APPLICATION: MA/12/2032 Date: 1 November 2012 Received: 16 July 2013
|
APPLICANT: |
Kent County Council |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
KCC SPRINGFIELD LIBRARY HQ, SANDLING ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT |
|
PARISH: |
Maidstone |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
An application for a new planning permission to replace extant permission MA/09/0862 (outline planning application for the erection of residential development comprising of 100 flats and 14 houses with all matters reserved for future consideration as shown on drawing nos. PA-GND-SPR-AST-RES-GA-01-A, PA-L01-SPR-AST-RES-GA-01-A, PA-L02-SPR-AST-RES-GA-01-A, PA-SL-SPR-AST-RES-MAS-01-A, PA-SL-SPR-AST-RES-ELV-01-A, planning statement, design & access statement, validation checklist, phase 1 contamination study, transport assessment, daylight and sunlight study, visual impact assessment, ecological scoping survey, noise assessment, air quality assessment and amenity tree survey received 21/05/2009 and as amended by arboricultural method statement and draft travel plan received 11/08/2009), supported by a letter from Lloyd Bore received 16th July 2013, in order to extend the time limit for implementation. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
12th December 2013
Catherine Slade |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● It is a major development that has wide public interest.
1. POLICIES
- Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, T2, T13, CF1, CF2, CF3
- Government Policy: National Planning Policy Framework 2012, PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment – Practice Guide
- Other: Kent Design Guide 2009, Circular 11 of 1995 Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions
1.1 The Maidstone Borough Council Springfield Development Brief (1998) was not saved by the Secretary of State in 2007.
2. HISTORY
2.1 The site has an extensive previous planning history in relation to its role as the headquarters for the County Library Service, none of which is directly relevant to the current application.
2.2 The current application seeks a new consent to replace an extant planning permission, the details of which, together with the relevant application for a screening opinion, are summarised below:
● MA/09/0862 - Outline Planning Application for the erection of residential development comprising of 100 flats and 14 houses with all matters reserved for future consideration – APPROVED SUBECT TO CONDITIONS
● MA/08/1869 - A request for a screening opinion for a proposed residential development on land at KCC Library at Springfield, Maidstone: ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT NOT REQUIRED
2.3 The previous consent was extant at the time that the current application was received as being valid, although it has now expired through the passage of time.
2.4 Members will be aware that at the time of the determination of the previous permission (MA/09/0862) a concurrent application for the erection of a new library centre and 60 residential units and 57 care units was also approved under the scope of MA/09/0863. The development currently under consideration was approved in 2009 subject to a legal agreement requiring the development approved under MA/09/0863 to be undertaken prior to the implementation of the development approved under MA/09/0862 in order that no detriment to facilities serving the community be caused as a result of the granting of the planning permissions. The library and residential development approved under MA/09/0863, which also provides all affordable housing provision associated with the development currently under consideration, has now been implemented and all relevant legal agreements and planning conditions fully discharged.
2.5 Whilst it is the case that the development approved under MA/09/0863 has been built out, it remains the case that the development considered approved under MA/09/0862 and currently under consideration is intrinsically linked to it and the benefits accrued as a result of MA/09/0863 are a material consideration in the determination of the current application.
3. CONSULTATIONS
Internal consultations:
3.1 Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Officer: wishes to see the application refused on the following grounds:
3.2 “The trees within the grounds of the Library site are subject to TPO No.12 of 2009. The order protects two individual trees (T1, a Red Oak and T2, a Corsican Pine) and 2 groups of trees (G1, consisting of a mixture of deciduous species and G2, which is made up of 3 Wellingtonia and 2 Corsican Pine.).
3.3 This proposal relates to a continuation of the outline planning consent granted under application MA/09/0862. No new details appear to have been submitted.
3.4 The Landscape Officer’s comments made in relation to the original application on 1 October 2009 strongly recommended refusal on tree grounds which was summarised as follows:-
3.5 ‘The proposals detailed in this outline application will require the removal of four trees protected by TPO No. 12 of 2009 and is likely to result in the loss of more trees in the construction phase or in the longer term. Furthermore, there will be considerable future pressure for removal of the remaining trees due to the proximity of retained trees to the proposed building. The loss of these trees will have a significant adverse impact on the character and amenity of the area.’
3.6 Since this time the 2005 British Standard has been superseded by BS5837:2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction-Recommendations. Whilst revised arboricultural information would be helpful it is unlikely to change the views already expressed by the Landscape Officer.
3.7 I therefore reiterate the Landscape Officer’s OBJECTION to this application on arboricultural grounds for the reasons detailed in his consultation response dated 1 October 2009.
3.8 If, however, you are again minded to grant consent I would want to amend original condition 10 (as below):
‘… shall include a tree survey, an arboricultural implications assessment (AIA) and tree protection measures in accordance with the recommendations of BS5837:2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction-Recommendations. The AIA shall include a realistic assessment of the probable impact of any proposed development on trees and vice versa, together with details of any tree works that would be necessary to implement the proposal. Where the AIA identifies a conflict between the proposal and retained trees, details should be provided to demonstrate that the trees can be successfully retained.’”
3.9 Maidstone Borough Council Conservation Officer: wishes to see the application refused, and makes the following detailed comments:
3.10 “Despite the previous permission granted I must retain my original objections to this scheme. This excessively tall development, situated directly opposite the main front elevation of the Grade II listed Springfield mansion, would have a severely detrimental impact on its setting by virtue of its height and scale. In addition, the loss of the existing library building, erected in 1963-64, is also to be regretted. This innovative example of library design, with the rare feature of a book stack housed in a tower, is a fine building of its age and was illustrated and described in a 1966 publication “British Public Library Buildings” which comprised a survey of the best post-war examples of library architecture – indeed, a photograph of it was chosen for the front cover illustration. The authors describe it as exciting architecture and make reference to how well it is integrated into the landscape.”
