Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
APPLICANT
CONTACT ADDRESS
REFERENCE
DATE VALID
LOCATION
GRID REFERENCE
PROPOSAL
DATE OF APPLICATION
Monson Homes Ltd C/O Baily Garner 146-148 Eltham Hill Eltham London SE9 5DA
TW/11/03812 13/01/12
Site of 1 – 36 Ropers Gate and 26 – 60 Summervale Road TUNBRIDGE WELLS 557306/138321
Demolition of 50 existing flats and 4 No. shops; construction of 62 dwellings comprising houses and flats with new retail unit/post office, road network, parking and landscaping. 23/12/11
MAJOR APPLICATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.01 This application seeks full planning permission for the redevelopment of part of a residential estate at Ropers Gate and Summervale Road, Tunbridge Wells. 1.02 The proposals comprise the complete demolition of the existing buildings on the site and
the regeneration of the existing housing estate through the provision of high quality new homes of varied tenure and associated retail facilities within a sustainable and inclusive environment. The proposal has evolved through close working between Town and Country Housing Group (TCHG) and the local community over the past two years and through pre-application discussions with the Planning Service over the last year. From resident consultations, TCHG identified the following desires for redevelopment of the site:
- A mixed tenure to match the balance of the surrounding estate; - A greater number of family houses as opposed to flats; - A desire to remove the small units from the estate as a whole; - A strong desire to make the Post Office viable and at the centre of any
development.
1.03 This proposal seeks to meet these desires: The applicant (Monson Homes) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Town and Country
Housing Group. Town and Country are a Registered Provider with a remit to provide affordable housing on a not for profit basis. The Ropers Gate Development is a self financing regeneration scheme, relying on a partnership with a housing contractor/developer to provide cross subsidy for the affordable elements of the scheme, through the sale of the market sale elements. TCHG will own and manage the affordable units on the development.
This mix of tenures, both Market Sale and affordable is in line with CABE’s Building
For Life recommendations for mixed communities and brings the Ropers Gate area into alignment with the housing tenures of the rest of the Ramslye area.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.01 The application site forms part of the Ramslye Estate, approximately one kilometre south-
west of the centre of Tunbridge Wells adjacent to the A26, Eridge Road. The estate itself is primarily low-rise (two storey), low density 1950’s Local Authority housing of approximately 400 dwellings arranged in a traditional fashion along suburban estate roads. Many of the existing properties on the Ramslye Estate are now in private ownership.
2.02 The application site is at the north eastern corner of the estate, between Eridge Road and
a railway embankment to the north east of Summervale Road. The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 identifies that the site is designated as being within the Limits to Built Development of Tunbridge Wells. In addition part of the site lies within a designated Neighbourhood Centre. The Tunbridge Wells (Central) to Eridge Railway Line lies immediately to the north of the application site. This line is safeguarded (for re-opening) in the Borough Local Plan. A stretch of green open space lies to the east of the site, which is part designated as Important Open Space. A designated cycle route runs through part of the site. Further north, beyond the railway embankment, lies land that is designated Metropolitan Green Belt and/or Local Wildlife Site. This includes the Tunbridge Wells Garden Centre to the north. These designations are shown on The Local Plan Proposals Map and will be explained at the Committee meeting.
2.03 The site is currently laid out with three blocks of flats arranged around a rectangular
central green. The central block of flats historically had four retail units (each approximately 60 square metres floor area, 240 square metres in total) on the ground floor and an access path through the middle leading towards the centre of Tunbridge Wells. Now two of the units are run as a post office/convenience store (both being A1 retail use), with the remaining retail units being vacant and boarded up. The three blocks of flats are different from the majority of the surrounding buildings in that they are three storey and larger in scale.
2.04 In addition to these three blocks, the site also comprises three further blocks of flats,
dating from the 1980’s. These are sited to the rear of the three blocks described above. The three 1980’s blocks are two and a half storey in height. The application Design and Access Statement identifies that it is felt by the applicant that these flats have proved problematic, being too small for general family use and attracting vulnerable individuals. Along with the open nature of the surrounding landscape around the flats, including the footpath, this has made it an area that is hard to police. The applicant advises that It has a feeling of insecurity, with many places or communal areas which feel neither public nor private and are therefore abused.
2.05 Also on the site, is a pair of semi-detached bungalows. These are sited close to the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to Eridge Road. 2.06 Overall, the application site currently provides 50 residential units. These consist of accommodation as set out in the table below. Table 1: Existing Schedule of Accommodation
Number of Units
Number of Bedrooms
Size of Unit (square metres approximately)
% of total number of existing units
18 Bedsits 30 36%
12 1 40 24%
2 1 50 4%
4 2 65 8%
14 3 80 28%
Total : 50
2.07 The existing accommodation provides a total of 132 bedspaces. The units are mostly
social rented – 86% classified as affordable housing units. Seven flats were bought under the right to buy scheme, but have now been bought back by the applicant (to facilitate the proposed redevelopment). As a result there were 43 affordable dwellings on the site but not all were fully occupied as the smaller units proved hard to let.
2.08 The western portion of the application site (to the rear of numbers 62-68 Summervale Road) comprises a garage court of approximately 18 lock-up garages and a maintenance (hard standing) area. This is crossed by a public bridleway with a gated access to the woods that lie to the west of the application site. The submitted Design and Access Statement identifies that it is considered (by the applicant) this area suffers from a lack of observation and overlooking. As a result of this, the area is no longer used for parking and has become prone to fly tipping and anti-social behaviour. This garage court is accessed by a narrow strip (which is also part of the application site) between numbers 62B and 66 Summervale Road. This strip also provides direct access to three garages, to the rear of number 62 Summervale Road, which provide parking for the three adjacent properties – 62, 62A and 62B Summervale Road. These three garages, to the rear of number 62B do not form part of the application site. 2.09 In summary, the site comprises six blocks of flats and two semi-detached bungalows, which together currently provide 50 residential units of accommodation. There are also 240 square metres of retail floor space (120 square metres of which is vacant) and approximately 18 lock-up garages. This would all be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment. 2.10 With regards to existing vehicular parking provision, there are 40 existing spaces for the
50 existing flats. Most of these are on road locations around the green. Others are in the garage court. Only 8 spaces are provided as designated off road parking bays.
2.11 The site is generally flat, but rises towards its eastern boundary to the rear of properties fronting Eridge Road. The frontage to Summervale Road is open for approximately 50 metres, with long views from the south and west into the site. This frontage is laid out as a formal green, with three mature Lime Trees. 2.12 There are a number of trees on the site (none of which are formally protected by Tree
Protection Order). The majority of these at the centre of the site were planted as part of the original 1950’s development. Some have grown to maturity but all are linked specifically to the original pattern of development. On the site, there are some older key trees around the perimeter of the site, in particular a large Oak adjacent to the garage court, a large Beech at the end of the garage court adjacent to the bridle path and mature trees along the railway embankment and within the verge to the Eridge Road.
2.13 There are six substantial underground drains crossing the site. The location of the site at the lower end of the estate makes it the focus for mains drainage coming across the estate. This means a number of trunk sewers, with easements restricting development, cross through the site. These effectively divide the developable area of the estate into irregular triangles and rectangles and place a severe restriction upon the potential areas for development. The drains are too large to be relocated and current drainage byelaws prevent development of new buildings within a zone of three metres either side of the drain, carving six metre ‘no development’ corridors across the site. 2.14 The existing buildings on the application site are of poor quality or are at the end of their
useful life. There is also a high concentration of small dwellings that are hard to let.
2.15 This application has been referred to the Committee as it is a Major application that is recommended for approval and because currently the Borough Council is a part owner of the site. The applicant is currently working with the Borough Council to transfer a parcel of land required for the regeneration at Ramslye plus some Borough Council owned land at Sherwood in exchange for the woods at Sherwood. It is expected that this matter will complete by the time this application is considered by the Western Area Planning Committee. 3.0 PROPOSAL 3.01 The proposal seeks planning permission to demolish all the buildings described above
and to redevelop the site with the construction of 62 new dwellings, comprising 32 houses and 30 flats. Also proposed is a new retail convenience store and Post Office (both of which are classed as A1 retail use) along with associated roads, vehicle parking and landscaping. The proposed schedule of accommodation is shown in the table below:
Table 2: Proposed Schedule of Accommodation
Number of Units Number of Bedrooms
Size of Unit (square metres approximately)
% of total number of
proposed units
6 (flats) 1 45 9.67%
22 (flats) 2 73 35.48%
2 (wheelchair accessible flats)
2 73 3.22%
4 (houses – Type D) 2 62 6.45%
5 (houses – Type F) 3 72 8.06%
4 (houses – Type B) 3 83 6.45%
2 (houses – Type E) 3 96 3.22%
8 (houses – Type H) 3 98 12.9%
2 (wheelchair accessible houses – Type G)
3 103 3.22%
1 (house – Type C) 4 120 1.61%
6 (houses – Type A) 4 130 9.67%
Total: 62
3.02 The table shows that 30 flats are proposed along with 32 houses, providing 221
bedspaces in total. This is a net increase of 89 bedspaces. The development as a whole provides a range of unit sizes, from one bed units through to four bed units. Eight different house types are proposed. These are summarised in the table below:
Table 3: Proposed Schedule of Unit Sizes for Houses
House Type
Type No. of bedroom
s
Gross internal
area (metres square)
No.of units
Width (metres)
Depth (metres)
Eaves height (metres)
Ridge height (metres)
A SD 4 130 6 7.2 15.4 6.5 10.4
B SD 3 83 4 6.6 7.8 5.6 9.5
C D 4 120 1 5.8 10.2 6.5 10.0
D SD 2 62 4 7.2 7.8 5.6 8.0
E LT/SD 3 96 2 10.2 5.8 5.6 9.2
F D / SD 3 72 5 5.0 8.8 5.6 9.0
G SD (WC)
3 103 2 5.9 11.0 5.6 9.2
H LT/SD 3 98 8 6.0 10.4 5.6 9.2
Total 32
SD = Semi-detached, D = Detached, LT/SD = Link terrace/Semi-detached, WC = Wheelchair.
This information is taken directly from the summary table submitted by the agent
09/05/12.
3.03 The table below shows the schedule for the proposed flats. Table 4: Proposed Schedule of Unit Sizes for Flats
Flats (Block)
No. of bedrooms
Size (area
square metres)
No. of units
Width (metres)
Depth (metres)
Eaves height
(metres)
Ridge height
(metres)
A 1 45 6 22.5 22.4 8.5 11.5
A 2 WC 73 2 22.5 22.4 8.5 11.5
A 2 73 4 22.5 22.4 8.5 11.5
B 2 73 9 23.7 13.6 8.5 11.5
C 2 73 9 22.7 15.7 8.5 11.5
Total 30
WC = Wheelchair This information is taken directly from the summary table submitted by the agent 09/05/12.
3.04 Affordable housing provision is included in the scheme. The exact mix and disposition of the affordable units will depend upon the costs of development and market sales. There will be a minimum of 35% of affordable housing units equating to22 dwellings and comprising 12 flats (Block A flats above the proposed Post Office/convenience store to the west of the proposed new road access) and 10 family houses.
3.05 Subject to the viability of the scheme, the affordable housing provision will be increased
from 35% with any additional units being available for shared ownership. It is proposed that the 12 affordable flats be restricted to older persons (over 55 years) due to convenience and proximity to the Post Office, and the applicant advises, to allay local fears that the one bedroom flats may attract occupants with a tendency towards anti-social behaviour. The applicant further advises that this also meets the request from local residents (identified via the consultation exercises undertaken) that the new development includes some provision for older residents, to enable downsizing within the community and to release family dwellings in the Ramslye area.
3.06 The layout concentrates the 30 flats in three small blocks. Block A and B are sited either side of the front entrance road off Summervale Road and the third block, Block C, at the end of the this new road to act as a focal point. Parking for each of the blocks of flats is located immediately adjacent in small courtyards. Six parking bays are located immediately in front of the unit providing the Post Office / convenience store on Summervale Road, to assist and encourage customers. There are 106 parking spaces proposed in total for the houses and flats and 30 secure and covered cycle spaces to serve the 30 flats proposed.
3.07 The proposed parking to serve the nine flats in Block B, to the east of the entrance to the
site is located in a paved public square (piazza) in front of houses that would be arranged in the form of a crescent wrapping around the outside of this public square. These houses would have their own on site parking provision. The piazza would be extensively landscaped and tree planted to make this a focal feature at the entrance to the site.
3.08 The flats forming Block C at the end of the proposed new access road have been sited to
provide an emphatic end stop to the view along the street, and to provide an edge to the layout. The parking for this block would be located to the eastern side of the block adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site. The remaining houses are aligned along the central street and around the perimeter of the proposed streets that lead from the central road.
3.09 It is proposed that the access strip between 62B and 64 Summervale Road, described
above, is maintained. However, vehicular access along this to the new development will be restricted by means of a metal barrier installed to limit access to pedestrian only. This enables access to the bridle path from the main estate to be maintained, whilst preventing the access strip from being utilised as a ‘second’ vehicular access to the application site.
3.10 The proposals include an integrated tree planting and complementing landscape scheme,
which will compensate for the loss of some of the existing trees. Bat boxes would be installed on some of the buildings and Photovoltaic panels would be installed on roofs to
provide on site renewable energy measures.
3.11 The submitted Design and Access Statement identifies that a phased construction is
proposed to enable the western side of the site to be delivered first, together with the new Post Office, so that this can be completed while maintaining access to the existing Post Office, and footpath to the Eridge Road. On completion, the Post Office would relocate, maintaining access and trading throughout. The east side of the site will then be constructed with a temporary access to the completed houses at the back of the site via the existing drive between 62B and 64 Summervale Road. The footpath will divert to alongside the railway to maintain a safe right of access. Upon completion, the rights of way will revert to the Central portion of the site and through vehicular access by the side drive will be prevented by the erection of the aforementioned barriers.
