1. Home
  2. Council and Democracy
  3. Your Councillors

Report for 100594

APPLICATION:       MA/10/0594  Date: 9 April 2010 Received: 12 April 2010

 

APPLICANT:

Kent Music

 

 

LOCATION:

KENT MUSIC SCHOOL, ASTLEY HOUSE, HASTINGS ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME15 7SG                           

 

PARISH:

 

Maidstone

 

 

PROPOSAL:

An Outline application for residential development with access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration in accordance with plans DHA/7430/04; DHA/7430/01, planning statement, desktop contamination report, transport statement, design and access statement, and arboricultural report dated 8 April 2010 and draft S106 agreement received on 29 September 2010, and email received on 9 November 2010.

 

AGENDA DATE:

 

CASE OFFICER:

 

25th November 2010

 

Chris Hawkins

 

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

 

●  Councillor English has requested it be reported for the reason set out in the report.

 

1       POLICIES

 

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:  CF1, CF3, T13, ENV6

South East Plan 2009: CC4, NRM11, H1, H3, H4, H5, T4, NRM1, BE1, BE6, AOSR7
Government Policy:  PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS9, PPG13

 

2       HISTORY

 

MA/99/1420         Outline application for a residential redevelopment following demolition of existing buildings with all matters reserved for future consideration. Approved.

 

MA/99/0857         Change of use from local government offices (in use by Kent County Council) to educational use by Kent Music School. Approved.

 

2.0.1  Planning permission has previously been agreed on this site for residential development in 1999 (reference MA/99/1420 – previous Committee report appended to this report). Whilst within this period the Development Plan has changed, there have been no significant alterations to the site during this period.

 

2.0.2  I note however that within the previous report it was stated that:      

         

‘With regard to the existing building on the site, this building is not listed and it is considered that it does not hold any significant architectural and/or historic interest or merit to justify its retention. Therefore, the demolition of the existing building on the site is considered to be acceptable in principle.’

 

3       CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1     KCC (Mouchel) were consulted (on 20 April 2010) and have requested that the following contributions be made: -

 

·         £379.65 for adult social services;

·         £1440 for libraries;

·         £7968.75 for youth services.  

 

This request is fully considered within the main body of the report.

 

3.2     The Primary Care Trust were consulted (on 20 April 2010) and have raised no objections to the proposal subject to the receipt of contributions totalling £120 per occupant per year (for a period of five years). These contributions are sought to ensure that the strain placed upon the existing medical facilities within the Kings Street surgery be fully addressed.

 

3.3     The Environment Agency were consulted (on 20 April 2010) and raised no objections to the proposal.

 

3.4     Kent Highways Services were consulted (on 20 April 2010) and raises no objections to this proposal subject to conditions and informatives addressing the following matters:

 

·         Site parking for personnel/operatives during construction;

·         Prevention of the deposit of mud onto the highway;

·         Necessary draining of the site;

·         Suitable land to be given over for parking provision;

·         Cycle parking to be provided; Any entrance gates to be set back from the highway;

·         The access shall be completed to the satisfaction of Kent Highway Services;

·         Suitable pedestrian visibility splays to be provided.

 

3.5     MBC Landscape Officer was consulted (on 20 April 2010) and recommends that the application be approved subject to conditions addressing the following matter:

 

·         ‘No trees as highlighted within the submitted arboricultural report are felled.’

 

3.6     MBC Conservation Officer was not consulted on this application, however following the publication of PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment, made the following comments: -

 

‘The building known as Astley House – currently used by Kent Music School – appears to be a Regency building of good quality design.  Indicated on the 1876 Ordnance Survey map as “The Parsonage”, Astley House has since retained the same footprint in its core as well as a significant number of heritage features to its exterior such as its porch and windows.  It is likely that the building also retains significant interior features and layout.  Due to its age and character, my professional opinion is that it could be a candidate for statutory listing. 

 

Astley House has been identified as a building of interest as described in the companion document to PPS5, the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide:

 

Paragraph 83:  Some non-designated assets, such as buildings of good local character or sites of archaeological interest, are of heritage significance but not at a level that would pass the threshold for national designation.  Such assets can, singularly and collectively, make an important, positive contribution to the environment.  The desirability of conserving them and the contribution their setting may make to their significance is a material consideration….

 

Considering its heritage significance and potential for designation, we would object strongly to the demolition of the building as well as features of its historic setting such as the trees to the eastern boundary and any remnants of the former boundary to Mote Park, which may include ragstone walling and gate posts.’

 

3.7     Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Space Officer was consulted (on 20 April 2010) and raised no objections to the proposal subject to a contribution of £1575 per dwelling being provided to ensure that the additional strain upon the parks and open space within the area generated by this proposal is adequately addressed.

 

3.8     Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health Officer was consulted (on 20 April 2010) and raised no objection to this proposal subject to the imposition of a suitable land contamination condition. 

 

4       REPRESENTATIONS
 

4.1     Councillor English has requested that the application be brought before Members on the basis that this is an important site, and the development gives rise to highways concerns that require full consideration by Members.