3.11 Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health Manager: raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions and informatives, and makes the following detailed comments:
3.12 “For MA/09/0862, Environmental Health noted that an Air Quality Assessment by Mouchel ref SPRv1 17/11/2008 had been submitted and that it concluded that the main impacts will be due to dust during the construction phase. It was also noted that the assessment predicted that the proposed development will cause a small increase in NO2 and PM10 concentrations at some locations; it also predicted that this increase will be less than 2.5%. Environmental Health accepted the validity of this report and that the mitigation measures recommended in the report should be followed in their entirety. We also noted that consideration should also be given to the use of a section 106 agreement in order to secure funds for MBC to carry out 5 years of air quality monitoring in the area. This would be in order to check the impacts of the site on the AQMA plus check any potential impacts on receptors living in the new development on this site. Environmental Health would welcome discussions with the planners on this matter.
3.13 A noise assessment report by AcousticAir, ref AA581N/R1, and dated October 2008 was also previously submitted. This report concluded that unless suggested mitigation measures are employed the noise levels in many of the habitable rooms would not be acceptable. Environmental Health accepted this report and that the suggested mitigation measures concerning double glazing and acoustic ventilation should be carried out in their entirety.
3.14 A phase 1 desk study regarding potential land contamination, by Bourgues (UK) Limited ref 51210 and dated September 2008, was also previously submitted. Environmental Health accepted the validity of this report and noted that it concludes that further intrusive investigation and sampling should be carried out; and so a further Phase II report is required. No such report has been received with this latest application and so the relevant parts of the contaminated land condition should still apply.
3.15 Any demolition or construction activities will definitely have an impact on local residents and so appropriate precautions should be taken, particularly as advised in the Air Quality report regarding dust. It should also be noted that this large development will require a site waste management plan.
3.16 It should also be noted that section 54 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 requires the developer to produce a site waste management plan for any development which is over £300,000. The plan must be held on site and be freely available for view by the local Authority at any time.
3.17 I have been asked by the planning officer to be mindful of the Maidstone United Football Club facility and the possibility of lighting from there being an issue on this site. I consider that because of the distance away and the number of buildings in between that this would not provide an adverse impact here.”
3.18 Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Spaces Officer: raises no objection to the proposal, and makes the following detailed comments, which include a request for contributions:
3.19 I note from the plans lodged electronically that there is no publicly accessible open space designed into the development. I would therefore request an off-site contribution of £179,550 (114 units x £1,575).
3.20 The money would be targeted at the improvement, renewal, replacement and maintenance of green open spaces and play areas within a one mile radius of the development. Primarily it would be anticipated that monies would be spent at Whatman Park, Sandling Road Allotments, and Chillington Street.
3.21 Allotments and Community Gardens – there is a large allotment site off of Sandling Road opposite the development. There is currently a demand for Allotment spaces and Sandling Road would benefit from improvements to the site to better utilise space and improve and increase provision.
3.22 Children’s Play facilities –As there is no play equipment proposed on this development there would be a significant impact on Whatman Park and Chillington Street (the closest existing areas to the development) seeing an increase in usage and consequently wear and tear on the equipment. It is proposed that because of this the existing play facilities in the area be updated or improved. This would include the purchase of new or refurbishment of existing equipment, improvements to safety surfacing, fencing, benches and bins. Chillington Street also has a “kickabout area” which would benefit from replacement goal posts and potential improvements to drainage and aeration as well as improvements to general ancillary items. Whilst Whatman Park has a skate park which needs constant repair and maintenance work to ensure it remains in a safe, useable condition and that it can remain open for the public to use.
3.23 Amenity greenspace – The types of improvement that funding for this type of green space would be used for are; the planting of trees, provision of bins, benches and picnic tables, fencing, improvements and repairs to pathways and other items particularly at the three sites previously mentioned.”
3.24 Maidstone Borough Council Parking Services: Raise no objection to the proposal, and request a contribution of £4,000 towards the implementation of parking restrictions to prevent residents/visitors parking along unsuitable sections of the highway. This includes monies to advertise and consult on the making of the Order, as well as the placing of the restrictions.
External Consultations:
3.25 Mouchel (for Kent County Council Education and Community Facilities): raise no objection to the proposal and have requested the following contributions:
3.26 Primary school: £5,559.96 per applicable house and £1,389.99 per applicable flat towards the new build cost and a land cost contribution of £2,701.63 per applicable house and £675.41 per applicable flat towards the acquisition of a new primary school local to the proposed development (the building of two new primary schools in south and west Maidstone).
3.27 Secondary school: £2,359.80 per applicable house and £589.95 per applicable flat towards the extension of an existing secondary school local to the proposed development (within the borough of Maidstone).
3.28 Libraries, youth and community learning: £10,109.74 towards additional book stock in Maidstone local libraries and £3,272.80 towards community learning through the provision of new/expanded facilities at Maidstone Adult Education and through outreach community learning facilities in Maidstone Local to the development; no current requirement for youth facilities.
3.29 Adult social services: £5,279.37 towards the provision of new/expanded facilities in Maidstone local to the development, including four projects to provide integrated dementia care, co-location with health, a changing place facility, and assistive technology.
3.30 ‘Applicable’ means that contributions are not sought for 1 bed units of less than 56m2 or for sheltered accommodation for the elderly over 55 years of age.
3.31 NHS Property Services (on behalf of the Primary Care Trust): raise no objection to the proposal and have requested a contribution of £75,456 towards health care facilities within Maidstone, a calculation which is based on expected occupancy rates given the number of beds per unit and a cost of £360 per person to support the delivery of investments highlighted within the PCTs Strategic Service Development Plan. The local surgeries identified are the Brewer Street, St Lukes, Allington Park, Marsham Street, Allington and Lockmeadow surgeries and clinics.
3.32 Kent County Council Highway Services: raise no objection to the proposal subject to amendments to the previous legal agreement attached to MA/09/0862 requiring the following highway improvements:
3.33 “Clause 11.1 Parking Restriction Contributions and 11.2 Parking Restrictions Contribution.
3.34 Since its reorganisation, KCC Highways no longer has the resources to be able to implement traffic regulation orders required for the purpose of development. The contribution sum requested should therefore be made to Maidstone Borough Council Parking Services Team who have agreed to implement the traffic regulation orders should they be necessary.
