DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 14 February 2013 Reference: 12/01150/FUL Officer: Mrs Sonia Bunn Location: Land North Of

Hedge Place Road Stone Kent

Proposal: Erection of 56 dwellings comprising 33 x 3 bedrooms and 11 x 4 bedroom

houses and 12 x 2 bedroom flats together with associated landscaping works, parking and infrastructure works

Applicant: Fairview Homes

Agent: Savills/Mr B Thomas Target Date: 18/12/2012 Parish / Ward: Stone Parish Council / Stone RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to the completion of a s106 agreement within six months of the date of this resolution SITE SPECIFIC POLICY (1) The application site is located north of Hedge Place Road at the eastern end of the road, beyond the point where the road is now closed to traffic and is approximately 0.95 hectares in area. The site sits between two existing residential areas. To the west is the residential area along Hedge Place Road, which now has some more recent development in the form of small cul-de-sacs running off it. Barnfield Close is the eastern most development served off Hedge Place Road; this is separated from the application site by the southern wedge of a field. The properties here are all two storey detached houses. (2) To the east is the more recent Waterstone Park development, which is separated from the application site by the wide footway which runs north to south from London Road to Hedge Place Road (previously Sandy Lane a single track road which was stopped up prior to the Waterstone Park development). Three storey flats face onto the south east corner of the application site with the flank boundaries of two-storey dwellings facing the site further to the north and the flank end of a three fronting the north east corner of the site. (3) To the north of the site is the rough grassland on the site of the former quarry and landfill, Stone Pit 9 and 9A which extends to London Road. The application site is made up of solid ground that has not been quarried and from historical maps does not seem to have been a part of the quarry operations. (4) Directly to the south of the site is Hedge Place Road, although there is no longer any vehicular access along this part of the road. Beyond this road is the Bluewater site and the cliffs of the former quarry. There are mature hedgerows lining both the north and south side of the road and these are at times heavily overgrown, so that just a narrow area of the road is negotiable be pedestrians. (5) The Public Right of Way DR13 runs along the north-western boundary of the site.

(6) The site is rough grassland at the moment, with a mature but sparse hedgerow along its southern boundary and a further hedgerow along the eastern boundary. There are also some small trees, on the western boundary probably being the remnant of a hedgerow. (7) The site is on one of the higher areas of land and not only has views out of the site over the River Thames to the north but is also very visible from the south from Watling Street and St Clements Way close to Bean junction. (8) In terms of public transport, the nearest bus stops, on London Road, are approximately 600m away via a pedestrian only path or through Waterstone Park. THE PROPOSAL (9) It is proposed to develop the site for 56 dwellings, comprising of 44 houses and 12 x 2-bedroom apartments. The houses are a mix of 2-storey, 2.5 storey and 3 storey buildings providing 33 x 3-bedroom and 11 x 4-bedroom houses. The building heights increase across the site, being 2 and 2.5 storey closest to the existing dwellings in Barnfield Close and then increasing to 3-storey in height adjacent to Waterstone Park. (10) Access is provided off Hedge Place Road. The existing vehicular barrier close to Barnfield Close will be removed and placed further east. An access road is also provided through the site which is intended to be one-way. The applicants advise that this will be a shared surface which is intended to give pedestrians priority. (11) 100 car parking spaces are provided across the site, in the form of car ports, driveways, parking courts and on street parking spaces. The applicant has provided an indicative car parking management strategy for the site. (12) A 3m landscape buffer is proposed adjacent to the Public Right Of Way DR13 which runs along the NW boundary. This is to be landscaped with native trees and shrubs to provide a natural setting for the right of way and a bio-diversity area. (13) A small area of public open space is proposed in the centre of the site. (14) The dwellings will face onto Hedge Place Road and the access road around the site. A traditional form of development is proposed with groups of housing facing onto the street, many of these having car ports at ground floor. The building materials are proposed to be predominantly brick and render and slate grey roof tiles. (15) The density of the development proposed is 59 dwellings per hectare. (16) The proposal includes the provision of affordable housing (17) Submitted with the application were the following documents: • Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement • Landscape Design Strategy • Transport Statement • Archaeological Desk Based Assessment • Phase 1 habitats Survey and Biodiversity Assessment • Ecology summary statement • Sustainability Statement • Energy Statement • Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment and Hydrogeological Risk Assessment • Geo-environmental and Geotechnical Interpretative Report • Ground Gas Summary Report • Noise Impact Assessment • Air Quality Assessment • Statement of Community Engagement • Viability Assessment

COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS (18) KCC Highways: Advises that the layout of the development is acceptable and the route around the site is sufficient to accommodate both fire and rescue service vehicles. They advise that the development would generate a low volume of traffic, approximately 20-30 vehicles in peak hours which would therefore not add to safety and capacity concerns on the surrounding road network. However, they point out that Hedge Place Road does not have footways along its full length and therefore they recommend that the layout of Hedge Place Road is modified to protect both the existing and new residents from the impact of the additional traffic. The main issue they consider is the need to protect pedestrians along Hedge Place Road prior to any construction work starting, which could be achieved by creating a continuous footway along the northern side of the road. The width of the footway would need to provide for pushchairs and wheelchair users. They acknowledge it would involve the loss of on-street car parking outside some properties but advise that all of these appear to have off street parking available. The construction of this footway would require the road to be narrowed in one location to a short section of single lane width but they consider this to be feasible. The final details of such works would be subject to detailed design and local consultation by the highways authority. But they recommended that if agreed the improvements works should be implemented before any construction work commences on site. With regard to the local concern about accessibility along Hedge Place Road they acknowledge that this appears rather chaotic at times but do not believe there is sufficient cause to object to the proposal. (19) KCC Education: Seek contributions towards primary school provision on a new site and also contributions to a new secondary school. KCC also seek contributions for library bookstock, towards youth workers in the area and towards adult social services (20) Environment Agency: Raise concerns about the infiltration of surface water from the site as the site lies less than 50m from the former landfill at Stone Pit 9. Since there is known potential for landfill gas to be generated from Stone Pit 9, they are concerned that the soakaways can act as a preferential pathway for the gas to migrate from the landfill. However, the applicants have provided further information since then and the EA have agreed to certain soakaways on the site but advise that only clean roof water should discharge to these soakaways. They suggest that a condition is imposed requiring surface water drainage details to be agreed. (21) Thames Water: Make no comment on foul sewage. With regard to water supply they advise the minimum pressure to be supplied and advise that this should be taken account of in the design. They recommend a condition is imposed with regard to piling in order to prevent impact on the subsurface water infrastructure. They advise the applicant to contact Thames Water to discuss the proposed piling method. (22) KCC Archaeology: Advise that the site lies within an area of archaeological potential associated with prehistoric activity as it lies on Boyn Hill Gravels. Archaeological investigations on Waterstone Park located significant Bronze Age, Iron Age and some Roman occupation and industrial activity. Remains associated with these sites may survive within the application site. They confirm that the Archaeological Desk-based Assessment submitted with the application is thorough and provides a reasonable assessment of the heritage assets and issues. They therefore recommend a condition is imposed requiring a programme of archaeological work to be carried out prior to any work starting. (23) Kent Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor: raise some detailed points about the layout of the development, in particular in relation to the rear accesses and bin storage. These have subsequently been amended by reducing the length of the rear accesses and will be gated where appropriate. They also highlight the need to maintain the landscaping adjacent to the public right of way and to ensure that the planting deters climbing and graffiti of the fences to the adjacent houses. They also recommend that the parking bays on street and in the parking court are allocated to specific dwellings in order to avoid potential

