,000)�

� Transfer of the freehold interest of the part of the country park owned by the Owner (approximately 12ha) to the Council, Tovil Parish Council and �� the Valley Conservation Society to hold on trust as trustees for each other

� Transfer of structural landscaping to the boundary in the north west corner of the site to the Council, Tovil Parish Council and Valley Conservation Society

� Following the transfer the Council, Tovil Parish Council and Valley Conservation Society will enter into a trust deed setting out the detailed provision by which the relationship between the three parties insofar as it relates to the Country Park�s future, will operate.��

��

5.3�� Assessment

5.3.1 This application seeks permission to extend the time limit for the implementation of the previous planning permission granted under reference MA/02/0180. As stated above the original outline permission is still extant.

5.3.2 It is necessary to consider therefore whether there have been any changes relating to the site or other relevant material considerations, including Development Plan policy, since the granting of the original permisison. A key consideration is also to assess whether the previous conditions remain apporopriate and if they should be reimposed.

5.4�� Policy

5.4.1 The site is subject to the followjng saved policies in the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000, ENV6, ENV24, ENV35, ENV49, H1, H14, T13 and CF1. These applied and were considered when the original permission was granted. The relevant policies set out above were saved between consideration of application MA/02/0180 at the Planning Committee on 19 March 2007 and the subsequent completion of the s106 agreement and granting of outline planning permission in December 2008.

5.4.2 Since the original permisison was granted in December 2008, the Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006 has been superseded. The South East Plan 2009 now forms part of the Development Plan although the government has announced it is their intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and provision for this has been made in the Localism Bill currently undergoing the Parliamentary process.

5.4.3 The policies in the South East Plan encourage sustainably located development and focus on urban-led rengeration. Other policies in the plan relevant to this application cover parking provision, flood risk, heritage, landscape and ecological implications for development. Policy H5 seeks to ensure an overall regional target tof 40 dwellings per hectare over the plan period. The site as noted above is classed as brownfield land.

5.4.4 These policies do not render the development unacceptable in principle.

5.4.5 The site is included wightin the Council�s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) published in 2009. The SHLAA shows an indicative yield of 130 units from the site.

5.4.6 The SHLAA forms part of the evidence base to the draft Core Strategy. Members will be aware that an initial period of non-statutory public consultation on the draft Core Strategy has recently ended. The draft Core Stragy takes into account sites such as this site that have extant planning permission in the housing targets and housing supply figures. At this stage however, the policies in the draft Core Stragy themselves carry little weight and the decision on the application does not turn on the document.��

�

5.4.7 The recently published draft National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration but due to its current preparation process with the initial consultation period having just finished, in my view it carries little weight and the decision on the application does not turn on the document.

5.4.8� I do not consider that there has been any material change in Development Plan policy since the original permission to warrant a different decision �� being �� reached.

5.4.9 In terms of government policy, both PPG13 and PPS3 have been amended since the original permission was granted. PPG13 has been amended to remove the requirement for an average of 1.5 parking spaces in new development and PPS3 has been revised to remove the minimum density requirement of 30 dwellings per hectare.

5.4.10 PPS5 has also been published. The impact on the Conservation Area and setting of the listed building at Hayle Place were examined at the time the original application was determined a process assisted by a historic landscape report and an archaeological desk-based assessment. It was concluded that designed appropriately, the residential element of the scheme would not have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the listed building or the conservation area. The applicants have submitted a Heritage Statement that addresses these issues in the light of the previous reports and the new advice in PPS5. This re-confirms that there would be no unacceptable harm to these heritage assets subject to appropriate regard being had to these issues in drawing�up the reserved matters. These elements are also addressed in the master plan drawn up as part of the previous section 106 agreement that and would be contained in the revised s106 agreement.��

5.4.11 The housing element to be secured as part of the development is counted in the �� Council�s housing trajectory and supply figures and forms an integral part of the identified supply. The original permission required the details of reserved matters to provide for a development to a density of not less than 30dwellings/ha. As Members will be aware, the approved masterplan provides for a range of densities across the site. Notwithstanding the change to PPS3 in respect of density, I still consider it appropriate for an average minimum density to be secured to ensure site provision is in accordance with the Council�s projected supply and also to ensure that an appropriate mix of housing types is secured throughout the site. The site is deliverable and available and development will also make a contribution towards meeting the Council�s affordable housing requirement.

