Contact your Parish Council
APPLICATION: MA/09/0316 Date: 19 February 2009 Received: 8 May 2009
|
APPLICANT: |
Mrs Helen Anderson, Headcorn Parish Council |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
LAND REAR OF, THE FOREMANS CENTRE, HIGH STREET, HEADCORN, KENT, TN27 9NE |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Change of use of land to car park. Resubmission of MA/08/1125 as shown on drawing number 12829A/19 Rev A (site location plan) and the 1:250 scale block plan both received on 23/02/09, and as described in the Design and Access Statement and supporting information received on 23/02/09 and amended by the e-mail from the applicant dated 19/06/09. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
2nd July 2009
Angela Welsford |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● It is a departure from the Development Plan
POLICIES
Maidstone
Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV28, ENV34.
Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006:SP1, SS8, EN1, EN5, QL1, QL8, EP7.
The South East Plan RSS 2009: CC1, CC6, T2, T4, BE4, BE6, C4.
Village Design Statement: Not applicable.
Government Policy: PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development;
PPS3 - Housing; PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres;
PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas;
PPG13 – Transport;
PPG15 - Planning & the Historic Environment.
HISTORY
MA/08/1125 Change of use of land to a car park REFUSED
MA/08/0555 Change of use of land to a car park WITHDRAWN
MA/07/2524 Change of use of land to a car park WITHDRAWN
Also of relevance, relating to the adjoining land, is:
MA/05/1137
Erection of 10 No. retirement homes and extension and improvements to car park (including demolition of existing warehouse/grain silo)
APPROVED
CONSULTATIONS
HEADCORN PARISH COUNCIL – Would like to see this application approved.
KCC HIGHWAYS ENGINEER - The applicant has demonstrated that the existing parking situation in Headcorn village centre is not satisfactory. The recent introduction of charging within the main Foreman Centre car park has compounded the matter, as drivers who are either unwilling or unable to pay for parking have been displaced onto the highway. This has particular implications when this is long stay parking by traders or residents as the economically important fast turnover spaces required by customers are removed. The proposal is that the new car park will be used for long stay permit holders and as such the additional vehicle movements generated will be minimal. I therefore have no objections to the above proposal in respect of highway matters.
MBC PARKING SERVICES –
o The issues relating to the Foreman’s car park are secondary to the requirement to have limited waiting bays within the High Street.
o If limited waiting bays were to be introduced they will provide free parking for short stay visitors to the village centre, supporting all local businesses in this area.
o Surveys carried out identify a majority of parking at present in the free bays are local businesses with commuters being only a small proportion of long stay parking.
o Short stay parking is taking place by visitors in these bays, however this is likely to be reduced as the effects of Pay & Display are recognised leaving visitors to pay for one hour parking off street even if buying a newspaper etc.
o Therefore the free bays need to be vacated by the local business to allow the introduction of a limited waiting order.
o Limited waiting bays will enable short stay parking and provide an opportunity for visitors to use the shops without risking viability of trade.
o Therefore the only opportunity for business and their staff to park long stay is within the Foreman’s car park and incur additional costs.
o This will impact on the ability of the shops to retain staff and so have an effect on the viability of local trade.
o Currently there are no facilities for permit parking or dedicated bays or discount within the Foreman’s car park.
o Therefore a car park for local business use only is the way forward to free up the high street bays for short stay visitor parking and allow Forman’s car park to provide P&D medium and long term parking for customers.
MBC LANDSCAPE OFFICER - The remaining trees in the area in question are of limited amenity value due to their size and form, therefore, I would raise no objection to the development subject to a robust landscape condition seeking the planting of indigenous species in accordance with the Landscape Character Assessment & Landscape Guidelines 2000, to mitigate the works already undertaken. I believe the site is still capable of regeneration over time if not further disturbed. There is currently no harm to the trees protected by a TPO to the west of the site but there should be clear and appropriate demarcation between the 2 areas to ensure that this remains the case. Any fencing should be visually unobtrusive, such as post and wire.