3.35 Clause 11.3.1 The Clause should be amended as real time information is not required at all 4 of the bus stops. I would therefore suggest that the paragraph could read:-
3.36 Improvements are required to 4 local bus stops as follows:-
Chatham Road east side - bus boarders
Chatham Road west side - bus boarders and real time information
A229 Royal Engineers Road south of the Springfield Roundabout East side - bus boarders and real time information
A229 Royal Engineers Road south of the Springfield Roundabout West side - bus boarders and real time information.
3.37 These works should be provided by the developer under a S278 Agreement and are required prior to 1st occupation of the development.
3.38 Clause 11.3.2 A toucan crossing is no longer required at this location as the proximity to the roundabout junction will lead to a sub standard design and the level of vehicle and pedestrian flows at this location could be adequately and safely served by the provision of a pedestrian refuge. This paragraph should be amended as follows:-
3.39 A pedestrian refuge, of sufficient width to accommodate a bicycle, is required on the access road to assist pedestrians and cyclists from this development site crossing the access road. This work should be completed under a Section 278 Agreement, details to be agreed with KCC Highways.
3.40 Clause 12 Travel Plan - Since the 2009 application was submitted new guidance has been produced relating to the securing, monitoring and enforcement of travel plans a copy of which is attached for your information. For residential developments such as this a Sustainable Travel Statement would be required, this has the same objectives as a Travel Plan but would promote sustainable travel by delivering direct measures rather than targets.”
3.41 These improvements should be secured by way of a S278 agreement entered into by the developer/applicant and Kent County Council Highway Services and standard and Grampian type conditions attached to any consent granted, and funding for implementation of parking restrictions secured by way of a S106 legal agreement.
3.42 Kent County Council Highway Services have confirmed that the requested improvements are equivalent in terms of securing levels of pedestrian and cyclist safety as those previously requested (upgrading of the existing pedestrian crossing at the western end of the Springfield site access road to a toucan crossing).
3.43 Environment Agency: reiterate comments provided in respect of MA/09/0862, which raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring the submission, approval and implementation of details relating to ground contamination and drainage, and informatives relating to the storage of oil and fuel during and after construction.
3.44 Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer: raises no objection to the proposal, subject to an informative relating to bats and lighting.
3.45 Kent County Council Archaeology Officer: Raise no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a programme of archaeological investigation, making the following detailed comments:
3.46 “The site of the application lies within a few metres of a possible prehistoric activity site and a major Roman road. This site was also occupied by buildings associated with the Springfield late post medieval house which had an associated Lodge and possible carriage house and stables. Remains associated with these may survive on site.”
3.47 Kent Police: raise no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the development to be a gated community, making the following detailed comments:
3.48 “The permability of the site raises concerns as these type of developments are mainly multi storey and are difficult to stop trespass and does not give the same degree of security to that of an individual house. There is also the issue with the three underpassages which enivatabily will cause anti social behaviour as well as criminal damage,these are where youths will linger and gather and become known as what we call honey pots.To avoid this they will need to be restricted by gated access to residents use only.”
3.49 Southern Water: raise no objection to the proposal, subject to their previous comments, which advised that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. The applicant is therefore requested to contact Southern Water to enter into an agreement to provide the necessary infrastructure to serve the development. Southern Water also noted that SUDS is proposed but commented that there would not seem to be enough land within the site to accommodate such a scheme and recommend further investigative work is undertaken. They have requested a condition requiring details of foul and surface water drainage to be submitted is attached to any planning permission.
3.50 UK Power Networks: raise no objection to the proposal.
3.51 Natural England: raise concern over the lack of up to date ecology information in support of the application, but did not respond to the consultation on the additional ecological information received.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Ten representations were received as a result of the publicity procedure. These raised the following concerns:
● Inadequate onsite parking provision and impact on highway safety as a result.
● Quality of design.
● Harm to residential amenity by way of loss of privacy/overlooking, loss of light/overshadowing, and noise.
● Pressure on infrastructure.
● Harm to the setting of a listed building, protected trees and biodiversity.
● Overdevelopment of the site in respect of density and height.
● Inappropriate use of the land.
4.2 Concerns were also raised over the publicity and consultation procedure, however a site notice was posted on 3rd December 2012 and a press notice was published which expired on 23rd December 2012. Two separate consultations were undertaken by way of letters to residents on 26th November 2012 and 18th July 2013. I am therefore satisfied that appropriate consultation has taken place.
5. CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Site Description
5.1.1 The proposal site has an area of approximately 0.575 ha, and comprises a broadly rectangular plot of land which is wider in the north west than in the south east. The land levels differ within the site, the northern and western areas being set down in relation to the south and east of the site. Generally, the lower levels are laid to hard surfacing, and the more elevated areas are occupied by the redundant Kent County Council library building and landscaped areas.
5.1.2 The library building has three distinct architectural elements, being formed of a twelve storey tower building located centrally within the site, the two storey octagonal main library building housing a reading room and the main stack to the south east of the tower, and two storey office accommodation to the north west of the tower. To the north west of this building is an area of hard surfacing which steps down in level to the north. To the “rear” of this area in the northern corner of the site is a single storey garage building. To the rear of this building, and continuing southwards along the eastern boundary of the site, is a band of landscaping which provides a buffer between the buildings on the site and the public highway. The trees in this landscaping, which are of mixed species and ages, are protected by way of Tree Preservation Order 12 of 2009. This landscaping continues around the southern tip of the site, where it includes five Corsican Pine and Wellingtonia, which are also protected under the scope of Tree Preservation Order 12 of 2009.
