Resolved that application 20220839 be REFUSED due to the layout of the proposed dwellings and height of Building D (11-unit apartment block situated to the north of the site) being out of keeping with the character of the local built environment and resulting in overdevelopment of the site, contrary to Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

The Committee considered application 20220839 – Cobham Lodge, Valley Drive, Gravesend.  This was for the following:

·         conversion of the existing house into to 10no. flats including side and rear extension and loft conversion;

·         conversion of rear annex building to 2no. dwelling houses including proposed new dormers;

·         construction of new apartment building to form 11no.new apartments; and

·         construction of 8no. semi-detached and 1no.detached houses and associated development.

The Chair confirmed that since the report had been published for presentation, a new document had been received the day prior to the meeting but advised the Committee that this should not be taken into consideration as it was received at such a late date.  However, the information received raised no new material planning considerations.

The Planning Officer advised Members that consultee comments from KCC as Lead Local Flood Authority had been received following their review of the Surface Water Management Strategy with no objections raised.  In relation to public responses received on this application, there had been 416 objections and 118 in favour of the proposed development.  The Committee were also advised that some comments against the application had been withdrawn.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that there had been a previous application for the site that was refused in January 2020. Following the refusal, the applicant had worked with a new architect and engaged with the Planning Department with a pre-application enquiry prior to submitting the application that was before Members.

The Planning Officer presented the findings from the proposed unit size assessment outlined in the report and advised that in the most part these met the standards required, with exception to flats A.1, A.4, A.5 and A.8 which fell short of the minimum gross internal floor area, however the individual room sizes, as well as the provision of storage accorded with the standards, and would provide a good level of accommodation.

It was noted that the proposed plans offered two pocket parks, offering community space for the residents.  These open spaces also mitigated the shortfall of open space provided with the units.  Members were advised that the rear eastern side of the plot fell within green belt.  There were a number of trees within the site with Tree Preservation Orders (TPO).

The Planning Officer highlighted that the proposed development would provide 31 additional new homes within Gravesham, therefore offering a significant contribution towards the local need for housing and should be accorded significant weight.

The proposed development was deemed to be a sustainable form of development that accorded with national and local planning policy, apart from in relation to the delivery of affordable housing as it was not deemed financially viable.  However, the applicant had confirmed they would as part of the Section 106 agreement, agree to undertake a review of the viability of the scheme to ascertain if it was possible to make financial contributions towards affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.

It was recommended that the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement and planning conditions as set out in the report.

Members were invited to ask questions for clarification and raised the following:

·         Members asked for further information regarding the Pathfinder findings set out in the report, and why it was not viable for the applicant to provide affordable housing, as the report indicated that there was sufficient value for both the provision of affordable housing and income for the applicant.  The Service Manager (Planning) informed the Committee that the applicant had disagreed with the Pathfinder findings, as their assessment had not taken into consideration the annex which improved the valuation of the property. In addition, since the assessment had been undertaken there had been increased borrowing, building, material and labour costs that had to be taken into consideration.  The Service Manager (Planning) informed Members that as part of the Section 106 Agreement, the applicant had agreed to a clawback mechanism, so that if possible, they would contribute towards the delivery of affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough. This clawback would be based on reviewing actual costs and revenues.

·         Further clarification was sought regarding room and garden sizes.  The Planning Officer confirmed all units met either the National Standards or Gravesham Space Standards guidelines. Most units met the National Standards, with the exception of a few flats which fell short of these, but due to the overall good room sizes, this mitigated the overall size short fall of these particular flats.  Gardens were also a short fall but these were considered adequate due to the open space provided through the pocket parks.

·         Questions were asked as to why there was unallocated parking within the plans.  The Planning Officer advised this was only in the case of flats and explained that after consultation with KCC, it was suggested that unallocated spaces offered flexibility with some residents not having cars.  All houses on the proposal would have parking.

·         The Chair took a question for clarification from a non-board Member.  It was queried how many comments against the application were withdrawn.  The Planning Officer advised that 2 were retracted.  It was also queried if the notion to claw back funds through a Section 106 Agreement and reallocate the funding for affordable housing elsewhere, had been done previously within the borough.  The Service Manager (Planning) informed the Committee this had happened before and most recently at the old cinema site in King Street.

The Committee heard the views of registered speakers for and against the application and had their questions answered.

The Committee heard the views of Councillors Sarah Gow and Diane Morton, Ward Councillors for Singlewell and Councillor Jordan Meade, Ward Councillor for Woodlands.

Following discussion, the Committee raised the following points and concerns:

·         Whether it was acceptable to approve this development without the provision of affordable housing and if this was contravening planning policy.  Some Members felt the proposed development should have the provision of affordable housing due to the large number of dwellings on the design.  The Service Manager (Planning) explained to Members that the applicant had undertaken a viability assessment that showed the provision of affordable housing being unviable.  The Service Manager (Planning) went on to say that the local authority was required by Government to approve applications that were considered unviable financially for affordable housing, as it does not mean the proposed development itself was unviable.  The Committee were advised that due to market issues and rise in inflation this would be an issue that would be raised for future developments. 

·         Members felt the proposed development was overlooking the neighbouring garden and out of character to the area.  The Planning Officer informed Members that when looking at the entire area, Sheldon Heights and Watling Court were in the vicinity of Valley Drive and so the proposed flats would not be out of place.  With regards to being overlooked, the Planning Officer explained that the flats had been designed with windows looking into the development rather than into neighbouring properties, with the windows on the east side having obscured glazing to minimise the impact of adjacent properties being overlooked.

·         Flat sizes were a concern for Members, where some met local standards but fell short on national size standards.  The Planning Officer addressed this and informed the Committee that assessment of sizes were based on the bed sizes shown.  Therefore, if a unit was designed for 1 person, and had shown a single bed, rather than a double bed as shown, standards would be met both locally and nationally. The Planning Officer advised that this could be addressed via a condition.

·         It was noted that there were extensive TPO conditions within the application and it was queried how the trees would be protected during the construction work.  The Planning Officer informed Members that there were a number of protected trees on the site, and all would remain.  The conditions proposed including the condition on a construction management plan would ensure that no development would occur within the root area of each protected tree.

·         There was concern by Members that permitting this application may set a precedence, for back garden developments, leading to overdevelopment.  The Planning Officer advised that planning applications were determined on their own merit.

Resolved that application 20220839 be REFUSED due to the layout of the proposed dwellings and height of Building D (11-unit apartment block situated to the north of the site) being out of keeping with the character of the local built environment and resulting in overdevelopment of the site, contrary to Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework  (2021).