5.4.12 In relation to the previous requirement for an average of not more than 1.5 parking spaces dwelling within the area designated for residential development, the change to PPG13 is noted. However as with all sites a balance needs to be struck between the amount of car parking provision and the extent of land such provision takes up which could otherwise be used for soft landscaping. The site itself is in a sustainable location relative to the Town Centre and also public transport (along Armstrong Road). I consider therefore that it remains appropriate to re-impose the previous condition.��

�

5.4.13 I do not consider therefore that the changes to government policy that have occurred warrant or point to a different decision being made.

��

5.5�� Landscaping and ecology

5.5.1 The site lies adjacent to an Area of Local Landscape Importance and partially within a Local Wildlife Site (that runs along the Loose Valley). There was considerable discussion during the determination of the previous application regarding the form of the country park and a concern locally that this site should not be developed as a �typical� Country Park with unlimited public access (eg Teston Bridge Country Park), but rather due to its sensitivity it should be managed with an emphasis on the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

5.5.2 The Management agreement secured as part of the original s106 agreement is designed with this emphasis in mind. I consider that the management of the �Country Park� area primarily in the interests of wildlife/biodiversity, with a greater degree of control particularly in relation to the more sensitive ecological areas within the site such as the Local Wildlife Site, whilst still enabling access to the public, would not be incompatible and would still accord with the views of the Local Plan Inspector who originally recommended the allocation of the site.�

5.5.3 I also consider that with the appropriate obligations being maintained as �� previously agreed, that the impact of development on biodiversity within the �allocated housing� section of the site and the wider site as a whole can be appropriately measured and a detailed development scheme designed to achieve the aims of Paragraph 13 of PPS9.�

��

5.5.4 Detailed landscaping schemes for both the park itself and the residential element will be required at reserved matters stage. Tree surveys will need to be revisited and this can be required by conditions reflecting those previously imposed. Likewise, detailed mitigation strategies for protected species were required to be submitted through conditions attached to the original permission. These conditions remain appropriate and should also be re-imposed.��

5.6�� Residential Amenity

5.6.1 At reserved matters stage it will be possible to ensure a scheme is developed that will ensure no unacceptable loss of privacy or amenity to any of the dwellings adjoining the site will occur, including the units at and adjoining Hayle Place itself and The Lodge (to the south and south west), Gleneagles Drive (to the north) and Laycock Gardens and Watersmeet Close to the east of Postley Road. These relationships have not materially changed in the period since the original permission was granted.�

5.6.2 The masterplan and guiding principles for the development that were secured as part of the original s106 agreement are proposed to be retained in the new S106 agreement, will help to ensure this is the case.��

5.7�� Highways

5.7.1 Kent Highway Services have considered the application and do not object to �� the renewal of the planning permission.

5.7.2 There have been changes to a number of sites in the vicinity of the application site since the permission was granted. These have occurred at Armstrong Road, where the Council Depot has relocated and permission granted for housing, Enterprise Road where the Park & Ride site has closed and its redevelopment for housing approved and Postley Road where Postley Works have been redeveloped for housing. These changes are not considered to have resulted in increased traffic generation overall and have in fact resulted in a reduction in the number of HGV movements.

5.7.3 The issue of parking is dealt with in paragraph 5.4.10 earlier in the report. I consider it remains appropriate to secure an average provision per dwelling unit across the residential element of the development.� However, I do consider it appropriate given the number of residential units likely to be constructed on the site (approximately 130) to require the preparation and submission of a residential travel plan. Such plans often include information on public transport/ car sharing schemes that operate in the area and incentives to householders to use public transport eg discount vouchers etc. Each plan is however individually tailored to the site and the eventual mix of housing.��

5.8�� Changes to the site

5.8.1 There have been no material changes to the application site the original permission was granted. �� Its management regime and appearance have remained consistent with the situation in 2008 over the intervening period.��

5.9 S106 contributions

5.9.1� The current application was accompanied by �� a draft s106 agreement that seeks to update the original agreement and provide for the following.