5.1.3 The proposal site is in a location peripheral to, and north of, the town centre within the defined built up area of Maidstone, and has no specific environmental or economic designations in the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000. It is bounded to the north by Sandling Road, an unclassified highway, beyond which is Royal Engineers Way, the four lane A229. To the east of the site beyond the highway verge is a five arm roundabout which calms traffic on the A229 (Royal Engineers Road/Chatham Road) and also serves Sandling Road which acts as an access point to Ringlestone to the north, the Maidstone Barracks (Invicta Park), which is located on the opposite side of the main carriageway, and the proposal site and neighbouring development to the south, west and north of the site, including Springfield, a substantial detached red brick Grade II listed building located to the south west of the site. This building comprises a former mansion house built in the Victorian gothic style fronted with red brick and stone, and is currently in use as offices. It was listed in 1974 primarily due to the status of its architect, believed to be Alfred Waterhouse, who also designed the Natural History Museum, amongst other notable buildings in London. Beyond Springfield to the west of the site is the River Medway, which informs the sloping topography of the surrounding land.
5.1.4 To the south of the site is a substantial plot of land formerly housing occupied by the Kent County Council Office Campus site, which is currently vacant, all previously existing buildings having been demolished prior to determination of MA/09/0862. Planning permission was granted under application MA/05/2350 for a mixed B1 and residential development comprising 192 apartments and approximately 17,000m of B1 floorspace (in three buildings) on this land, and a Certificate of Lawfulness issued in respect of the implementation of this consent under the scope of MA/10/1327.
5.1.5 To the western boundary of the site is an access road providing vehicular access to the neighbouring residential developments to the north and west of the site. To the west of this is Bambridge Heights, which forms part of the larger Springfield Quays development and comprises a four storey block of flats sharing a similar level to that of the western boundary of the site. In the case of the properties forming Radnor Close, an affordable housing development located to the north west of the site, the scale is three storey, and the development of a much finer grain, with the blocks being significantly smaller in size than those forming Bambridge Heights. These properties are set down by up to 1.5m in relation to the proposal site. To the north west of the site are post war semi-detached dwellings fronting onto Monktons Lane, which are at a similar level to the properties on Radnor Close in the vicinity of the site.
5.1.6 The former library tower, by virtue of its height, is clearly visible in close, middle and long distance views of the site, however the majority of the existing development is effectively screened in public views by the existing landscaping both within the site and on the adjacent highway verges.
5.2 Proposal
5.2.1 This application seeks to renew planning permission MA/09/0862, and I attach the officer’s committee report for that application as Appendix 1 for background information. Although the pre-existing planning permission expired on 10th December 2012, it was extant at the time a valid application was received, and as such a “fresh” permission can be issued to replace the “extant” permission.
5.2.2 The application, as previously approved under MA/09/0862, is for outline planning permission for a residential development of 90 flats and 24 houses, with the matters of access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping all being reserved for subsequent approval.
5.2.3 The illustrative plans show the development to be arranged as linked blocks of two, four, six and eight storeys, and having a staggered layout within the site, the tallest blocks being located in the south west of the site. The lowest buildings, providing the houses, would be located in the north east corner of the site. These dwellinghouses are shown as being provided with private garden space. The flatted accommodation would be provided with roof gardens and shared garden areas at ground floor level, which are shown to be predominantly in the south and east of the site adjacent to the boundary with Sandling Road and the vehicular access to the site and the surrounding development.
5.2.4 The development includes the provision of a 200m community facility which would be situated on the ground floor of a six storey block in the south west of the development. It has been provided due to the identified significant under-provision of such facilities within North Ward.
5.2.5 Whilst access and layout are among matters that are reserved, the indicative plans show no changes to the existing site access, and I understand that this remains the case. The plans also show 47 on site car parking spaces, a ratio of 0.4 spaces per unit.
5.2.6 In addition to a Design and Access and Planning Statement, the original application was supported by a noise assessment, air quality assessment, transport assessment, ecological scoping assessment, tree survey, phase 1 contamination assessment, a daylight/sunlight survey, a visual impact assessment, a draft travel plan, and an arboricultural method statement. An updated ecological statement has been provided in support of the current application. Due to the differences between the contributions sought in respect of infrastructure in respect of MA/09/0862 and MA/12/2032 the draft Heads of Terms for the S106 no longer apply, and a replacement agreement is in the process of being drafted.
5.3 Principle of development and context for determination of the application
5.3.1 The proposed development has previously been considered acceptable in principle, as set out in the report pertaining to MA/09/0862 attached as Appendix 1. The key issue in the consideration of this application to grant a replacement outline planning permission to replace that approved under the scope of MA/09/0862 is whether there has been any significant shift in policy or guidance since the earlier decision and whether there has been any significant change in the specific circumstances of the site.
5.3.2 Changes to the planning policy framework have resulted in the revocation of the South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy. Therefore the Development Plan at the current time comprises the saved policies of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
5.3.3 In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012, replacing all relevant pre-existing national Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements. The publication of the NPPF is a material consideration in the consideration of planning applications.
5.3.4 Key to the determination of the current application is that the NPPF sets out a clear presumption in favour of sustainable development which is defined as having three dimensions, the economic, the social, and the environmental) and identifies the provision of new housing by way of various means of delivery as a priority. The document also sets out the importance of good design, and its intrinsic role in sustainable development. As well as setting out the need for development proposals to be high quality, the document requires development to add to the overall character of areas, and to respond to local character and reflect the local surroundings in respect of overall scale, massing, height and layout.
5.3.5 There have been no significant changes in the circumstances of the site other than that it has remained undisturbed for a period of some years, a matter that has been addressed through the submission of an additional ecology statement that has been found to be acceptable by the Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer.
5.3.6 However, notwithstanding the above, I consider it appropriate in the circumstances of this case to set out in brief my conclusions in respect of various aspects of the consideration of the application.
5.4 Principle
5.4.1 The application site lies within the defined urban area of Maidstone in close proximity to facilities and services, including transportation links. It forms part of a larger site on which Members have previously found residential uses to be acceptable, including the proposal currently under consideration. The site is not safeguarded in the Local Plan for any specific economic or community uses, and does not have any specific environmental designations or lie within an area recorded by the Environment Agency as being prone to flood.
5.4.2 Although the development would result in the permanent loss of a community facility contrary to Local Plan policy CF3, Members will be aware that an alternative facility has been granted planning permission under MA/09/0863 which has been built out and is currently in use. In addition, the scheme as approved under MA/09/0862 includes the provision of a 200m2 on site facility within the development.