 

4.2     Neighbouring occupiers were notified and 52 letters of objection have been received. The concerns raised within these letters are summarised below: -

 

·         The loss of the existing music school would be to the detriment of the town of Maidstone;

·         The proposal would impact upon the parking provision within Hastings Road;

·         The proposal would generate more traffic than the existing use;

·         The layout is not in accordance with the Kent Standards;

·         It is a unique venue within the area;

·         The loss of the concert hall would be to the detriment of the area;

·         The site is already in a sustainable site – to move it would prove otherwise;

·         Large ensembles that play there might not find an alternative venue;

·         KCC should assist with funding rather than the music school move;

·         The loss of the school would damage the image of Maidstone;

·         The proposal would result in a loss of light to neighbouring occupiers;

·         It would create overlooking to neighbouring properties;

·         The loss of the trees would be to the detriment of the character of the area, and to biodiversity;

·         The proposal would negatively impact upon the character of the road;

·         There would be an increase in noise and disturbance;

·         The loss of the existing building would be to the detriment of the character of the area;

·         There is insufficient infrastructure in place to accommodate additional dwellings;

·         The local youth will lose out the most should the facility be lost;

·         Maidstone is already blighted by poor quality housing developments;

·         A further move would be disruptive to the existing musicians who train/study at the school;

·         The development is too dense;

·         There would be a loss of wildlife from the site.  

 

4.3     KCC Heritage Group were not consulted, but made the following representations:

 

‘The original part of Astley House appears to date to the late 18th or early 19th centuries.  The property is illustrated on early Ordnance Survey maps, labelled as ‘The Parsonage’ in 1849 and surrounded by formal gardens containing a network of pathways.  A structure is also shown on the site in the OS field drawing of 1797, but it is unclear whether this is the same building.  Although the property has been extended at the rear in more recent times, the original house appears to remain largely intact. 

 

The illustrative site layout plan and design and access statement accompanying this application indicate that the proposed development involves the demolition of the existing buildings on site.  It would be preferable for a specialist historic building assessment to be undertaken prior to determination of this application so that an informed decision can be reached about the value of Astley House as a heritage asset. Astley House appears to be of local heritage interest and consideration should be given to preserving the historic house and incorporating it into any future development proposals.’  

 

5            CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1        Site Description

 

5.1.1  The application site lies within the urban area of Maidstone. It is located upon the eastern side of Hastings Road, and currently houses the Kent Music School (Astley House). I consider it to be located within a sustainable location, close to the centre of the Maidstone, and within walking distance of the bus terminus. Mote Park is located to the east of the site, again within walking distance. A bus service also runs along Hastings Road with a frequent service being provided throughout the day.  

 

5.1.2  The site frontage is approximately 80metres and currently forms two distinct elements. The northern end of the site being more open, with an area of car parking, and the southern end, provided with a brick wall (with landscaping behind) of approximately 1.6metres in height.

 

5.1.3  Opposite the application site are terraced Victorian properties. These properties are attractive, and in many instances relatively ornate. Many of these have hard surfaces that have replaced gardens, to provide off street parking.

 

5.1.4  There are street trees that line the western side of Hastings Road at this point.

 

5.1.5  To the rear (east) of the application site are two storey residential properties within Greenside. These properties have substantial gardens of approximately 25metres in depth. The boundary treatment to the rear is a mixture of close boarded fencing and chain-link fencing, with a number of trees and shrubs growing along or close to the boundary. Many of these trees are significant in height, rising to over 10metres.

 

5.1.6  The existing school contains a variety of building types, including a large two storey Regency property, which retains many of its original features (although some of its original windows have been removed). The Regency element forms approximately half of the built form on the site at present. This property has effectively a double frontage, which faces northwards (towards the side elevation of an existing property) and eastwards, towards what would have formally been Mote Park, but now consists of the rear of the dwellings within Greenside.

 

5.1.7  To the south of the main property is a single storey flat roof element which links to a two storey pitched roof concert hall. This is a white painted building, with a tile roof.

 

5.1.8  The site contains a large area for car parking to the rear, which is set out within a relatively informal manner. There are also two garages located within the rear of the site, although it is not clear what these are currently used for. A parking area is also located to the front of the building, adjacent to the access.

 

5.1.9  Currently, vehicle access to the property is gained through the northern end of the site, off Hastings Road, with the exit point at the southern end of the site (again on to Hastings Road).

 

5.1.10 There are a number of trees to the rear of the application site, many of which are of a substantial size. An arboricultural report has been completed and submitted with this application, which identify the species and quality of these trees (this is analysed later in this report).  

 

5.2     Proposal

 

5.2.1  This application is for outline planning permission with access the only matter for consideration at this point. The proposal would see the demolition of all of the existing building on site, with the erection of residential properties in its place.

 

5.2.2  Illustrative plans have been submitted that demonstrate that 25 dwellings could be accommodated within the site, although no details of property size have been submitted. These are shown as being all dwellings, with no flats illustrated. This would represent a density of approximately 48 dwellings per hectare. Each property is shown as having at least one parking space - the illustrative plans show that 1.2spaces per dwelling provided - and all dwellings are shown as having a private garden. A small play area is also shown on the illustrative plans, to be provided within the application site.  

 

5.2.3  The access point is shown as being at the northern end of the Hastings Road frontage, which is the current point of access for the Music School. This is shown as having a width of 4.5metres with a footpath provided on either side.

 

5.2.4  Some of the trees within the application site are being retained, whilst some of the smaller trees, or those of lesser quality are proposed to be removed. The majority however, are located around the boundary of the application site – predominantly the east, south and west boundaries, and as such the majority can be retained. An arboricultural survey has been submitted with this application that sets out the precise siting of these trees. It also identifies that five trees are required to be removed as they are unsafe at present.   