3.12 Consideration is being given to construction in a single phase with a temporary Post Office on the grass area opposite the site on Summervale Road, but this would be subject to further resident consultation and a separate planning application.
3.13 The Design and Access Statement identifies that the Contractor will be required to promote training initiatives and the use of local labour through the delivery of the project with a minimum of 20% local labour.
3.14 The applicant has undertaken extensive pre-application consultation with the local community. This supported the decision to demolish the existing buildings and regenerate the area and has informed the layout, scale and appearance of the proposed scheme as described.
4.0 RELEVANT HISTORY Numbers 3-4 Ropers Gate: 4.01 TW/09/00217 – Change of use to A5 hot food takeaway, new shop fronts and rear
ventilation duct, front security shutters – Permitted 16 March 2009 (consent has now lapsed).
4.02 TW/03/01239 – Change of use of 2 No shops to 1 bedroom flats and revisions to tenants store area – Permitted (but not implemented).
4.03 TW/96/00253 – Change of use from post office to takeaway food shop (class A3) – Refused on two grounds relating to insufficient detail to show how cooking smells would be satisfactorily dealt with and; noise and disturbance and impact on residential amenity.
4.05 No other relevant planning history. 5.0 POLICIES 5.01 National Policies:
National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012. 5.02 South East Plan 2009 - Policy SP3 – Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance. - Policy CC1 – Sustainable Development. - Policy CC2 – Climate Change. - Policy CC4 – Sustainable Design and Construction. - Policy CC6 – Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment. - Policy CC7 – Infrastructure and Implementation. - Policy CC8 – Green Infrastructure. - Policy H1 – Regional Housing Provision 2006-2026. - Policy H2 – Managing the Delivery of the Regional Housing Provision. - Policy H3 – Affordable Housing Provision. - Policy H4 – Type and Size of New Housing. - Policy H5 – Housing Design and Density. - Policy T4 – Parking. - Policy NRM1 – Sustainable Water Resources. - Policy NRM2 – Water Quality. - Policy NRM5 – Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity. - Policy NRM10 – Noise. - Policy NRM11 – Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. - Policy BE1 – Management for an Urban Renaissance. - Policy AOSR8 – Tonbridge / Tunbridge Wells Hub. 5.03 Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010 - Core Policy 1: Delivery of Development. - Core Policy 3: Transport Infrastructure. - Core Policy 4: Environment. - Core Policy 5: Sustainable Design and Construction. - Core Policy 6: Housing Provision. - Core Policy 8: Retail, Leisure and Community Facilities Provision. - Core Policy 9: Tunbridge Wells.
5.04 Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 - Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria. - Policy EN13 – Tree and Woodland Protection. - Policy EN16 – Protection of Groundwater and other Watercourses. - Policy CR3 – Location of Proposals for Small Scale A1 (and other) Uses within Defined Primary Shopping Areas, Neighbourhood Centres and Village Centres. - Policy CR13 – Retention of Community Facilities in Neighbourhood Centres or Villages. - Policy H2 – Dwelling Mix. - Policy H3 – Affordable Housing within Development Schemes. - Policy H5 – Residential Development within the Limits to Built Development. - Policy TP1 – Major Development requiring Transport Assessments and a Travel Plan. - Policy TP3 – Multi-modal Access for Large Scale Development Schemes. - Policy TP4 – Access to the Road Network. - Policy TP5 – Vehicle Parking Standards. - Policy TP9 – Cycle Parking. - Policy TP13 – Tunbridge Wells (Central) to Eridge Railway Line. - Policy TP18 – Cycle Route Network in Tunbridge Wells. - Policy CS4 – Contributions to School Facilities. - Policy R2 – Recreation Open Space in New Residential Development. 5.05 Supplementary Planning Documents
Affordable Housing SPD (September 2007) Renewable Energy SPD (April 2007) Recreation Open Space SPD (July 2006) Kent Design Guide (2005/2006)
6.0 CONSULTATIONS 6.01 Below is a summary of the representations received in response to this application. Where more than one set of comments have been received from a single consultee, because of the submission of amended plans and/or additional information being received for example, only the latest, most up to date representation has been summarised. Planning Policy – Housing 6.02 08/02/12 – In summary, Core Policy 6 sets out the preferred dwelling size and mix. This
proposal delivers fewer one bed units compared with the Policy and a higher proportion of two and three bed units. The scheme dwelling mix is the outcome of a series of public consultations where concerns relating to the current number of small units were raised and negotiation with the Council’s affordable housing officers.
6.03 Full justification is required for the proposed 35% affordable housing (which is below the
existing 86% affordable housing at the site). The Design and Access Statement explains that many of the existing dwellings have been purchased through right to buy schemes (right to acquire) “so that affordable rental properties across the estate are now in the minority”. Given the stated aim at para 1.5 (of the Design and Access statement) that the development will “be aiming to improve upon the 35% affordable requirement” and that there is a loss of overall affordable housing provision through this proposal there should be a mechanism secured by the S106 legal agreement to ensure that the affordable element being proposed by this scheme will remain as affordable.
Planning Policy – Retail 6.04 09/02/12 – In summary, this proposal involves the loss of 120m2 of retail provision. Policy CR13 of the Local Plan seeks to maintain community facilities within the neighbourhood centres. It would be useful to see information on how the existing properties have been marketed. Officers from the Economic Development Team may be able to comment on whether this information is adequate. It would also be useful to have some information on why an equal amount of retail provision (240m2) is not included within the proposed scheme. Tree Officer 6.05 24/05/12 – It is noted that the area to be pruned from the Oak Tree (Officer comment – this is tree T6 as shown on the plans) is shown on the plans and is to be agreed on site. If planning permission is granted, conditions should be attached requiring submission of the Tree Protection Plan and an Arboricultural Method Statement. Reference is also made to perimeter planting of Birch trees. It is thought that it was agreed that some of these would be Hawthorn (Officer note – this matter can be satisfactorily dealt with as part of the suggested landscape condition). Landscape and Biodiversity Officer 6.06 22/03/12 – Lengthy comments received but in summary, points to note are: 6.07 Ecology: Three additional reports have been produced. These have been prepared by a suitable professional to a recognised methodology and their findings are broadly accepted. 6.08 Bat Inspection Ecology and Land Management March 2012: The survey has confirmed the presence of a maternity colony of pipistrelle bats spread across two buildings. The report recommends further emergence surveys to confirm size and nature of the colony. The information will be used to assist with the mitigation proposals and a licence application. The requirements for mitigation are discussed but no detailed proposal is described. 6.09 Bat Mitigation/ Ecology and Land Management March 2012: This report sets out a mitigation strategy that involves two replacement roosts and additional built in bat boxes. The timing of the roost replacements is critical and whilst covered it is left open as to whether this should be by a permanent replacement like for like or in the first year temporary boxes. The additional built in bat boxes need to be detailed in terms of location and other matters such as lighting need to be strictly controlled. It does overall seem that suitable mitigation can be provided but this needs to be informed by further surveys and covered by more detailed proposals. It would seem that taking account of all relevant matters that a scheme of successful surveys and mitigation can be achieved by way of a pre-commencement condition. 6.10 Herpetofauna Scoping Report (Calumma) Ecology and Land Management March 2012: The report recommends that no further surveys are necessary but that mitigation is required to avoid an offence and to provide for a receptor site for the low numbers of herpetofauna likely to be encountered. It is also recommended that suitable terrestrial habitat be provided within the development for toads which would be difficult. One way of approaching this would be to set out a scheme to encourage wildlife gardening on the new site through a scheme of education and awareness raising coupled with some targeted resources such as wildlife pond kits, native plants and construction of refugia.
A possible receptor site, the green corridor to the west alongside the railway, has been suggested and seems suitable but it has not been confirmed whether this is in the control of the applicant. Others sites have been suggested but the one adjacent to the site is clearly the preferred site. (Officer note – the applicant has now confirmed that the suggested receptor site to the west is within the ownership of the applicant). 6.11 It is suggested that a more detailed scheme of mitigation and monitoring as recommended by the report and above can be dealt with by planning condition. If the receptor site is in the ownership of the applicant then the management and monitoring of this area can also be agreed by planning condition. LANDSCAPE Landscape Strategy Plan SLD-EA17- LM1 Soil Strategy and Tree Position Plan SLD-EA17- S1 6.12 These plans taken together provide for a robust and deliverable landscape strategy. Much of the external works have been altered to provide a coherent and workable design in terms of hard and soft landscape. There are still some areas where the details and plant schedules need refining but remaining matters can be dealt with by standard pre commencement planning conditions which in addition will require a management plan. 6.13 The Landscape and Biodiversity Officer has also provided a further set of comments, summarised below, in response to comments received from the Kent Wildlife Trust The further comments were requested by the Planning Officer to aid consideration of the comments received from the Kent Wildlife Trust. 6.14 04/05/12 – Kent Wildlife Trust comments raise three matters that require further consideration. In summary: 6.15 Bats: KWT are seeking greater enhancement for bats with the provision of roosting opportunities within 50% of the buildings. This matter should be the subject of further discussion following the further surveys agreed and can as with the surveys be covered by condition. 6.16 Reptiles: Kent Wildlife Trust are requesting further surveys and are not convinced about the offer of Vinters Valley as a translocation site. The Ecologist who surveyed the site has recommended no further surveys but a scheme of mitigation. This can include further enhancements as I suggest in my comments and mitigation and enhancement can in general be secured by condition. Mitigation is however dependant upon a translocation site. If this is within the ownership and/or control of the applicant then the matter can be dealt with by condition but if a more remote site is required that has not been secured then this matter should be resolved before the grant of permission as it may require a legal agreement. As I understand it the ‘green corridor’ along the railway line behind the estate is within the ownership of Town and Country Housing Group and they are proposing to use it for reptile and landscape mitigation. Therefore the matter can be dealt with by way of condition. (Officer note – as identified earlier, the applicant has confirmed its ownership of the potential receptor site). 6.17 Landscaping: Kent Wildlife Trust request that cherry laurel be removed from the planting schedule. This can be dealt with under the standard landscape condition.
Design, Heritage and Conservation – Renewable energy measures 6.18 24/05/12 – It is agreed that with regard to new planting, as long as the tree selection for new planting comprises species that will remain beneath the roofline (or will be trimmed as part of the maintenance regime), then new planting should be acceptable when considering the proposed photovoltaic installations at house units H13, H14, H18, H19 and H20. It is considered likely that trimming of existing trees at house unit H15 will need to be included in a maintenance regime as these are currently above the existing roofline. 6.19 With regard to unit H17, considering the unit has been moved, and the assurances from the applicant’s energy advisor, I am prepared to accept that this should be sufficient for the photovoltaic panel to function. 6.20 The only remaining issue relates to the original energy figures. It is not clear whether these were provided based on the embedded style photovoltaic arrays and their performance and also whether the figures were run with sufficient shade factor. Further information on this should be provided and confirmed by planning condition if planning permission is granted. Design, Heritage and Conservation – Urban design matters 6.21 26/04/12 – Lengthy comments received, but points to note are: 6.22 This application has been the subject to a number of pre-application meetings and the design has evolved in an iterative way. This process has taken on board the various issues discussed and this, in my view, has led to a considered and robust outcome. Layout/Urban Design
1. The general layout is logical, makes optimum use of the site and accommodates the major constraints.
2. The scheme applies sound urban design principles such as, perimeter development
addressing the streets and public realm, and providing active frontages providing passive surveillance. This should positively transform both the appearance of the area and address the obvious deficiencies and social problems that result from the current layout.
3. There is a clear delineation as to what is public realm and what is private space. The
hierarchy of spaces are also defined through the use of different surface materials. 4. The form and scale of the development should assimilate into the Ramslye area,
whilst still exhibiting its own sense of space. It should provide a visual focal point to the area, as well as an entrance gateway for pedestrians, and by maintaining the shop/post office activity.
5. The three apartment blocks provide punctuation through their three storey height and
form. This difference in heights is quite appropriate to give variety to the locality. 6. Car parking numbers have increased since the original scheme (Officer comment –
‘original scheme’ means that discussed at pre-application stage), but in my view this has been rationalised and parking is as discreet as it can be.
Landscape
7. The level of new trees and hedging is in my view acceptable, and generally compensates for the loss of existing trees. It is though most regrettable that the wayleave zone required for the sewer has resulted in the scope for further tree planting in providing a clear spine of ‘structural’ landscape along the new road.
8. Reinforcing the trees on the south side of Summervale Road, and also against Eridge
Road is welcome. 9. External works have been appropriately rationalised, including a careful consideration
of boundary treatments. Architecture/Appearance
10. The appearance of the development in terms of its design and form is acceptable. It will express its own sense of place and character, whilst respecting its context.
11. The proposed materials and detailing are simple and straightforward. It will be
important to ensure that they are of a suitable quality in order that the buildings should weather well, and stand the test of time.
12. The photovoltaic cells on the roofs will generally be sited so as not to be readily
visible. The integrated nature of these is welcomed. 13. Overall there is no objection to the scheme from an urban design point of view.
Approval is recommended subject to planning conditions relating to materials; rainwater goods; photovoltaic details on roof; window details to head, cill and jambs at a scale of 1:5; shopfront and fascia, and roller shutter; external paving materials; street lighting, bollards, seats and street furniture and boundary treatments.