neighbour disputes. They also raise some concerns about the use of car ports as they provide no security protection and can provide hiding areas for potential offenders. (24) Kent Fire and Rescue: Confirm that the means of access is satisfactory. (25) Kent Police Developer Contributions: Advise that the development will increase demands on policing arising from the population increase and therefore seek contributions towards staffing costs and a pro rata contribution to the provision of additional custody accommodation. (26) Council’s Environmental Health Officer: Agree with the noise report that there is no noise issue on the site. But advise that adequate acoustic protection should be provided where the flats adjoin communal stairwells [a matter which will be dealt with under Building Regulations]. They request that a condition is imposed relating to hours of working and with regard to dust and noise emissions. They are also confirm that they accept the conclusions of submitted air quality report that there will be no air quality impacts as a result of the development. With regard to contamination from the landfill gas, they also accept the conclusions of the report submitted with the application that gas management on the adjacent site could be improved. The application also provides details of remediation measures to protect properties and gardens on the new development from the risk of gas and the EHO considers that these could make the site suitable for development. They suggest, should planning permission be granted, the imposition of conditions to ensure that the full remedial measures set out are employed, which includes gas resistant membranes, protection of gardens and the provision of concrete slabs suitable for sheds, the use of porous paving and hardsurfacing and the construction of services in a manner to avoid these becoming a conduit for gas. (27) Stone Parish Council: In principle no objections to development of the site but request a generous level of residential parking to prevent any overspill into surrounding roads. The Parish Council also has concerns about the access to the site during the construction phase and after occupation and request that all feasible options are considered. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION (28) 89 letters and one petition with 93 signatures have been received from neighbouring residents objecting to the application. In summary, these object to the proposed development on the following grounds: o Concern about the additional traffic along Hedge Place Road, as many houses do not

have garages cars are parked on both sides of the road making access difficult. o Concern that another 100 vehicles will be using the road. o Hedge Place Road is very narrow and could not cope with the width or weight of

construction traffic. Large vehicles will probably need to mount the pavements. o Hedge Place Road is unsafe as pedestrians walk in the road where the pavement is

inaccessible. o The Waterstone Park development has created a significant increase in pedestrians

and cyclists using Hedge Place Road to access local shops. Pedestrians, cyclists and children will be put in increased danger by the increase in traffic that the development would bring.

o Hedge Place Road is a residential road where children play and this development

and the construction vehicles will make this dangerous. The road twists and turns creating blind corners. They question where will the contractors park?

o Waste vehicles already have problems getting through and emergency vehicles will

be unable to get through.

o Parking is inadequate for the development and parking will spill out onto Hedge Place

Road and Waterstone Park. o There is insufficient parking along Hedge Place Road for existing properties in the

evening and at weekends. o It is difficult to get out Hedge Place Road onto St James Lane at peak times o The roads will be damaged and left throughout the construction period o Concern that the road will become a through road. o Improvements to the footway on the north side of Hedge Place Road is no benefit, as

it would reduce on street parking o Access should be from London Road. Sandy Lane should be opened up to traffic

again. o The proposal will lead to more pedestrians walking through Waterstone Park

disturbing the peace here. o The area is already inundated with traffic generated by the Dartford Crossing,

Hospital and Bluewater and more housing will increase the problems. St James Lane/Hedge Place Road is often grid-locked with traffic.

o The development will cause a loss of visual amenity for neighbouring properties in

Waterstone Park. o Dwellings in Waterstone Park will be overlooked by the new flats o The size and massing of the development will harm the amenities of local residents

and does not respect the surroundings. o Concern that the development will allow the release of gas and toxic substances from

the adjacent landfill site. o Objection to the loss of a Greenfield site. o Bats are seen in the area on a frequent basis. They would question whether the

survey was undertaken at the right times and adequate locations. o The loss of the 500-700 year old hedgerow on the site would be a significant impact. o The proposal will result in the loss of habitat for a significant number of BAP species

and therefore they do not feel the Council can justifiably approve this application. Further development is a continuing loss of wildlife.

o The ecology habitats survey appeared to have been done without care with mats

being kicked aside potentially damaging the lizards. o The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site o The site acts as a buffer between Hedge Place Road and Waterstone Park o The field is used for dog walking and informal recreation. o There will be dirt, dust and pollution from the development.

o More housing in the area puts more pressure on existing amenities such as doctor’s surgeries, hospital beds and schools. The surgeries and schools all have waiting lists.

o Local schools all have waiting lists. There would be no provision of new families with

children living in these houses. o Hedge Place Road and Sandy Lane is the main route for people walking to

Greenhithe Station, the construction work would prevent this. o Removal of the vehicle barrier across Hedge Place Road will reintroduce the problem

of fly-tipping and illegal motor cycling. o Criminals targeted the construction sites at Waterstone Park. There are a number of

escape routes which makes the apprehension of criminals difficult. The proposed development will attract criminals back to the area.

o Increased vandalism and anti-social behaviour since Waterstone Park has been built

and the proposal will increase this. o Concern about the impact of the development on local flooding and subsidence. o Houses in the area already suffer from poor water pressure; the additional homes will

put an extra strain on the water supply in the area. o Concern that the developer will not adhere to the sustainable standards for new

builds. (29) Residents were reconsulted on minor changes to the layout and design and also the sketch plans of the suggested footway improvements along Hedge Place Road. Four further representations have been received at the time of writing the report which object to the proposal and make the following points: o Nothing has altered to change their opinion. o Too little visitor parking for the dwellings. o Changes to the footway in Hedge Place Road are totally inadequate and do not

create more space further along the road to meet residents’ concerns. o The footway provision would narrow the road further. KCC Highways and Kent Police

should be consulted. o Stress the need for archaeological investigation. o There should be a scheme for mitigation of dust and noise during consultation. RELEVANT POLICIES National Planning Policy Framework (30) Central Government Guidance set out in the NPPF has a presumption in favour of sustainable development and advises that in relation to decision-taking this means approving development proposals which accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is silent granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF. (31) With regard to bio-diversity the NPPF advises that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity and sets out principles which should be applied, which confirm that if significant harm resulting

from a development cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated then planning permission should be refused. (32) At paragraph 120 the NPPF advises that the effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity should be taken into account and decision should take account of adequate site investigation information. Although it stresses that “where a site is affected by contamination responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer”. Dartford Core Strategy (33) Policy CS4: The site falls within the Ebbsfleet to Stone Priority Area but is not one of the allocated development sites. The site was considered in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) but was considered as part of Stone Pit 9 and assumptions were made on the basis that the whole site was a gassing land fill. The site was therefore considered as undevelopable. More detailed assessment indicates that this portion of the larger site has not been used for landfill and therefore the conclusion that it is undevelopable does not apply. (34) Policy CS10: Advises that planning applications for sites not identified as deliverable or developable in the SHLAA will be assessed in the same way as planned development by consideration of the sustainability of the site for housing development; whether the benefits of development outweigh disbenefits; and the capacity of the current and proposed infrastructure to serve the development. (35) Policy CS11: confirms that the Council will work to achieve the delivery of a balanced relationship between homes, jobs and infrastructure from the outset of development through seeking financial contributions for infrastructure delivery and by working with service providers. (36) Policy CS14; advises that the Council will work with its partners to implement a high quality Green Grid, a strategic network of open spaces and routes across the Borough. The policy also seeks to focus bio-diversity enhancements within Biodiversity Opportunity Areas, one of which the application site falls within. (37) Policy CS15: Managing Transport Demand seeks to minimise car use and make the most effective use of the transport network. One of the aims is to work in partnership with developers to implement an integrated walking and cycling network joining communities with the facilities they need to access. (38) Policy CS16: Transport Investment seeks to deliver the Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme and seeks appropriate contributions from development. (39) Policy CS17: Design of Homes seeks to achieve quality living environments and requires the application of the principles of Kent Design. It sets criteria for the design of homes including appropriate internal spaces and useable private amenity space. The policy also sets out broad indications of appropriate net densities which for urban sites is 35-55 dwellings per hectare. (40) Policy CS18: Housing Mix requires that developments of less than 100 houses should provide a majority of family housing. (41) Policy CS19: Affordable Housing requires sites of more than 15 units to deliver 30% of the units as affordable housing. The tenure mix to be determined on a site by site basis taking into account site characteristics and development viability. (42) Policy CS21: Community Services seeks that community needs for services are provided for and require developments to make appropriate contribution towards land and facilities.