� Off site open space contribution: �150,000 towards the improvement refurbishment and renewal of South Park, Armstrong Road

� On-site open space to be provided as identified in the approved Master Plan

� Primary Health Care contribution: �101,088:�
(OFFICER COMMENT: Previously this was a figure of �350/dwelling but not a� final overall figure as the number of dwellings had not been set)

� Affordable Housing: 40% of the dwelling units to be affordable units (60% rental units 40% shared ownership)

� Master Plan: The owners covenanted to seek to ensure that any applications for approval of reserved matters should reflect the details and development principles within the approved Master Plan

� Transfer of the Country Park.

� Payment of �500,000 to cover the cost of establishing the Country Park (�125,000) and thereafter maintaining it (�375,000) in accordance with the management plan.

� Transfer of the freehold interest of the part of the country park owned by the Owner (approximately 12ha) to the Council, Tovil Parish Council and the Valley Conservation Society to hold on trust as trustees for each other

� Transfer of structural landscaping to the boundary in the north west corner of the site to the Council, Tovil Parish Council and Valley Conservation Society

5.9.2 Since the original s106 agreement was signed, there has been a change in regulations as they apply to s106 obligations. Any s106 contribution �� should now be assessed against the statutory tests as set out within Regulation 122 �� of the CIL Regulations 2010.

�� This sets out that any obligation should be;

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

5.9.3 The Council�s Parks and Leisure section has identified and substantiated the extent of outstanding improvement work at South Park. They have confirmed that contributions secured from other development in the area have already been allocated to projects within the Park, for example the provision of a new MUGA. The outstanding works are not subject to any allocated funding and total in excess of the �150,000 off-site open space contribution proposed to be secured through the new s106 agreement and include for example, works to refurbish the pavilion within the park. South Park is acceptably located in relation to the site and of an appropriate size to act as a neighbourhood park where a broader range of facilities can be provided. I am of the view that the proposed contribution meets the CIL Regulation tests set out above.

5.9.4 The provision of open space in the form of a LAP within the development site itself is also acceptable and appropriate. This will not be in the area of the Country Park as feared by some of the objectors to the application. In agreeing the Heads of Terms for the earlier s106 agreement Members stipulated that this open space need not to be equipped due to the presence of nearby facilities, but that it was necessary for the development itself to have some open space within it. The previously approved master plan also reflects this approach. I consider this obligation also meets the CIL Regulation tests and I am content that the precise location and extent of the open space within the site can be addressed at reserved matters stage.��

5.9.5 The provision of 40% affordable housing is in accordance with the Council�s adopted policy in the Affordable Housing DPD. There remains an identified need for affordable housing provision and this development will assist in helping to meet that need.� ��

5.9.6 The proposed contribution towards Primary Health Care facilities has also been re-assessed in the light of the West Kent PCT revised calculation method. I consider the request to be appropriate in meeting the additional needs likely to be generated by the development and that the PCT have properly identified the locations at which the contribution would be spent.

5.9.7 The masterplan document and the accompanying development guidelines have previously been approved by Members for inclusion into the s106 agreement. The document remains acceptable in terms of its content and guidance and is necessary to assist in setting out parameters to guide the reserved matters submissions. I consider that it remains an acceptable Head of Term.

5.9.8 The obligations relating to the setting up and management of the country park have also been assessed against the CIL regulation tests. The whole site including the country park area was considered as package by the Local Plan Inspector in recommending the site�s allocation in the Borough-wide Local Plan 2000. The park is part of the application and the proposed obligations seek to provide for its provision, setting up and on-going maintenance for a period of ten years as well as its transfer into public ownership. I consider that the obligations and contribution are fairly and reasonably related in scale to the proposed development and that the obligations are necessary to render the development acceptable and are directly related to the development.

5.9.9 The request from KCC for Library (�7492.13 for bookstock for the new Maidstone Library and History Centre) and Youth and Community (�27,970.31 being the cost of providing three youth workers) contributions have also been considered. �� These were not secured under the earlier s106 agreement but have been considered against the CIL Regulation tests. Kent County Council has submitted sufficient justification for the proposed contributions and I do consider that they meet the necessary tests. On this basis I do consider it appropriate to include these additional obligations in the Heads of Terms.��

5.9.10 I consider therefore that the proposed Heads of Terms are acceptable and meet the CIL Regulation tests.��

6.�� CONCLUSION

6.1 �� There have been no significant material changes to the site or planning policies applying to it since the original outline planning permission was granted in December 2008.