 

5.2.5  The applicant has submitted a draft unilateral undertaking which refers to the provision of a minimum of 40% affordable housing, and the payment of the contributions requested. I have requested that this legal agreement be amended to include a clause that requires the applicant to ensure that they exhaustively assess suitable sites within the Borough of Maidstone, to ensure that all reasonable attempts are made to stay within the locality.

 

5.3     Principle of Development

 

5.3.1  The applicants (Kent Music School) have submitted this planning application as they state that they are no longer able to afford to operate from this particular building. The building needs significant investment for continuing maintenance, and upgrading. The applicant has informed us that they are unable to meet the costs of these works. In addition, the building is not considered as suitable for the performance of music (in particular within the older parts of the property) due to the acoustics of the individual rooms. As such, the proposal would see the loss of a community facility on site and as such, policy CF3 of the Local Plan is relevant. This policy states that proposals that would lead to a significant loss of community facilities will not be permitted unless a replacement facility acceptable to the Borough Council is provided. As such, the Authority needs to be satisfied that the applicant would provide alternative sites/an alternative site for their operation to continue. Significant negotiations have taken place with the applicant in order to ensure that this occurs, however, there is some difficulty in the fact that they are unable to secure new premises until they have the financial security of obtaining outline planning permission. As such, I consider it appropriate to require the legal agreement that forms part of the planning application be amended to include a clause that states that the applicants are required demonstrate best endeavours to stay within a 15km radius of the application site, and relocate within the Borough of Maidstone. I have sought legal advice on the necessity for the applicants to demonstrate ‘best endeavours,’ and they consider that this would place the onus onto the applicant to demonstrate clearly that all available options have been examined within the Borough. This is the strongest possible control that we are able to impose upon the applicants that would meet the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Act.

 

5.3.2  I have discussed this with the applicants, and they are content with this approach, as they wish to stay within the town. They state that the majority of their staff and those that use the facilities live within the Borough, and to move from the town would not make logistical sense.

 

5.3.3  I am therefore satisfied that should the legal agreement ensure that the applicants are required to look at all available premises within a 15km radius within the Borough in the first instance, there would be sufficient protection to ensure that the existing community facility would be retained within the Borough, and as such, it would remain available for use for local residents.

 

5.3.4  It should be noted that the Kent Music School would be able to move from the existing premises at any point, and look to relocate. This would clearly not require the benefit of planning permission. However, by submitting this speculative, outline planning permission, it provides this Authority greater control over their long term retention within the town. 

 

5.3.5  The proposal, in outline form, would see the redevelopment of previously developed land for residential purposes, and would accord with PPS3. Whilst the South East Plan (2009) has been ‘re-instated’ with a policy that requires a minimum of 40 dwellings per hectare, I consider it a material consideration that PPS3 has removed the density requirement, and also that the SEP is likely to be revoked once more, within the near future. I therefore give this little weight.

 

5.3.6  As can be seen from the consultations section, the Borough Council’s Conservation Officer has raised an objection to this proposal, on the basis of the loss of a heritage asset. Astley House is not a listed building, but has been identified as being of local importance (I would, however, draw Members attention to the quote given above from the previous planning application, approved at Committee). Astley House is a Regency building which retains some original external features, and is shown upon historic maps has having bounded the historic Mote Park (shown as the Parsonage). I concur with the views of the Conservation Officer that this building is of some merit; however, in determining this application, a number of considerations need to be carefully balanced. Whilst of a certain age, I do not consider that this building is a particularly rare example of its type – indeed it was not identified as being of local importance when the previous locally listed buildings list was drawn up, nor of national importance, as it is not listed. I do not believe that from the public domain, it would not be clear that this was a particularly high quality building of its age, as its finest elevation is that which currently faces the car park to the rear (this contains what appear to be the original bay windows). In addition, the building has been significantly extended, with many of these extensions somewhat unsympathetic. I am of the opinion that this somewhat ‘devalues’ the building. The most historic part of the house effectively sits ‘side on’ to the highway, with the historical entrance (now unused) side on to an existing dwelling. The elevation fronting on to the highway is less ornate, and provided with what appears to be a service door, with no detailed surround. It also appears that the ground floor windows within this elevation have been replaced.

 

5.3.7  I am also of the opinion that the setting of this building has been significantly compromised, by virtue of the built form that surrounds it. The historic front access faces on to the side of an early/mid 20th Century dwelling house and its garden, with the tarmac access road between. The gap between the properties is approximately 14metres at this point. It is likely that this property originally fronted on to Mote Road, with a substantial open space to the front. Likewise what now appears as the rear elevation would have also been a primary elevation, with the large windows facing over the historic Mote Park. This portion of the historic park has now been built upon, with two storey properties, and the associated paraphernalia. The views to and from this building have therefore been eroded over a period of time, which has significantly altered the setting of this property.  

 

5.3.8  An assessment therefore has to be made as to whether the loss of this non-designated heritage assess would outweigh the benefits of seeing this site developed for housing. It should be noted that a non-designated heritage asset can be demolished without any prior approval from the Local Planning Authority as it has no statutory protection, and its merit can only be considered should a planning application be submitted. This is not to suggest that we give such heritage assets no weight when determining planning applications, but we must give this material consideration proportionate weight. Because this building has been significantly altered, its setting has been severely compromised, and due to the fact that there are numerous buildings of this age and quality within the locality, particularly within the town centre, I am not of the opinion that its loss would have a significant detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the locality, or wider area.