(43) Policy 23: Minimising Carbon Emissions requires all new development to demonstrate reductions in energy use. (44) Policy CS24: Flood Risk requires that in water source protection zones, SUDs will need to demonstrate that any surface water run-off infiltrating the ground will not lead to deterioration of groundwater quality. (45) Policy CS25: Water Management requires all new homes to achieve at least code level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in terms of water use. Adopted Dartford Local Plan 1995 saved policies (46) Policy B1 sets out criteria which new development should be considered against, including design, materials and amenity, (47) Policy B3 requires developments to incorporate appropriate hard and soft landscaping measures (48) Policy T23 requires development proposals to provide adequate off-street parking facilities (49) Appendix 9 of the adopted Local Plan sets out guidelines for the layout and design of new homes. Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (50) The Dartford Borough Council parking standards document requires 1.2 parking spaces for 2-bedroom dwellings, 1.5 parking spaces for 3 bedroom dwellings and 2 parking spaces for 4-bedroom dwellings. In addition, these parking standards now require 3 visitor spaces per 10 homes and 1 van space per 10 homes. South East Plan (51) The South East Plan (SEP) currently comprises part of the development plan for the area. The Government is in the process of revoking Regional Strategies, of which the South East Plan is one. To this end it has undertaken a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the SEP and consulted it on and revocation of the SEP is expected shortly. In view of the expected imminent revocation of the Plan, little weight can be attached to it. Additionally, I am of the opinion that given the small scale of the development on this site the South East Plan is not relevant to this application. COMMENTS Key Issues (52) The consideration of this site falls into two parts, firstly to determine whether the principle of development is acceptable, in terms of proximity to a landfill site, the acceptability of a windfall site, access to the site, and then secondly the details of the development and its impact in terms of detailed layout and design, impact on neighbouring residents, impact on biodiversity, landscaping and whether the proposal meets planning policies with regard to infrastructure provision Windfall site (53) Policy CS10 supports proposals for housing identified through the strategic site allocations. The application site has been assessed within the SHLAA as undevelopable but this was on the basis that the application site was a landfill site, part of Stone Pit 9 and 9A. The policy advises however that sites not identified as deliverable or developable in the SHLAA should be assessed in the same way as planned development.

(54) The policy does not seek to prevent the development of windfall sites but has the objective of ensuring that any windfall sites that come forward are sustainable and commensurate with sites that have been identified as part of the Council’s housing land supply. In addition, the policy seeks to guard against the delivery of unidentified sites undermining the strategy for identified development by cumulatively overloading future infrastructure provision. The issue of infrastructure is dealt with later in the report as this is a detailed consideration. As Members will be aware, a windfall site matrix has been prepared which is completed for all windfall sites. This seeks to balance the benefits of the development against the disbenefits, as sought by policy CS10. The detailed issues with regard to this matrix are essentially part of the normal consideration of a planning application and are discussed in detail as part of this report. (55) In order to assess whether the principle of the site is suitable for development the matrix sets out objectives in relation to the location characteristics of the site in terms of previous use, accessibility and proximity to community facilities. The application site does not appear to have had any previous development on it and is therefore considered to be a greenfield site. Although the National Planning Policy Framework and the Core Strategy encourage the use of brownfield land first there is not a presumption against development on a greenfield site and therefore the other material considerations must also be taken into account in reaching a balanced decision. In this case although the application site is a greenfield site, it is located within the urban area and has built development to the east and west of it. A large area of private open space will remain to the north of the application site which maintains a green buffer and provides visual relief between the built up areas. In addition, to the north east of the site is a large public open space which has been provided as part of the Waterstone Park development. In terms of accessibility the site falls outside of the 400m target for a quick walking distance to a bus stop or railway station, but a bus stop with buses every 10/15 minutes is just 600m walk from the site. The bus routes serve a range of destinations including Dartford Town Centre, Bluewater and Gravesend and a school bus to Swan Valley Community College, providing easy access to shopping, leisure, secondary schools and other community facilities, as well as local employment centres. Greenhithe Station is 1.1km away which is a mainline station with fast services to London and access to the Fastrack A and B routes to Ebbsfleet, Darent Valley Hospital and The Bridge. I consider that these are reasonable walking distances if people need to use public transport services. The application site lies directly adjacent to the major development site of Waterstone Park, recently completed. Adjacent to the site is a direct path to London Road; the site is therefore closer to the bus stops and station than many of the more southerly dwellings on the Waterstone Park development. I consider it would be difficult therefore to sustain an argument that the application was unsustainable in terms of accessibility. In addition, the proposal offers the opportunity to improve footway provision in the area and this is discussed in more detail below. (56) With regard to access to community facilities the site is within walking distance of St Marys Primary School, the shops and services at Horn Cross, Stone Pavilion and the recreation ground. It is also in close proximity to the public open space to the north east. Planning permission has been granted recently for a new doctor’s surgery on London Road. The proposal makes provision for affordable housing, providing a mixture of tenure and size of affordable homes. (57) I am of the opinion therefore that the site is in a sustainable location, being within the heart of an existing built environment and in fairly close proximity to a number of community facilities. The development of this site also enables the integration of two communities: the existing older residential area of Hedge Place Road and its environs; and the more recent major development at Waterstone Park. I consider therefore that the development of the site will have the positive benefit of integrating the development around it rather than reinforcing the separation of the divided communities that exist at present. I consider it would be difficult therefore to argue that this is an unsustainable location for development and therefore in line with the advice given in the government’s guidance within the NPPF, there is a presumption in favour of development provided it accords with other development plan policies.