REPRESENTATIONS
One response received from a local resident making the following (summarised) points relevant to the determination of this planning application:-
- This is the fourth application for this piece of agricultural land;
- Half of it has already been turned into 42 car parking spaces that have hardly been used since August 2008;
- Most days there are more than 100 spaces in the Foremans Centre car park, so there is no need for a further 22 parking spaces;
- The land is not waste land (as stated in the application), although it was used for storage of builders’ materials after drains and a base were laid for the proposed car park without the benefit of planning permission;
- What has changed from the three previous applications to this one?
CONSIDERATIONS
The Site
This application relates to an area of undeveloped land to the rear of the properties in Headcorn High Street. It is classed as open countryside and falls within the Low Weald Special Landscape Area.
The site is not quite rectangular in shape, measuring approximately from 38m to 46m from north to south, and 22m to 25m from east to west. It is bounded on the northern side by the extensive grounds of the Grade II listed “The Old Vicarage”, on the southern side by the railway, on the western side by an area of recently-planted woodland protected by TPO No.30 of 2003 which has planning permission for use as a burial ground extension and also acts as a public amenity area, and on the eastern side by the new car park extension permitted as a planning departure under reference MA/05/1137.
The main Foreman Centre car park and the extension to this permitted under reference MA/05/1137 are subject to recently-introduced pay-and-display charges ranging from 60p for the first hour, to £3.90 for more than four hours. Parking in the High Street and surrounding roads is currently mainly unrestricted. It is understood that parking charges are in force in the station car park.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the change of use of this land to a car park. This would be constructed from Type 1 road stone with wooden sleepers, and would be enclosed by post and rail fencing with landscaping to the boundaries. Vehicular access would be through the existing Foreman Centre car park and then via a five-bar gate. Pedestrian access would be via a mobility kissing gate beside the five bar gate. The car park would provide 25 spaces.
The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application explains that this would not be available for public car parking, but would be for the private use of traders and High Street residents, would be managed by the Parish Council, and would be protected by a gate on coded locks and locked at night.
The issue of use of the car park by High Street residents has been discussed with MBC Parking Services who, in the event that this application is approved, would be responsible for implementing on-street parking restrictions, and I have formed the view that there would be no need for residents to use the proposed car park due to the procedure involved in implementing such restrictions and the (then) availability of residents’ parking permits.
In the light of this, confirmation has been received from the Parish Council that the car park would only be for the use of traders in the High Street / Foremans Walk vicinity.
Policy Background
The site lies within the rural area where it is well-established Development Plan Policy to protect, conserve and enhance the countryside for its own sake and tightly restrict new development to that which is essential and justified. To this end, both policies SS8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 set out the limited sets of circumstances in which new development in the countryside may be permitted. The current proposal does not constitute one of these special exceptions.
Planning History Background
Three previous applications have been submitted for the change of use of this land to a car park. The first two, (MA/07/2524 and MA/08/0555), were withdrawn prior to determination due to the likely refusal of planning permission. The third and most recent, MA/08/1125, was refused for the following reasons:-
1. The proposal, which represents unjustified new development in the countryside for which no overriding need or special justification has been demonstrated, would result in significant visual harm to the character of the countryside in the Low Weald Special Landscape Area, contrary to Policies SS8, EN1, EN5 & QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006, Policies ENV28 & ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000, and the Central Government Policy contained in PPS1 – “Delivering Sustainable Development” and PPS7 – “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas”.
1. The proposal would encourage reliance upon the private car and would therefore constitute an unsustainable form of development, contrary to Policy SP1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and the Central Government Policy and guidance contained in PPS1 – “Delivering Sustainable Development”, PPS3 – “Housing”, PPS6 – “Planning for Town Centres” and PPG13 – “Transport”.
The current application is the fourth such application for this development on this site. The form and layout of the proposal has been the same in each case, but the applicant has now submitted additional supporting information in an attempt to demonstrate an overriding need for the development that outweighs the harm identified in the foregoing reasons for refusal.