Economic Development 6.23 13/02/12 – In summary, is supportive of the proposal and its regeneration benefits. There is no objection to the loss of the existing 240m2 retail space, and replacement with a new retail unit (120m2), in a more prominent location within the Ramslye Estate, for a local post office and shop. 6.24 Whilst the proposal will result in a net loss of existing retail space, it is acknowledged that half of the currently available retail space has remained unoccupied for 8 years, and is uneconomic in its current form. Environment and Streetscene 6.25 01/02/12 – In summary, no objections. Planning conditions are recommended should planning permission be granted. These relate to noise and vibration of plant; internal sound levels (residential); commercial/residential noise transmission and a code of construction practice (major sites). As the development involves demolition and/or construction, it is recommended that the applicant is supplied with the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Code of Practice for Construction Sites. Broad compliance with this document is expected.
Environment and Streetscene 6.26 03/02/12 – In summary, no objection. Attention is drawn to the document: The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition – Best Practice Guidance. The developer should consult this document as it provides a good resource on how to minimise impacts from dust during construction and demolition. Parks and Sports Team Leader 6.27 23/02/12 – In summary, the Eastland’s Road play facility is less than 400m from the
proposed Ropers gate development which means the play area could be upgraded to a LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play). Given the close proximity of the Eastland’s play area I would suggest this presents the best opportunity for an upgrade given the next closest play area requiring refurbishment is Julian Hewitt play area on the Farmcombe Road estate. Looking at the footprint of Eastland’s Road I believe there is scope with this site to upgrade to a NEAP if the developer was willing. This part of the Borough is poorly served for play areas with little space to expand the ones we have.
6.28 With the Youth and Adult contribution we are in the same position with lack of space,
initial thoughts are we could use contributions to run youth activities within the area. 6.29 Please note that further comments have since been received specifically about the Youth and Adult contribution. These are: 6.30 09/05/12 – In summary, the money (along with other funding) could be applied to Calverley Grounds to install outdoor gym equipment next to the basket ball court. Borough Engineering Officer 6.31 28/05/12 – It is recommended that if planning permission is granted, that this include a planning condition requiring the developer to removal all existing lighting before construction commences. Also, if the footpath is moved, the developer will need to provide and maintain lighting along the new footpath. Affordable Housing Officer 6.32 22/03/12 – Additional information received from Town and Country Housing Group confirms that for viability reasons they are unable to formally commit to more than 35% affordable housing in the Section 106 Agreement. However I am confident that additional housing will be provided both via a nominations agreement at Ropers Gate and also at Friezland Road which was originally designated for market sale housing.
Kent Highway Services 6.33 27/04/12 – The Highway Authority (HA) has no objection in principle. However it was
previously recommended that a number of details including the distribution of parking across the site be re-examined so as to avoid indiscriminate parking. Whilst some areas have been revised the HA has outstanding reservations regarding rear parking provision but acknowledges that the acceptability of this arrangement this will be balanced against the overall design and layout. The Highway Authority consider it regrettable that servicing for the retail unit has not been addressed within the redevelopment but acknowledges that a low level of delivery vehicles is expected and that on street servicing can usually be tolerated within this type of residential setting . Furthermore the detailed design of the scheme through the legal agreements (S.278 and S.38) between the applicant and The Highway Authority may assist in accommodating service vehicles, although additional bollards may prove necessary.
6.34 Extent of proposed adoption has not yet been confirmed to The Highway Authority. Although this can be dealt with as part of the S.38 process following the grant of planning permission this may require minor revisions to the layout. It is anticipated however, that such changes could be accommodated within the existing footprint of the development. 6.35 Any traffic calming on the existing highway will require a saftey audit and will be subject to separate approval of The Highway Authority as part of the S.278 process. 6.36 Stopping up of existing highway will be required prior to commencement of the development (although demolition may take place in advance). 6.37 Conditions/informatives are recommended should planning permission be granted. These relate to the provision / retention of car parking; the highway to be stopped up prior to commencement of works on site; a Construction management plan including wheel washing facilities; The pedestrian and vehicular access shown on approved plan shall be laid out and constructed concurrently with the carrying out of the development to which it relates and brought into use before first occupation or use of the development and; an informative relating to the need for an agreement under S278 and S38 of the highway act 1980. Natural England 6.38 23/04/12 – In summary, permission may be granted subject to conditions including a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for bats; Clarification is needed about brown long eared bats – whether this species is using the site and whether appropriate mitigation is required; the authority should consider promoting biodiversity enhancements for great crested newts and reptiles. 6.39 Natural England is broadly satisfied that the mitigation proposals, if implemented, are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the local population of pipestrelles bats, great crested newts and reptiles and therefore retain a suitable favourable environment. Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) 6.40 01/05/12 - Lengthy comments but in summary, Kent Wildlife Trust is pleased to see that further investigations have been undertaken in regards to protected species which enable a much more reliable assessment to be made of the ecology using the site. 6.41 Bats: It appears that there is a significant pipistrelle maturity roost/ roosts situated within 13 and 34 Ropers Gate. We agree with the recommendations within the Bat Inspection Report that further emergence surveys be undertaken later in the season to establish the size and nature of the bat population to be affected by the development. Due to the protected species status of bat species this work should be undertaken prior to planning permission being granted. 6.42 Kent Wildlife Trust considers that the mitigation proposed for the loss of roosting sites appears to be appropriate. However to enhance the site for bat species it recommends that bat boxes or bricks be incorporated into the design at higher densities on 50% of the buildings to be constructed. As the responsible authority for protected species, Natural England must agree the proposed mitigation for the bats on site.
6.43 Reptiles: It appears that a number of the gardens and the railway embankment, where habitat is extending into the site, are likely to possess potential for reptiles. Due to the presence of Tunbridge Wells and Rusthall Commons and the railway adjacent to the site it is likely that there is a population of reptiles on site. Due to the presence of common lizard, slow worm and grass snake within the commons and the sighting of a dead adder within the locality we would advise that a presence/ absence survey be undertaken within the appropriate area to establish the species mix and get an indication of population size. As there is evidence that adder and grass snake often do not survive if translocated long distances it is important to ensure appropriate mitigation is provided for these species if found to be present on site. 6.44 The KWT advises that it would be concerned if translocation at Vinters Valley were proposed as the Trust advocates accommodation of reptile species within the site or the immediate area. This ensures maintenance of the current population. KWT is aware that Vinters Valley has already been used as a translocation site for a number of developments throughout Kent and if translocation were proposed at this site the Trust would wish to be assured that habitat is still available for further populations of reptiles. KWT would also be concerned if reptiles were translocated to the railway line with no additional habitat created as it is likely that the railway and surrounding areas are already at carrying capacity for these species. 6.45 There maybe opportunities to create a translocation site on or adjacent to the commons by undertaking some clearance work. This would have a dual purpose as it would create further heathland habitat to alleviate recreational pressure from the development as well as providing habitat for the translocated reptiles. KWT acknowledges that this development alone is not likely to have a large impact on the heathland and if habitat re- creation was undertaken Kent Wildlife Trust would be satisfied that any recreational pressure would be alleviated. 6.46 Great crested newts: KWT is satisfied that the pond on site appears to have no value for
great crested newts. As the statutory authority for protected species Natural England should be consulted regarding this assessment. (Officer note: Natural England were consulted and are satisfied that an acceptable environment will be retained, subject to appropriate planning conditions)
6.47 Landscaping: Within the landscaping scheme it is proposed to plant cherry laurel. This is one of the most invasive species within the heathland environment thriving within acid conditions and suffocating and dominating valuable heathland flora. It is recommended that this is replaced by a less invasive shrub species. Environment Agency 6.48 27/04/12 – No further comments to make with regards to the amended plans. (Officer note - Previously the Environment Agency commented that it had no objection subject to attachment of four conditions. These relate to development to be carried out in accordance with the approved, submitted Flood Risk Assessment; Land Contamination and Groundwater Protection; Drainage and; Piling. Informatives are recommended too).
Southern Water 6.49 27/04/12 – Comments received advising that the comments in the original letter of 01/02/12 remain unchanged and valid for the amended details. (Officer comment - in summary, these previous comments advised that the exact position of the combined foul and surface water sewers must be determined before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. It might be possible to divert the combined foul and surface water sewers, so long as this would not result in unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity, and the work was carried out at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of Southern Water under the relevant statutory provisions. 6.50 The comments also advised further on the requirements should the applicant wish to divert apparatus. A planning condition was suggested relating to a scheme of measures to protect drainage apparatus. 6.51 The comments also identified that following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. An informative was recommended relating to the need for the applicant to enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary infrastructure. A further informative was also recommended about the need for a formal application for connection to the public sewerage system. A planning condition should be attached requiring details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal to be approved (in consultation with Southern Water). Should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site.) Kent County Council (KCC) 6.52 Request developer contributions towards primary school places, libraries, youth facilities, community learning and adult social services as follows:
Primary school see note below Libraries - £367,204 Youth Facilities - £641.92 Community Learning - £342.36 Adult Social Services - £605.16
6.53 There is currently no secondary school requirement 6.54 KCC have made a number of different requests for the primary education contribution.
The current request takes its starting point as there being no residential units on the site so calculates the sum based on a total of 62 new residential units giving a total of £296,133. This figure is derived by using the emerging KCC formulaic model known as the Integrated Infrastructure Finance Model. This is a draft model only at this stage. This model uses a formula that takes account of the total number of households rather than the previous approach which calculated a pupil product ratio. The pupil product ratio (PPR) for the site based on the 62 proposed units would be 10.22 (1.26 from the existing giving a net gain of 8.96 pupils) If the previous KCC approach to calculating a primary education contribution were to be applied, then using the 10.22 PPR, the sum required would be £216,177.
Private (Neighbours) Initial representations 6.55 One representation received from The Old Police House, 62A Summervale Road. Concerns raised on the following grounds:
- The proposed plans intend to re-site the existing shop/post office just along from this property. Even with parking spaces provided to serve this, there is concern that passing trade will be forced to park outside this neighbouring property. There will also be an overspill of parking from the new housing.
- Concerns about accessibility to garage owned by this property, which is accessed down the side of number 62B Summervale Road, and turning area to serve this.
6.56 One representation received from 62B Summervale Road. Concerns raised on the
following grounds:
- Concerns about the shared drive that runs down the side of the property. If contractors are to use this during construction, would like reassurance that the drive is strong enough to support heavy plant and machinery and that any damage would be repaired;
- reassurance that the foundations of the house will not be affected by heavy plant and machinery driving past;
- reassurance that boundary fence/hedge will not be damaged; - reassurance that access to our garage will not be affected; - concern that access to the drive for plant and machinery from Summervale Road may
be difficult as cars park either side of the entrance and opposite. Representations as a result of amended plans being received
6.57 Two representations have been received from occupiers of 29 Summervale Road and 5 Ruffets Court, Summervale Road. In summary, these raise concerns about the following matters: - Proposed new planting could make it difficult to see other traffic when using the car
park of Ruffets Court; - Who will pay for maintenance of the new planting and how often would this be
maintained? - Trees could drop debris onto cars; - Concerns about leaves etc blocking drains; - Concern that the speed control is unnecessary; - Concerns that new tree planting could block light nearby property(29 Summervale
Rd) and view; - The new planting will make it difficult for cars to park on the edge of the green and
will obscure views for pedestrians/oncoming vehicles.
6.58 In support of the proposal, support is offered for the speed controls across Summervale Road.
7.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS 7.01 This application comprises the following: 7.02 Planning Application Form; Site Location OS Plan; Design and Access Statement dated December 2011; Demolition Statement; Arboricultural Implications Assessment dated August 2011; Code For Sustainable Homes Ecology Report ECO 1-4 dated August 2011; Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey dated July 2011;
7.03 Geotechnical Report with Contamination Testing dated October 2011; Transport Statement dated November 2011; Environment Agency Flood Risk Plan with Site Location Plot; Environment Agency Ground Water Plan with Ropers Gate Site Plot; Environment Agency Land Fill Location Map in Proximity to Ropers Gate; Environment Agency Pollution Record Plan: Ropers Gate Site Location Plot; 7.04 Code For Sustainable Homes 2010 Pre-Assessment Report dated 21st December 2011; Proposed Planting Schedule (please note that that this is to be revised with additional plants); Figure 2 – Protective Barrier / Figure 3 – Scaffolding within Root Protection Area; Tree Pit Detail; Details of Terram Cellular Confinement System For the Protection of Tree Roots; Draft Schedule of Materials; 7.05 Draft Deed of Agreement; Affordable Housing Statement; Commercial Property Statement; Report by Johnson Pancucci regarding Public Consultation Exercise undertaken and responses; Notes of Meeting with Planning Department; Report from Consultation Event; Noise and Vibration Assessment dated 3 November 2011.* *All the above were received 23 December 2011. 7.06 Flood Risk Assessment dated February 2012 received 28 February 2012; 7.07 Email dated 29 February 2012 from Tim Warren, Head of New Initiatives and Regeneration (Town and Country Housing) and Email from agent dated 29 February 2012 received 29 February 2012 along with; Planning Comments Update dated 28 February 2012; 7.08 Letter from Colin Lissenden, Development Director (Town and Country Housing) dated 1 March 2012 and H.M. Land Registry Titles (x 5) received 1 March 2012; 7.09 Letter from agent dated 26 March 2012 received 27 March 2012 along with Drawing number PL61 revision I; 7.10 Landscape and Ecology Strategy dated March 2012 (please note that this is to be revised and re-issued to respond to the Tree Officer concerns over the Oak tree); Bat Inspection Report dated March 2012; Bat Mitigation/C report dated March 2012; Herpetofauna Scoping Report dated March 2012; ** 7.11 SLD-EA17-S1 revision B (Soil Strategy and Tree Position Plan); (please note that this is to be revised and re-issued to respond to concerns raised by the Tree Officer about the Oak tree) 7.12 SLD-EA17-LM1 revision B (Landscape Strategy Plan); (please note that this is to be revised and re-issued to respond to concerns raised by the Tree Officer about the Oak tree) ** All received 5 April 2012 7.13 Email from agent dated 4 April 2012; 7.14 Draft Deed of Agreement received 12 April 2012; 7.15 Letter from agent dated 3 May 2012 received 3 May 2012 in response to representations submitted by Southern Water (dated 01/02/12 and 18/04/12). 7.16 Email from agent dated 9 May 2012 attaching table summarising the different house types.