Landfill gas (58) The application site, itself, is on solid ground that has not been previously quarried, but it is within 50m of gassing landfill and the onus is on the applicant therefore to demonstrate that the risk of gas migration to the site is low and can be mitigated against. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has been involved in discussions with the applicant’s consultants for some time regarding the monitoring required to demonstrate that the risk is low and have confirmed that the monitoring carried out and the conclusions of the submitted report are acceptable. The monitoring results reveal that the gas concentrations and flows recorded in the eastern side of the site are lower than those recorded on the western part of the site. The report recommends that gas protection measures for buildings and infrastructure are incorporated into the design to prevent the migration of gas into buildings or other structures. The report submitted with the application sets out in some detail the protection scheme required to be constructed and the validation of the protection measures. This includes measures such as ventilated floor slabs and a gas-resistant membrane across the whole slab and membranes across the cavity walls. In addition, the gardens within the western part of the development should be provided with a patio to the rear on a granular bedding vented through the edge of the paved area and the provision a protected concrete slab suitable for a shed or greenhouse in order to prevent the collection of gas in these areas. The report also sets out the inspection which should be undertaken for each of the residential dwellings in order to validate the gas protection measures. (59) The Council’s Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that these measures will ensure that the site is suitable for development providing these are carried out. I would suggest therefore that in order to ensure that there is a clear requirement to install these gas protection measures I would recommend that these are incorporated into a condition and further details are required to be submitted for approval. It is also critical that these protection measures are installed effectively and therefore I would also suggest that the protection measures are tested and validated by independent specialists and monitored as necessary by environmental health in order to ensure that any risk of gas migration into properties is prevented (Condition 3). Vehicular access to the site (60) Hedge Place Road is a residential road which narrows to single lane about half way along. Up to Plantation Road (west of the site) there is footway provision on both sides of the road. However to the east of Plantation Road, which is relatively recent cul-de-sac development, there are two short sections of road where there is no footway at all. In keeping with many other residential roads in the area, where the houses are older and there is little off street parking, the street is heavily parked at peak times and many of these cars park partly on the pavement. (61) The proposed development does not involve the creation of a through route from Hedge Place Road to Fieldfare Lane or Waterstone Park, which some of the residents appear to be concerned about. The existing vehicular barrier will be moved close to the eastern boundary of the application site. However, the applicants have confirmed that access in an emergency can be facilitated via this route if necessary. I would recommend that as the existing vehicular barrier is currently on the adopted highway that if Members are minded to grant permission the developers are required to replace the vehicular barrier further to the east at their own cost and immediately following the removal of the barrier at the western end of the site to ensure that there is no through traffic trying to use this road. (62) In order to seek to address the concerns raised by residents of Hedge Place Road the applicants have carried out survey work regarding the traffic movements and parking along the road. They carried out parking surveys of the road from 8.00am to midnight on a Friday and 08.00 to midday on a Saturday morning. This indicated that during the morning 35 cars were parked along the road and in the evening approximately 50 cars were parked along the road (21 on the road, 7 on the footway and 22 parked partially on the road and footway).

The applicants’ survey team noted that further parking was available along Hedge Place Road at all times, as well additional unused off road parking spaces. The applicants also surveyed journey times along the road which were on average 50 seconds. They also noted that journey times were less when traffic movements were highest, during the early evening which they assess as being the result of most cars returning home in the same direction. They noted that delivery vans and the refuse vehicle visiting Hedge Place Road were able to access all areas of the road throughout the survey period. The applicants conclude from this that vehicles are able to progress along the road throughout the day and evening. (63) The applicants have also submitted traffic data on the number of trips expected to be generated by the new development, based on the trips generated by the existing dwellings along Hedge Place Road. They conclude that the 56 dwellings proposed would be likely to create 23 additional vehicle trips in the morning peak hours and 32 additional trips in the evening peak hours. The peak hours were based on 12 hour survey data and the morning peak on this site was 08:00-09:00 and the evening peak was 17:00-18:00. This is the equivalent of approximately one vehicle movement every 3 minutes in the morning peak and every 2 minutes in the evening peak. They contend that this low level of trip generation will not be result in an adverse impact and the tidality of the traffic (i.e. traffic leaving westwards in the morning and returning eastwards in the evening) will be consistent with existing patterns. They conclude that as the traffic will generally be moving in the same direction any additional conflicts between vehicle movements will be limited. KCC Highways agrees with the conclusions of this trip analysis advising that the development would generate a low volume of traffic, some 20-30 vehicles in each of the peak hours. KCC advise therefore that this would not add to safety and capacity concerns on the wider road network and confirm that the additional traffic generated by the development is unlikely to cause severe congestion problems. (64) In reality, it is the case that many roads now are heavily parked due to many families owning two cars and on residential roads it is not uncommon for vehicles to have to stop and give way regularly to vehicles coming from the other direction. I have sympathy with the residents of Hedge Place Road, and understand the frustration they must feel when traffic along St James Lane is grid-locked due to other problems on the wider highway network. However, I do not consider that the access arrangements to the site are sufficiently adverse to warrant refusing the application. It is very hard to refute the evidence put forward by the applicants and KCC highways, as statutory consultee on highway matters, confirm that they do not consider there would be any significant impact on the local highway network. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reason to refuse planning permission on these grounds. (65) With regard to the impact of further development on the wider strategic highway network, KCC Highways confirm that this small windfall site can be accommodated within the capacity that will be created at the strategic junctions by the Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme. They therefore seek the site to make a contribution to the STIP. They advise that as the traffic from the site is some distance from the closest strategic junction at St Clements Way and that development from the site will dissipate across the area not just through the strategic junctions a contribution of £2000 per dwelling towards the STIP scheme would be appropriate from this site. I would recommend that if Members are minded to grant planning permission this is subject to a legal agreement requiring the STIPs contribution. Pedestrian Accessibility (66) Hedge Place Road is a relatively well used pedestrian route, being used by residents of Waterstone Park to access facilities to the west. For those dwellings in the southern part of Waterstone Park this provides a more direct route to Horns Cross and the Stone Pavilion and recreation facilities than via London Road. It also allows pedestrian access to Bluewater for residents to the west via Waterstone Park and the public right of way down into St Clements Valley. This permeability through the built up area is likely to increase if development within St Clements Valley comes forward and further footways and cycleways are provided from this area up to Waterstone Park allowing an improved pedestrian route connection.

(67) The proposal will include the provision of a footway along the northern part of Hedge Place Road directly outside of the site. The proposed development will also overlook this part of the road allowing visual policing and a well lit route useable at all times, both day and night. (68) However, at two points west of the site in Hedge Place Road there is no footway provided and pedestrians have to walk in the existing road. In order to address concerns of residents and of KCC Highways about pedestrian safety particularly during the construction of the development the applicants have looked into the feasibility of providing footways in these locations. Sketch plans have been drawn up and KCC Highways have discussed these on site with the applicant and agreed that the proposed footway improvements could be achieved. They advise that the footway will be required to be wide enough to protect parents with prams/pushchairs and wheelchair users. The construction of this footway would require the road to be narrowed in one location to a short section (of some 20-30 metres) of single lane width. They acknowledge that it would involve the loss of on-street car parking outside some properties, but note that all of these have off street parking available. Therefore they advise that although there may be some loss of amenity, the proposal would not reduce the parking below the standards for new homes. (69) I consider that in order to create a safe pedestrian link between the former Sandy Lane/ Waterstone Park/Hedge Place Road and the school/ Stone Pavilion/ recreation facilities/ and shops to the west, there should be a safe footway along the full length of the route. One of the benefits of the current proposal, in my opinion is that it provides visual policing of that part of Hedge Place Road and the Sandy Lane footpath adjacent to the site and a footway along the length of the site. The completion of the footway to the west of the site along Hedge Place Road would help to connect the site to local facilities and also provide a benefit to existing residents. (70) However, the works to install the footways would be work on an adopted highway subject to the Highways Act and as such KCC Highways would be required to consult residents before any such improvement works could be carried out. The result of such consultation will be reported to Joint Transportation Board for Members to make the final decision as to whether the improvement scheme goes ahead. Therefore it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to enter into a legal agreement requiring the provision of the footways when they have no control over this and hence it would be contrary to government guidance on planning obligations. I would suggest instead that if Members are minded to grant planning permission, the application is approved subject to a section 106 agreement requiring the applicants to fund consultation on the proposed footway and implementation of the footway works should the Joint Transportation Board agree to this being carried out following consultation. Biodiversity (71) The applicants have carried out and submitted a Phase 1 habitat survey and a biodiversity assessment of the site. This revealed that there was no Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat on the site but there were a limited number of other protected species that would be affected by development and require some mitigation. (72) The hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site (the northern side of Hedge Place Road) is quite sparse in places with a number of gaps, but was considered by the ecological consultants to be 80% complete. The survey of the hedgerow revealed that there was an average of 6.2 woody species per 30 yard section of the hedgerow. The average number of woody species per 30 yards is a conventional indicator of the age of a hedgerow, with each species equating to approximately 100 years. This would indicate therefore that this hedgerow dates from 600 years ago, although it is in a relatively poor condition now through lack of maintenance and the decline of the elm saplings throughout its length. This hedgerow is to be removed to facilitate development, but the hedgerow along the south side of Hedge Place Road is denser and will remain outside of the application site. The hedgerow along the eastern boundary of the site is sparser and the ecology reports estimates that only 60% is left, the number of woody species within the hedgerow indicates that it is approximately 400 years old but most of the hedgerow is now made up of diseased elm which is in decline. The

