Agenda item

20220052 - 55 Rochester Road, Gravesend, Kent

Decision:

Resolved that the application be REFUSED Planning Permission for the following reasons:

 

  1. The proposals would result in three storey flat roof development that would be out of character with the area and would constitute an overdevelopment of the existing site and would be incongruous considering the existing pattern of development and the character of the predominantly residential area. It is therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the wider locality and would contravene Policies CS14, CS15 and CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy September 2014 which ensure new development will integrate well with the surrounding local area. At a national level the proposed development would also contravene paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which states 'developments will add to the overall quality of the area; are visually attractive as a result of good architecture; and are sympathetic to the local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation o change (such as increased densities)'.

 

  1. The proposed flats fail to offer the space required for adequate living accommodation to the detriment of future occupants and the enjoyment of these dwellings contrary to Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy 2014 and paragraph 130f of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

  1. The proposal would result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the residents of the surrounding properties and in particular, Nos. 51 and 53 Rochester Road, in terms of increase overlooking and loss of privacy and a dominant and overbearing impact due to the increase in height and bulk, contrary to Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy 2014 and paragraph 130f of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

  1. The proposal fails to secure a contribution towards strategic mitigation measures within Special Protection Areas, and in the absence of this contribution or adequate information to inform an Appropriate Assessment, the development fails to comply with the requirements of the Habitat Regulations and Section 14 (specifically paragraphs 180 and 181) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and Policy CS12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014.

 

INFORMATIVES

 

1.         DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the decision to refuse this application was taken in relation to the following forms, plans and documents comprising the application:

 

Planning Application Form;

Design and Access Statement;

Drawing No. 039-P-001 – Site Location & Site Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-010 – Existing Ground Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-011 – Existing First Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-012 – Existing Second Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-013 – Existing Roof Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-020 – Existing West Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-021 – Existing North Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-022 – Existing South Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-023 – Existing East Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-040 – Existing West Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-042 – Existing South Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-043 – Existing East Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-041 – Existing North Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-100 – Proposed Site Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-110 – Proposed Ground Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-111 – Proposed First Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-112 – Proposed Second Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-113 – Proposed Roof Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-115 – Proposed Front Car Parking Access;

Drawing No. 039-P-120 – Proposed West Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-121 – Proposed North Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-122 – Proposed South Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-123 – Proposed East Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-140 – Proposed West Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-141 – Proposed North Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-142 – Proposed South Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-143 – Proposed East Car Park Elevation; and

Drawing No. 039-P-150 – Proposed Planting Plan.

 

2.         STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING

 

In accordance with Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), and paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021, the Local Planning Authority has approached the assessment and determination of this application in a positive and creative way and, where appropriate, has worked pro-actively with the applicant to secure a development that is sustainable and that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area, and that is in accordance with the Development Plan for the area.

 

In this instance, the application is contrary to local and national planning policy and the planning objections could not be overcome by amendments to the scheme or through the imposition of acceptable and appropriate planning conditions.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered 20220052 in relation to 55 Rochester Road, Gravesend, Kent. 

 

The applicationwas for the construction of a third floor extension to facilitate the conversion of the existing roof penthouse to form 2 flats and reconfiguration of the parking layout.

 

The Team Leader (Development Management) introduced application 20220052 to the Committee and highlighted key points from the report.

 

  • No pre-application discussions were had for this development prior to the application being submitted.
  • Since the publication of the report, the SAMMS tariff has increased to £275.88 per dwelling from 1 April 2022.
  • The site originally contained a bungalow and when the flats were approved careful consideration of the street scene was taken into account.  This resulted in a two-storey development in the roof space in keeping with the bungalow to the left and right of the property.
  • In section 2 of the report the extensive planning history is set out. In 2020 an application for an erection of an additional 3 x 3 bedroom self-contained flats, relocation of 5no. car parking spaces and creation of 3no. additional car parking spaces was refused and an appeal was dismissed in 2021. In 2021 another application for the relocation of 5no. carparking spaces and erection of 3no. 2 bedroom self-contained flats and 3no. additional car parking spaces was refused and an appeal has been lodged awaiting an decision.  Later in 2021 an application for the relocation of 5no. car parking spaces and proposal of 2no. single storey dwellings and 3no. additional car parking spaces with ancillary works was refused by the Planning Committee. 
  • The proposed changes to create a 3-storey flat roof building is not in character with the local area and will provide a net gain of only one unit.
  • The second floor is revised to accommodate an additional dwelling with the layout matching the existing layout at ground and first floor. 
  • As set out in section 6.35 of the report, each flat is substandard in size and would provide substandard living conditions for future occupiers.
  • With regards to the impact on the surrounding properties this is addressed in section 6.41 – 6.47 of the report and it is considered that the proposed building would result in an additional storey to the building resulting in a large three storey building within close proximity to single storey dwellings. 
  • The resulting bulk and massing of the building would have an overbearing and dominant impact on the surrounding properties and gardens and would be considered to be intrusive on the occupants of the adjacent dwellings.
  • It is clear from the report at paragraph 6.23 to 6.33 that the design is contrary to policy which states:

the development is considered to constitute overdevelopment of the site which would result in a dominant and incongruous built form, out of character within the existing streetscene.  It is therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the wider locality and would contravene Policies CS14, CS15 and CS19 (LPCS)