5.4.3 For these reasons it is considered that the principle of the proposed development remains acceptable, and accords with local and national planning policy.
5.5 Impact on the townscape
5.5.1 The previous officer, whilst recognising that the density of the proposed development was such that it would inevitably include buildings of significant height, considered that the indicative layout and scale of the proposal, would be of sufficient quality and provide visual interest such that it would not be detrimental to the setting and wider views. This would primarily be achieved through the stepped layout and height of the buildings and the space provided between and around them. This gradation would be emphasised by the role that the surrounding developments would play in setting the visual context of the development. Furthermore, the indicative plans clearly show that the site is capable of accommodating the necessary blocks of accommodation, together with adequate spacing and landscaping between and around them.
5.5.2 I concur with this view, and furthermore would argue that the location of the site adjacent to a major arterial route into the town centre demands an architectural statement, which in this case could provide a connection to the built out development incorporating the Kent County Council Library to the south. Although appearance is a reserved matter, the precise detail of the design can be controlled by way of condition to respond to this high quality scheme, which the indicative plans show to relate closely to in terms of scale, proportions and materials.
5.5.3 For these reasons the impact upon the townscape of a development of this character is considered to be acceptable.
5.6 Highways
5.6.1 Objections have been raised to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety, in particular the provision of on site car parking and additional traffic generation. The proposal has previously been assessed fully in respect of these considerations, and Kent County Council Highway Services again raise no objection to the proposal, subject to an appropriate legal mechanism securing contributions to ensure the provision of specified highway infrastructure that would be required as a result of the development.
5.6.2 These improvements differ from those previously sought (as set out above in paragraphs 3.33 to 3.40 inclusive), however Kent County Council Highway Services have confirmed that the necessary improvements would be equivalent in terms of securing highway safety for all users as those previously requested in respect of MA/09/0862. The improvements to the highway should be secured by way of a S278 agreement between Kent County Council Highway Services and the applicant/developer, and a Grampian condition attached to the consent requiring the improvements to be provided prior to the first occupation of the development. The Sustainable Travel Statement should be required by way of condition, and the funding for the implementation of parking restrictions by way of a S106 legal agreement.
5.6.3 Whilst access is not a matter for consideration at the current time, the existing access is likely to be used which is considered to be adequate.
5.6.4 For these reasons it is considered that the proposal remains acceptable in regard to considerations of highway safety and parking subject to an appropriate legal mechanism securing the necessary highway improvements detailed above and that there are no new circumstances since the time of the previous approval that would result in a different conclusion. Therefore no objection is raised in regard of highway safety.
5.7 Residential amenity
5.7.1 As set out in the committee report relating to MA/09/0862, the application is supported by information confirming that no objection to the proposal could be sustained in respect of loss of light. I agree with this finding. I also concur that in this case the precise impact upon the outlook and privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings cannot be assessed until the reserved matters stage.
5.7.2 For these reasons, I agree that a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of impact on residential amenity could not be sustained at the current time, and that there are no new circumstances since the time of the previous approval that would result in a different conclusion.
5.8 Impact upon designated and undesignated heritage assets
5.8.1 As set out above, there is a Grade II listed building, Springfield, located to the south west of the site. The proposal will inevitably have an impact upon the setting of this building, however notwithstanding the comments of the Maidstone Borough Council Conservation Officer I concur with the previous officer that this impact would not be significantly harmful to the setting of the building. The building, whilst of recognised quality, is not obvious in views of the site from the public highway due to the fall of land beyond the site down towards the River Medway, and the screening afforded by protected trees located to the east of the building and existing development which is of itself closer and more immediate to Springfield than that currently proposed. Views from the rear and the footpath along the river would be maintained.
5.8.2 It is noted that the Council’s Conservation Officer regards the library to be lost to be a heritage asset for the reasons set out above in the paragraph 3.10. Whilst this matter has previously been assessed and found to be inadequate to justify the refusal of the application, the applicant has agreed to the imposition of a condition requiring a detailed survey to be undertaken prior to the demolition of the building and the deposition of the subsequent report in a public knowledge resource such as the new Kent Library and History Centre.
5.8.3 For these reasons, I agree that a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of impact on the setting of a listed building could not be sustained at the current time, and that there are no new circumstances or significant policy changes since the time of the previous approval that would result in a different conclusion.
5.8 Ecology
5.8.1 The original application was supported by an ecological scoping report and survey, which identified that certain elements of the site had potential to be used as bat roosts, and that some other species may be present. The report made recommendations for precautionary measures.
5.8.2 The current application is supported by an additional letter making updates to the original survey and report, which sets out the current circumstances of the site and sets out the findings of recent bat surveys, confirming that bat activity on the site is limited, and that the overall site conditions remained otherwise the same.
5.8.3 In light of this, the Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer raises no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the implementation of precautionary measures for species other than bats and an informative relating to lighting.
5.8.4 For these reasons, it is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed the changing ecological circumstances of the site and that, subject to the condition set out above, the application should not be refused on this ground.
5.9 Landscape
5.9.1 The comments of the Council’s Landscape Officer are set out in full above, and the concerns over the loss of trees and the successful retention of those proposed to be retained are fully addressed in the report attached to MA/09/0862.
5.9.2 There have been no significant changes to the circumstances of the site in the intervening period, or changes to the policy framework which would justify refusal of the planning application. As stated in the previous committee report, whilst “the loss of any tree is regrettable, however, in this instance this application must be considered as part of the overall ’package’ provided by the two applications which together seek to deliver a prestigious project that will provide an enhanced community facility for the Borough. The loss of the two trees must be balanced against the wider benefits to the community as a whole arising from the two schemes, both of which are necessary to allow the development on the James Whatman Way site to take place.” This remains the case.
5.9.3 Furthermore, Members will be aware that this is an outline application with all matters reserved; as such the layout is to be agreed at a later stage, and should be considered in such a way as to accommodate the retention of as many trees as possible. I also agree that foundation design should be secured by way of condition, as should additional landscaping, including the planting of trees, to beef up existing landscaping areas to be retained fronting onto Royal Engineers Road in order to provide further softening of this boundary.