7.17 Email from agent dated 10 May 2012. 7.18 Copy of letter addressed to agent dated 10 May 2012 from Sustainability Advisor written in response to comments received from Environmental Officer on proposed renewable energy measures. 7.19 Two emails from Tim Warren, Head of New Initiatives and Regeneration (Town and Country Housing) received 10 May 2012. 7.20 One email from Tim Warren, Head of New Initiatives and Regeneration (Town and Country Housing) received 17 May 2012. ‘As Existing ‘Drawings (all received 23 December 2011): 7.21 Existing Site Plan (unnumbered); Drawing number 3892 Sheet 7 (Elevations 1-11); Drawing number 3892 Sheet 8 (Elevations 12-25); Drawing number 3892 Sheet 9 (Elevations 26-37); Drawing number 3892 Sheet 10 (Elevations 38-43). 8.0 APPRAISAL 8.01 The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:
Principle of proposed development and need for regeneration;
Residential density;
Mix of dwelling types and sizes;
Affordable housing;
Retail facilities within the neighbourhood centre;
Tunbridge Wells Central to Eridge railway line;
Traffic, highways and parking;
Tree matters;
Ecological matters;
Design considerations, including renewable energy, sustainable construction and water conservation;
Residential amenity of existing and proposed dwellings;
Other environmental considerations;
Impacts during the construction stage and;
Section 106 agreement and developer contributions. Principle of Residential Development and Need for Regeneration 8.02 The principle of residential use of the application site is long established, as the site is
currently developed with multi-storey blocks of flats and a pair of bungalows. The existing accommodation on the site is poor quality and hard to let. It is considered that the existing accommodation has reached the end of its useful life and that demolition and redevelopment is the best way forward. Most of the existing accommodation has already been vacated and the occupiers have been re-housed. The overriding development aspiration of this planning application is to regenerate the current housing stock through the provision of high quality new homes and associated retail facilities within a sustainable and inclusive environment.
8.03 The recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to boost
significantly the supply of housing and encourages the effective use of land by reusing previously developed land.
8.04 The Local Plan and Core Strategy prioritises housing development on brownfield sites
within existing built-up areas. Strategic Objective 3 of the Core Strategy states that future development in the Borough should target regeneration in least affluent areas to ensure that all current and future residents have opportunities to access services and facilities they require to meet their needs for housing.
8.05 The proposal complies with national and local planning policies and the principle of re-
providing residential development and neighbourhood facilities in the form of the Post Office/Convenience store and associated development is to be welcomed.
Density 8.06 All of the existing 50 units of residential accommodation on site will be demolished. The
current density of the site is approximately 40 dwellings per ha. 8.07 The proposed development will deliver 62 new residential units, which represents a net
gain of 12 units. The application site has an area of 1.24 ha. The density of the proposed development is approximately 50 dwellings per ha.
8.08 An overall increase in housing provision is consistent with the objectives of the National
Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to significantly increase housing provision. The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
8.09 At the local level, the Core Strategy recognises a need to pursue an urban focus for new development within the existing Limits to Built Development (LBD). Core Policy 6 states that:
'Housing will be developed at a density appropriate to the specific character of the locality. It will contribute towards achieving the overall regional target of 40 dwellings per hectare and will not generally be below 30 dwellings per hectare.'
8.10 The proposed redevelopment of the site to a higher density is consistent with the
objectives of increasing housing supply and making effective use of previously developed land. The increase of 12 dwellings will make a beneficial contribution to local housing provision.
8.11 I consider the application to fulfil the potential of the site. As explained previously the site
has a number of constraints that affect the development potential of the site. The proposal has taken account of the site constraints whilst proposing a development that makes better use of the urban land. The proposed increase in residential density is appropriate in this part of the wider Ramslye estate. It is also considered that the redevelopment proposed, including the Post Office/Convenience store, would be beneficial to the local economy of the wider designated Neighbourhood Centre.
8.12 It is noted that the appraisal of whether or not a specific density is acceptable must also
include an assessment of the impact of the scale and massing of this amount of development on the visual and residential amenities of the area, the desire to achieve a mix of dwelling types, and on other material planning considerations such as highways, trees and ecology, as addressed in later sections of this report.
Mix of dwelling types and sizes 8.13 The National Planning Policy Framework advocates the delivery of a wide choice of high
quality homes and the creation of inclusive, mixed communities. Table 1 in the site description above sets out the existing schedule of accommodation, which in summary, comprises 18 no. bedsits, 14 no. 1 bedroom units, 4 no. 2 bedroom units and 14 no. 3 bedroom units. Table 1 also shows that a significant proportion (64%) are either bedsits or 1 bedroom units. Just 8% are 2 bed units with the remaining 28% being 3 bed units. There are no larger 4 bed units. As a consequence of the mostly 1 bedroom nature of the existing accommodation, there is a concentration of similar household types in a small area, which does not create a sustainable community.
8.14 The Core Strategy and Local Plan seek to encourage a mix of dwelling types on new
developments. 8.15 Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy seeks “a mix of dwelling sizes that continues to meet
the need for small dwellings, while also allowing for sufficient provision of family housing”. The Core Strategy at para. 5.156, sets out a target range of suitable dwelling sizes (expressed in terms of numbers of bedrooms rather than floor areas), which reflect the findings of the Borough Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2009.
8.16 The dwelling size mix for the proposal, together with Core Policy 6’s indicative
requirements, are set out in the table below. Table 5: Proposed Dwelling Mix
Dwelling size
No of dwellings
(inclusive of 12 older
persons units)
No of dwellings
(exclusive of 12 older
persons units)
% of total (including 12 older persons
units)
% of total (excluding
12 older persons
units)
Core Policy 6
(indicative)
1 bed 6 0 10% 0% 20%
2 bed 28 22 45% 44% 40%
3 bed 21 21 34% 42% 30%
4 bed 7 7 11% 14% 10%
Total 62 50 100% 100% 100%
8.17 Core Policy 6 requirements are that 2 and 3 bedroom units taken together comprise
around 70% of the total number of units. I consider that Table 5 demonstrates a close match between the proposed size mix for the whole site and the aspirations of Core Policy 6. The percentage of 2 and 3 bed units in this instance amounts to approximately 79%, only a little higher than the policy aspirations. Likewise the percentage of the larger 4 bed units is only slightly higher that the aspirations of the policy. Whilst there is a shortfall on the number of smaller 1 bed units, this is reflective of the desires of the applicant for the scheme, which include a mixed tenure to match the balance of the surrounding estate; a greater number of family houses as opposed to flats and a desire to remove the small units from the estate as a whole. These desires followed the work of TCHG with the local community during the two year period prior to submission of this application. On balance, I consider that the proposed mix of dwelling sizes is acceptable. This mix will assist in delivering a more sustainable mixed community.
Affordable housing 8.18 The National Planning Policy Framework explains that where a need for affordable
housing has been identified, provision should generally be made on site. The definition of affordable housing, includes the Government's new ‘affordable rent’ product, which requires rents of no more than 80% of the local market rent.
8.19 Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy requires that sites capable of accommodating over 10
dwellings should provide 35% of the total number of dwellings as affordable housing unless it can be demonstrated that local need would no longer justify such provision or that site specific factors would render the development non-viable. Furthermore, the size and type of market and affordable housing should reflect both current and projected local housing need to ensure that proposed development contributes towards attaining a balanced housing market.
8.20 The Borough Council's Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2007)
states that in relation to affordable housing tenure, 75% should be social rent and 25% shared ownership.
8.21 The proposed housing includes a mix of unit sizes and types to meet local need, including
a significant proportion of affordable housing, which is distributed across the site. All of the affordable dwellings will be built in accordance with the Homes & Community Agency’s Design & Quality standards (2007). They will be developed to a far higher quality than the existing flats, which are poor quality and at the end of their useful life. Twenty two units (100%) of affordable housing (35% of the total number of units) are proposed. These comprise a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bed units and include 2 wheelchair accessible flats within the Block A flats (which would be age restricted for those over 55 years of age and be 2 bed units) and two, 3 bed wheelchair accessible houses.
8.22 All the proposed affordable units would be let at an affordable rent. Should the scheme
viability enable further affordable housing provision this would be available for shared ownership. Taking into account the range of benefits the scheme will bring forward it is considered however, that in this instance the proposed tenure for the affordable units is acceptable and will facilitate a balanced and sustainable community.
8.23 As the applicant, Monson Homes Ltd, is a subsidiary of Town and Country Housing Group
who are a Registered Provider, the aim is to provide considerably more affordable housing than the minimum 35% affordable requirement and hence to maximise the number of affordable dwellings across the development. However, the final number of affordable units, over and above the 35% requirement, will be dependent on viability considerations as the scheme moves forward. The new improved affordable housing is being funded through the profits received from the sale of the proposed open market units.
8.24 It is noted that 43 of the existing 50 units on the site, were affordable housing units. This
equates to 86%. The remaining 7 units (14%) were originally bought by their occupiers under the right to buy scheme, but have been re-purchased by the applicant to facilitate the proposals. There is therefore a net loss in the number and percentage of affordable housing that is proposed to be provided, compared with the existing situation at the site. It is considered however that any loss of affordable housing units needs to be balanced against the need for a range of housing types, including larger houses with gardens that are better suited to family occupation. The existing accommodation is poor quality and no longer fit for purpose. The proposals will see the site being redeveloped for high quality new homes, more suited to existing needs. As identified above too, the applicant, as a Registered Provider of affordable housing, will be aiming to provide considerably more affordable housing units. It should also be noted that a net loss in affordable housing on the site would not be contrary to any planning policy.
8.25 The following table is a detailed accommodation schedule for the proposed affordable
housing:
Table 6: Proposed Schedule of Accommodation for Affordable Units
1 Bed Flats for
older persons
2 Bed Flats for
older persons
2 Bed wheelchair
flats for older
persons
3 Bed House
3 Bed wheelchair
House
4 Bed House
Total
Affordable rent
6 4 2 7 2 1 22
8.26 Whilst the applicant is not be willing to have the Section 106 agreement control more than
35% of the units (for commercial reasons), they have indicated their willingness to sign up to a supplemental nominations agreement with the Borough Council for any additional affordable housing units. The effect of this would be to allow the properties to be allocated to people on the Council’s housing register which in essence means that should viability allow then additional affordable units will be provided. Further provision of affordable housing above 35% would be beneficial but is not essential for compliance with Core Policy 6 and is not to be included in the S106 legal agreement.
8.27 In conclusion, the securing of 35% affordable housing through the S106 legal agreement
is acceptable as this accords with the Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy requirement. Further provision of affordable housing above 35% would be beneficial but is not essential for compliance with Core Policy 6 and is not to be included in the S106 legal agreement
Retail Facilities within the Neighbourhood Centre 8.28 Local Plan Policy CR13 seeks the retention of community facilities, which includes retail provision, in the defined Neighbourhood Centres. 8.29 The proposed demolition of all buildings on the site results in the loss of the four retail
units, including the Post Office, which were part of the original development of this part of the estate. The applicant contends that the retail units, including the Post Office are not viable in their current state and at this time only the Post Office/convenience store remain open. The remaining units are vacant and are boarded up. The proposals provide for a new Post Office/convenience store with a floor area of approximately 120 square metres, which equates to half of the existing retail floor space at the site (four units at 60 square metres each). There would therefore be a net loss of 120 square metres of retail floor space. The proposal seeks to provide the new Post Office and convenience store and to make it a viable asset for the local community and wider Showfields Neighbourhood Centre, so that it can continue to act as a focus for the community.
8.30 As with the existing retail units, this new provision will face directly onto and be accessible
from Summervale Road. It will have a prominent corner location and will be served by six parking spaces to the front of the Block A in which the Post Office unit and convenience store will be sited. The agent advises that the existing shop is serviced from the street and that the proposed shop will have daily papers delivered each morning by light van from Summervale Road. This vehicle will remain parked for only a few minutes to enable the papers to be dropped off, usually before 6am, so can pull up adjacent to the parking bays, without impeding traffic flows. Refuse collection is also envisaged from the Summervale road as exists currently. The daily produce deliveries will continue as currently, no more than 1 vehicle per day on average. The agent advises that no off road provision has been proposed for the serving of these retail units, due to the small scale and infrequency of deliveries and the light traffic flows in the vicinity in the day.
8.31 Local Plan Policy CR13 does allow for the loss of communities facilities in certain
circumstances. In the case of public facilities, which includes retail provision (and post office service and shop are specifically mentioned in the policy), it needs to be demonstrated that demand within the locality no longer exists, or there are clear operational reasons for closing or moving the facility and the wider importance of the facility to the community has been taken into account.
8.32 The applicant has advised that the two vacant units have been boarded up for over 8
years due to lack of a viable commercial use. It is understood that the units have been marketed but the location, away from the commercial centre and passing traffic, has resulted in a lack of interest. This has been made worse by the opening of the Sainsbury’s store on the West Station site, increasing retail competition on this side of the town.
8.33 The agent advises that the remaining units (the Post Office/convenience store) are now barely viable and it is hoped that the more prominent location proposed in the design, together with the regenerative effect of the new development, will enable it to continue to provide an important service to the local community.