6.2�� The proposed s106 obligations have been reviewed in the light of the CIL Regulations and still considered to be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly related in scale and kind to the development. The additional contributions requested by Kent County Council are also considered to be justified and appropriate.

6.3�� The previously approved masterplan and development guidelines will help to ensure appropriate reserved matters details will be developed. It is through this process that the scale, layout, landscaping and appearance of the development will be finalised. At this stage it will be possible to ensure that the development will not unacceptable affect the amities of nearby residential properties and also secure an appropriate setting for the nearby Listed Building and the Conservation Area as well as for the proposed country park.

6.4�� Subject therefore, to the prior completion of a s106 agreement that secures the Heads of Terms set out below and appropriate conditions the following recommendation is appropriate.

7.�� RECOMMENDATION

Subject to:

A: The prior completion of a s106 agreement to secure

� Off site open space contribution: �150,000 towards the improvement refurbishment and renewal of South Park, Armstrong Road

� On-site open space to be provided as identified in the approved Master Plan

� A contribution of �7492.13 towards the provision of bookstock for the Maidstone Library and History Centre

� A contribution of �27,970.31 to meet the cost of providing an additional three youth workers�

� Primary Health Care contribution: �101,088:�

� Affordable Housing: 40% of the dwelling units to be affordable units (60% rental units 40% shared ownership)

� Master Plan: The owners covenanted to seek to ensure that any applications for approval of reserved matters should reflect the details and development principles within the approved Master Plan

� Transfer of the Country Park.

� Payment of �500,000 to cover the cost of establishing the Country Park (�125,000) and thereafter maintaining it (�375,000) in accordance with the management plan.

� Transfer of structural landscaping to the boundary in the north west corner of the site to the Council, Tovil Parish Council and Valley Conservation Society

B: The Head of Development Management be given delegated power to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: �

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. Access e. 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 shall not commence until, details of foundation designs and any other proposals involving below ground excavation have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No works shall be undertaken other than in accordance with the designs and proposals submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: To enable the recording of any items of historical or archaeological interest in accordance with policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS5.

3. The development shall not commence until the applicant has secured and had implemented a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: To enable the recording of any items of historical or archaeological interest in accordance with policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS5.

4. The development shall� not commence until details of foul and surface water drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of the buildings or land. The drainage scheme shall be designed using the principles of sustainable urban drainage and shall utilise gullies that are of a design such that they pose no danger to wildlife.

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage arrangements in accordance with policies NRM1 and NRM4 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS25.

5. The development shall not commence until:

1. The application site has been subjected to a detailed scheme for the investigation and recording of site contamination and a report has been submitted to and approved by the Local planning authority. The investigation strategy shall be based upon relevant information discovered by a desk study. The report shall include a risk assessment and detail how site monitoring during decontamination shall be carried out. The site investigation shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology and these details recorded.

2. Detailed proposals in line with current best practice for removal, containment or otherwise rendering harmless such contamination (the 'Contamination Proposals') have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Contamination Proposals shall detail sources of best practice employed.

3. Approved remediation works have been carried out in full on site under a Quality Assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology. If, during any works, contamination is identified which has not previously been identified additional Contamination Proposals shall be submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority.

4. Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The closure report shall include full details of the works and certification that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology. The closure report shall include details of any post remediation sampling and analysis together with documentation certifying quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;

Reason: To prevent harm to human health and pollution of the environment pursuant to the advice in PPS23.

6. The submitted details of the reserved matters of layout, access and landscaping as required by condition 1 above shall include a tree survey of the whole site undertaken in accordance with BS5837:2005: 'Trees in Relation to Construction-Recommendations, together with details of tree protection measures for the trees within the site to be retained during the course of development.

Reason: To ensure the proposed development takes account of the existing trees within the site and to provide an appropriate form of development and to ensure a satisfactory visual appearance to the development and surrounding area pursuant to policy NRM7 of the South East Plan 2009.