 

5.3.9  As only part of the building on site is considered to be of some merit, I have discussed with the applicants whether the proposal could incorporate the retention of the historic part of the building. However, it was concluded that the retention of this building would be likely to give rise to a number of concerns. Firstly, the building is orientated in such a way that a residential use would be likely to result in overlooking of the adjacent property to the north of the site. The retention of the building would also fail to address the street frontage, and would make the redevelopment of the remainder of the site very difficult, as the building effectively ‘turns its back’ on the southern part of the site. Due to the significant alterations made to the building, a significant level of work would also be required on the west and south elevation, to ensure that they addressed the road frontage, thereby also requiring further potential internal alterations. The retention of this building would also make it more difficult to provide a suitable access into the application site.

 

5.3.10 The site lies within the urban confines, and is located within a very sustainable location. Whilst there is no need for residential development in supply terms (within the Borough) as this is a particularly sustainable location, I consider that it is an appropriate site for such a redevelopment. In addition, the site is not designated for any particular use within the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000), and as such, the principle of residential use on this site is acceptable, subject to all other material considerations being met.

 

5.4     Visual Impact

 

5.4.1  Whilst an outline application, with matters such as layout, appearance and scale for future consideration, illustrative plans have been submitted. These plans re-enforce my view that any residential development within this site should have a strong frontage presence along Hastings Road, and this should influence the overall design, and density of any future reserved matter application. As set out above, I consider that Hastings Road has a particularly strong character, with the houses being fine examples of Victorian terraced properties. These buildings are relatively ornate. The manner in which they step up as the street rises is also an important feature of these properties. The applicant has illustratively shown 25 dwellings proposed on the application site. Whilst this shows the provision of dwellings within the rear, I do not consider that this would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area. However, I consider that the provision of any additional units would potentially appear cramped, and as such, I am recommending a condition that limits the density on site to that shown on these illustrative plans. I am satisfied that this application can be dealt with in outline form as all relevant matters can still be assessed at this stage. Should permission be granted, guidance can be provided at this stage as to how the development should be brought forward at a reserved matters stage, both through the imposition of conditions, and informatives – these are set out below.    

 

5.4.2  Whilst I am not of the opinion that any development that takes place on this site replicates the design of these buildings, I do consider it important that the rhythm and the form of these properties be respected. As such, I consider that any development that comes forward as a reserved matters application should address the following:

 

·         The buildings should be set back from the road, and provided with a front garden area with a minimum depth of 4metres;

·         Any properties that front on to Hastings Road should address the changes in topography – roof slopes are particularly important;

·         The properties shall be no more than 2 ½ storeys in height, with the eaves height respecting the eaves heights of the existing dwellings within the street;

·         Properties should be provided with a dwarf wall to the front, with soft landscaping behind; and

·         The rhythm of the buildings fronting Hastings Road should respect the plot widths and patterns of the existing dwellings within the street. 

 

          I consider that these form a fundamental part of developing the site in an appropriate manner.

 

5.4.3  I do not consider it appropriate to allow for properties greater than 2 ½ storeys in height (i.e. two storeys with rooms within the roof) as this would respect the strong character of Hastings Road. Buildings taller than this would appear somewhat dominant, exacerbated by their close proximity to the highway, and the lack of soft landscaping provision to the front. As such, I recommend that this be incorporated within a condition of any permission. In addition, I am suggesting a condition that would ensure the provision of a front garden of a minimum depth of 4metres, which shall be provided with soft landscaping (indeed, I will place a condition recommending that a hedge be introduced along the frontage – which would replace the one currently in situ).

 

5.4.4  I am of the opinion that should these matters be addressed, the development would respect the existing pattern, and grain of development within the locality, and as such would preserve its character. 

 

5.4.5  However, if we are recommending that a building of the quality of Astley House be removed from any application site, it should be ensured that the development to replace it is of a particularly high quality of design. Whilst this is an outline permission (as the applicant seeks to sell the site with permission rather than develop it themselves) I consider it appropriate to agree parameters that would agree the scale, and form of the buildings, and other matters such as the quality of the detailing to be agreed at this stage. This would go some way to help mitigate the loss of the heritage asset, and also to ensure that the quality of the existing built form within Hastings Road is respected. As this is an outline planning application, no detailed design has been submitted, however, I am of the opinion that informatives should be placed on any planning permission granted, to address the following matters:

 

·         The fenestration within the development should be of a high quality, and address the context of the locality;

·         High quality materials shall be used throughout the development;

·         Tree planting and soft landscaping shall draw reference from the historic parkland setting of the application site;

·         There shall be no meter boxes located on the front of any of the buildings fronting Hastings Road;

·         Whilst a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes has been suggested, you are advised that it would be appropriate to seek to achieve at least Level 4 if possible. 

         

These matters should be fully addressed within the submission of any reserved matters application that is subsequently forthcoming.

 

5.4.6  I agree that the loss of the existing building is regrettable; however, I consider that this proposal would result in a form of development that would address the road frontage in a more appropriate manner. Decisions that see the loss of buildings of a certain age are often balanced. However, this proposal would enhance the public domain from that of the existing situation, which sees the building orientated side on the highway, with an area of hardstanding between the property and the boundary. I therefore consider that the proposal (subject to suitable reserved matters being submitted) would respond positively to the character and appearance of the locality, and as such, is acceptable.