proposal seeks to remove 50% of this hedge and replant it with native species. Only 10% of the hedgerow on the western boundary of the site survives and less than 50% of the hedgerow along the northern boundary survives, although this lies outside of the site boundaries and will therefore remain. (73) The survey confirmed that there will be no direct loss of bat roosts or potential bat roosts on the site. The potential impacts of the development are therefore associated with indirect impacts that may affect bat foraging behaviour in the area and a reduction in bat foraging/commuting features by the loss of hedgerows. Bats have been sighted in this area but unfortunately the applicants did not carry out an activity survey to determine where the bats forage. In order to take a precautionary approach officers have requested the applicants to provide more detail with regard to mitigation of any impacts on foraging bats. The applicants ecology consultants point out that the hedge to the south of Hedge Place Road is to remain and will therefore still remain as a foraging route if already used. I am advised by Kent Wildlife Trust that the use of this southern hedgerow could also be increased, by utilising specially designed lighting along the road which avoids light spillage onto the hedgerow. As there is no footway on this side of the road this would seem to be an acceptable proposal and I would suggest that if Members are minded to grant approval a condition is imposed requiring the applicants to investigate this further with KCC highways, as part of the overall lighting strategy (Condition 14). The submission suggests that suitable mitigation will be the provision of habitat buffers around the site. They suggest that the reinstatement of the northern hedgeline with shrub and tree planting will greatly enhance this feature for foraging bats and provide an alternative route to compensate for the loss of the southern hedge. The planting of hedgerow trees along the western boundary will also provide a linear feature that bats can utilise. The impact of lighting on these boundaries should also be minimal and any lighting can be designed to reduce impact as it is within the boundary of the site. In addition the submission suggest the provision of bat boxes within the site, although the trees they suggest the boxes are fixed to lie just outside the site and so cannot be controlled by this permission. However, bat boxes can also be accommodated within buildings so I would recommend that a condition is imposed seeking details of bio-diversity enhancements for bats including bat boxes. Natural England provides guidance on bat mitigation strategies and the mitigation suggested by them accords with the guidance where there are no roosting features on site and therefore I consider that any impact from the development on foraging bats can be satisfactorily mitigated. (74) Stag beetles have also been found on the site; these are a BAP priority species and there are few formal records of the species in the area. However, they are not afforded any special protection on sites. The larvae of the species spend 6-7 years underground, so the only way to retain these on site is to move some of their habitat, e.g. wood piles, dead tree stumps and roots, elsewhere on the site. The applicants have indicated that such habitat can be relocated to the hedgerow proposed along the northern boundary. Based on advice from Kent Wildlife Trust, I consider that this is achievable providing the destruction and removal of their habitat is carried out appropriately and would suggest a condition be imposed requiring the methodology for relocating this habitat be approved (Condition 6). (75) An extensive survey was also carried of reptiles which revealed common lizard is present on the site, although the population is thought to be small. No other reptiles or amphibians were recorded. The submission includes a method statement for the relocation of the lizards to their new location within the landscaped buffer zone on the western boundary of the site. I consider that this mitigation is appropriate, although further detail is needed once the lizards have been translocated to ensure they remain unaffected by the development and I would suggest a condition is imposed requiring the translocation of the lizards in accordance with an approved method statement (Condition 5). (76) There were also three BAP priority species of bird found on the site and a fox earth was present in the north of the site. There was no evidence of badgers. The mitigations for the specific BAP Priority species are set out above but in addition the submission includes proposals for additional enhancements through the provision of bird boxes; log piles for invertebrates and the use of native species for the landscaping scheme. I would suggest a condition is imposed on a permission requiring the insertion of bat and bird boxes on the site

(Condition 7). The ecological report concludes that overall the site is generally of low conservation value due to limited habitats (as the site is mostly grazed) but I consider that there it is important to mitigate the impact on the species that are on site and provide enhancements to potentially increase the bio-diversity of the site. (77) Biodiversity Opportunity Areas were defined by the South Eastern Biodiversity Forum. These are areas of opportunity for restoration and creation of habitat and so are seen as areas of opportunity not of constraint. I consider that the application seeks to mitigate the impacts of the development satisfactorily and also provides opportunities for bio-diversity enhancement and therefore this is considered acceptable. Surface water run-off (78) Following the Environment Agency concerns about the impact on the aquifer regarding the impact of landfill gas and the use of soakaways in the development, the applicant commissioned a further hydrogeological assessment. This report assesses the risk of contamination of the aquifer from surface water arising from the development. This concluded that the risk was considered to be negligible. The Environment Agency confirms that some of the soakaways will be acceptable and have requested a condition requiring the specific location of the soakaways and their construction to be agreed (Condition 4). Public Right Of Way (79) A Public Right of Way (PROW) runs along the western boundary of the site, effectively creating a diagonal path from Hedge Place Road to the north-south path. The PROW currently runs across open fields. The character of public rights of way is generally one of informal paths in a landscaped setting and the Ramblers Association and KCC PROW officers are keen to maintain that character. The current proposal therefore provides a 3m landscaped buffer zone between the footpath and the boundary to the development. It is proposed that this will be planted with native shrubs and trees, which will provide a landscaped buffer to the footpath and also ensure privacy and security for the gardens of the new properties. The landscaped area will also provide a refuge for wildlife and allow for the relocation of reptiles and beetle habitat found on the site. (80) I consider that the proposed landscape buffer which will also provide a habitat area for lizards and invertebrates as well as a potential foraging route for bats will contribute to and improve the Green Grid network in the area. Layout (81) The density of development proposed on the site is 59 dwellings per hectare. Policy CS17 provides a broad indication of net density on urban sites as being 35-55 dwellings per hectare. The site therefore exceeds this guide. However, this is a guide only and in my opinion the key issue is whether the development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and whether it can provide adequate amenity space, distances between dwellings, parking, landscaping and generally create a quality of development. These issues are addressed in the paragraphs below. (82) The proposed development is predominantly 3 and 4 bedroom houses, with just 12 2-bedroom apartments. It therefore provides family housing which is in keeping with the character of the area around it and also meets the mix of housing required by Policy CS18 which seeks to provide a high level of family housing The applicants point out that Waterstone Park which is immediately to the east of the site has an average density of 60 dwellings per hectare (83) In general I consider that the layout of the development is good, with all the houses fronting onto the streets and a single private drive. It is therefore in my opinion a traditional development layout. The house types range from two to three storey and the applicants advise that the levels of the properties have been developed to reflect the levels on the site and the heights and character of the surrounding buildings. The proposed dwellings which will