8.34 The consultation response received from the Economic Development Team (dated
13/02/12) is supportive of the proposal and its regeneration benefits, and confirms the points made above that the remaining retail units have been unoccupied for 8 years and are uneconomic in their current form.
8.35 Given the above I consider that the new, modern retail floorpsace proposed, along with its
new corner location and associated parking, will enhance the Neighbourhood Centre to the benefit of the wider Showfields and Ramslye community, albeit that there is an overall net loss of retail provision. Given that the remaining retail units have been unoccupied for so long and are considered unviable, I conclude that in this instance the proposals do not conflict with Local Plan Policy CR13.
Tunbridge Wells Central to Eridge railway line 8.36 Immediately to the north of the site is the Tunbridge Wells (Central) to Eridge Railway Line. This is a line that is best described as a ‘tourism’ line operated by the Spa Valley Railway. The line is safeguarded for possible future re-opening in the Borough Local Plan. Policy TP13 of the Local Plan states: “The Local Planning Authority will safeguard the Tunbridge Wells Central to Eridge railway line, as defined on the Proposals Map, by refusing proposals that would compromise the re-opening of the rail line”. 8.37 During the course of pre-application discussions with the applicant it was established that the application site lies outside of the 3.75 metre buffer zone on either side of the rail line. Furthermore this buffer zones lies outside the red edge of the application site. For these reasons I consider that the physical development/ the built form proposed would not compromise the re-opening of the rail line. 8.38 The proposals result in an increase in the number of units of accommodation. Because of this and because it introduces dwellings into areas where there are currently no such dwellings i.e. the area of the lock-up garages, I consider that it is necessary to consider noise disturbance likely to future occupants of the dwellings, should the rail line re-open.
8.39 I have considered a planning appeal at Brook Cottage, Upper Cumberland Walk, Tunbridge Wells, relating to planning application TW/09/02342. This sought planning permission for a detached house and double garage with vehicular access. The planning application was originally refused for a number of reasons. One ground of refusal, amongst other matters related to concern that a Noise Impact Assessment and association noise mitigation measures had not been submitted to show how the property would be protected from the impact of noise should the rail line re-open. The Planning Inspector in the decision notice dated 12 October 2010, considered that the dwelling could be appropriately insulated from potential changes to the ambient external noise levels. He also considered that he had not seen any reasoned evidence to warrant requiring further measures to protect future occupants from potential noise from the reinstatement of the railway track. The Inspector concluded that the re-opening of the rail line would not be compromised. On allowing the appeal, the Planning Inspector did not feel it necessary to attach planning conditions on this issue. 8.40 Taking account of this I am of the opinion that the proposals would not compromise the re-opening of the rail line. The previous Planning Inspector considered that the proposed dwelling could be adequately insulated against any change in noise levels should the line re-open. I see no reason to conclude otherwise in this instance. Furthermore I note that it is not uncommon, when travelling along a railway line, to see residential accommodation adjacent to a railway. I am therefore satisfied that the proposals do not conflict with Local Plan Policy TP13. Traffic, highways and parking 8.41 (i) Impact on highway network The National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘development should only be
prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.
Policy TP4 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that there is sufficient capacity within
the road network to accommodate new development and that additional traffic does not adversely affect the safe and free flow of traffic or other road users.
A Transport Statement (TS) which assesses the traffic impact of the development and
matters including parking provision has been provided with this application. The Transport Statement describes the site and local highway network; provides a summary of the application including access, parking and servicing. It also investigates the infrastructure and services available for those travelling to the site by alternative modes of travel (other than the car) and makes reference to linkages between modes of travel; and looks at trip generation and parking.
The report demonstrates that the application site is accessible by modes of transport
other than the private car. There are bus stops immediately adjacent to the site, providing frequent and reliable services to the surrounding areas including Tunbridge Wells rail station. The public transport provision, along with the secure and covered cycle parking will encourage residents to use alternative means of travel.
The TS identifies that additional trip movements generated by the proposals, will
have a negligible effect on the local highway network. The TS has been assessed by Kent Highway Services (KHS), who are the Local
Highway Authority. KHS have no objection in principle to the proposals. No concerns have been expressed about impact on the local highway network.
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposals comply with Local Plan Policy TP4.
8.42 (ii) Site layout The new access road provides the focus to the development. The submitted Design
and Access Statement identifies that the area in front of the Post Office retail unit has been designed on the corner with a broader paved margin to encourage pedestrian activity and access to the Post Office itself, together with the six parking bays which are laid out along the back edge of the pavement to Summervale Road. This is a high quality environment with integrated decorative paving, bollards, lighting, bench seats and tree planting which is also designed to restrict opportunities for ram-raiding or criminal access to the Post Office.
A speed control platform has been proposed at the junction of the new access and
Summervale Road but this is subject to KCC Highways approval and details. This is intended as a speed control feature along the circulating estate road and to assist pedestrian crossing at the entrance to the proposed development. The road layout has been drawn up with reference to the Kent Design Guide. The layout has been designed with crime prevention as a key factor.
The layout of the proposals follows Secured by Design principles by ensuring all the
dwellings provide a secure but active frontage to each of the public streets with clearly defined public and private areas. All the houses have secure private gardens to the rear of the property with small planted front areas between the front of the house and the back edge of pavement. Parking for the houses is on-plot, either between the dwellings or immediately in front or to the rear of the dwellings, which is clearly designated and allocated to each dwelling and well overlooked from the adjacent houses.
The flats each have defined, secure frontages. The central point of access to each
block will be controlled by entry ‘phone linked to each flat and gives access to the central lift and stairs. Limited distances of travel from the central staircase to each of the flats on the floors above minimises the area of communal space and each of the spaces is well lit and naturally ventilated. The flats have been designed so that their public entrances are accessed directly from the allocated parking courts and that the flats are orientated with good overlooking of these parking courts for security of the parking and to encourage its use by the residents. Where possible ground floor flats are given entrances direct from the street, to promote active ground floor frontages, as well as give the units enhanced security and privacy.
It is intended that the main access road will be to adoptable standards with adoptable
standard street lighting integrated with the tree planting. The rear country lane will be rural in character and pylon mounted street lighting would be inappropriate.
In conclusion, the proposed site layout is considered acceptable and in accordance
with Local Plan Policy TP4 8.43 (iii) Meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and bus users Policy TP3 of the Local Plan requires that proposals for new residential development
should demonstrate how the needs of the pedestrian, cyclist and bus users can be met by the development. The policy encourages the provision of segregated pedestrian/cycle routes and accessible links to key services and facilities.
The area already benefits from good local services (shops, library, community centre,
primary school) within easy walking distance. There is also good accessibility by public transport. Six bus services (routes 28, 29, 29B, 29X, 228 and 229) pass along Eridge Road, where the nearest bus stops are located. These provide regular services to the town centre and surrounding areas, including Tunbridge Wells railway station (approximately 1.9km distant).
The proposal provides good pedestrian and cycle access. The submitted TS
identifies that the existing footways on Ropers Gate only measure around 0.5 metres. The proposals would increase these to provide a footway on either side of the road of around 2.0 metres in width, providing a safer and improved experience for pedestrians. The provision of on site secure cycle parking storage for the flats is intended to encourage cycle use. This provision is in accordance with Kent’s cycle parking standards and provision of these facilities can be secured by a planning condition.
I am therefore satisfied that subject to appropriate planning conditions, the proposals
comply with Local Plan Policy TP3.
8.44 (iv) Car Parking
Car parking has been carefully considered for the site and has been described
elsewhere in this report. According to the National Planning Policy Framework, car parking standards should take account of the dwelling type and mix, the accessibility of the site and availability of public transport and local car ownership levels.
8.45 KHS raises no objection to the level of car parking shown. It did however originally raise
concerns about the distribution of this across the site and the need to ensure that this does not result in indiscriminate residential and visitor parking. Negotiations have since taken place. Latest comments from KHS (dated 27/04/12) identify that some areas have been revised but there continues to be reservations regarding rear parking provision. KHS acknowledges however that the rear parking provision follows discussion with officers on design matters and that a balance has to be made. I have considered the comments received and feel that this outstanding concern would not be sufficient alone, to justify refusal of the planning application. Furthermore, in my judgement of the differing planning issues, I feel that the use of parking yards to the rear of the three blocks of flats, has significant advantages in terms of design.
8.46 Given this, I consider that the proposed parking provision is acceptable. The provision can
be controlled by planning condition to ensure the parking is provided and maintained. 8.47 The comments from KHS of 27/04/12 identify that servicing access for the retail unit
remains an issue. The agent has responded to this concern by advising that the existing shop is serviced from the street.
8.48 The agent also advises that the proposed shop will have daily papers delivered each morning by light van from Summervale Road, but this vehicle remains parked for only a few minutes to enable the papers to be dropped off, usually before 6am, so can pull up adjacent to the parking bays. Refuse collection is also envisaged from the Summervale Road as exists currently. The daily produce deliveries will continue as currently, no more than 1 vehicle per day on average. The agent advises that no off road provision has been made due to the small scale and infrequency of deliveries and the light traffic flows in the vicinity in the day. The proposal is for the van to pull off Summervale road into the sites main access road to deliver kerb side adjacent to the shop unit, through the front doors, as currently happens.
8.49 Given that the agent advises that this reflects the existing situation, and because, in my
opinion this will have limited impact on the highway, I consider there to be no grounds on which to object to this and consequently consider this proposed arrangement to be acceptable.
8.50 In conclusion on highway matters, I consider that Core Strategy Policy CP3 and Local
Plan PolicyTP5 have been complied with. Tree matters 8.51 This planning application is supported by an Arboricultural Implications Assessment and other documents that relate to trees (and planting generally) for example a Proposed Planting Schedule and details of protective barrier for scaffolding within Root Protection Areas. More recently as a result of initial comments received from both the Council’s Tree and Landscape and Biodiversity Officers, a Landscape and Ecology Strategy has been submitted. 8.52 All the tree related information has been considered by the Tree Officer. Initially, a number of concerns were raised by the Tree Officer but these have largely been addressed through the submission of amended plans and additional supporting information. 8.53 There is one outstanding concern, which relates to the effect of the proposals on an Oak tree (labelled T6 on the plans) that is adjacent to the four western most houses along the ‘country lane’. The concern is that this will significantly shade the house and garden that is labelled as ‘H17’ on the plans, which lies to the west of the site immediately adjacent to the Oak tree and the access that runs down the middle of numbers 62B and 64 Summervale Road. The Tree Officer is concerned that this Oak tree will come under undue pressure by future occupants of the property for significant pruning and potentially felling, which would put the tree at significant risk. As a result of this concern, the plans have been amended. The siting of the four units to the west of the Oak tree has been moved further west to increase the separation distance between these and the Oak tree. The layout of unit ‘H17’ has been amended to ensure that the internal layout of the unit minimises effect on the Oak tree. The agent also advises that tree protection will comply with BS 5837 2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations). 8.54 The Tree Officer has been consulted on the revised plans and has recommended conditions should planning permission be granted. It is however, possible that the long term future of the Oak tree cannot be secured by the amendments undertaken. 8.55 Moving the four units to the west away from the Oak tree has meant that they have moved closer to a large Beech tree that lies just across from the western boundary of the application site. It is outside the red edge of the site but on land owned by the application. As a consequence of this, the Beech tree would be removed. I have discussed this with the Tree Officer. There is no tree objection to the loss of this tree provided that replacement tree planting takes place long this western boundary. I am satisfied that this can be dealt with as part of the standard landscaping condition. 8.56 As case officer I have balanced whether the potential loss of the Oak tree and indeed the loss of other trees generally as a result of the proposals, would warrant a refusal of planning permission. In this instance I consider that the many benefits of the scheme would outweigh this loss and therefore a refusal would not be justified. There is considerable need for redevelopment of this site to take place. The scheme will deliver high quality and much needed family homes and a better mix of accommodation than currently exists on the site, including a significant proportion of affordable housing.
Furthermore the scheme will provide a net increase of 12 units of accommodation, making more efficient use of this urban site. I have discussed with the agent potentially reducing the scheme by one unit to remove house ‘H17’ from the scheme, but the applicants are opposed to this over viability concerns. Overall, whilst the proposal would result in the loss of several trees, it is noted that extensive re-planting would occur. It should also be noted that there are considerable constraints on the developable area of the site (the drainage easements), which restrict and limit areas of redevelopment. 8.57 On balance therefore, I am satisfied that subject to appropriate tree related planning conditions that the proposal will ensure adequate protection and retention of trees shown to be retained, whilst providing adequate compensation for trees that would be lost. This would comply with Core Strategy Policy CP4 and Local Plan Policy EN1. Ecology matters 8.58 The National Planning Policy Framework advises that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. In relation to biodiversity it advises that impacts should be minimised and that there should be net gains in biodiversity where possible. Proposals which have harmful impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated should be refused. 8.59 The Core Strategy CP 4 seeks to avoid a net loss of biodiversity and seeks to enhance biodiversity in urban and rural areas. 8.60 In the initial submission of this application and subsequently following initial comments from the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, as well as from Natural England and the Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT), many supporting documents in relation to ecology have been submitted. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was submitted followed by Bat Inspection/Mitigation reports and a Herpetofauna Scoping report. A Landscape and Ecology Strategy has also been submitted. The Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, Natural England and the KWT have all been consulted on this information. 8.61 In summary, initial representations received in response to the proposals as initially submitted, raised significant concern. Essentially these related to the need for more detailed survey work for bats, Great Crested Newts and reptiles. In addition the KWT made comments about financial contributions/enhancement works to nearby local wildlife sites / accessible greenspace to address impacts arising from greater visitor pressure. It is to be noted that in respect of this, the proposal results in a net increase of just 12 dwellings. The Landscape and Biodiversity Officer advises that demand is likely to be very small and might be more effective if taken to be part of the landscape mitigation/enhancement/compensation measures. 8.62 In response to these initial concerns, three additional reports were submitted (Bat Inspection Ecology and Land Management; Bat Mitigation / C Ecology and Land Management and; Herpetofauna Scoping report ecology and land management). Re- consultation with the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, as well as Natural England and the KWT has taken place. The further comments received as a consequence of this are set out earlier in this report (under “Consultations”). 8.63 In summary however, the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, as a result of this additional information, has advised that outstanding matters can adequately addressed by the attachment of appropriate planning conditions. These would cover matters including the numbers and provision of bat boxes; two replacement roosts; lighting details; further surveys for bats; a more detailed scheme of mitigation and monitoring as recommended by the reports.