 

5.5     Residential Amenity

 

5.5.1  At present, the property is used as a music school. I have been informed by the music school that the use did/does generate complaints through the noise generated. I have not received any correspondence from neighbouring occupiers to confirm this matter. However, it is clearly a relatively intensive use at present, with large numbers of visitors to the site on a daily basis.

 

5.5.2  As stated above, the plans submitted are illustrative only, however, they do demonstrate that a residential development can be produced that would not detrimentally impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers for the reasons given below.

 

5.5.3  In terms of overlooking, the properties within Greenside have substantial rear gardens, which have a minimum depth of 27metres, as well as a number of substantial trees and shrubs. The plans submitted show that the properties located within the rear of the site could be sited 10metres from the rear boundary, providing a total of 37metres back to back distance. Whilst illustrative, these do clearly show that a proposal can be produced that would not result in any overlooking to these properties. In addition, the illustrative plans show that the existing properties within Hastings Road would be side on to any new properties. This would ensure that there would be no significant overlooking occurs to these neighbouring properties.

 

5.5.4  With regards to the creation of a sense of enclosure, or the loss of light to existing properties, again I am satisfied that a residential development can be accommodated within this site without an adverse impact. I am of the opinion that any layout that comes forward at a reserved matters stage should include a strong road frontage, and as such, these properties would be side to side with the existing properties at each end of the application site. Again, the distance of the rear gardens within Greenside would ensure that the development would not prove overbearing for residents of these properties.

 

5.5.5  I do not consider that the proposal would result in any additional noise and disturbance to the neighbouring occupiers. A residential use is suitable for such a location.

 

5.5.6  To conclude, I am of the opinion that the illustrative plans demonstrate that a residential development can be accommodated within the application site without having a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.   

 

5.6     Highways

 

5.6.1  Kent County Highway Services raise no objections to this proposal. However, a significant level of concern has been raised by interested parties with regards to the parking provision within the application site. It is acknowledged that there is not an abundance of on-street parking within Hastings Road, by virtue of it being a terraced street, close to the town centre. At this end of the road, there are parking restrictions along the eastern side (no parking) and parking bays along the western side – although it should be noted that many of the properties on the western side have converted their front gardens to driveways, thus reducing the on-street parking available. I am of the opinion that the site is located within a particularly sustainable location. It is within walking distance of the town centre, and approximately 400metres to Maidstone bus terminus (it is also noted that the number 85 bus service runs to the front of the site). In addition, there is a public car park at the northern end of Hastings Road, for both resident and visitor overspill parking provision. 

 

5.6.2  I therefore consider that the parking provision within the development needs to find the balance between an adequate parking provision and ensuring that the development respects the sustainable location of the application site.

 

5.6.3  The plans submitted are illustrative only; however, these do demonstrate the provision of an average of 1.2spaces per unit. I am of the opinion that due to the fact that these properties are shown as family accommodation, this should be increased slightly to 1.5spaces per unit. This would ensure that each property has at least one space per dwelling, with the larger properties provided with more, as well as the potential for visitor parking spaces. However, in order to acknowledge the sustainable location of the site – i.e. near to the town centre, bus station etc – I am suggesting that an informative be imposed recommending that the details of the reserved matters do not have an over-provision of parking spaces.

 

5.6.4  I am also of the opinion that the character of Hastings Road is that of a strong line of terraced properties, with front gardens. This character has been eroded somewhat by the number of properties that have converted their front garden areas to parking spaces. As such, I am recommending a condition be imposed that all car parking be provided to the rear of the new properties fronting Hastings Road – this has been shown illustratively. This will ensure that these properties have a suitable level of soft landscaping to the front. This has been shown on the illustrative plan submitted. Access to these parking spaces would be as shown, and agreed by the approval of this outline consent. 

 

5.6.5  The access into the site is the only matter for consideration at this point. This is shown as being towards the northern end of the application site. This is in a similar location to the existing access into the music school. However, the access created will be provided with a suitable kerb radius, and as such, will be wider than the existing access. In order to ensure that the development has a suitable level of soft landscaping throughout, I am recommending a condition be imposed that ensures that only one pathway be provided on this access, rather than the two currently shown. I am also of the opinion that the pathways within the development be finished to a high quality. I am satisfied that the access as shown would be suitable for the access of both refuse lorries, and fire appliances, however, careful consideration would need to be given to any internal layout to ensure that they would be able to turn, and thus leave the site in a forward gear.

 

5.6.6  I am therefore of the opinion that the development, which is located within a sustainable location, can accommodate a suitable level of parking provision, which would ensure that the development would not give rise to any highway safety issues. I am therefore satisfied that the development is in accordance with PPG13.     

 

5.7     Landscaping

 

5.7.1  Landscaping has been identified as a matter reserved for future consideration, and as such no detailed plans have been submitted. However, I am of the opinion that this is a particularly sensitive site, and as such, the application should be guided at this stage as to what type of landscaping provision this Authority will expect to ensure that any future development be of a sufficient standard.

 

5.7.2  As set out above, there would be a number of trees removed as a result of this proposal. However, the arboricultural report submitted demonstrates that the majority of trees within the site are of limited value, with only four classified as being of ‘category B,’ whose retention would be desirable. Thirty three trees on site are classified as being within ‘category C’ which are considered to be of low quality and value, with five trees identified as dying or dangerous, and required for removal.