5.9.4 For these reasons it is considered that there is no reason to differ from the previous conclusion that the safeguards in place and the substantial community benefits are of such weight that the concerns of the Landscape Officer and the loss of trees do not justify refusal of the application, and that there are no new circumstances or significant policy changes since the time of the previous approval that would result in a different conclusion.
5.10 S106 contributions
5.10.1 Policy CF1 of the Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 sets out the circumstances in which developments may be requested to make appropriate contributions towards the provision of additional community facilities that may be needed as a result of additional demand generated by new development that cannot be assimilated.
5.10.2 Planning obligations are required to satisfy the criteria set out in regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2010 insofar as they must be:
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
Directly related to the development; and
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
5.10.3 In this case, contributions have been sought from Mouchel (working on behalf of Kent County Council, NHS Property Services (working on behalf of the Primary Care Trust) and Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Spaces. The requested contributions are as follows:
5.10.4 Kent County Council contributions sought:
● Primary school: Contributions of £5,559.96 per applicable house and £1,389.99 per applicable flat towards the new build cost and a land cost contribution of £2,701.63 per applicable house and £675.41 per applicable flat towards the acquisition of a new primary school local to the proposed development (the building of two new primary schools in south and west Maidstone).
● Secondary school: Contributions of £2,359.80 per applicable house and £589.95 per applicable flat towards the extension of an existing secondary school local to the proposed development (within the borough of Maidstone).
● A contribution of £10,109.74 towards additional book stock in Maidstone local libraries.
● A contribution of £3,272.80 towards community learning through the provision of new/expanded facilities at Maidstone Adult Education and through outreach community learning facilities in Maidstone Local to the development.
● A contribution of £5,279.37 towards the provision of new/expanded facilities in Maidstone local to the development, including four projects to provide integrated dementia care, co-location with health, a changing place facility, and assistive technology.
5.10.5 Maidstone Borough Council contributions sought:
● A contribution of £179,550 (£1,575 per unit) for the improvement, renewal, replacement and maintenance of green open spaces and play areas within a one mile radius of the development.
5.10.6 Primary Health Care contributions sought:
● A contribution of £75,456 (£360 per person) to support the delivery of investments highlighted within the PCTs Strategic Service Development Plan. The local surgeries identified are the Brewer Street, St Lukes, Allington Park, Marsham Street, Allington and Lockmeadow surgeries and clinics.
5.10.7 In respect of replacement community facilities, Members are aware that a replacement library facility has been provided locally under the provisions of MA/09/0863. In addition to this, the plans approved under MA/09/0862 showed a 200m2 community facility within the development currently under consideration. The rationale behind this was that at the time of the grant of the previous consent it did not appear likely that programmes to deliver community facilities on close by sites would come forward. However, it now appears likely that the Ringlestone Hall improvement scheme will be progressing on an adjacent site. Subsequently, negotiations have taken place between applicant and case officer, and it has been agreed that the S106 be worded to allow an “either or” provision of the 200m2 facility or the contribution of an equivalent sum to be spent within 1 mile of the site, the equivalent sum being the open market value of the 200m2 space for shop or office use. This has been agreed by the Council’s Solicitor in respect of the requirements of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.
5.10.8 In respect of some of the contributions set out above, the sums differ from those previously sought in respect of MA/09/0862, however the consultees have provided justification and rationale behind any changes which have satisfied the Council’s Solicitor in this respect, or in the case of the on site community facility, been amended as a result of changing circumstances, and to afford a degree of flexibility in delivering out the replacement community facility. The applicant has been made aware of the discrepancies between the requirements under MA/09/0862 and the current application, and has indicated that they are accepted; a S106 is in the process of being drafted.
5.10.9 Members will note that no affordable housing is sought in respect of the current application. The affordable housing requirement has been provided by way of the development at James Whatman Way under the scope of MA/09/0863, the original S106 agreement attached to the two previous permissions requiring the development to be built out and operational prior to the commencement of the development permitted under MA/09/0862. Therefore it is not reasonable or necessary for this element of community infrastructure to be covered by any S106 attached to the current application.
5.10.10 The S106 legal agreement should also include a contribution of £4,000 for the implementation of parking restrictions to prevent residents/visitors parking along unsuitable sections of the highway, to enable Maidstone Borough Council Parking Services to advertise and implement the necessary Traffic Regulation Order.
5.10.11 In addition to the S106 contributions set out above, Kent County Council Highway Services have made a request for improvements to the local highway network, to be secured by way of a S278 agreement and Grampian type condition. These are as follows:
● The improvement of four bus stops close to the land including raised kerbs and real time information system. This is to be provided prior to the occupation of the units; and
● The provision of a pedestrian refuge, of sufficient width to accommodate a bicycle, is required on the access road to assist pedestrians and cyclists from this development site crossing the access road.
5.11 Other matters
5.11.1 There are no material changes to the circumstances of the site or the policy framework that would justify coming to any conclusion other than that previously reached insofar as the development shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Development. Whilst Code Level 4 would normally be the objective in a development of this scale, given the “extant” permission and the absence of an adopted policy it is not considered reasonable to differ from the level previously sought. However, an informative requiring the developer to be mindful of the Environment Agency and Southern Water comments in respect of the use of SUDS should be attached to the permission.
5.11.2 In accordance with the comments of the Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health Manager, and in the interests of consistency with the previous consent, conditions should also be imposed requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the air quality assessment report and a noise report submitted in support of the original application.
5.11.3 In respect of the matters of surface and foul water drainage, site investigation and archaeology, I agree that these matters remain of importance and that conditions requiring the submission, approval and implementation of relevant details remain necessary and appropriate.
5.11.4 Whilst the comments of Kent Police are noted, the current application is for a replacement permission in respect of a previously approved scheme, and as such it is not considered reasonable to request the suggested amendments at this stage, in addition to which gated communities are not considered to be encouraged, on the grounds that they give rise to social segregation and are detrimental to public health in respect of discouraging pedestrian permeability of developments.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the principle of the development remains acceptable, subject to approval of reserved matters.