8.64 It is identified that a receptor site is required for the low number of herpetofauna likely to be found. It is also recommended that suitable terrestrial habitat be provided within the development for toads, which would be difficult. The Landscape and Biodiversity Officer advises that one way of approaching this would be to set out a scheme to encourage wildlife gardening on the new site through a scheme of education and awareness raising coupled with some targeted resources such as wildlife pond kits, native plants and construction of refugia. A possible receptor site for the herpetofauna, the green corridor to the west alongside the railway, has been suggested and seems suitable. The applicant has confirmed that this potential receptor site falls within the ownership of the applicant. As such, further details of this can be sought and considered by planning condition. 8.65 Further comments (23/04/12) from Natural England advise that planning permission may be granted subject to appropriate planning conditions. The comments advise however that clarification is needed in respect of brown long eared bats. 8.66 The KWT has also made further comments (01/05/12). These raise concern that the further emergence surveys should be undertaken prior to planning permission being granted; that more bat boxes should be incorporated into the scheme; that a presence/absence survey for reptiles should be undertaken; and about the suitability of the receptor site suggested. 8.67 The Landscape and Biodiversity Officer has provided a third set of comments that are in direct response to the comments of KWT (01/05/12). He advises that the biodiversity enhancements of the bat boxes can be dealt with by planning condition. In respect of reptiles, the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer comments that the Ecologist who surveyed the receptor site has recommended no further surveys but a scheme of mitigation. This can include further enhancements. Mitigation and enhancement can in general be secured by planning condition. Mitigation is however dependent upon a receptor site and the issue of ownership of the receptor site being clarified as outlined previously (Officer note – land ownership of this has now been clarified and the applicant has confirmed that this is within the ownership of the applicant). 8.68 The agent has also responded to the representations from Natural England and the KWT and advises that the surveys are ongoing and that the ecologist has issued the following clarifications. Bats 8.69 Emergent surveys are currently taking place (week commencing 14 May 2012) and a
secondary detailed mitigation report will be issued in June. This will make reference to Brown eared bats in the current proposed mitigation report and shall add further mitigation to comply with KWT comments. Reptiles:- (mainly referring to Slow worm)
8.70 Detailed surveys have commenced. A report is to be produced assessing anticipated population and detailed mitigation proposals including any receptor site information. This will require liaison with KWT.
Conclusions in respect of biodiversity
8.71 In conclusion, I consider that subject to appropriate planning permissions, and these being complied with, that the ecological interests of the site will be adequately protected by the proposals and that overall, biodiversity will be enhanced as sought by the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy. Suggested planning conditions cover survey work, mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures. 8.72 Design considerations, including renewable energy, sustainable construction and water conservation 8.73 The National Planning Policy Framework states that it is important to plan positively for
the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes; to promote local distinctiveness; and to create safe environments where crime and fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.
8.74 At the local level, Core Strategy Policy CP4 seeks to conserve and enhance the local
character and distinctiveness of the Borough. The Local Plan seeks to promote good design and layout of new housing development, whilst making the most efficient use of land and to make adequate provision for open space and community facilities. It acknowledges that all previously used sites represent a significant opportunity for urban renewal and the Local Planning Authority promotes the replacement of outworn and unattractive sites and buildings with new, high-quality design.
(i) Overall design approach and site layout
8.75 The overall design approach as set out in the Design and Access Statement is described
in Section 2 of this report. 8.76 The Urban Design Team Leader supports the approach. He considers the development
layout is logical and makes best use of the site whilst at the same time accommodates the major constraints of the site. The proposals apply sound urban design principles and will result in significant improvements to the existing townscape of this part of the Ramslye estate. The proposals will create a distinctive and strong identity to this area. In contrast to the existing arrangement of the site where the three frontage blocks of flats contrasts significantly with the two storey treatment of the surrounding houses, the proposals will create traditional streets overlooked by high quality residential development.
8.77 In terms of the desire to design out crime, the Urban Design Team Leader advises that
there is a clear delineation as to what is public and what is private space and this is defined by the use of different surface materials. The dwellings are oriented to face the street whilst the blocks of flats are also designed to overlook the associated parking areas, thereby creating active frontages maximising the potential for natural surveillance of the streetscene. Private gardens/amenity space are predominantly situated to the rear of the dwellings where they will be screened from the public domain and allow for a clear distinction between public/private space.
(ii) Scale and Height
8.78 Because of the scale of the buildings proposed, with the lower height buildings of the
proposals adjacent to the boundaries with existing houses adjacent to the site and the larger, three storey buildings as more focal points within the development, I consider the development would integrate well with neighbouring properties. This view is supported by the Urban Design Team Leader.
8.79 The building heights will vary through the site and will range from two storeys, with some
being two and a half storeys and the blocks of flats being three storey. The blocks of flats would all have a ridge height of approximately 11.5 metres, whilst the ridge height of the eight types of houses would vary between approximately 8.0 metres through to approximately 10.4 metres. The tallest house type is house type A (of which there are 6 proposed). These form the crescent development that curves round the proposed piazza and adjoin Eridge Road and a dental practice that fronts this as well as the existing property on Summervale Road, number 24, that adjoins the site to the east, which is owned by TCHG. The lowest height house type is type D (of which 4 are proposed), which are sited in the north west part of the site, at the end of the proposed ‘country lane’ on the site of some of the existing lock-up garages, immediately north of existing properties that front Summervale Road.
8.80 A variation in heights throughout the development is desirable as it adds variety and
visual interest to the streetscene. This view is supported by the Urban Design Team Leader who refers to this in his comments.
8.81 I am satisfied that the scale and massing of the buildings takes account of the local
context and the scale and nature of neighbouring properties.
(iii) Appearance and Materials 8.82 The proposal has been designed to carefully respond to the site context and seeks to
introduce a development that is high quality in design and appearance.
8.83 The form and style of the ‘architecture’, although not pastiche, does make use of local references in form and choice of materials. The proposals seek to restore the village/suburban character of the surrounding estate with articulated, small two and two-and-a-half storey houses in semi-detached pairs or short terraces of three. This is predominantly the pattern of the estate where the majority of dwellings are either semi-detached or in short terraces of four.
8.84 The development would have a modern, contemporary style but at the same time adopt traditional features of the estate, for example the attached steep gables and upper storey tile hanging are incorporated into the design of the proposed houses. A steep pitch and gable form has been selected to emphasise the individuality of dwellings and to create a picturesque and varied roofscape against the sky and the tree backdrop. The paired gable feature is a repeating feature across the estate and is utilised as part of the massing of the proposals. The jettied upper storey over porch entrances is also incorporated to maintain a modern crisp domestic character.
8.85 The appearance of the buildings and the good attention to boundary treatments, bin compounds and cycle storage will also add to the richness of the street-scene. A traditional palette of materials such as brick plinths and tile hanging and render is proposed. Through discussions during the course of the application, additional information has been submitted to show details of this. The Urban Design Team Leader has confirmed his support for the submitted details, but notes it is important that these are a suitable quality in order that the buildings should weather well, and stand the test of time. Samples of all external finishing materials can be sought by planning condition.
8.86 The proposals also include the provision of refuse storage, cycle storage and outbuildings
(possibly sheds). The locations and scale of these is acceptable and the precise details of these can be sought via planning condition.
(iii) Renewable energy and sustainable construction 8.87 In order to meet the Council’s requirement for at least 10% of a development’s energy
requirements to be met through on-site renewable energy provision, the applicant has confirmed that there will be photovoltaic (PV) installations on the roofs of the proposed dwellings. A plan showing the suggested locations for the PV panels has been provided. The Council’s Environmental Officer has been consulted but initially raise concerns about the effect of shading from trees, which affects the efficiency of the panels. Particular concern was raised about the impact on the panels shown on house H17, adjacent to the Oak tree and on other properties as a consequence of proposed new planting/existing planting.
8.88 In response the agent submitted a copy of a letter from the Energy assessor advising on the proposals. The Environmental Officer has been consulted on this. The comments received in response are reported above. The only remaining issue relates to the original energy figures. It is not clear whether these were provided based on the embedded style photovoltaic arrays and their performance and also whether the figures were run with sufficient shade factor. The Environmental Officer advises that further information on this should be provided and confirmed by planning condition if planning permission is granted. 8.89 I am satisfied with this in principle and consider that all matters of finer design detail on
position and precise type of PVpv installation can be dealt with by condition. 8.90 Furthermore, details of the water and energy conservation aspects of this application can
be secured by condition. 8.91 I am therefore satisfied that, subject to receiving further details via condition, aspects of
renewable energy and sustainability have been adequately addressed and that the proposals comply with Core Policy CP5 and Local Plan Policy EN1 and the Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning Document.
(iii) Internal space standards
8.92 The current properties provide a poor quality, restricted housing offer to residents and this
works against the aspirations to provide a balanced sustainable community. 8.93 The applicant has worked with the local community in the design of the house types. The
layout of the flats and all affordable dwellings generally, are designed to Lifetime Homes standards and meet current good practice guidance as per the HCA’s Design and Quality standards.
8.94 With regard to sizes, the existing flats have an internal area ranging from 30 square
metres for the 18 existing bedsits through to 80 square metres for the 14 existing 3 bed units. The proposed flats will be mostly 73 square metres in floor space (24 of the proposed 30 flats) with the remaining 6 flats being of 45 square metres in area. The floor area of the dwellings will vary according to the house type. The smallest house units (type F) will measure approximately 72 square metres. The largest house units (type A) will measure approximately 130 square metres).
8.95 The flats in Block B are designed to enable shared ownership, but to Lifetime Homes and HCA space standards. Dwellings which may be subject to future tenure adjustments are all designed to these standards, to enable up to 51% fully compliant affordable dwellings to be provided.
8.96 As well as creating more of a mixed community in terms of overall dwelling sizes according to bedrooms, this mix in floor area and design also offers a better standard of internal space than the existing.
8.97 The Council does not have any adopted internal space standards although Local Plan
Policy EN1 seeks to ensure that a good standard of amenity is provided for future occupants. I consider the proposals to demonstrate that the new homes on this development, particularly the affordable units, would be built to a good internal space and layout standard.
(vi) Landscape and open space
8.98 Local Plan Policy EN1 seeks the provision of landscaping, tree protection and planting in
new residential developments and Policy CR4 requires the urban landscape to be conserved and enhanced.
8.99 The existing landscape of the site is attractive and makes a positive contribution to the
wider estate, which has much mature landscaping and tree planting. Trees to the east adjacent to Eridge Road are important to the character and appearance of the approach into Tunbridge Wells. The proposal will result in the loss of existing trees on the site for example adjacent to the railway embankment. However, extensive re-planting is proposed and the latest comments (dated 22/03/12 from the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, in relation to landscape matters), advise that the proposals provide for a robust and deliverable strategy, further details for which can be dealt with by planning condition. The landscape strategy seeks to provide a cohesive landscape master plan incorporating design, materials and trees as well as ecological matters. Taken together this will, in my opinion, enhance the amenity value of the site and be a significant improvement in townscape terms.
Conclusions on design issues 8.100 The general approach to the redesign of this area has been carefully thought through and
well justified, in compliance with national and local aspirations to create high quality and inclusive design. The proposed layout, scale and appearance of the proposals and detailed elements of the development will accord with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Policies CP4 and 5, Local Plan Policies EN1 and the Kent Design Guide.
Residential amenity of existing and proposed dwellings 8.101 Local Plan Policy EN1 requires that proposals do not cause significant harm to the
residential amenities of adjoining occupiers, and would provide adequate residential amenities for future occupiers of the development.
8.102 During my assessment of this planning application I have visited adjoining residential
properties along Summervale Road. These are numbers 62, 62A, 62B 78 which are all residential dwellings and which adjoin the site to the south on its western side, numbers 66 / 68, 70/72, 74/76 which are maisonettes and again adjoin the site to the south on its western side. I have also visited number 78 Summervale Road. Numbers 22 and 24 are also residential dwellings and these lie to the south of the site on its eastern side. I have also visited Summervale Cottage sited adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site along Eridge Road. This is a dental practice with ancillary flat. My assessment of these is as follows:
Numbers 62, 62A, 62B, 66/68, 70/72, 74/76 and 78 Summervale Road 8.103 These properties currently do not back on to dwellings. They back on to the lock-up
garages/parking courts described previously. Under the proposals all these properties will back on to proposed dwellings to the north. The proposed dwellings would be house type B to the rear of numbers 62, 62A and 62B and house type D to the rear of numbers 66/68/70/72/74/76 and 78. As identified previously house type D are the units with the lowest ridge heights (approximately 8.0 metres) while house type B have an approximate ridge height of 9.5 metres. These are 2 and 3 bed units respectively.
8.104 These existing properties along Summervale Road have lengthy rear gardens –
approximate length of at least 24 metres. The proposed units to the north of these existing properties would have their own rear gardens abutting the northern boundary of these existing properties giving a building separation distance in excess of 31 metres.