 

5.7.3  The submitted plan demonstrates that the majority of the trees within the site are located along the east, west and south boundary, and as such, it is considered that the majority of these can be retained as part of this proposal. Whilst the report states that many are of limited quality, due to their size, I consider that they have a positive impact upon the character of the area, and as such, any detailed design that is brought forward should be influenced by the location of these well established trees.

 

5.7.4  With the retention of the trees along the eastern boundary of the application, there would not be a significant requirement for any further landscaping to be provided along this boundary. These trees would provide a good natural screen along the edge of the site, which would retain much of the biodiversity within the site, as well as providing an element of screening between the residential properties within the site, and those to the rear.

 

5.7.5  Likewise, along the southern boundary, if much of landscaping is retained, a soft edge would be retained. However, there would remain scope for additional planting, and I would encourage the provision of a hedge within the gaps. I recommend a hedge as this could be retained at a manageable height, and would not grow to such a size as to overshadow the residential properties – I would be concerned that if too many trees be planted, they, together with the existing would create overshadowing, with the potential for future pressure to remove. I therefore suggest that any landscaping condition imposed addresses this matter.

 

5.7.6  I am of the opinion that any landscaping along the front of the application site is of utmost importance. As can be seen from many of the existing properties along Hastings Road, a paucity of soft landscaping leads to a gradual erosion of the character and appearance of the locality. I consider it likely that there would be pressure to remove the existing trees that currently front on to Hastings Road however, subject to suitable replanting; I do not consider that this would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the locality. I would welcome the introduction of a hedge along the front boundary of the properties within Hastings Road, which would again be manageable, and would not result in a significant loss of light to the future occupiers of these units. Again, I consider it appropriate that this forms part of any landscaping condition.

 

5.7.7  Internally, I consider that the reserved matters application should fully address the urban nature of the site, and seek, where possible enhancements to the landscape. These should be both physical enhancements, and also to encourage further ecology into the application site.

 

5.7.8  Should these matters be fully addressed I am of the opinion that the development could result in an enhancement of the character and appearance of the locality. 

 

5.8     Heads of Terms

 

5.8.1  The applicant has submitted a draft S106 agreement which sets out the following: -

 

·         Affordable Housing to be at a minimum of 40% of the total number of units;

·         Contributions towards parks and open space (£1575 per dwelling); 

·         A Primary Healthcare contribution of £120 per occupant of the development per annum for a period of five years;

·         £1440 for additional book stock for the local library;

·         £7968.75 for the additional youth and community workers (part thereof) required as a result of this development.

·         £379.65 for adult social services that would be generated by this requirement. 

 

The applicant has also agreed to amend this agreement to include the following:

 

·         The applicant will seek to ensure the relocation of the Kent Music Centre within a 15km radius of the existing application site, within the town of Maidstone in the first instance, or if unsuccessful within the Borough of Maidstone. Should an exhaustive search clearly demonstrate that no suitable accommodation be available, 

 

5.8.2  Any request for contributions needs to be scrutinised, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Act. This has strict criteria that sets out that any obligation must meet the following requirements: - 

It is:

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

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

 

5.8.3  This proposal includes the provision of contributions for the Primary Care Trust (PCT), Kent County Council (KCC), and for Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Space Department (POS). The applicant has been made aware of these requests, and has agreed, in writing, the heads of terms as set out below.

 

5.8.4  The applicant has been made aware of the requirement of to provide a minimum of 40% affordable housing within the development. This accords with the Development Plan Document (DPD) adopted by this Authority in 2007. This DPD acknowledges that there is a significant shortfall of affordable properties within the Borough, and as such, has identified this as a requirement of all planning applications of 15units or more. Furthermore, central government has also highlighted the provision of affordable housing as a priority. I am therefore satisfied that the provision of 40% affordable housing would meet the three tests set out above.

 

5.8.5  Point ‘a’ of the three tests above, requires that any part of a submitted legal agreement be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It is on this basis that the applicants have been asked to agree to a clause that requires them to look at sites within a 15km radius, within the Borough to relocate first. As stated, advice has been sought from the Council’s legal section, who have advised that it would be appropriate to require the applicant to demonstrate best endeavours to stay within this locality. I consider this essential to ensure that the proposal complies with the policies within the Development Plan. This is also directly related to the development in that it relates to the specific use of the site. I also consider that this requirement is reasonably related in scale, in that we are not asking for further provision, simply to ensure that the provision that exists be retained.

 

5.8.6  The PCT have requested that a contribution of £120 per occupant per dwelling be provided to upgrade the existing facilities within the locality, to ensure that the additional demand placed upon this infrastructure can be accommodated. The PCT have confirmed that the money will be spent upgrading the nearby surgery within Kings Street. Policy CF1 of the Local Plan states that residential development that would generate a need for new community facilities will not be permitted unless the provision of new (or extended) facilities are provided, or unless a contribution towards such provision is made.  I am of the opinion that the additional units being proposed here would give rise to additional demand upon the existing surgery, and that the money being requested is not excessive. I am therefore satisfied that this request for contributions complies with the three tests as set out above.

 

5.8.7  KCC has requested that the following contributions be made:

 

·         £1440 for additional book stock for the local library;

·         £7968.75 for the additional youth and community workers (part thereof) required as a result of this development.