DISCUSSION
The Continued Economic Viability of Headcorn
The Parish Council, as applicant, argues that, following the introduction of pay-and-display charges in the Foreman Centre car park, former users of that facility have now been displaced into the High Street and surrounding roads in order to avoid those charges. Most of these vehicles are “long-stay” vehicles, belonging to either commuters who also wish to avoid the charges in the station car park, traders and employees of local businesses, and High Street residents, (surveys have been undertaken to substantiate this). Consequently, the turn-over of spaces has significantly reduced, which will have a knock-on effect on the prosperity of local businesses and the viability of Headcorn as a rural service centre, since potential “short-stay” customers will be discouraged from patronising them due to the need to pay to find an available parking space for just a short visit, (for example, 60p parking is a relatively high price to pay every day just to buy a newspaper or loaf of bread). They will therefore, it is argued, go elsewhere.
In order to avoid this happening, and so maintain the viability of the village, the Parish Council wishes to proceed with additional on-street parking restrictions. However, this would impact on the ability of shops to retain staff, since then the only available long-term parking would be in the pay-and-display Foreman Centre car park where the charge of £3.90 for more than four hours needs to be set against the minimum wage of £5.73 per hour (as of October 2009). It is argued that this would therefore adversely affect the viability of local trade.
Furthermore, the supporting statement points out that Headcorn, being a designated rural service centre, (Policy SS7, Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006), serves twelve smaller villages and hamlets which have lost their own local shops and from which there are few, if any bus services. Consequently, most shoppers as well as employees from these areas are reliant on the private car. Information has been supplied to show that at least 50% of shoppers come from outside of the immediate area, (TN27 9 post code); and that employees of local businesses come from a wide and varied catchment area also.
The proposed car park, that would operate on a permit system and be exclusively for employees of local businesses, is therefore seen as the solution to the foregoing problems in that it would enable limitations to be put in place on the free parking in the High Street, thus assisting shoppers, without making working in Headcorn uneconomically viable for the traders.
Policy Assessment – Economic Viability
In the context of the foregoing arguments, I consider Policy BE4 of the recently-adopted South East Plan RSS 2009 to be of relevance. This deals with ‘The Role of Small Rural Towns’ which “often act as a focal point for trade and services for a rural hinterland” (para. 12.11). This states, inter alia, that “Local Planning Authorities should encourage.... proposals that help strengthen the viability of small rural towns...” and “should (i) support and reinforce the role of small rural towns as local hubs for employment, retailing and community facilities and services” and “(ii) encourage community-led local assessments of need and action planning”, which, in my view, this scheme constitutes. I therefore consider the aims of this proposal to be in line with the aims of The South East Plan RSS 2009.
Impact on the Countryside
As is clear from the first reason for refusal of MA/08/1125, the proposal would result in visual harm to the countryside in the Low Weald Special Landscape Area. It would result in the hard-surfacing of a large area of land which, despite its current appearance after having been used as a storage area for the builders implementing MA/05/1137, would nevertheless otherwise naturally regenerate due to the close proximity of substantial amounts of adjoining vegetation. The hard-surfacing and use as a car park would preclude any such future regeneration and would obviously significantly alter the character of the space, giving it an urban appearance. The resultant harm would be visible from public vantage points – the amenity area to the west, the car park to the east, and the railway line to the south (for six months of the year at least).
Weighing-up – Economic Viability versus Impact on the Countryside
Both the KCC Highways Engineer and MBC Parking Services have agreed that the applicant has demonstrated, through the various surveys and other supporting information, that the existing parking situation in Headcorn village centre is not satisfactory, and that this will affect its ongoing economic viability, as outlined above. Given the role of Headcorn as a rural service centre, and the support afforded by Policy BE4 of The South East Plan RSS 2009, on balance, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated an overriding need for the development, notwithstanding the fact that it is not one of the exception cases normally permitted in the countryside, and notwithstanding the visual harm that it would cause thereto. In fact, the visual harm could be partially mitigated by a robust, indigenous landscaping scheme, details of which could be conditioned. Furthermore, given that the justification for the development is viability of trade, the use of the car park should be restricted solely to business users and a written record kept of all permit holders to ensure that this is the case. In my view, this should be restricted to businesses falling within the Policy R10 Local Centre designation on the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 proposals map.