front Hedge Place Road closest to Barnfield Close are two-storey reflecting the existing two storey dwellings In Barnfield Close, as the site moves further east the properties increase to two and half storeys and then gradually to a mix of 2.5 and 3 storey terraced houses and a three storey apartment block in the south east corner adjacent to the existing 3 -storey apartment block in Waterstone Park. I consider therefore that the building heights proposed are suitable for this site and provide a good transition with the traditional predominantly two-storey houses in Hedge Place Road to the more modern mix of two and three-storeys in Waterstone Park (84) In terms of access to the proposed dwelling this will be either from Hedge Place Road or via a new one-way internal access road around the site. KCC Highways confirms that this layout has evolved through discussions with them and meets their requirements for adoption. They confirm that the route around the site could accommodate both refuse and fire service vehicles. I deal with the parking issues below. Residential amenity and impact on existing residents (85) The properties to the east in Barnfield Close are separated from the development by the triangle of open land, west of the public right of way which is part of Stone Pit 9, being a landfill site and not part of the development site. In addition, there will be a landscaped buffer zone to the rear of the new dwellings on the western part of the site. There will therefore be no detrimental impact in terms of overlooking or domination on the properties in Barnfield Close. (86) The eastern boundary of the application is adjacent to the public path to London Road. A three-storey block of flats at Waterstone Park wraps around the corner and some of the apartments directly face onto this path and the site. They have balconies and principal windows facing onto this area. The impact on the amenity of these properties is therefore an important issue. The proposed 3-storey block of apartments on the site has been designed to also wrap around the corner of the site at this point. Following discussions with officers the northern wing of the building has been set back so that there is a minimum distance of 20m between the bedroom windows of the proposed flat and the balcony opposite which increases to 21m between the proposed living room window and the existing balcony opposite. These are separating distances that are normally considered acceptable between the rear windows of 2-storey houses in new developments and so I am satisfied that the impact on the residential amenity of the occupants of these flats has been minimised. In addition, the proposed flats on the corner of the building have windows facing towards balconies on the existing block, as these windows serve the kitchen and are secondary windows these are now shown to be obscured glazed so the only views from these flats will be south and south-east away from the existing apartments. I am satisfied therefore that the proposed scheme design will not have any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring residents. (87) Within the development itself all the houses have adequate garden sizes of a regular size and shape, most of these exceed 10m in length but where shorter the gardens are wider due to the house types. I am satisfied that the layout of the development ensures adequate back to back distances between houses to minimise overlooking and ensure privacy in gardens. Those properties which might have the potential to overlook a garden directly perpendicular (plots 10-12) have obscured glazed windows to bathrooms and stairs to the rear and a high level window to the living room which also has windows to the front. This will ensure that there is no loss of privacy to the houses to the south. (88) The proposed apartments do not have balconies but the block has a good sized regular shaped private and secure amenity area to the rear which will provide a high quality and useable private space for the residents of the apartments (89) I consider therefore that although the density of the proposed development is slightly higher than the guidance in the Core Strategy, the proposed dwellings all have a good standard of garden and amenity space and have been designed so that there is no unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy or domination. The houses sizes proposed are all of

a good size, being over 100sqm each. The increase in density has not therefore, in my opinion, had a detrimental impact on the standard of accommodation. Design/visual amenity (90) The overall design of the development appears to take reference from the existing development in Hedge Place Road and Waterstone Park and will in my opinion provide a transition between the traditional vernacular of Hedge Place Road and the more modern styling of Waterstone Park. The proposed houses are pitched roof, some with wider frontages and others being narrower terraces, the materials proposed are traditional yellow brick and render with slate grey tiled roofs. Small dormer windows are proposed in the 2.5 storey dwellings. (91) The block of flats has a flat roof in order to minimise the height of the building, as the ground is slightly higher here than the adjacent Waterstone Park. But this flat roof also echoes the design of the adjacent block on Waterstone Park and will in my opinion provide some continuity along the street scene, as well as providing a focal point where the footpath/cycleways all meet. (92) The site is at a higher level than much of the surrounding area of Stone and will be prominent from views to the south, and the new dwellings will be visible from Watling Street south of Bluewater and St Clements Way running past Bluewater. The dwellings will also be visible from London Road and possibly north of the Thames. I am satisfied that the current submission provides breaks between the blocks of dwellings and variety in the design such that it will not appear as a continuous line of built development on this prominent ridge. Further relief should be provided on views from both north and south by the proposed tree planting along Hedge Place Road and the northern boundary of the site. I feel this could have been improved upon further if there had been additional land available on the north boundary for continuous tree planting. However, as there are existing trees outside of the site and the applicants indicate some additional planting within the site I am satisfied that the visual impact of the site will not be detrimental on long distance views. Parking (93) Discussions on the layout of the site started prior to the completion and adoption of the Council’s parking standards and therefore the applicants have sought to meet the standards required by KCC highways based on their standards. KCC required the proposal to provide an average of 1.79 spaces per dwelling across the site. The applicants have complied with this standard by providing 100 spaces across the site. However, since that time the Borough Council’s Parking Standards have been adopted. In total the new Borough Council parking standards would require a total of 89 parking spaces plus 17 spaces available for visitors and 5.6 spaces for vans. At total of 106 car parking spaces and 6 van spaces would therefore be required under current standards. (94) In my opinion an average figure across the site does not give an indication of how the spaces will be used; some properties may have 2 spaces on plot but others may only have access to 1 space though the overall average may be acceptable. I consider, therefore, that it is important to take a practical approach to how the parking spaces will be used to determine whether the provision is acceptable or not. (95) The applicants have not included garages in the layout in response to concerns that these are not often used for parking but for storage instead. Many of the houses have two parking spaces per dwelling and in response to officer concerns that the visitor parking was not perhaps located evenly across the site, the applicants have put forward a draft parking strategy which seeks to ensure that residents can only use certain spaces for visitors and second cars so that spaces are not taken up by a small number of dwellings. I have sought to explain this for Members below so that they can decide whether they consider this approach acceptable.

(96) In looking at the parking provision on the site, its character can almost be divided between the west and east parcels of the site. Plots 1-18 all have 2 parking spaces each within the curtilage of the houses, with the exception of 3 dwellings; these have one dedicated parking space each adjacent to the houses and also access to 3 further resident only spaces for which they can apply for a permit. In addition there are 6 spaces which are available for visitors and require temporary visitor permits for use. I consider that this is a good level of parking for these dwellings and exceeds the Council’s standard requirements. Of the 7 dwellings which form plots 19-25, 2 houses have 2 spaces each and 5 houses have 1 dedicated space each. They also have 4 resident permit only spaces to be shared and 1 visitor space but have easy access to other visitor spaces on the eastern part of the site. If considered in isolation therefore the western part of the site, closest to the existing dwellings in Hedge Place Road therefore has adequate parking provision and should not in my opinion result in any overspill parking on Hedge Place Road. (97) The eastern part of the site has more narrow terraced housing and the block of 12 flats. Three dwellings in this area have 2 dedicated spaces each. All the remaining 3-bedroom houses (16 dwellings) have one dedicated parking space for that property, either on plot or adjacent to the road. There are also 5 resident only spaces that they can share. In addition, there are 15 spaces which will be available for flats to use as permit holders or can also be used by visitors on a temporary permit. The Council’s parking standards require 1.2 space per 2-bedroom flat plus visitor spaces which would be the 15 spaces. In my opinion this seems to indicate there is inadequate visitor parking to serve the dwellings in this area of the site. However, the applicants point out that these dwellings and flats will also have access to the visitor parking and resident permit parking on the west side of the site, some 14 spaces, although these are further away and likely to be used by the houses around. But this then of course results in less parking remaining available for the dwellings in the west. (98) I consider that it would be preferable to have more visitor spaces on the eastern part of the site which would then mean the proposal complied with the recently adopted parking standards. However, the development of this site means that an additional part of Hedge Place Road is opened up and is available for parking. The eastern end of Hedge Place Road outside the proposed flats could accommodate on-street parking in my opinion without any harm to amenity or highway safety as there should be no traffic driving to this end of the road, only vehicles exiting the new one way street. Since this part of the road has not been accessible by vehicles previously any overspill parking by the development here would not displace existing residents parking. I consider therefore it would be very difficult to support an argument that the parking provision proposed would result in any detrimental impact on the surrounding area, particularly as the proposal has complied with KCC parking requirements. (99) On balance therefore, I am satisfied therefore that overall the parking demand from the proposed development can be provided for within the site or on the highway directly outside the site and is not therefore likely to overspill and cause any detriment to the surrounding area. I would suggest, however, that if Members are minded to grant planning permission it is subject to a legal agreement requiring the implementation and maintenance of a parking management scheme on the site which will seek to ensure that there is little conflict between residents over unallocated spaces. (100) Cycle storage will be provided for within sheds in the gardens of the houses and within two cycle stores within the amenity area serving the flats. Van parking can be accommodated on site on some of the visitor spaces at the ends of the parking groups where there is room for large vehicles to overhang. Renewable energy (101) The application confirms that the development will meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3, and that water use will reduce from a normal of level of 188 litres/person/day to around 105 litres/person/day through the use of low water fittings and the provision of rainwater butts in private gardens. The application also includes an assessment of the energy use and CO2 emissions for the development and a consideration of renewable energy options. It concludes by confirming that the dwellings will utilise a significant fabric