·         £379.65 for adult social services that would be generated by this requirement. 

 

          Again, I am satisfied that this request is in accordance with Policy CF1 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000). KCC have identified that there would be (up to) an additional 11 people utilising the local library (currently Maidstone Library, although this will move to the new county library once completed) as a result of this proposal, and these would each (on average) borrow 27.52 books per year. In order to meet this additional demand, KCC have assessed the average book stock, and use, as well as the cost of providing new books. This demonstrates that to provide these additional books over a three year period would cost £1440. I consider this request to meet the tests set out above.

 

5.8.8  With regards to the request for youth and community workers, KCC have identified that the proposal would give rise to additional demand for such a provision. I consider that this request is justified, and than applicants have agreed to provide such a contribution. Again, I consider that this request meets the three tests as set out above, and as such, it is appropriate to require this contribution be made.

 

5.8.9  Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Space Officer was consulted and has requested that a contribution of £1,575 per dwelling be made to improve the open space provision within the locality. It has been agreed that this money would be spent to improve the playing area within Mote Park, which is within a short walk of the application site. As this outline permission indicates the provision of dwellings, I consider that they are capable of being suitable for family accommodation. I therefore am of the opinion that providing these contributions would not only be in accordance with the Councils adopted Development Plan Document (DPD) but the three tests set out above.

 

5.8.10 I am therefore satisfied that the affordable housing provision, requirement to look at sites within the Borough and the contributions being sought and agreed by the applicant, are acceptable and should be provided through a suitable legal agreement.

 

5.9     Sustainability/Ecology

 

5.9.1  The applicant has agreed that the development shall be built to at least level 3 of the code for sustainable homes. It is likely that all of the affordable units within this development (due to the timescales involved) would have to be built to at least level 4 of the code. Discussions were held with the applicant to seek level 4 to be achieved on this site, but they consider that this would not be financially viable. Whilst no evidence was submitted to confirm that this is the case, the applicant has agreed that an informative should be placed upon any permission that would request that the prior to the submission of the reserved matters application, the applicant (or successors in title) fully assess the viability of providing at least level 4 across the site.

 

5.9.2  With the ‘reinstatement’ of the South East Plan (2009), policy NRM11 requires any development that would consist of more than 10 dwellings be constructed in such a way that at least 10% of the energy sourced by obtained from renewable or low carbon sources. Whilst it is a material consideration that the South East Plan is to be removed at some point in the near future, I consider it appropriate to impose this condition nonetheless. The applicant has agreed.

 

5.9.3  At present, there are small areas of the site given over to grass, with trees and shrubs planted intermittently along the boundaries. There is therefore the scope for ecology to utilise this area both as habitat, and for foraging. The proposal would, I consider, also give rise to the opportunity for enhancement, with the provision of areas for gardens, and indeed public open space. I do not consider however, that this alone to be sufficient. I am therefore recommending that any reserved matters application incorporate the following features:

 

·         Log piles – with any trees removed from the site to be utilised for this purpose;

·         Swift Bricks to be incorporated within the design of some of the residential units;

·         Bat boxes to be provided both upon the proposed dwellings, and the retained trees within the site.  

 

5.9.4  Should these features be incorporated within the development, together with the additional hedge planting that is being recommended, I am of the opinion that the proposal would have the potential to enhance biodiversity within the application site, and as such, accord with the requirements of PPS9.

 

6            CONCLUSION

 

6.0.1   To conclude, whilst this proposal would result in the loss of the Kent Music School from this site, the school have stated that will stay within the Borough subject to finding suitable accommodation. I am satisfied that best endeavours will be required to be demonstrated to have been made to ensure that they remain within the Borough, as a result of giving this planning application favourable consideration. As stated, the Music School would (finances aside) be in a position to leave the site, and relocate to any destination without the benefit of planning permission (they have not indicated that they would do so). As such, by granting planning permission for this outline consent, with a suitable legal agreement, it provides this Authority with the greatest possible security to ensure that they remain within the town for the foreseeable future.

 

6.0.2   Whilst the concerns of the Conservation Officer are understood – this is a building of some interest – I am of the opinion that its value has been significant diminished over time, both in terms of its form, and its setting. The building is not listed, and has no statutory protection, and it could therefore be demolished without prior consent. The loss of any building of this age, and quality is regrettable, but in this instance I consider its removal to be, on balance, acceptable.

 

6.0.3   Although the submission includes illustrative plans only, I am of the opinion that these demonstrate that a suitable level of housing provision could be accommodated within the site. Conditions have been suggested to ensure that the development be assimilated into the surrounding area appropriately, and that the existing pattern and grain of development be respected. The landscaping conditions suggested above should also ensure that the development has a high quality character. It is also acknowledged that parking is a concern within Hastings Road, but I am satisfied that a suitable level of parking provision can be accommodated within the application site, without significant overspill to the neighbouring roads. 

 

6.0.4  I therefore recommend that Members give this application favourable consideration and give delegated powers to the Head of Development Management to approve subject to the submission of a suitable S106 agreement and the conditions and informatives as set out below.