7. The details of the reserved matters of landscaping submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall be prepared in accordance with the Council's Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines and shall be submitted together with a long term management plan for the subsequently approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance to the development and surrounding area pursuant to policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gate or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a road;

Reason: To safeguard the open plan character and appearance of the development in accordance with policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS1.

9. The development shall not commence until a management plan for the country park area, which shall be designed with a strong emphasis on retaining, enhancing and promoting biodiversity and the open parkland setting of Hayle Place and the Loose Valley Conservation Area, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall include:-

� Areas of existing significant ecological value that are to be preserved.

� Key areas designated for enhancement and plans for that enhancement.

� Provision of public access with links to the existing footpath network and methods for control of access to sensitive areas.

� The provision of no public toilet or picnic areas or formal play areas.

� Long-term management aims for all areas of the site and specification of the management regime.

� Identification of controlled access areas to protect biodiversity and mitigate against disturbance and damage.

The management of the land shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the subsequently approved details.

Reason: The prime objective of the plan will be ecological enhancement whilst making suitable provision for public access in accordance with policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS9.

10. The development shall not commence until a detailed mitigation strategy for badgers and reptiles has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority; this programme to include, where the translocation of protected species is deemed necessary, the identification of suitable receptor sites within the overall site and implementation of any agreed enhancement plan for the receptor sites that may be necessary to provide carrying capacity sufficient to support the translocated populations.

Reason.� To enable the provision of data on existing populations of any species found (e.g. bats and reptiles), to allow development of mitigation measures and to identify the need for any permissions from DEFRA and to ensure that, where translocation of protected species is deemed necessary, receptor sites are able to be identified within the site and their suitability to accept the population identified at survey, verified in accordance with the advice in PPS9.

11. The development shall not commence until a further detailed survey of the trees and buildings within the site to determine the presence of bats has been undertaken and the findings submitted to the local planning authority. If the presence of bats within the site and building is identified, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, for approval by, the local planning authority in conjunction with the survey report and the mitigation measures shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason.� To enable the provision of data on existing populations of bats, to allow development of mitigation measures and to identify the need for any permissions from DEFRA in accordance with policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS9.

12. The details of the dwellings submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall show that they will be constructed to achieve a minimum of Level 3 within the Code for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final certificate has been produced for it certifying that a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development in accordance with policy CC4 of the South East Plan 2009.

13. The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall show an average of not more than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling within the area designated for residential development.

Reason: To ensure good design and efficient use of land and to ensure the development seeks to reduce reliance on the use of the private car as a means of transport pursuant to the advice in PPS1 and PPG13.

14. The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall show development at an average density of not less than 30 dwellings/hectare within the area designated for residential development.

Reason: To ensure good design and efficient use of the land pursuant to the advice in PPS1and PPS3.

15. Prior to first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, a residential Travel Plan which shall include measures for its implementation, monitoring and subsequent enforcement, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority and shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details of the plan upon first use of any part of the development.

Reason:� In the interests of sustainability pursuant to policy T5 of the South East Plan 2009.

Informatives set out below

This Council expects a high quality of design and will expect the genesis of design proposals to be� discussed with Council Officers and the South East Regional Design Panel. The focus of preparation for the detailed Master Plan in terms of the residential development element of the proposals shall be in the area indicated on the plan attached to this decision notice.

The application site and any development thereon will affect the setting of Hayle Place, a Listed Building and the Loose Conservation Area. You are recommended to approach the Local Planning Authority and English Heritage at an early stage prior to submitting applications for approval of� reserved matters and the master plan to be secured by the s106 agreement� with draft proposals/submissions for comment and advice

This consent does not permit the diversion or obstruction of any Public Footpaths or other Public Rights of Way within the site.

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.

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.

The aim is to secure the designation of the country park area as a local nature reserve in due course.

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated, is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.

Resident survey

Contact your Parish Council

1. ����� POLICIES

2.����� HISTORY

3.����� CONSULTATIONS

4.����� REPRESENTATIONS

5.����� CONSIDERATIONS

7.����� RECOMMENDATION

1. �� POLICIES

2.�� HISTORY

3.�� CONSULTATIONS

4.�� REPRESENTATIONS

5.�� CONSIDERATIONS

7.�� RECOMMENDATION