6.2 It is therefore concluded that, subject to an appropriate legal mechanism, as detailed above in section 5.10, the Head of Planning and Development be granted delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION
SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL MECHANISM IN SUCH TERMS AS THE HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES MAY ADVISE, SECURING THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTIONS:
· A contribution of £75,456 (£360 per person for the remainder of the phases throughout the site, as shown on the submitted formula) to support the delivery of investments highlighted within the PCTs Strategic Service Development Plan. The local surgeries identified are the Brewer Street, St Lukes, Allington Park, Marsham Street, Allington and Lockmeadow surgeries and clinics; and
· A contribution towards primary education of £2,065.40 per applicable flat and £8,261.26 per applicable house towards the acquisition and build costs of a new primary school local to the proposed development (the building of two new primary schools in south and west Maidstone); and
· Contributions towards secondary education of £589.95 per applicable flat and £2359.80 per house towards the extension of an existing secondary school local to the proposed development (within the borough of Maidstone); and
· A contribution of £10,109.74 towards additional book stock in Maidstone local libraries; and
· A contribution towards community learning of £3,272.80 towards community learning through the provision of new/expanded facilities at Maidstone Adult Education and through outreach community learning facilities in Maidstone local to the development; and
· A contribution towards adult social care of £5,279.37 towards the provision of new/expanded facilities in Maidstone local to the development, including four projects to provide integrated dementia care, co-location with health, a changing place facility, and assistive technology; and
· A contribution of £179,550 (£1,575 per unit) towards the improvement, renewal, replacement and maintenance of green open spaces and play areas within a one mile radius of the development; and
· A contribution of £4,000 towards the implementation of parking restrictions to prevent residents and visitors from parking along unsuitable sections of the public highway by way of an appropriate Traffic Regulation Order; and
· The provision of a 200m2 community facility within the development OR an equivalent sum for the improvement, renewal, replacement and maintenance of a community facility within a one mile radius of the development.
THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BE DELEGATED POWERS 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
details of reserved matters of layout, appearance and scale submitted pursuant
to condition 1 above shall include inter-alia;
(i) A staggered mixture of 2, 4, 6 & 8 storey buildings,
(ii) The maximum height of any building not exceeding 25.5m,
(iii) The provision of roof gardens and pergolas,
(iv) The provision of a community facility of not less than 200sq.m. net floor
area unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,
(v) Details of windows and doors and recesses/reveals (which shall be a
minimum of 100mm) to be in the form of large scale drawings (scale 1:20 or
1:50),
(vi) Details of the finish of the roof and the facade of the buildings,
(vii) Details of the junction of the cills of the windows and the rendered
panels,
(viii) Precise details of the fenestration, in particular the arrangement of
windows to provide the 'cracks' detailing upon the elevations of the buildings.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
subsequently approved details.
Reason: No such details have been submitted and to ensure a high quality design
and standard of finish for the development and an adequate level of residential
amenity to future occupiers.
3.
The
development shall not commence until, details of the proposed slab levels of
the buildings and the existing and proposed site levels have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development
shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels;
Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to
the topography of the site.
4.
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.
5.
The
development shall not commence until details of foul and surface water drainage
have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The
development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
Reason: In the interest of pollution and flood prevention.
6.
The
details of surface water drainage submitted pursuant to condition 5 above,
shall utilise a SUDS system. The submitted scheme shall however, show no
infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground other than for those
parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant
unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable construction and in order to protect
groundwater resources within the underlying Hythe Beds principal aquifer.
7.
The
development hereby permitted shall not commence until the following components
of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site
shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority:
1) A site investigation scheme, based on the Bouguys (UK) Ltd Phase I Desk
Study reference 51210 dated September 2008, to provide a detailed assessment of
the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
2) A remediation method statement (RMS) based on the site investigation results
(1) and the detailed risk assessment (1). This should give full details of the
remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The RMS should
also include a verification plan to detail the data that will be collected in
order to demonstrate that the works set out in the RMS are complete and
identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance
and arrangements for contingency action; and
3) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in
order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3)
are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of
pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local
planning authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented as approved;
Reason: to protect the quality of the groundwater within the underlying
principal aquifer and prevent harm to the environment and human health by way
of pollution of air, land and groundwater.
8.
Within
one month of the commencement of the permitted development a completion report
demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy
and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in
writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of
sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved remediation
strategy and verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation
criteria have been met and 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. It shall also include
a plan (a 'long-term monitoring and maintenance plan') for longer-term
monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency
action, as identified in the remediation strategy and verification plan. The
long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved;
Reason: to protect the quality of the groundwater within the underlying
principal aquifer and prevent harm to the environment and human health by way
of pollution of air, land and groundwater.
9.
The
development shall not commence until details of measures to mitigate the impact
of demolition and construction on air quality as recommended in the Air Quality
Assessment (prepared by Mouchel) received 21 May 2009 have been submitted to
and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure no unacceptable adverse impact on air quality.
10.
The
development shall not commence until details to mitigate the impact of noise as
recommended in the acoustic assessment (prepared by AcousticAir) received 21
May 2009 have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved
details.
Reason: To ensure no unacceptable adverse impact on future occupiers from road
traffic noise.
11.
The
details of landscaping submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall include,
inter alia, additional tree planting along the eastern boundary of the site,
and a tree survey, an arboricultural implications assessment (AIA) and tree
protection measures in accordance with the recommendations of BS5837:2012,
Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations. The
AIA shall include a realistic assessment of the probable impact of any proposed
development on trees and vice versa, together with details of any tree works
that would be necessary to implement the proposal. Where the AIA identifies a
conflict between the proposal and retained trees, details should be provided to
demonstrate that the trees can be successfully retained;
Reason: To safeguard existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory
setting and external appearance to the development.
12.
The
development shall not commence until details of the retention and placement
within the site of a proportion of the cordwood from the felled trees have been
submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority. The development shall
thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and ecology.