8.105 The above factors lead me to conclude that the proposed dwellings would not have an
overbearing impact on these neighbours. These distances also mean that there would not be significant overlooking harmful to residential amenity. This is also a consequence of the design of the proposed rear (south) elevation of the type D housing, which has only one window at first floor level and this is shown to be obscure glazed. The type B units have two bedrooms windows on the rear but as stated, the distances mean that overlooking would not be significant.
8.106 Number 62 Summervale Road also adjoins one of the existing 3 storey blocks of flats to
the east. This existing block, one of the original 1950’s blocks has in my opinion, a significantly detrimental impact on this neighbour. The block is large and tall and has numerous windows on the rear facing directly into the garden of this neighbour. The proposals would see a significant improvement over this current situation. Adjoining number 62 to the east will now be a 3 bed unit (house type H) with a ridge height of approximately 9.2 metres. This would be turned at an angle to number 62 and would have a blank elevation towards number 62. Further down the rear garden number 62 would adjoin a parking court.
Numbers 22 and 24 Summervale Road 8.107 As with number 62 Summervale Road, this pair of properties adjoins one of the existing 3
storey blocks of flats, which again for the same reasons as before has in my opinion, a significantly detrimental impact on the amenities of these properties, particularly number 24.
8.108 Under the proposals, this pair of houses would adjoin the proposed Block B flats which
would be 3 storeys with a ridge height of approximately 11.5 metres. The rear garden of number 24 would also adjoin the curved units of the crescent, type A housing that are 4 bed units with an approximate ridge height of 10.4 metres. These houses would be angled away from number 24 due to the curved nature that is the crescent. These units would only have a single window facing to the side, being an obscure glazed bathroom window. The rear elevations of these units would comprise a bedroom window at first and second floor. These would be angled away from number 24.
8.109 The proposed Block B flats would have a bathroom window only facing number 24, which
can both be obscure glazed and controlled by planning condition. These windows are recessed slightly too.
8.110 As with number 62 Summervale Road, these two neighbouring properties will see a
significant improvement in terms of residential amenity. The proposed buildings would not have an overbearing effect on these neighbours and there will be a significant reduction in the number of windows.
8.111 Other properties within Summervale Road to the south of the site are separated from the
site by large open green areas and are consequently sufficiently far enough away from the application site that the proposal, in my opinion would have no direct impact upon them in terms of privacy issues and overbearing matters.
Summervale Cottage, Eridge Road 8.112 This property is not residential. It is a dental practice with an ancillary flat and car park.
Currently this building adjoins the pair of bungalows along with the eastern most block of 1980’s flats, which are to be demolished.
8.113 As a result of the proposals Summervale Cottage will be closest to the house type A units
of the crescent to the rear along with 4 type H houses, which are 3 bed units with a ridge height of approximately 9.2 metres. The dental practice has a distance in excess of 16 metres from its rear building line to the boundary of the application site. The units abutting the site will all be separated from Summervale Cottage by their rear gardens.
8.114 Due to the above factors I consider that the proposals will not have an overbearing effect
on this adjoining site. The distances also mean that there would not be significant overlooking. In any case it is noted that this property is commercial in nature and thus strictly speaking matters of residential amenity do not apply.
8.115 It is noted that only four neighbour representations have been received in response to the
proposals. Reported above, these raise concerns about parking and access to existing garages; tree planting and tree debris and parking along the verge on the green to the south of the site; as well as other matters that are either private matters between the neighbours and the applicant or matters that relate to construction phase only.
Future occupants of the proposed development 8.116 The proposed dwellings have been sited and designed so as to achieve reasonable levels
of privacy and to ensure that no relationships between the buildings cause problems of overshadowing or create an overbearing impact.
Conclusion on residential amenity 8.117 I conclude that the residential amenity of existing and future residents within and adjoining
the site would not be adversely affected and that Local Plan Policy EN1 has been complied with.
Other environmental considerations
8.118 The application is supported by a Land Contamination report. Environment and
Streetscene and the Environment Agency have both been consulted. Neither object to the proposals subject to planning conditions being attached if permission is granted. The recommendation below reflects this.
8.119 The application is also supported by a Noise Assessment. No objections have been
raised in response to this. 8.120 Environment and Streetscene has also advised that the proposals would not significantly
impact on air quality and that the site is not within an area of poor air quality.
8.121 The application was initially submitted without a supporting Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA). At the request of the Environment Agency a FRA was subsequently provided. The Environment Agency raises no objections to the application following consideration of the FRA and recommends planning conditions. This is reflected in my recommendation below.
8.122 Southern Water has made comments about the need to establish the exact position of the
combined foul and surface water sewers (which would affect the layout of the development). Planning conditions are recommended. The recommendation below reflects this.
8.123 The agent has also submitted a letter dated 3 May 2012 confirming that the sewers
crossing the site have been plotted with the Topograhical Survey and that the layout of buildings and roads conform with the easements set out in the letter from Sothern Water. In addition, landscape proposals conform with the conditions of the easements. The agent also advises that the conditions suggested by Southern Water and drainage easements will be included in any contractors requirements for development of the site.
8.124 I consider all of the above issues to be satisfactorily addressed by the proposals. Impacts during the demolition and construction stage 8.125 As this is a major development that involves the demolition of large buildings and
substantial construction works within a residential area, it is essential that the processes of demolition and construction are carefully managed.
8.126 A Demolition Statement is included at Appendix 1 of the submitted Design and Access
Statement. This sets out the approach that will be taken towards matters such as building security, asbestos, public rights of way, tree protection, ecology, underground services as well as works during the different phases and vehicle movements.
8.127 However, as is the normal approach with applications of this nature, it is recommended
that these matters are most appropriately resolved through the submission of details by way of planning conditions. This includes those recommended by consultees regarding for example hours of working and wheel cleaning.
Section 106 Agreement and Developer contributions 8.128 National Planning Policy Framework states that planning obligations (such as Section 106
agreements) should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests (as set out in The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010):
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. 8.129 The requirement for developments to provide or contribute towards the services for which
they create a need is set out in CP 1 of the Core Strategy. Specific policies regarding school and recreation provision are contained in Policies CS4 and R2 of the Local Plan.
The Borough Council's Recreation Open Space Supplementary Planning Document (2006) seeks both Youth and Adult Recreation Open Space provision and Children’s Open Space provision in this instance.
8.130 The scope of the Section 106 agreement will include the following:
8.140 Kent County Council (KCC) has a Guidance Note on Developer Contributions, although
this is not part of the development plan. The County Council are consulted on all applications and assess the need for various contributions towards County Council facilities.
8.141 The current position agreed with Kent County Council is as follows: 8.142 Developer contributions towards primary school places, libraries, youth facilities,
community learning and adult social services are required. These are:
Primary school - £367,204 (based on 62 residential units) Libraries - £2021.40 Youth facilities - £641.92 Community learning - £342.36 Adult Social Services - £605.16
8.143 Since being notified of the primary education sum requirement, the applicant has been in
discussion with KCC regarding justification for this substantial amount. KCC have confirmed verbally that the sum is arrived at by taking the starting point as there being no residential units on the application site and by applying their new formula (Integrated Infrastructure Finance Model (IIFM)) which calculates the sum with reference to the number of households. The LPA is of the view that this approach cannot be justified as there are 50 existing residential units on the site and whilst it is acknowledged that these are currently vacant they are capable of being re-occupied at any time without need for planning permission. The LAP therefore consider that the approach that meets the tests of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 would be for a contribution to offset the impact of the net gain only. Using the same formulaic approach as that applied by KCC this would result in a contribution of £71,072 being due.
8.144 If however the adopted formulaic approach that KCC have previously used (set out in
Kent County Council Guide to Development Contributions and Community Infrastructure adopted March 2007) is applied, this would give a net gain contribution requirement of £189,525. On the basis that KCC are seeking to apply a formula that takes its starting point that there are no residential units on the site then a sum of £216,177 would result.
8.145 As noted above it is officers’ view that the correct approach is to require a sum based on
the net increase. There is no justification for seeking contributions for a wholly vacant site when there are 50 units capable of immediate occupation already there. These units are only vacant as previous occupants have been relocated to enable the proposed redevelopment of the site. As the IIFM has not been adopted and therefore carries limited weight, officers consider that the correct contribution that should be secured to offset the impact of this development (net gain of 8.96 pupils) be £189,525. The applicant has agreed to meet this requirement.
8.146 With regard to the other KCC contributions requested (i.e. Libraries, Youth facilities, Community learning and Adult Social Services) the applicant has agreed to make these contributions through the Section 106 Agreement. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Youth and Adult Recreation Contributions 8.147 In respect of youth and adult recreation, a contribution towards off site provision is to be
secured through the Section 106 Agreement. The applicant has indicated that they will agree to make a financial contribution of £36,517. This is the full amount required by the Council’s Recreation Open Space SPD. The Section 106 Agreement is still under discussion but the Council has suggested that this contribution fund the installation of outdoor gym equipment at Calverley Grounds.
8.148 The applicant is also required to provide an offsite financial contribution towards
Children’s Open Space. In this instance a contribution of £45,306.45 is sought in line with the Recreation Open Space SPD. Again the applicant has agreed to make this contribution. The Council has suggested that this contribution be used to upgrade Children’s play facilities to a LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) at Eastland’s Road.
8.149 Taking into account the fact that the older persons accommodation proposed does not
attract a requirement for off-site open space, I am satisfied that these contributions would satisfy the requirements of Local Plan Policy R2 and the Recreation Open Space SPD.
8.150 The applicant has agreed to seek to provide 20% of the employment opportunities for
local employees (defined as : employees (including apprentices) contractors and sub-contractors within a 15 mile radius of the Development) in the construction of the development; to provide apprenticeship opportunities for local employees; to provide the Council with a copy of a monthly compliance audit report during construction; to include local companies on tender lists for works on the construction of the development; and to provide the Council with a record of local employees employed in the construction of the development.
9.0 CONCLUSION 9.01 The proposal is for a scheme of redevelopment to improve the quality of housing and
community facilities in this part of Ramslye. The scheme has very high aspirations in terms of design and will result in significant townscape benefits to the locality as well as benefits to the landscape and ecology. The development will deliver mixed tenure housing, of a size that satisfies local housing need. The proposals not only improve the quality of homes within the wider Ramslye Estate but also create additional homes to meet for demand for housing with Tunbridge Wells. The application is therefore recommended for approval, as set out below.
10.0 SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
There is no objection to the principle of the proposed development as the site is within the Limits to Built Development.
The density and amount of development is considered appropriate given the site context.
The mix of unit sizes is satisfactory and the development includes sufficient affordable housing to comply with Core Strategy and Local Plan Policy.
The scale, layout and design of the development would respect the context of the site and preserve the visual amenities of the locality.
On balance, taken overall, the proposals would not have an unduly adverse impact on trees and would enhance biodiversity.
Any potentially significant impacts on the amenities of nearby dwellings can be satisfactorily mitigated by conditions.
The traffic movements generated by the development could be accommodated without detriment to highway safety.
The development makes adequate provision for the parking of vehicles within the application site.
Renewable energy measures have been satisfactorily incorporated within the proposals.
Adequate S106 contributions are made to comply with the education and leisure impacts of the proposal.
Other environmental impacts have been assessed and there are not any which are potentially significant which cannot be controlled by conditions.
RECOMMENDATION – THAT OFFICER’S BE GIVEN DELEGATED POWERS TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO: (I) THE APPLICANT BE INFORMED THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE MINDED TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH (III) UNLESS, BY 31 AUGUST 2012, THE FREEHOLD OWNER ENTERS INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO COVER THE MATTERS SET OUT BELOW UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991, IN A FORM TO BE PREPARED BY THE HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES, IN WHICH CASE HE SHALL BE AUTHORISED, TO CONCLUDE SUCH AN AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING: (i) Provision of affordable housing to at least 35% of the total number of new dwellings.
(ii) Securing developer contributions upon commencement of development towards:
Kent County Council Requirements:
Primary Education Facilities - £189,525
Library Provision - £2021.40
Youth Facilities - £641.92
Community Learning - £342.36
Adult Social Services - £605.16 Borough Council Requirements:
Youth and Adult Recreation Open Space - £36,517
Children’s Play Space - £45,306.45 (iii) Use of local labour (II) IN THE EVENT OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT BEING MADE, THE HEAD OF PLANNING SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Standard/General Conditions (1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from
the date of this decision.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
PL45 (House Type A – pair) 1 – Roof Plan received 23 December 2011; PL05 (Type A Housing); PL06 (Type A Housing); PL07 (Type B Housing);PL08 (Type C Housing); PL09 (Type D Housing); PL10 (Type E Housing); PL11 (Type F Housing); PL12 (Type G Housing); PL13 (Type H Housing); PL14 revision A (Block A – Ground Floor Plan); PL15 revision A (Block A – 1st and 2nd Floor Plan); PL17 (Block B); PL18 (Block C); PL19 revision A (Block C); PL20 revision A (Block A); PL21 (Block B); PL22 (Block C); PL23 (Block A-East and North Elevations); PL24 (Block A – South and West Elevations); PL25 (Block B Elevations 1,2 and 3); PL26 (Block B Elevations 4,5 and 6); PL27 (Block C Elevations 1 and 2); PL28 (Block C Elevations 3 and 4); PL29 (Type A Housing); PL30 (Type A Housing); PL31 revision A (Type B Housing); PL32 (Type C Housing); PL33 revision A (Type D Housing); PL34 (Type E Housing); PL36 revision A (Type F Housing); PL37 revision A (Type G Housing); PL38 revision A (Type H housing); PL39 (Types H & E Housing); PL40 (Types H & E Housing); PL43 (Types H & E Housing); PL44 (Types H & E Housing); PL46 (Types H & E Housing); PL47 (Type G Housing);***
*** All received 6 January 2012 PL16 revision A (Block B); **** PL41 revision B (Proposed Street Elevations);**** **** Received 5 March 2012 PL62 revision I (Public Space Front of Site); ***** PL63 revision I (Crescent Public Space); ***** PL65 (Shared Surface Area and Parking, Detail Study 1):***** PL67 revision I (House – Detailed Axonometric Section/Elevation);***** PL68 revision I (Flats – Detailed Axonometric Section/Elevation);***** ***** All received 5 April 2012 PL01 revision C (Proposed Ground Floor Master Plan); PL02 revision C (Proposed First Floor); PL03 revision C (Proposed Second Floor); PL42 revision C (Proposed Street Elevations); PL04 revision B (Proposed Roof Plan); PL69 (Amended trees to north west of the site) All received 16 May 2012. Reason: To clarify which plans have been approved.