 

7            RECOMMENDATION

 

Subject to the submission of a S106 legal agreement addressing the following matters:

 

  • A minimum of 40% affordable housing on site;
  • The applicant must use their best endeavours to relocate within a 15km radius of the application site, within the Borough of Maidstone, within two months of leaving their existing site;
  • A contribution of £1440 for additional book stock for the local library;
  • A contribution of £7968.75 for the additional youth and community workers (part thereof) required as a result of this development;
  • A contribution of £379.65 for adult social services that would be generated by this requirement;
  • A contribution of £120 per occupant per dwelling (for five years) for improving the existing health care facilities within the King Street Surgery;
  • A contribution of £1,575 per dwelling for the improvement of the open space within Mote Park.

 

The Head of Development Management BE GIVEN DELEGATED POWERS TO APPROVE subject to the conditions set out below:   

 

1.   The development shall not commence until approval of the following reserved matters has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority:-

a. Layout b. Scale c. Appearance d. Landscaping

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved;

Reason: No such details have been submitted and in accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.   The development shall not commence until, written details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been 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 high quality appearance to the development in accordance with PPS1.

3.   The development shall not commence until, details of all fencing, walling and other boundary treatments 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 occupation of the buildings or land and maintained thereafter;

Reason: To ensure a high quality appearance to the development and to safeguard the enjoyment of their properties by existing and prospective occupiers in accordance with PPS1.

4.   The development hereby permitted shall not exceed a density of 48 dwellings per hectare;

Reason: To ensure conformity with the existing density and pattern of development in the surrounding area in accordance with PPS1 and the Kent Design Guide.

5.   The details submitted for the residential units fronting Hastings Road, pursuant to Condition 1 shall show inter alia a building or buildings whose eaves height shall not exceed two storeys from normal ground level;

Reason: To ensure conformity with the existing form and character of development in the surrounding area in accordance with PPS1.

6.   The development shall not commence until, details of all fencing, walling and other boundary treatments (which shall include the retention or rebuilding of dwarf wall along the Hastings Road frontage) 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 occupation of the buildings or land and maintained thereafter;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard the enjoyment of their properties by existing and prospective occupiers in accordance with PPS1.

7.   The development shall not commence until, details of the parking spaces and/or garages and sufficient turning area to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; 

Reason: Development without adequate parking/garage provision is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road safety, in accordance with PPG13.

8.   A scheme of landscaping using indigenous species as required under Condition 1 above shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained. The development shall also include:-

i) The provision of a hedge along the Hasting Road frontage;
ii) The provision of a landscaped buffer along the southern boundary of the application site, which shall be at least 2metres in depth, and should include a hedge, and trees as well as low planting;
iii) The provision of suitable tree planting along the eastern boundary;
iv) The retention of the trees shown within the arboricultural report (unless otherwise agree in writing).    

Details of the measures for their protection in the course of development, together with and a programme for the scheme's implementation and long term management shall also be submitted. 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 visual amenity in accordance with Policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) and PPS1.

9.   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 buildings 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 Policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) and PPS1.

10.         The details submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall show inter alia a building or buildings that are set back a minimum of 4metres from the edge of the pedestrian footpath;

Reason: To ensure conformity with the existing form and character of development in the surrounding area in accordance with PPS1 and to ensure a good level of landscaping provision in accordance with Policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000.

11.         The dwellings shall achieve at least 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 in accordance with Kent Design 2000 and PPS1.

12.         There shall be a minimum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

Reason: To ensure a suitable level of parking provision within the application site, in accordance with PPG13.

13.         The details submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall show inter alia a building or buildings that are articulated so as to reflect the topography, pattern and grain of the development within the locality.

Reason: To ensure conformity with the existing form and character of development in the surrounding area in accordance with PPS1 and to ensure a good level of landscaping provision in accordance with Policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000.

14.         The car parking provision for properties fronting Hastings Road shall be provided to the rear of these properties, with no parking provision to the front of these properties.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and good design in accordance with PPS1.

15.         Notwithstanding the plans submitted, the access into the site shall be provided with a maximum of one footpath.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, and to enable a suitable level of soft landscaping provision in accordance with PPS1 and Policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000).

 

Informatives set out below

No burning shall take place on 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.

Adequate and suitable provision in the form of water sprays should be used to reduce dust from demolition work.

The importance of notifying local residents in advance of any unavoidably noisy operations, particularly when these are to take place outside of the normal working hours is advisable.

The developer shall implement a scheme for the use of wheel cleaning, dust laying and road sweeping, to ensure that vehicles do not deposit mud and other materials on the public highway in the vicinity of the site or create a dust nuisance.

You are advised to ensure that the appointed contractor(s) is/are registered with the 'Considerate Constructors Scheme' and that the site is thereafter managed in accordance with the Scheme. Further information can be found at  www.considerateconstructorsscheme.org.uk

The applicant is reminded of the sustainable location of the application site, and the need to balance the provision of parking in accordance with sustainable objectives, and highway safety. I therefore recommend that prior to the submission of any reserved matters planning application, discussions are held with the Borough Council Planning Officers, and Kent County Council Highway Services to fully address this matter.

The applicants, or successors in title are advised to seek to improve biodiversity within the application site. It is suggested that any development incorporate the use of bat boxes, swift bricks, and if appropriate the provision of cordwood.

Any buildings proposed within the site should be well articulated, and should respect the pattern of the development within the locality.

The areas designated for vehicular movements and parking should be kept to a minimum.

No vehicles may arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the general site, and plant and machinery shall not be operated, that would generate noise beyond the boundary of the site, except between the hours of 0800 hours and 1800 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays (and at no time on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays).

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 there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.