enhancement to reduce the demand for energy for space heating and cooling, and hot water to mitigate energy use and reduce CO2 emissions. I consider that as this is a small site this is an acceptable methodology which meets the Core Strategy policy of minimising carbon emissions. Landscaping (102) Following concern by officers about the deliverability of the proposed landscaping on the site, the applicants have submitted a detailed planting scheme which also includes the opportunities for bio-diversity enhancement. The scheme demonstrates that a native tree and hedge planting can be provided along the western and northern boundary of the site and replacement planting of the eastern hedgerow together with the planting of new native trees and shrubs where possible along the southern boundary. Additional more ornamental trees are to be planted within the development in order to provide relief for the hard landscaping. I am satisfied that overall this will provide a good quality landscaping scheme which will mitigate the loss of the hedgerow on the southern boundary and will contribute to the overall visual amenity of the site. Affordable housing (103) The proposal includes the provision of affordable housing in the form of 4 x 3-bedroom homes and 3 x 2-bedroom apartments for affordable rent and 9 x 2-bedroom apartments which shall be available to purchase on a shared equity basis. This is a total of 16 units which is 29% of the total number of units on the site. (104) Shared equity units would not normally be considered as affordable housing as the minimum that can be purchased is 70% of the market cost which is often still not affordable and does not meet local needs. However, in this case as the shared equity provision is 2-bedroom flats it is considered that 70% is more likely to be affordable and that type of accommodation does provide for a need in the area. The Council’s Housing Strategy Manager has agreed that this mix of tenure and house types is an acceptable provision to meet local housing needs on this site. Given that there is unlikely to be any grant for affordable housing on this site I consider therefore that this tenure mix and type of affordable housing is acceptable to meet the policy requirement in this case. Community facilities (105) KCC advise that with regard to the development of this windfall site, there will be sufficient surplus capacity with within the planned new schools in Dartford in order to accommodate the children coming from this additional windfall site as well as the identified development sites over the Development Plan period. However, they advise that there is no surplus capacity in existing schools to meet this windfall site as well as other allocated development and therefore seek contributions towards the construction costs and land acquisition costs for both new primary schools and secondary schools. They advise that the cost for primary school contributions is £1389.99 per flat plus £675.41 of land cost and £5559.96 per house plus £2701.63 per houses. The secondary school contribution will be £1272.90 per flat plus £644.05 towards land costs and £5091.60 plus £2576.22 per house. The applicants have recognised the need for primary school provision and agree to pay the total cost for the primary school contribution and a contribution towards the land cost up to the amount indicated by KCC. (106) However, the applicants raise doubt about the need for the Secondary School contribution to serve the needs of children arising out of the development. They note that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not include a requirement for a secondary school until the end of the plan period (2026). They advise that if planning permission is approved and implemented the development should be completed and occupied by 2015. A legal agreement would normally require a secondary school payment to be retained by KCC for 10 years after payment and therefore I agree that it is likely the new secondary school (to be provided at Eastern Quarry) will not be available in time to meet the needs of this development if it is occupied in 2015. KCC estimate that the development will generate a

need for an additional 9 places. On the basis I consider it would be unreasonable to seek secondary school contributions from this small development if it is built out by 2016. I would suggest therefore that if no secondary school contributions are provided that the time limit for implementation of this planning permission is reduced to 2 years in order to ensure it is constructed and occupied by 2016 (Condition 1). (107) The applicants have also agreed to pay the KCC request for contributions of £14,981.25 towards the provision of youth facilities and youth outreach workers in the area as well as a contribution of £210.44 towards adult social services towards the delivery of telecare technology. The applicants have indicated that they are not willing to pay the library contribution sought for bookstock as this is an on-going revenue cost which they consider is contrary to government advice on planning obligations and Regulation 122 of the Community infrastructure Regulations (set out later in the report). I agree that this payment is not necessary to make the development acceptable and does not contribute towards new projects specifically supporting the needs of the development and therefore do not consider that we can ask for this payment. (108) Similarly Kent Police have requested a contribution towards the costs of funding existing police staff for a period of 3 years. I do not consider that this cost is directly related to the development but is an on-going staffing costs and therefore it is not appropriate to seek this contribution. (109) There has been no requirement for any contributions from the Primary Care Trust towards increased doctor provision but recent requests from them indicate that they are also seeking a generic contribution which is unrelated to any specific projects in the area or directly meeting the costs in the area. Without any evidence of the need for mitigation to meet specific costs to improve services in order to directly meet the needs of the development I do not consider that we can seek s106 contributions from the developer. Construction management (110) I note the residents’ concerns regarding construction access and vehicles. KCC also raise concerns about the safety of pedestrians and recommend footway improvement works prior to construction starting. I would recommend therefore that the S106 requiring the developer to consult on and fund these works. Requires them to be implemented prior to construction starting. I consider that given the proximity of the site to existing residential development and the access via a residential road that it would be appropriate to impose conditions not only with regard to hours of working, but also conditions regarding the delivery vehicles, parking for contractors, location of site offices, control of dust and noise as well as mud on the road (Condition 11). (111) As an adopted highway Hedge Place Road will be required to remain open and accessible for pedestrians during the period of construction just as any other development accessed off a public highway would. Archaeology (112) The desk-based assessment submitted with the application concludes that the site has some potential for evidence from different periods and that the development has the potential to impact on archaeological remains of a local significance and recognises that further investigation may be necessary prior to development. (113) KCC’s archaeological advisor also advises that a programme of archaeological work should be carried out prior to any work starting and I consider that this would be an appropriate condition for this site (Condition 2). Other issues

(114) Land to the north is a gassing landfill and therefore cannot be built on for a long time and its assessment as undevelopable for housing is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. PLANNING OBLIGATION (115) In order to mitigate the impact of the development I would recommend that planning permission is granted subject to the completion of a section 106 which obligates the developer to provide the following: o Footway improvements along Hedge Place Road subject to consultation of local

residents by KCC under the Highways Act. o Relocation of the vehicular barrier on Hedge Place Road to a location close to the

eastern site boundary as agreed with KCC Highways immediately following its removal from its existing location.