Sustainability
The second reason for refusal of MA/08/1125 was that the proposal would encourage reliance upon the private car. In the light of the additional information supplied by the applicant, however, it appears that whilst the proposal would not reduce the use of cars by traders/employees, it would not actually increase this – these people are using cars at the moment and parking for free on the street, and I do not consider that more would necessarily be encouraged to do so as a result of approval of this application since, during various visits that I have made to this site, I have observed a high proportion of empty parking spaces in the pay-and-display car park, so there is no lack of space. This proposal seeks to replace what would be lost “long-term” street car parking in an economically-viable way. On balance, therefore, it is considered that the demonstrated economic need for the development outweighs any lack of sustainability argument.
Other Matters
TREES - The Landscape Officer considers the trees that would be lost as a result of this proposal to be of limited amenity value due to their size and form, so does not raise objection on arboricultural grounds subject to a robust landscape condition seeking the planting of indigenous species in accordance with the Landscape Character Assessment & Landscape Guidelines 2000. She also considers that the trees protected by TPO No.30 of 2003 would not be harmed provided that there is clear and appropriate demarcation between the two areas.
BIODIVERISTY – Given the current condition of the land, and its relatively recent use as a storage area for building materials, I do not consider that the proposal would be likely to have an adverse effect on any protected species.
HERITAGE - I do not consider that the proposal would affect the setting of “The Old Vicarage” which is listed Grade II.
AMENITY – Due to the degree of separation, I do not consider that there would be any significantly harmful effect on the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers.
Conclusion
It is considered that the overriding need to provide economically-viable long-term car parking for employees within the retail / commercial centre of the village, thus enabling the introduction of short-term parking restrictions on the High Street to ensure a quick turn-over of free spaces for short-stay shoppers outweighs the protection of the Special Landscape Area. The proposal does not therefore accord with the provisions of the development plan and has been advertised as a departure. The statutory newspaper advertisement will expire on 3rd July 2009. Consequently, I phrase my recommendation accordingly:
RECOMMENDATION
SUBJECT TO any new representations received as a result of outstanding statutory advertisements I BE DELEGATED POWER TO 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.
The
use of the car park hereby permitted shall be restricted to business-users
employed in businesses falling within the Policy R10 Local Centre designation,
as shown on the plan attached to this permission, and shall be operated on a
permit-holders basis, a list of whom shall be kept and maintained up to date,
and which list shall be available for inspection by the Local Planning
Authority whensoever it shall request the same;
Reason: To ensure that the car park is used for the purpose for which it has
been permitted, which is the overriding justification for permitting the
development, which would otherwise be unacceptable.
3.
No
development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of a robust 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 and in the interests of amenity and
ensuring a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with
Policies EN1 & EN5 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006, Policy C4
of The South East Plan RSS 2009 and Policies ENV28 & ENV34 of the Maidstone
Borough Wide Local Plan 2000.
4.
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
first use of the access hereby permitted 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 EN1 & EN5 of the Kent & Medway
Structure Plan 2006, Policy C4 of The South East Plan RSS 2009 and Policies
ENV28 & ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000
5.
No
development shall take place until, details of all fencing, walling and other
boundary treatments, including their colour, 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 before the first use of
the car park and maintained thereafter;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance
with Policies EN1 & EN5 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006,
Policy C4 of The South East Plan RSS 2009 and Policies ENV28 & ENV34 of the
Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000.
Informatives set out below
You are advised that the proposed boundary treatment between this site and the area to the west should be visually unobtrusive, such as post and wire fencing, but should nevertheless show clear and appropriate demarcation between the two areas.
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.
REASON FOR APPROVAL
The Local Planning Authority considers that the overriding need to provide economically-viable long-term car parking for employees within the retail / commercial centre of the village, thus enabling the introduction of short-term parking restrictions on the High Street to ensure a quick turn-over of free spaces for short-stay shoppers outweighs the protection of the Special Landscape Area.