13.
The
dwellings shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling
shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it
certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.
Reason: To ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development.
14.
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 building(s) 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.
15.
The
details of layout submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall include details
showing not less than 47 car parking spaces and/or garages and details of
secure cycle parking provision at a minimum ratio of one space/unit.
Reason: Development without adequate parking/garage provision is likely to lead
to parking inconvenient to other road users and prejudice road safety.
16.
The
details of the parking/turning areas approved pursuant to condition 15 above
shall be completed before the commencement of the use of the land or buildings
hereby permitted and shall thereafter be kept available for such use. No
development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended by any order revoking and re-
enacting that Order, with or without modification) or not, shall be carried out
on the areas indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to
them;
Reason: Development without adequate parking/turning provision is likely to
lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road
safety.
17.
The
details of layout submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall include details
of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse on the site. The
subsequently approved facilities shall be provided before the first occupation
of the buildings or land and maintained thereafter;
Reason: No such details have been submitted and in the interest of amenity.
18.
The
development shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the precautionary
and mitigation measures for reptiles, toads, hedgehogs and birds as recommended
in the ecological scoping survey (prepared by Lloyd Bore) received 21 May 2009;
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and ecology.
19.
The
development shall not commence until, detailed designs of the proposed
foundations of the buildings and their method of construction have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The design of the
foundations and method of construction shall take into account the proximity of
the retained trees within the site and their associated Root Protection Areas.
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved
details;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to safeguard existing
trees.
20.
No
structure, plant, equipment or machinery shall be placed, erected, or installed
on or above the roof or on external walls without the prior approval in writing
of the Local Planning Authority;
Reason: In the interest of a high quality finish of the development hereby
permitted.
21.
The
development shall not commence until details of a maintenance programme for
maintaining the external appearance of the buildings have been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The programme shall thereafter be
implemented in accordance with the subsequently approved details.
Reason: To maintain and preserve the character and appearance of the
development in the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area.
22.
The
development shall not commence until details of all external lighting within
the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority and these works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
details and maintained thereafter. No additional lighting shall be placed or
erected within the site thereafter without the prior approval of the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to maintain the character and appearance of the site,
safeguard residential amenity, and prevent harm to biodiversity.
23.
The
fenestration on the development hereby permitted shall be black, and shall
detailed as shown on the submitted plans.
Reason: In the interests of securing a high quality design.
24.
No
development, including demolition of existing structures, shall commence until
a programme of building recording and analysis (the 'Programme') has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
Programme shall include a written scheme of investigation, which shall be
implemented in the implementation of the planning permission. The resulting
report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, the Historic
Environment Record held by Kent County Council and the Maidstone Museum before
first occupation of the development hereby permitted;
Reason: To prevent the unrecorded loss of a non-designated heritage asset.
25.
No
part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the following
works have been constructed and completed in accordance with a schedule of
works submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Local Highway Authority:
i) The improvement of four local bus stops as follows:
A229 Chatham Road east side - bus boarders; and
A229 Chatham Road west side - bus boarders and real time information; and
A229 Royal Engineers Road south of the Springfield roundabout east side - bus
boarders and real time information; and
A229 Royal Engineers Road south of the Springfield roundabout west side - bus
boarders and real time information;
ii) The provision of an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, including pedestrian
refuge of sufficient width to accommodate a bicycle across the access to the
site; and
iii) The implementation of parking restrictions on public highways adjacent to
the site;
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.
26.
The
development shall not be occupied until a Sustainable Travel Statement is
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Local Highway Authority. The agreed Sustainable Travel
Statement shall subsequently be implemented in full within 3 months of the
first occupation of the development and by its subsequent occupiers, and
thereafter maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority;
Reason: To ensure that the site operates in a sustainable manner and to reduce
reliance on the use of the private car as a means of transport.
Informatives set out below
The applicant should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd. Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel: 01962858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk.
Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.
Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/ unauthorised discharge to ground. The area's for storage should not drain to any surface water system.
Attention is drawn to Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and to the Associated British Standard Code of practice BS5228:1997 for noise control on construction sites. Statutory requirements are laid down for control of noise during works of construction and demolition and you are advised to contact the Environmental Health Manager regarding noise control requirements.
Plant and machinery used for demolition and construction shall only be operated within the application site between 0800 hours and 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sunday and Bank Holidays.
No vehicles may arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the general site except between the hours of 0800 and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Adequate and suitable provision in the form of water sprays should be used to reduce dust from demolition and construction work.
The developer may be required to produce a Site Waste Management Plan in accordance with Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 Section 54. This should be available for inspection by the Local Authority at any time prior to and during the development.
The importance of notifying local residents in advance of any unavoidably noisy operations, particularly when these are to take place outside the normal working hours, can not be highly stressed. Where possible, the developer shall provide the Council and residents with a name of a person and maintain dedicated telephone number to deal with any noise complaints or queries about the work, for example scaffolding alarm misfiring late in the night/early hours of the morning, any over-run of any kind.
No development shall commence until a scheme for the use of wheel cleaning, dust laying and road sweeping equipment, have been submitted to and the scheme approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in its entirety once development has commenced, for the duration of demolition/construction works at the site.
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.
A development panel should be established to monitor the development's progress and consider materials and landscaping details, panel to include representatives from Council officers, Ward Members and the applicants/developer.
Whilst the Local Planning Authority consider all planning applications on their individual merits, it is the view of the Local Planning Authority that they are unlikely to look favourably upon any subsequent application(s) that compromise in any way the integrity of the permitted scheme.
No burning shall take place at the application site.
The developers shall provide adequate space within the application site for the parking/turning/unloading of contractors vehicles before any works commence on site. Such space shall thereafter be maintained during the construction process where practicable.
Removal of existing trees or hedgerows containing nesting birds shall take place outside of the bird-breeding season (generally March to August).
The applicant/developer is advised to liaise with the Environment Agency, Kent County Council and Southern Water when formulating a scheme of Sustainable Drainage for the development.
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.