o A parking management scheme in accordance with the draft parking management

strategy submitted with the planning application. o A Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme contribution of £2000 per dwelling

(total £112,000). o Affordable housing provision being 4 x 3-bedroom dwellings and 3 x 2-bedroom

apartments as affordable rented properties and 9 x2-bedroom being shared equity properties.

o Education contribution of in total £261,318.62 towards primary school build and up to

a sum of £126,976.64 towards the land cost for the school based on land purchase cost.

o Contribution of £14, 981.25 towards youth services and £210.44 for adult social

services (116) All planning applications must now clearly demonstrate that any planning obligation that is used to justify the grant of consent must meet the three tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. Regulation 122(2) provides that a planning obligation can only constitute a reason for granting consent if the obligation 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. (117) I consider that the obligations set out above meet these three tests. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS (118) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act. CONCLUSIONS (119) Although the density proposed by this development is slightly higher than the guideline set out in Policy CS17, I consider that the proposal is in character with the surrounding area, provides adequate parking if properly managed and allocated, and generally provides a good standard of accommodation. I therefore consider that there will be no adverse impacts from this higher level of density.

(120) On balance, I consider that the positives of developing this site outweigh the negatives and that the infrastructure needs arising from this additional windfall site can be provided for. I am of the opinion therefore that the proposal is a sustainable development and that there are no material considerations that outweigh the presumption in favour of development. RECOMMENDATION: Planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a s106 agreement covering the heads of terms set out in paragraph 111 above and the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years

from the date of this permission. 01 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1 of the

adopted Dartford Local Plan. 02 No development or site clearance works shall take place until the implementation of a

programme of archaeological work has been completed in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

02 To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined. 03 Before commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for protection

of properties from landfill gas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with section 10.2 of the Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Interpretative Report by CGL dated August 2012. Details shall be provided of but not be exclusive to the following;

• Fully suspended and ventilated ground floor slab • A proprietary gas-resistant membrane across the whole floor slab, • Construction of roads, paved areas and hardstandings • Patio construction • Slab construction suitable for sheds or greenhouses • Services and soakaways

The installation of the gas protection measures at the site shall be carried out by specialists, where appropriate and each element of the measures will be subject to validation by an independent environmental consultants approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the work to be validated.

The validation shall be carried out in accordance with paragraph 12.1 of the Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Interpretative Report by CGL dated August 2012 and will be submitted to the local planning authority for agreement prior to the occupation of that dwelling.

The local planning authority shall be given 10 days notice of the installation of the gas-resistant membranes and the opportunity to monitor the installation of the remedial measures as they are carried out.

The details shall be implemented prior to occupation of each dwelling hereby approved and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.

03 In the interests of safety in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted

Dartford Local Plan. 04 Before commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the surface

water drainage system for the development, including drainage of the parking areas, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the written approval of the local planning authority, where it can be demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The details shall be implemented as approved prior to first occupation of the development.

04 In order to avoid contamination of the major aquifer below the site, which is used to

supply drinking water resources within the wider area. 05 Prior to any clearance works, delivery of machinery or building operations on site

details of a reptile mitigation strategy and monitoring scheme (to include a programme of implementation) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Mitigation strategy shall also include details of the programme for landscaping the receptor site in accordance with the approved landscape details and the protective fencing details to ensure the receptor area is not impacted on by construction working. The mitigation strategy, monitoring scheme and programme of implementation shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

05 To ensure the continued presence of protected species on the site. 06 Prior to the removal of the southern and eastern hedgerow a Stag Beetle Mitigation

Strategy and monitoring scheme including a detailed method statement for the removal of the hedge; the collection and retention of stag beetle habitat and larvae; and to include a programme of implementation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Mitigation Strategy shall also include details of the programme for landscaping for the receptor sites and the protection of the stag beetle habitat during construction works and landscaping works. The mitigation strategy, monitoring scheme and programme of implementation shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

06 To ensure the continued presence of protected species on the site. 07 Prior to the commencement of the dwellings hereby approved details of bird boxes and

bat boxes to be fixed to buildings or trees shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings in accordance with these details. The boxes shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

07 In order to provide enhancement to biodiversity on the site as a compensation for that

lost due to redevelopment. 08 Before commencement of the development hereby approved, details and samples of all

materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

08 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the

existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.

09 No tree or shrub removal or clearance works shall take place between 1st March and

31st August inclusive in any year unless otherwise agreed in writing the Local Planning Authority.

09 In the interests of nature conservation in accordance with the principles and objectives

of Planning Policy Statement 9. 10 Before commencement of any building operations on site (including demolition and

delivery of associated machinery or materials) tree and hedge protection measures shall be erected around all retained/protected hedges and trees in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

10 To prevent damage to the hedges and trees in the interest of the visual amenities of the

area in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan 11 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a Construction Code of Conduct shall

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site clearance works, provision of infrastructure and all construction work shall take place in strict accordance with the agreed Code of Conduct and this shall include:

• measures to regulate disturbance and disruption to local communities caused by

construction activities; • measures to minimise the noise impact of construction activities; • details of construction lighting together with measures to minimise light pollution and

impact on foraging bats in the area; • details of dust suppression • measures to prevent the deposit of mud on the highway; • method of access for larger vehicles and delivery vehicles and provision of on-site

turning area • method of access and parking of construction vehicles and employees vehicles. • Location of site offices 11 In order to minimise the impact of construction activities on the surrounding area in

accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 12 There shall be no piling on site unless the methodology is first agreed in writing with the

local planning authority and carried out in accordance with the approved details. 12 In order to avoid contamination of the major aquifer below the site, which is used to

supply drinking water resources within the wider area. 13 No construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 0800 to 1800

Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays with no working on Sundays and Bank Holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

13 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with

Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan. 14 If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been

identified, then no further development shall be carried out (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) until the developer has submitted and received approval of an assessment of this unsuspected contamination together with an appropriate remediation scheme that is implemented as approved.

14 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the

adopted Dartford Local Plan and/or the protection of Controlled Waters.

15 Prior to the installation of any street lighting on the site a lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The strategy shall seek to reduce the light spillage on the hedges in the area and the impact on foraging bats. The street lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved in the strategy.

15 In the interests of mitigating the impact on bats in the area. 16 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, details of all boundary

enclosures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.

16 To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment by

neighbouring occupiers of their properties and the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policies B1 and H12/H14 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.

17 The soft landscaping and biodiversity details as shown on drawing numbers FNH399

LS/03A and FNH399 LS/02A hereby approved shall be implemented, at the latest, during the first planting season (between October and March inclusive) following completion of the development and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season.

17 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the

adopted Dartford Local Plan. 18 Prior to occupation of the apartment block hereby approved, a landscaping scheme for

the rear amenity space, including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented prior to first occupation (unless this falls outside of the planting season in which case it shall be implemented at the first opportunity during the following planting season, between October and March inclusive). Such landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved.

18 To ensure the creation of defensible space and a useable amenity space and also

allowing access to the cycle stores in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.

19 Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved the windows in the flank

elevations of units 13, 15 and 40 and in the eastern elevation of apartment types SA40 shall be obscure glazed with a minimum obscurity level of 3 as referred to in the Pilkington Texture Glass Range leaflet, or nearest equivalent as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The obscured glazing shall be maintained as such thereafter.

19 To safeguard the privacy of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies B1 and H14