(3) No demolition or construction work shall take place before 0800hrs or after 1800hrs
Mondays – Fridays inclusive; before 0800hrs or after 1300hrs on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan. Pre-commencement Conditions
(4) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a phasing programme detailing the proposed order of works/development, including the provision of the affordable housing units, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the phasing programme unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To control the provision of the affordable housing units to ensure that the provision of these is made available at a reasonable stage in the construction of the development in accordance with Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy and Local Plan Policy H3.
(5) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved further details of the
following matters shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
- Proposed rainwater goods; - The proposed shopfront, shop fascia and roller shutter; - Proposed bollards; - Proposed seats and street furniture; - Street lighting including lighting details for the rural lane and any lighting that will serve
public footpaths, including Public Rights of Way across the site. This submission shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule of light equipment proposed (luminaire type; mounting height; aiming angles and luminaire profiles) as well as a maintenance schedule for lighting to the Public Rights of Way, which shall take place in perpetuity unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority;
- Details of a scheme for the removal of existing lighting no longer required to serve the the existing Public Rights of Way;
- Other lighting details as might be required such as external lighting in parking areas, fixed to buildings for example. Such details shall include details of appearance, height, illumination levels/light spillage and if applicable times during which the lighting would be used.
The approved works shall be carried out, installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.
Reason: In the interests of ecology and visual amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy.
(6) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the external lighting, which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval shall include details of appearance, height, illumination levels/light spillage and if applicable times during which the lighting would be used. The approved works shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to the variation. In the event of lighting not being provided at the construction phase of the development, no future external lighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority
Reason: In the interests of ecology and visual amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy.
(7) Written details including source/ manufacturer, and samples of all bricks, tiles and
cladding materials and any other materials to be used externally, including paving materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and the development shall be carried out using the approved external materials unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(8) Details of walls and fences to be erected within the development shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The walls and fences shall then be erected before the adjoining part of the development or dwelling is occupied in accordance with the approved details unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(9) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, detailed drawings to a
scale of 1:5 of the window details of the head, cill and jambs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance upon completion of the development in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(10) Prior to the erection of the building(s) hereby approved details for the proposed renewable
energy technologies within the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall include precise details of the energy figures and shade factor used to calculate these, manufacturer’s information on the Photovoltaic Panels proposed (their appearance and dimensions) as well as details of the precise siting of these on the roofs.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations in accordance with Core Policy 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010.
(11) Prior to the erection of the building(s) hereby approved, written details for water
conservation within the development, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of water conservation in accordance with policy EN1 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010.
(12) Prior to the erection of the building(s) hereby approved written and illustrative details for
energy conservation within the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations in accordance with Core Policy 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010.
(13) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme of measures
to protect drainage apparatus on the site shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To avoid pollution of the surrounding area in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Local Plan.
(14) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed
means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To avoid pollution of the surrounding area in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Local Plan.
(15) Prior to the operation of the premises, a scheme for the control of noise and vibration of
any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration, air conditioning and air handling units) to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall then be so installed prior to the first use of the premises. The equipment shall be maintained and operated in compliance to the approved scheme whenever it is operation. After installation of the approved plant, no new plant or ducting system shall be used without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority Reason: To prevent the transmission of noise and vibration into any neighbouring properties to protect amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(16) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme to
demonstrate that the internal noise levels within the residential units will conform to the "good" design range identified by BS 8233 1999, Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should take account of both the existing and proposed use of the adjoining railway line. The work specified in the approved scheme shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the premises and be retained thereafter.
Reason: In order to protect the occupiers of the dwellings from undue disturbance by noise in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(17) The ceiling and floor that separates the residential and commercial unit shall resist the
transmission of airborne sound such that the weighted standardised difference (DnT, W + Ctr) shall not be less than 53 decibels. The weighted standardised difference (DnT, W) and spectrum adaption term, Ctr, is quoted according to BS EN ISO 140- 4; 1998 Acoustics- Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements- Part 4: Field measurements of airborne sound insulation between rooms
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(18) Prior to the commencement of the development a Code of Construction Practice shall be
submitted to and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved Code of Construction Practice and BS5228 Noise Vibration and Control on Construction and Open Sites and the Control of dust from construction sites (BRE DTi Feb 2003).unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The code shall include:
An indicative programme for carrying out the works
Measures to minimise the production of dust on the site(s)
Measures to minimise the noise (including vibration) generated by the construction process to include the careful selection of plant and machinery and use of noise mitigation barrier(s)
Maximum noise levels expected 1 metre from the affected façade of any residential unit adjacent to the site(s)
Design and provision of site hoardings
Management of traffic visiting the site(s) including temporary parking or holding areas
Provision of off road parking for all site operatives
Measures to prevent the transfer of mud and extraneous material onto the public highway
Measures to manage the production of construction waste and to maximise the re-use of materials
Measures to minimise the potential for pollution of groundwater and surface water
The location and design of site office(s) and storage compounds
The location of temporary vehicle access points to the site(s) during the construction works
The arrangements for public consultation and liaison during the construction works.
Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(19) As an initial operation on site prior to the commencement of demolition or construction
works, adequate precautions shall be undertaken during the progress of the works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway in accordance with proposals to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such proposals shall including washing facilities, by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free from mud and similar substances. Such facilities as agreed shall be available and used before exiting the site and enter the adopted highway and shall remain throughout the period of demolition and construction unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that no mud or other material is taken from the site onto the neighbouring highway by wheels of vehicles leaving the site to the detriment of highway
safety and the amenities of local residents in accordance with Policies EN1 and TP4 of
the Local Plan.
(20) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed scheme of ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures for the site shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the following:
- Pre-commencement and construction mitigation measures;
- Bat emergence surveys to confirm the size and nature of the colony of pipistrelle bats and an associated mitigation strategy, which shall include the precise details of the proposed replacement bat roosts and bat boxes including the timing of when such works would be carried out, whether such works are temporary or permanent and whether these measures are like for like. Such measures should be clearly shown on a location plan;
- Details of a monitoring strategy for bats;
- Details of a monitoring strategy for enhancement measures;
- Mitigation measures including a receptor site for Herpetofauna;
- Details of a scheme to encourage wildlife gardening on the site through a scheme of education and awareness raising and targeted resources.
- The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect protected species and enhance the ecological value of the site and to maintain and enhance habitats on the site in the future in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy.
(21) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials including the proposed paving materials and revised soft landscape proposals including a revised planting schedule (which shall include an alternative species to Cherry Laurel)
Reason: In order to protect and enhance the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(22) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority; and any trees or plants whether new or retained which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(23) A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management
responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development. The details shall also include the area around the Oak tree (T6 adjacent to unit number H17). The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved unless previously agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the new landscaped areas are properly maintained in the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(24) The approved development shall be carried out in such a manner as to avoid damage to
the existing trees, including their root systems, and other planting to be retained by observing the following:
(a) All trees to be preserved shall be marked on site and protected during any operation
on site by temporary fencing in accordance with BS 5837:2012, and in accordance with a Tree Protection Plan and any Arboricultural Method Statement. These shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development to ensure these are to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such tree protection measures shall be constructed prior to the demolition phase of the development and shall remain throughout the period of demolition and construction;
(b) No fires shall be lit within the spread of branches or upwind of the trees and other vegetation;
(c) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches or Root Protection Area of the trees and other vegetation;
(d) No roots over 50mm diameter shall be cut, and no buildings, roads or other
engineering operations shall be constructed or carried out within the spread of the branches or Root Protection Areas of the trees and other vegetation;
(e) Ground levels within the spread of the branches or Root Protection Areas
(whichever the greater) of the trees and other vegetation shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, except as may be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(f) No trenches for underground services shall be commenced within the Root
Protection Areas of trees which are identified as being retained in the approved plans, or within 5m of hedgerows shown to be retained without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Such trenching as might be approved shall be carried out to National Joint Utilities Group recommendations.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(25) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an Arboricultural
method statement of proposed works to the Oak tree (T6 adjacent to the proposed unit labeled H17), including works to the crown spread and lateral works and other works proposed shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall also include a plan showing the works and detail on how works would be carried out within the Root Protection Area of the Oak tree. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(26) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an Arboricultural
Method Statement to comply with BS 5837 2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations) for works adjacent to the Oak tree (T6 adjacent to the proposed unit H17), shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(27) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of any services
to be laid within the Root Protection Areas of the trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include details to show that the services are to be laid with regard to National Joint Utilities Group Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees Volume 4. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
Other Conditions
(28) The development to which this consent relates shall be constructed at the level indicated on the approved drawings unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(29) The existing trees and shrubs shown on the approved plan, other than any shown to be
removed, shall not be lopped, topped, felled, uprooted or wilfully destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority, and any planting removed without such consent shall be replaced within 12 months with suitable stock, adequately staked and tied and shall thereafter be retained to the satisfaction of the Authority for a period of 5 years.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(30) The 12 flats hereby permitted in ‘Block A’ shall be occupied by persons of 55 years of age or older only.
Reason: The requirements for developer contributions have been influenced by the nature of the proposed use of these 12 flats, which has intended occupation of these 12 flats by elderly persons, in accordance with Policies R2 and CS4 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 1 of the Core Strategy.
(31) No development shall take place until further details of the bicycle storage facilities
including elevations and their Eco Green Roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bicycle storage shall be completed prior to first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the provision and retention of adequate off-street parking facilities for bicycles in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies EN1 and TP5 of the Local Plan.
(32) Before any building is first occupied, further details of the proposals for the storage and
screening of refuse, including Eco Green Roofs where applicable, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall also include the proposed refuse and waste storage proposals for the Post Office/convenience store. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To facilitate the collection of refuse, preserve visual amenity and to reduce the occurrence of pests in accordance with Policy EN1of the Local Plan.
(33) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by RPS dated February 2012 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
1. Limiting the surface water runoff generated by the 100 year plus climate change
critical storm so that it will not exceed existing runoff from the site (FRA Sections 8 and 9). Permeable paving will be used for additional storage as shown on Drawing No. RG01 (Indicative foul and surface water drainage concept, FRA Section 9 and Appendix D).
2. Ground finished floor levels will be raised a minimum of 150mm above surrounding ground levels (FRA, Section 8).
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water runoff from the site and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Policy EN18 of the Local Plan.
(34) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at
the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To avoid pollution of the surrounding area in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Local Plan.
(35) No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted unless agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the underlying groundwater from potential pollution in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Local Plan.
(36) Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the underlying groundwater from potential pollution in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Local Plan.
(37) The Highway shall be stopped up prior to commencement of works on site.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies EN1 and TP4 of the Local Plan.
(38) The pedestrian and vehicular access shown on the approved plans shall be laid out and
constructed concurrently with the carrying out of the development to which it relates and brought into use before first occupation or use of the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policies EN1 and TP4 of the Local Plan.
(39) The area shown on the approved drawings as vehicle parking space (including communal
parking courts, which shall be retained as such), garages and turning shall be provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the dwellings are first occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the development, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.
Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users in accordance with Policies EN1 and TP5 of the Local Plan.
(40) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 or the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be carried out within Classes A, B,C,E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), without prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of protecting the character and amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(41) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, no windows or other openings other than those shown on the approved drawings shall be inserted in the elevations or the roofs of the dwellings hereby approved.
Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
Informatives: 1) This development is also the subject of an Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990. 2) Your attention is drawn to the Council's Environmental Code of Development Practice for
Construction Sites, the terms of which should be met in carrying out the development. 3) Attention is drawn to the document: The control of dust and emissions from construction
and demolition – Best Practice Guidance. The developer should consult this document as it provides a good resource on how to minimise impacts from dust during construction and demolition.
4) The applicant is required to enter into a formal agreement with Kent Highway Services
under Section 278 and Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. 5) Should any sewer be found during construction works, Southern Water requires an
investigation of the sewer to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site.
6) The applicant is required to enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide
the necessary sewerage infrastructure or to connect to the public sewerage system in order to service this development.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL: (III) IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO ENTER INTO SUCH AGREEMENT BY 31 AUGUST
2012, THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS (UNLESS A LATER DATE BE AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES):
(1) The proposal would not provide affordable housing and would therefore conflict with Core
Policy 6 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy H3 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.
(2) The proposal would not provide developer contributions towards Primary School
provision, Youth Facilities, Libraries, Community Learning and Adult Social Services, as requested by Kent County Council, and would therefore conflict with Core Policy CP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy CS4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.
(3) The proposal would not provide developer contributions towards Youth and Adult
Recreation Open Space and would therefore conflict with Core Policy CP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy R2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.
(4) The proposal would not provide developer contributions towards Children’s Recreation
Open Space and would therefore fail to comply with Core Policy CP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy R2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.
Reference: EG/SM NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant
Public Access pages on the council’s website.
The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.