  • The approved landscaping scheme for application 20190345 has not been implemented.  The Planning Enforcement Team have an investigation open regarding the implementation of the soft landscaping to the rear.
  • In conclusion, whilst the net gain of one dwelling would offer minimal contribution towards the housing supply, it would not outweigh the following harm
    • character and appearance of the area,
    • the living conditions of neighbouring residents
    • residential living environment for future residents

 

In response to Members’ clarification questions on the application, the Team Leader (Development Management) explained that the following:

 

  • The proposed height of the building, in the middle of the property, would not exceed 3m which is the height of the current pitch of the roof.
  • The Chair asked what changes have been made regarding the Planning Inspector’s comments, when it went to appeal on the original development. The Planning Inspector sited character and appearance of the area and the relationship with the development.  The Team Leader (Development Management) explained that the previous scheme was for backland development to the rear of the site, whilst this scheme is dealing solely with development to the front. Therefore, issues that the Inspector had identified do not relate to this application, but there are new issues with the impact on the street scene on Rochester Road.
  • Following a question about neighbours being overlooked, there is an alley to the east of the site and a garage to the west.  The neighbours will not be directly overshadowed but the development will be overbearing. 
  • When the overall height of the building which is above the height of the dormers was built in 2008, there was concern of overlooking which was overcome by ensuring the dormers were set in from within the ridge line and in from the eves.  This scheme introduces a much higher degree of overlooking and will harm the amenity of neighbouring properties. The scheme in 2008 was dealt with under the previous National Planning Policy and this scheme is under the current NPPF and Corporate Strategy.

 

TheTeam Leader(Development Management)fielded questionsfrom Membersand  the following items were discussed:

 

  • As set out in paragraph 6.35 of the report it showed that Flats 5 and 6 are 63.11sqm which falls below the national standard of 70sqm.  This would create substandard living arrangement for future occupiers. 
  • Looking at the proposed front elevation in paragraph 6.14 of the report the proposal is for two full sized balconies to be installed instead of two smaller dormer windows on the existing proposal.
  • The Vice Chair proposed to move the application in line with the Officers recommendation and Cllr Lane seconded the proposal.

 

Resolved that the application be REFUSED Planning Permission for the following reasons:

  1. The proposals would result in three storey flat roof development that would be out of character with the area and would constitute an overdevelopment of the existing site and would be incongruous considering the existing pattern of development and the character of the predominantly residential area. It is therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the wider locality and would contravene Policies CS14, CS15 and CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy September 2014 which ensure new development will integrate well with the surrounding local area. At a national level the proposed development would also contravene paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which states 'developments will add to the overall quality of the area; are visually attractive as a result of good architecture; and are sympathetic to the local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation o change (such as increased densities)'.

 

  1. The proposed flats fail to offer the space required for adequate living accommodation to the detriment of future occupants and the enjoyment of these dwellings contrary to Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy 2014 and paragraph 130f of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

  1. The proposal would result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the residents of the surrounding properties and in particular, Nos. 51 and 53 Rochester Road, in terms of increase overlooking and loss of privacy and a dominant and overbearing impact due to the increase in height and bulk, contrary to Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy 2014 and paragraph 130f of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

  1. The proposal fails to secure a contribution towards strategic mitigation measures within Special Protection Areas, and in the absence of this contribution or adequate information to inform an Appropriate Assessment, the development fails to comply with the requirements of the Habitat Regulations and Section 14 (specifically paragraphs 180 and 181) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and Policy CS12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014.

 

INFORMATIVES

 

1.         DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the decision to refuse this application was taken in relation to the following forms, plans and documents comprising the application:

 

Planning Application Form;

Design and Access Statement;

Drawing No. 039-P-001 – Site Location & Site Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-010 – Existing Ground Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-011 – Existing First Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-012 – Existing Second Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-013 – Existing Roof Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-020 – Existing West Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-021 – Existing North Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-022 – Existing South Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-023 – Existing East Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-040 – Existing West Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-042 – Existing South Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-043 – Existing East Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-041 – Existing North Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-100 – Proposed Site Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-110 – Proposed Ground Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-111 – Proposed First Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-112 – Proposed Second Floor Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-113 – Proposed Roof Plan;

Drawing No. 039-P-115 – Proposed Front Car Parking Access;

Drawing No. 039-P-120 – Proposed West Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-121 – Proposed North Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-122 – Proposed South Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-123 – Proposed East Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-140 – Proposed West Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-141 – Proposed North Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-142 – Proposed South Car Park Elevation;

Drawing No. 039-P-143 – Proposed East Car Park Elevation; and

Drawing No. 039-P-150 – Proposed Planting Plan.

 

2.         STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING

 

In accordance with Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), and paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021, the Local Planning Authority has approached the assessment and determination of this application in a positive and creative way and, where appropriate, has worked pro-actively with the applicant to secure a development that is sustainable and that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area, and that is in accordance with the Development Plan for the area.

 

In this instance, the application is contrary to local and national planning policy and the planning objections could not be overcome by amendments to the scheme or through the imposition of acceptable and appropriate planning conditions

 

Refusal:           Unanimous

 

Supporting documents: