Public reports pack PDF 9 MB - Gravesham Borough Council

Public Document Pack 

Regulatory Board 

Members of the Regulatory Board of Gravesham Borough Council are summoned to attend a 

meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend, Kent on Wednesday, 24 June 

2009 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be 

transacted. 

S Kilkie 

Assistant Director (Communities) 

Agenda 

1. Apologies 

Part A 

Items likely to be considered in Public 

2. To sign the Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 1 - 10) 

3. To declare any interests members may have in the items contained on this 

agenda. When declaring an interest, members should state what their 

interest is. 

4. To consider whether any items in Part A of the Agenda should be 

considered in private or the items in Part B (if any) in Public 

5. Planning applications for determination by the Board 

The plans and originals of all representations are available for inspection 

in during normal office hours and in the committee room for a period of 

one hour before commencement of the meeting. 

a) GR/2009/0144 & GR/2009/0145 - Chequers Inn Public House, 

Church Street, Higham, Kent. 

(Pages 11 - 22) 

b) GR/2009/0192 - 307 Wrotham Road, Istead Rise, Northfleet, Kent. (Pages 23 - 32) 

c) GR/2009/0347 - Cygnet House, 132 Windmill Street, Gravesend, 

Kent. 

d) GR/2009/0396 - Cygnet House, 132 Windmill Street, Gravesend, 

Kent. 

(Pages 33 - 52) 

(Pages 53 - 58) 

Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU

e) GR/2009/0411 - Cygnet House, 132 Windmill Street, Gravesend, 

Kent. 

(Pages 59 - 78) 

f) GR/2009/0424 - 5 Clarendon Road, Gravesend, Kent. (Pages 79 - 88) 

g) GR/2009/0410 - Copperfields, Wrotham Road, Meopham, 

Gravesend, Kent. 

6. Planning applications determined under delegated powers by the Director 

(Business) 

A copy of the schedule has been placed in the democracy web library 

and also in the Members’ room. 

http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/democracy/ecCatDisplay.aspsch=doc&ca 

t=12911&path=0,480&J=2 

(Pages 89 - 98) 

7. Any other business which by reason of special circumstances the 

Chairman is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency. 

8. Exclusion 

To move, if required, that pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local 

Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded from any items 

included in Part B of the agenda because it is likely in view of the nature 

of business to be transacted that if members of the public are present 

during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt 

information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. 

Part B 

Items likely to be considered in Private 

None. 

Members 

Cllr Harold Craske (Chairman) 

Cllr Robin Theobald (Vice-Chairman) 

Councillors: 

Conrad Broadley 

Kenneth Jones 

Alex Moore 

Michael Wenban 

John Burden 

Jane Cribbon 

Susan Howes 

Substitutes: 

Leslie Hills 

Bronwen McGarrity 

Patricia Oakeshott 

Ronald Bowman 

Derek Sales 

Richard Smith

Page 1 

Agenda Item 2 

Regulatory Board 

Wednesday, 27 May 2009 

7.00pm 

Present: 

Cllr Harold Craske (Chairman) 

Cllr Robin Theobald (Vice-Chairman) 

Cllrs: 

Leslie Hills 

Kenneth Jones 

Alex Moore 

Michael Wenban 

John Burden 

Jane Cribbon 

Susan Howes 

Note: Cllrs Ronald Bowman, Raymonde Collins and Patricia Oakeshott were also in 

attendance 

Martin Goodman 

Peter Price 

Richard Hart 

Rob Bright 

Carlie Plowman 

Rhian Llewelyn 

Corporate Lawyer 

Principal Planner 

Senior Planning Officer 

Senior Engineer (Development) 

Committee & Scrutiny Assistant 

Trainee Solicitor 

1. Apologies 

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Conrad Broadley. Cllr Leslie Hills attended 

as his respective substitute. 

2. Minutes 

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2009 were signed by the Chairman. 

3. Declarations of Interest 

No declarations were made. 

4. GR/2009/0128 - Land rear of 8-24 Cruden Road and 28-46 Thong Lane, 

Gravesend, Kent 

The Chairman advised the Board that this application was withdrawn by the Agent prior to 

the meeting. 

1

Page 2 

Regulatory Board 27.05.2009 

5. GR/2009/0215 - Land to rear of Theatre Guild, Vale Road/Thames Way, 

Northfleet, Kent 

The Board considered application GR/09/0215 for the demolition of storage building and 

erection of a temporary building to provide a primary care medical centre for a temporary 

period of five years; provision of bin stores and laying out of a total of 12 car parking spaces 

which are to remain following the removal of the temporary buildings. 

Resolved that application GR/09/0215 be granted TEMPORARY PERMISSION 

subject to:- 

(1) the temporary building hereby permitted shall be removed from the site 

including any foundations or slab to accommodate the building not later than 

5 years from the date of this permission; 

(2) the temporary building hereby permitted shall be used as a primary medical 

care centre within Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) 

Order 1987 as amended and for no other purpose; 

(3) the car parking area shown on the approved drawing, including any access 

and turning areas shall be formed, surfaced, drained and marked out in 

accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved by the Local 

Planning Authority prior to the bringing into use of the temporary building 

hereby permitted; thereafter it shall be used for and kept available for such 

use for the duration of the use of the building hereby permitted; 

(4) full details of all boundary treatments to the site shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the 

commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the approved details before the temporary building hereby 

permitted is brought into use; 

(5) full details of all surface treatments and soft landscaping to the site shall be 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before 

the commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out 

in accordance with the approved details before the temporary building hereby 


(6) full details of the pedestrian route from Thames Way including the re-siting of 

the existing kissing gate, if required, as well as access and any gates to 

enable access for emergency and maintenance to the urban country park 

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 

before the commencement of the development; the development shall be 

carried out in accordance with the approved details before the temporary 

building hereby permitted is brought into use; 

(7) the rating level of the noise emitted from any plant and equipment associated 

with this site (other than noise from the exit or entry of road vehicles), shall 

not exceed the existing background noise level by more than 5dB. The noise 

levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The 

measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:1997; 

2

Page 3 


(8) the building hereby permitted shall be open to patients and the public as a 

primary care medical centre between the hours of 8am and 8pm only on any 

day; 

(9) full details of any lighting to the site or building shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the 

commencement of the development; the development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the approved details before the temporary building hereby 


(10) full details of the finished ground levels of the building hereby permitted 

including the method of construction shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the 

development; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the 

approved details before the temporary building hereby permitted is brought 

into use; 

(11) if any significant ground works are proposed in connection with this temporary 

planning permission, the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, shall, 

before the development commences, secure the implementation of a 

programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification 

and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local 

Planning Authority; 

(12) the developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with 

Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect/divert 

the public sewers, prior to the commencement of the development; 

(13) construction of the development shall not commence until details of the 

proposed means of surface water disposal have been submitted to and 

approved by the Local Planning Authority. An acceptable method would be 

connection to mains sewer. All foul drainage must discharge directly to mains 

foul sewer; 

(14) prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning 

permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in 

writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a 

scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall 

each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning 

Authority:- 

(a) 

a preliminary risk assessment which has identified:- 

- all previous uses 

- potential contaminants associated with those uses 

- a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways 

and receptors 

- potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the 

site. 

(b) 

a site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a 

detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, 

including those off site; 

3

Page 4 


(c) 

(d) 

the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, 

based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving 

full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to 

be undertaken; 

a verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in 

order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and 

identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant 

linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. 

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local 

Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 

(15) the development hereby permitted shall incorporate some or all of the 

following building design measures:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(d) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

the provision of gas impermeable membrane in a competent floor 

slab; 

above ground entry of services such that the floor slab is maintained 

intact; 

the sealing of service ducts and entry points against the ingress of 

landfill gases. It is advisable that service junctions into buildings 

should be through vented junction boxes; 

the provision of below floor venting by active or passive means. 

Passive means are by provision of air vents in outer walls to the below 

floor airspace. Air flow can be improved by adding vertical stacks 

incorporating a rotating cowl if required. Active venting is by means of 

positive ventilation systems. Air vents in passive systems must be 

kept free of any growth, a concentrate apron around the outer wall 

may secure this provision; 

the provision of methane and carbon dioxide gas monitors/alarms in 

below floor spaces and dead air spaces within the building; 

the provision of open hole windows in all occupied buildings; 

further measures to protect the site as a whole may include gas 

venting trenches and open grassed areas. 

The need for such measures shall be determined on the basis of existing data 

from current and previous monitoring of land fill gas by Kent County Council. 

Details of the building design measures shall be submitted to and approved 

by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the 

development. 

(16) floor levels of the units should be set a minimum of 300mm above local 

ground level; 

4

Page 5 


(17) details of a satisfactory method of anchoring the units should be provided 

before the commencement of the development; the development shall be 

carried out in accordance with the approved details; 

(18) a safe access route to the north, away from the flood zone should be 

identified. 

INFORMATIVES: 

INFORMATIVE: REASONS FOR GRANT OF PERMISSION 

1. Having regard to all relevant material planning considerations, permission 

has been granted because, subject to compliance with the planning 

conditions, the development would not materially harm any interest of 

acknowledged importance. 

2. The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals of 

the development plan and in particular: 

Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994: 

Proposal PM10: Vale Road and Springhead Road, Northfleet 

Proposal PLT1: Additional Open Space including Public Open Space 

and/or Playing Fields 

Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) Deposit Version 2000: 

Policy LT2: Green Grid Site Protection 

Policy SC1: Social and Community Strategy and Provision Policy 

NE23: 

Tidal Flood Risk Area 

South East Plan 2009: 

Policy S2: Promoting Sustainable Health Services 

Policy S6: Community Infrastructure 

Policy KTG6: Flood Risk 

Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006: 

Policy QL12: Provision for New Community Services and 

Infrastructure 

Policy QL17: Green-Space Networks and Rights of Way 

Policy NR10: Development and Flood Risk 

3. In addition the Local Planning Authority had regard to:- 

Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998. 

Central Government Planning Policy Guidance. 

INFORMATIVE: COMMERCIAL REFUSE ARRANGEMENTS 

Storage facilities provided shall be of sufficient capacity having regard to the quantity 

of waste produced and the frequency of waste collection. All waste shall be removed 

from site on a regular basis by a licensed waste carrier and disposed of at a licensed 

waste disposal site. 

5

Page 6 


INFORMATIVE: COMMERCIAL REFUSE ARRANGEMENTS - ADVISORY 

NOTES 

Compliance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Duty of Care) is essential. 

Advice on Solid Waste Management can be obtained from Waste Services on 

(01474) 337533. 

INFORMATIVE: WORKS OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE 

Code of Practice for construction/demolition sites within the Borough of Gravesham - 

append to decision 

INFORMATIVE: PUBLIC SEWER 

Southern Water advise that:- 

No development or new tree planting should be located within 3 metres either side of 

the centreline of the public sewer. 

All existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of construction 

works. 

No new soakaways should be located within 5m of a public sewer. 

Note: (1) 

Alan Weston, agent for the applicant, addressed the Board. 

(2) Alan Bishton, representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. 

(3) Cllr Oakeshott spoke with leave of the Chairman. 

6. GR/2009/0144 & GR/2009/0145 - Land at former and to the rear of the 

Chequers Inn Public House, Church Street, Higham, Kent 

The Board considered application GR/09/0144 for the conversion of existing public house 

into nine self contained flats comprising four, one bedroom and five, two bedroom flats; 

erection of a pair of two storey two bedroom semi detached dwellings each with a garage; a 

terrace of three, two storey, two bedroom houses; erection of two quadruple open bay 

garages, one with a two bedroom self contained flat in the roof space above; laying out of 25 

car parking spaces and application GR/09/0145 for the erection of five affordable dwellings 

comprising a pair of two storey, two bedroom semi detached houses and a terrace of three, 

two storey, two bedroom houses and erection of a four bay car port. 

Resolved that applications GR/09/0144 and GR/09/0145 be DEFERRED for a 

Members' site inspection in order to assess the layout and the parking 

provisions. 

Note: (1) 

Matthew Woodhead, agent for the applicant, addressed the Board. 

(2) Objectors David Martin, Peter Parr and Parish Cllr Les Pearton addressed the 

Board. 

(3) Cllr Patricia Oakeshott spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item. 

6

Page 7 


7. GR/2009/0192 - 307 Wrotham Road, Istead Rise, Northfleet, Kent 

The Board considered application GR/09/0192 for the demolition of existing dwelling and 

erection of a detached two storey five bedroomed dwelling with rooms in the roof space and 

an integral garage. 

Resolved that application GR/09/0192 be DEFERRED for a site visit in order to 

assess the impact the proposals would have on the neighbouring properties. 

Note: (1) 

Objectors Steve Downes and Lesley Waller addressed the Board. 

8. GR/2009/0197 - Robinswood, 9 The Street, Cobham, Kent 

The Board considered application GR/09/0197 for the conversion of existing dwelling into 

seven self contained flats comprising six, two bedroom flats and one, one bedroom flat; 

erection of two, two storey annexes on southern side elevation to provide one, two bedroom 

and one, three bedroom apartments; provision of refuse store, oil tanks and associated 

parking. 

Resolved that application GR/09/0197 be REFUSED on the following grounds: 

(1) this development stands to be evaluated in accordance with Policy TC3 of the 

Gravesham Local Plan First Review which requires proposals which affect the 

character of a Conservation Area to enhance and preserve the area. 

However, the proposed extension to Robins Wood adversely affect the 

character and appearance of Cobham Conservation Area. Therefore the 

development is contrary to Policy TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First 

Review; 

(2) the proposal subject of this application stands to be evaluated in accordance 

with the provisions of Policy TC1, H2, H3, H5 and V2 of the adopted 

Gravesham Local Plan First Review. These policies require that within 

villages all development is in keeping with the character of the area and that 

the design of any new development respects the character and appearance 

of the existing area and safeguards privacy and amenity. The proposed 

development by reason of its size, bulk and massing would materially harm 

the character of the area. Secondly the development is of an inappropriate 

design and is overdevelopment of the existing garden. The proposal is 

therefore contrary to adopted development plan policies. 

Note: (1) 

Jo Tasker, agent for the applicant, addressed the Board. 

9. GR/2009/0253 - 2 Ridgeway Avenue, Gravesend, Kent 

The Board considered application GR/08/0253 for the erection of single storey side and rear 

extensions to form enlarge kitchen, breakfast room, utility room and garage; construction of 

dormer windows in side and rear roof slopes and conversion of roof space into a bedroom, 

ensuite bathroom/wc and dressing room. 

7

Page 8 


Resolved that application GR/08/0253 be PERMITTED subject to:- 

(1) the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later 

than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this 

permission is granted; 

(2) the development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in precise 

accordance with the approved details, plans and specifications and there 

shall be no deviation therefrom without the prior permission, in writing, of the 

Local Planning Authority; 

(3) all external facing materials used in the development hereby permitted shall 

match those of the existing dwelling; 

(4) the garage hereby permitted shall be used for the accommodation of a private 

motor car (or cars) for the occupants of the dwelling as a private dwelling 

house and for no other purpose and no development, whether or not 

permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995, shall be carried out on the site in such a manner 

or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access into the garage; 

(5) all windows on the east elevation of the property shall be fitted with obscure 

glass only at all time; 

(6) before the development hereby permitted is commenced on site, a plan 

showing the laying out of two appropriately sized off-street parking spaces 

including surface treatments, and the widening of the vehicular crossover to 

the recommendations of Kent Highway Standards shall be submitted to, and 

approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority; the additional parking 

spaces and widened crossover shall be implemented before the extensions 

hereby permitted are first occupied. 


1. Having regard to all relevant material planning considerations, permission has 

been granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, 

the development would not materially harm any interest of acknowledged 

importance. 

2. The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals of 

the development plan, principally: 

Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994 

TC1: Design of New Developments 

10. GR/2009/0258 - 2 Hope Cottages, South Street, Wrotham Road, 

Meopham, Kent 

The Board considered application GR/09/0258 for the erection of a single storey rear 

extension and link to provide disabled facilities. 

8

Page 9 


Resolved that application GR/09/0258 be PERMITTED subject to:- 

(1) the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later 

than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this 

permission is granted; 

(2) all external facing materials used in the development hereby permitted shall 

match those of the existing dwelling; 

(3) the development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in precise 

accordance with the approved details, plans and specifications and there 

shall be no deviation therefrom without the prior permission, in writing, of the 

Local Planning Authority; 

(4) the proposed linked extension hereby permitted shall at all times be used to 

provide disabled facilities for occupation by the applicant, Mr E Webb, 

ancillary to the use of 2 Hope Cottages, Wrotham Road as a single family 

dwelling and for no other purpose. 



been granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, 

the development would not materially harm any interest of acknowledged 

importance. 

The decision has been taken having regard to national planning policy 

guidance and the policies and proposals of the development plan, principally: 


GB1 - Green Belt Definition 

GB2 - Development in the Green Belt 

C4 - Special Landscape Areas 

C13 - Extensions to Dwellings 

TC0 - General Townscape, Conservation and Design 

TC1 - Design of New Developments 

T1 - Impact of Development on the Highway Network 

P3 - Vehicle Parking Standards 

GB1 - The proposal does not unduly compromise the openness and 

integrity of the Green Belt and is within an already developed 

residential plot 

GB2 - The development is not unreasonable in the context of the 

existing dwelling and size of plot 

C4 - There is no detriment to the landscape from this proposal as 

the building remains within the confines of the existing plot and 

does not detract from the character of the street scene as is 

secluded in the rear garden 

C13 - The outbuilding would not result in over development of the 

site in the context of the Green Belt, as is considered to be a 

separate building and not an extension onto the existing 

dwelling. The appearance, massing, scale and materials of 

the proposal are appropriate to the existing dwelling and the 

9

Page 10 


Green Belt setting. The outbuilding would not facilitate the 

future formation of a separate residential curtilage 

TC0 - The design of the development is appropriate in preserving the 

character of the area 

TC1 - The new development is in keeping with the existing building 

as it complements the design and materials of the dwelling. As 

well as a satisfactory design in the context of the existing 

dwelling, it does not affect the privacy or amenity of 

neighbouring dwellings 

T1 - This development will have no impact on the amount of traffic 

in the area, as the proposed building is set be to be used by an 

existing resident of the property 

P3 - The proposed development will not encourage further on road 

parking and the property has adequate off road parking space 

for its size 

Note: (1) 

Objector Parish Cllr Max Bramer addressed the Board. 

(2) Cllr Collins spoke with leave of the Chairman. 

11. Appointment of Appeals Sub-Committee 

The Board considered the need to appoint an Appeals Sub-committee to deal with any 

appeals against dismissal or disciplinary proceedings by a member of staff. 

Resolved that an Appeals Sub-Committee be appointed as shown below:- 

Cllrs: W G Dyke (Chairman) 

D H W Turner (Vice Chairman) 

J Loughlin 

Substitutes: 

Cllrs: J P Burden 

H Craske 

A Warburton 

12. Planning applications determined under delegated powers by the 

Director (Business) 

A schedule showing applications determined by the Director (Business) under his delegated 

powers has been published on the website. 

Close of meeting 

The meeting ended at 9.30 pm. 

10

Page 11 

Agenda Item 5a 

125 

Application No. Date of meeting Report No. 

8/13 week date 

1. 17.08.09 

2. 13.07.09 

1.GR/2009/0144 

2.GR/2009/0145 

24/06/2009 

Chequers Inn PH, and land adjoining, Church Street/Canal Road, Higham. 

1. GR/2009/0144 - Conversion of existing public house into nine self contained 

flats comprising four, one bedroom and five, two bedroom flats; erection of two, 

two storey, two bedroom dwellings attached to public house each with garage; a 

terrace of three, two storey, two bedroom houses; erection of two quadruple open 

bay garages, one with a two bedroom self contained flat in the roof space above. 

2. GR/2009/0145 - Erection of five affordable dwellings comprising a pair of two 

storey, two bedroom semi-detached houses and a terrace of three, two storey, two 

bedroom houses and erection of a four bay car port. 

Red Admiral Homes 

Recommendation: 

To be set out in a supplementary report 

1. Introduction 

These applications were originally reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 

27 May 2009. 

The officers recommendations were for PERMISSION subject to conditions. 

Objectors Mr David Martin of Dairy Farm, Church Street, Councillor Les Pearton of 

Higham Parish Council and Mr Peter Parr of Millgreen, Canal Road, spoke against the 

application. They raised a number of issues and concerns including 

overdevelopment, lack of parking, increased traffic movement and loss of a public 

house as a facility for the village. 

Matthew Woodhead, David Hicken Associates, spoke in support of the application 

pointing out that the proposal was a good scheme, it was a sustainable location, it 

was partly a brownfield site, it was not in open countryside and Moat Housing had 

funding approved to deliver the scheme. 

Councillor Mrs Oakeshott spoke with the leave of the Chairman pointing out that the 

Parish Council considered the scheme was overdevelopment, that there were too 

many flats proposed in the public house, there were too many cottages fronting Canal 

Road, the houses were squashed into corners with little gardens, that room sizes 

were adequate but not generous and she was not happy with the flat over the parking 

barn.

Page 12 

It was resolved that the application be DEFERRED for a Members’ Site Inspection 

(Members and officers plus applicants by invite – but not any objectors) to assess the 

proposed layout, parking provision and traffic and the impact on the character of the 

area. 

Members are requested to bring to this meeting a copy of agenda items 5c and 

5d and the supplementary report of the Board meeting on 27 May 2009. 

2. Site Inspection 

The site inspection was held at 10.00am on Saturday 6 June 2009. 

Present: 

Cllr H Craske (Chairman) 

Cllr Jane Cribbon 

Cllr Susan Howes 

Cllr A Moore 

Cllr C Broadley 

Cllr Mrs P Oakeshott, Ward Councillor 

Cllr B Sweetland, Ward Councillor 

Apologies were received from: 

Cllr R Theobald 

Cllr K Jones 

Cllr J Burden 

In Attendance: 

Mr P Price, Principal Planner 

Mr M Jessop, Senior Planner 

Mr R Bright, Senior Engineer 

Mr John Collins, David Hicken Associates, Applicants Agents 

Mr Ian McCourt, Kent Design Partnership, Applicants Architects 

Mr Terry Phillips, Moat Housing 

Mr Colin Fuller, Red Admiral Homes. 

Cllr Craske introduced the Councillors and explained the purpose of the site 

inspection. Mr Price introduced the officers present and the applicant’s team. 

Mr Price outlined the extent of the site and explained the proposals as currently 

submitted. 

He advised that the proposals as reported to the last Board meeting were for:- 

• Conversion of the public house into nine flats (four x one bedroom of which 

one is a bedsit and five x two bedrooms) 

• Terrace of three houses (two bedrooms) fronting Canal Road 

• Open parking barn at the rear of terrace of three dwellings 

• Further parking barn with a two bedroom flat over (this would be an affordable 

unit) 

REPORT NO PAGE 2

Page 13 

• Pair of semi detached two storey dwellings with garages at the rear of the 

public house fronting Church Street 

In the separate application on the paddock area it is proposed to erect a 

• terrace of three affordable dwellings plus a separate open parking barn 

• a pair of two storey semi detached affordable dwellings 

Thus 10 flats and 10 houses – 20 units in total of which six are affordable. 

He advised that a previous scheme submitted last year to demolish the Public House 

and erect a two/three storey building for 10 flats and a pair of two storey semis, a two 

storey terrace of seven dwellings and terrace of three dwellings thus 22 units in total 

was refused last year on density, scale and impact on the setting of the listed building 

at Dairy Farm. An appeal had been lodged but withdrawn prior to the hearing. 

He pointed out that planning permission was granted for a pair of cottages on the car 

park fronting Canal Road. This was an outline application and on a smaller site and 

took up less of the car park than proposed for the terrace of three dwellings in the 

new scheme. 

He advised that following the last refusal the whole site was included in the recently 

designated Lower Higham Conservation Area. 

He pointed out that the current scheme now retains the public house and the built 

form of development is generally modest sized, well designed cottages in character 

with the area. 

He advised that there is no planning objection from officers to the principle of the 

development although he acknowledged that there is some encroachment of 

development into the Green Belt beyond the village boundary. He suggested that this 

was not a significant impact in openness of the Green Belt. All the affordable element 

is within the Green Belt (other than the flat over the garage, or FOG) – but this 

nevertheless does accord with the Council’s Rural Exceptions Site Policy – and such 

housing would remain affordable in perpetuity. He considered it was a sustainable 

location being on the edge of the village, close to amenities particularly the railway 

station. 

He advised that the Action for Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) Survey had 

indicated a need for between14-22 affordable housing units in Higham. The schemes 

at Jupp Court and Isis Cottages, which were both in the Green Belt, had provided nine 

and three units respectively. 

He advised that in 2009 there were 34 persons in Higham who were on the common 

housing register, of which 12 had expressed an interest in low cost ownership. 

He advised that the proposals were assessed in terms of impact on loss of privacy 

and amenity to adjoining property – it was considered there was no material harm. 

In respect of parking he advised that the scheme offered one space per unit; plots 10 

and 11 fronting Church Street have two each plus the were three visitor spaces for the 

entire scheme meaning a total of 25 spaces (for 20 units). 

REPORT NO PAGE 3

Page 14 

He advised that there was no objection on highway grounds – off-site highway works 

are required to provide footway improvement and pram crossings. 

He pointed out that nevertheless a number of concerns emerged at the last Board 

meeting raised by Residents, the Parish Council and Board Members. These were: 

- Concern at overdevelopment 

- Insufficient parking 

- Traffic 

- Concern about affordable housing not going to local people. On this matter he 

advised that the Rural Nominations Policy had recently been amended. 

- Lack of garden space, but unit size was felt ok. 

Since the Board meeting he advised that officers had opened up some initial 

discussions. The applicants had offered deletion of one of units in the public house. 

Officers also had suggested deletion of the affordable unit over the parking barn and 

provision of additional parking. 

He advised that the applicant’s architects have provided some revised plans which 

were circulated to Board Members for the purpose of the Site Inspection and only 

seen by officers for the first time at this site inspection. The amendments indicate the 

loss of one unit – the flat over the garage – but not any units within the public house 

and they proposed the increase of parking provision on site. There were 19 units 

now proposed and 30 parking spaces. 

Mr Bright (Highways) advised that the capacity of Canal Road was not considered as 

an overriding problem such as to justify a refusal on highway grounds; pedestrian 

movements would be catered for by a footpath widening, and new crossing points 

which would be required under a S278 agreement. 

He considered that the vehicular access was acceptable given what the site is used 

for already. He suggested it was capable of generating a lot of activity as a public 

house. Sight lines on to Canal Road would be improved. He advised that Canal 

Road was only a problem because of heavy traffic. Those problems were in part due 

to ballast being shifted to Hoo Junction but this had now ceased. He considered that 

background traffic flows are now relatively low. 

Councillor Conrad Broadley asked what are room standards were based on and did 

the proposals meet parking provision of 1.5 spaces per unit. Mr Price advised that it 

does now in parking and our room standards are guidelines and only if internal room 

sizes are significantly below the standards would refusal be justified. He advised that 

they were based on the Parker Morris Standard; higher standards were required for 

affordable housing to meet Housing Development Corporation requirements. 

Councillor Jane Cribbon was concerned at parking and access particularly the 

junction of Canal Road. Rob Bright pointed out that yellow lines had been put there to 

stop commuter car parking. He was not aware of an accident problem at the junction. 

Mr Price suggested that any conflict at the junction was the result of the confluence of 

several roads and would be difficult in highway terms to resolve. 

Board members viewed the junction and access. Councillor Cribbon considered that 

the junction of Canal Road, Church Street and Lower Rochester Road was 

particularly hazardous. 

REPORT NO PAGE 4

Page 15 

John Collins (David Hicken Associates) advised that additional information on traffic 

counts will come in to the Council for the next meeting. He hoped that Members feel 

they have been listened to. He advised that gardens had been made bigger by 

repositioning of the units and there were now less units. He also stressed that the 

scheme keeps the public house. 

Ian McCourt (Kent Design Partnership) advised that the scheme was months in 

negotiation with the case officer and conservation officer. He advised that the public 

house lends itself to sub division in the way proposed. Nine units was the product of 

the extent of the floor-space of the building. If the number of units were reduced it 

would simply result in larger units. 

He advised that the parking barns were like a collection of rural buildings but he noted 

the concern of Members to the amount of built development and it was now 

suggested that they could be deleted. 

He suggested that they will lose a popular unit in the scheme – the flat over barn but 

they would agree to this. He advised that the windblown willow tree was not good but 

it can be kept but would be better if removed. 

Terry Phillips (Moat Housing) advised that the design had been worked up with Moat. 

It meets space standards and the Moat Board were keen on scheme. He suggested 

that it would make a bigger impact locally than a larger urban scheme. There was a 

housing need in Higham. Hyde had done a good job at Jupp Court. Three of the 

affordable units would be rented and the remainder would be for shared ownership. 

They would not be sold off. 

Councillor Pat Oakeshott advised that the Parish Council feel it is overdevelopment, 

and the road where the access was proposed was not good. There was concern at 

three properties on Canal Road. They were supportive of the affordable housing but 

were concerned at the size of gardens for the affordable units. They were ok with the 

size of units. On the pub itself she considered that nine units was too much. She 

considered there was very little amenity space. 

Councillor Bryan Sweetland agreed with the comments of Councillor Oakeshott. He 

was concerned at the size of gardens. He suggested that the road is very fast. 

Councillor Oakeshott was also concerned at possible development of open space in 

the future. She asked who is going to maintain it. 

Councillor Alex Moore suggested that the 2004 survey may be out of date. He asked 

if there is a need from local people. Councillor Oakeshott advised that in 2005 there 

was a required need for 23 houses. Only half of this need had been met. She 

advised that in late summer of this year another survey will take place. 

Terry Phillips advised that the survey is one mechanism to demonstrate need; latent 

desire is another. People only engage when they see the development. 

Councillor Brian Sweetland suggested that with Hyde communication wasn’t good on 

Jupp Court. He was convinced nevertheless there is a need. 

Councillor Conrad Broadley was concerned that affordable housing should be going 

to local people. Mr Price advised on the revised nomination criteria and the cascade 

approach in terms of determining local connection which had added to new clauses. 

REPORT NO PAGE 5

Page 16 

Councillor Sweetland felt that the Parish Council should be involved in nominations. 

Councillors were invited to inspect inside the public house. 

Councillor Oakeshott asked how many units were on the first floor – Ian McCourt 

advised that there were three. Councillor Moore asked about the impact on the tall 

windows if ceilings were made lower. Ian McCourt advised that this could be 

designed as features or by using bulkheads but could be overcome. 

Councillors also inspected the other floors including the attic accommodation which 

appeared to be very cramped for a flat due to headroom constraints. 

Councillors then viewed the remainder of the site where the proposed plots had been 

marked out. Ian McCourt advised on the surfacing and noise treatment for the car 

parking spaces. He also paced out the length of the gardens. Mr Price advised on 

the Council’s standards for garden amenity space being a minimum of 10m for three 

bed dwellings and 7.6m for two bed dwellings. 

Councillor Sweetland was concerned at the state of tree. There was general 

agreement that a replacement may be a better option because of its poor state and 

the shallow roots. 

Councillor Broadley asked if there was any concern at impact of overlooking. Mr 

Jessop advised that this had been carefully assessed and the scheme complies with 

the Council’s residential layout guidelines in terms of privacy distances. 

Councillors then viewed the development along Church Street. Councillor Cribbon 

asked if there was sufficient room to manoeuvre onto the parking spaces given the 

narrow nature of the road. Mr Bright advised that there was (minimum requirement is 

6m). 

Mr Price asked the applicants whether having heard Members’ concerns about 

possible overdevelopment and if asked to reduce the number of units even further 

there came a point at which the scheme was no longer viable. Mr Collins advised that 

he would talk to his clients about this. 

In addition Councillor Cribbon asked the developers to look at the problem of the road 

junction. 

3. Service Manager (Development Control) Comments 

The applicants have advised that they will be submitting revised plans before the next 

meeting deleting both the flat over the garage, as indicated at the site inspection, but 

also the flat in the roof space of the public house, thereby reducing the number of 

units overall to 18. They will also be submitting a traffic assessment. They will 

additionally confirm arrangements for the future maintenance of the open space. 

It may well be necessary to give additional publicity to any such revised proposals. 

Details of these expected revisions will be set out in a supplementary report. 

REPORT NO PAGE 6

Page 17 

Consultation expiry date: 21.04.09 

Recommendation 


REPORT NO PAGE 7

Page 18 

This page is intentionally left blank

Lodge 

The 

TheBanks 

FarcombeHall 

12.7m 

Brooker's 

l 

1 

Farm 

CHURCHSTREET 

CANAL 

4 

Hazellee 

6 

Pond 

GP 

Club 

Inn 

(disused) 

MillGreen 

1 

TheBrambles 

4 

ROAD 

TCB 

NurseryCottages 

(PH) 

Chequers 

Garage 

Barn 

House 

1 

Place 

2 

10.7m 

Crinan 

LowerHigham 

13.7m 

ChequersS 

PH 

HobbsCottages 

Verona 

Dairy 

Old 

ChequersStreet 

DairyFarm 

14.6m 

3 

Cottages 

Telegraph 

1 

2 

Cottages 

CHEQUERSSTREET 

DiaryFarm 

1:1,250 

Scale: 

ThismapisreproducedfromOrdnanceSurveymaterialwiththepermissionofOrdnanceSurveyonbehalfoftheControllerofHer 

Majesty'sStationeryOffice c CrownCopyright.UnauthorisedreproductioninfringesCrowncopyrightandmayleadto 

prosecutionorcivilproceedings. GraveshamBoroughCouncilLicenceNo.100019166.2009 

N^ 

ApplicationRef: 

SiteLocation: 

BoardDate: 

PlanningandRegenerationServices 

www.gravesham.gov.uk Tel:01474564422 

GR/09/144-145 

FmrChequersInnPH 

ChurchStreet 

Higham 

24June2009 

Page 19

Page 20 


Page 21 

GR/09/144 – Former Chequers PH, Church Street, Higham

Page 22 

GR/09/145 – Rear, fmr Chequers PH, Church Street, Higham

Page 23 

Agenda Item 5b 

8 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No. 

15/05/2009 GR/09/0192 24/06/2009 

307 Wrotham Road, Istead Rise, Northfleet 

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a detached two storey five 

bedroom dwelling with rooms in the roof space and an integral garage. 

Mr Mark Durbidge 



1. Introduction 

This application was originally reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 27 

May 2009. 

The officers recommendation was for PERMISSION subject to conditions. 

Objectors Steve Downes of the Downs Planning Partnership representing 

Mr & Mrs Waller of 305 Wrotham Road and Mr and Mrs Clements and 

Mr Blackburn of 309 Wrotham Road addressed the Board as did Mrs Lesley Waller of 

305 Wrotham Road. 

Mr Downes questioned the accuracy of the submitted drawings, and considered the 

development was out of character, would effectively be three storey, it would result in 

overlooking and loss of sunlight and did not conform to the building line. 

Mrs Waller considered that the dwelling would block light and sunlight, would be 

overlooking, would create a terrace effect and break the staggered building line. She 

also advised that an application they had submitted in 2005 had resulted in the 

rejection of a balcony on grounds of overlooking. 

It was resolved that the application be DEFERRED for a Public Site Visit to assess 

the impact the proposals would have on the neighbouring properties. 

Members are requested to bring to this meeting a copy of agenda item 5 e) and 

the supplementary report of the Regulatory Board meeting on 27 May 2009. 

2. Site Inspection 

The site inspection was held at 10.00 am on Saturday 13 June 2009. 

Present: 

Cllr H Craske (Chairman)

Page 24 

Cllr Susan Howes 

Cllr A Moore 

Cllr K Jones 

Cllr R Theobald 

Cllr J Burden 

Cllr R Bowman 

Apologies were received from: 

Cllr Jane Cribbon 

Cllr C Broadley 

In Attendance: 

Mr P Price, Principal Planner 

Mr R Hart, Senior Planner 

Mr Mark Durbidge, 313 Wrotham Road (Applicant) 

Mr Martin Foster, 363 Wrotham Road (Developer) 

Fraser Tugby, Tugby and Tugby Surveyors (Applicants Agent) 

Mr S Downes, Downes Planning Partnership 

Mr & Mrs Waller, 305 Wrotham Road 

Mrs Clements, 309 Wrotham Road 

Mrs South 303 Wrotham Road 

Cllr Craske introduced the Councillors and explained the purpose of the site visit 

being to assess the impact of the development on neighbouring properties. 

Mr Price outlined the proposals. He advised that the application was reported to the 

last Board meeting and officers’ recommendation was for permission. 

He advised that at the Board meeting Mr Downes of the Downes Planning Partnership 

spoke against the proposal on behalf of the neighbours either side at nos 305 and 

309. Mrs Waller of 305 also spoke against the application. 

He advised that the objectors raised a number of concerns 

• criticism of the accuracy of the drawings 

• development out of character 

• it would be three storey, resulting in overlooking and loss of sunlight 

• it would not conform to the building line 

• it would create a terrace effect. 

He pointed out that the existing bungalow, which dates from the 1920s, sits between 

chalet bungalows either side. There is garaging at the rear of the existing dwelling. 

He advised that the proposal is to demolish the bungalow and erect a two storey five 

bed dwelling with rooms in the roof space, effectively creating a third storey. The new 

dwelling would have an integral garage. 

REPORT NO PAGE 2

Page 25 

He explained that ground levels on the site would be reduced by 500mm to lessen the 

impact of the development so that the ridge height of the dwelling would be 1ft above 

no 309 (to the south) and 6ft above 305 to the north. 

He pointed out that the site falls away at the rear and the dwelling would be split level. 

He advised that the case officer did negotiate with the applicant to reduce the impact 

of the dwelling reducing both its height and the depth of the rear projections. 

He explained that the dwelling was assessed in terms of the normal tests in terms of 

impact on privacy and amenity and did meet the tests. 

He pointed out that the proposed dwelling would be set in from the side boundaries by 

500mm on the north side and 650mm on the south side as scaled from the drawing. 

He acknowledged that this is closer than the current dwelling on the southern 

boundary and that there is a bedroom window in the side of 309 Wrotham Road. 

He advised that although there were windows in the side elevations of the proposed 

replacement dwelling they would be to non habitable rooms or would be obscured 

glazed. 

He pointed out that there has been concern expressed about the dormer in the side of 

the front projecting wing to bedroom 3. In his view this appeared to be superfluous 

and he felt that this could be negotiated out of the proposals. 

In conclusion he considered that there is not an overriding objection to a replacement 

dwelling on the plot per se. He suggested that the devil is very much in the detail and 

for Board Members the judgement was whether the overall bulk and size would either 

harm the living conditions of adjoining residents or would be out of character with the 

street scene. 

Councillor Jones noted that the report says it would marginally fail the 45 0 test and 

sought an explanation. Mr Hart advised that this was only on the basis of the test 

being from the edge of the window but the normal method is to measure from the mid 

point of the window in which case the proposal would meet the test. 

Cllr Theobald advised that he would like to hear from the applicants. He asked 

whether the scheme was speculative and asked what had informed the design. 

Mr Foster (Developer) advised that the proposed dwelling was like similar dwellings 

further down the road. It was two and half storey. He considered that the dormer at 

the front was in keeping with the chalet style of the dwelling and added a feature but 

could accept its removal if required. 

Councillor Theobald asked why the new building was not going to be set in from the 

sides like others in the street. 

Mr Foster advised that there would be a distance of 8ft between the dwelling at 309 

Wrotham Road to the south and the side wall of the proposed replacement dwelling. 

Councillor Theobald asked the applicant what scope there was for negotiation. Mr 

Foster advised that he doesn’t want a separate garage in the front and he therefore 

could not reduce the size of the dwelling if he was to retain an integral garage. He 

REPORT NO PAGE 3

Page 26 

wouldn’t want to bring the dwelling further forward at the front and leave no room for 

parking and turning. 

Mr Hart showed the plans of the proposals including the elevations and the street 

scene at the front. 

Mr Downes, speaking on behalf of the adjoining residents, advised that there was not 

an objection in principle. He considered however that the new dwelling should be of a 

similar character – either single storey or with rooms in the roof slope only. Dwellings 

in the locality were chalet style with the first floor generally in the roof space. In this 

case the first floor is not within roof space but is a conventional two storey dwelling 

with a third floor in the roof space. 

Mr Downes considered that there were significant deficiencies in the drawings. There 

were different dimensions to the side. No hedgerows or trees are shown on the 

boundaries. He considered that the plans should show the correct boundary. He 

suggested that if the plans were correct this could result in a narrower dwelling than 

shown. He considered that the proposal would have an impact in terms of loss of 

sunlight and daylight. He pointed out that the bedroom in side of 309 will be severely 

affected. The two and a half storey building will bring a sense of enclosure. 

Mr Downes considered that the dwelling comes too far forward and too far back and 

he felt it is too much for the site. 

Mr Foster pointed out that there are two storey dwellings in the locality. 

Mr Tugby advised that the window to 309 Wrotham Road was one metre from the 

boundary. He pointed out that the window in the side was north facing and therefore 

did not receive much light at present. He thought the window was new. Mrs 

Clements however advised that the window was just a replacement for one that was 

always there. 

Councillor Alex Moore asked how high was the building on the boundary. Mr Hart 

showed plans of the side elevation of the dwelling and advised that it was about 7m to 

the eaves of the half hip roof and 8.5-9.0m to the ridge. The proposed new ground 

levels would reduce this however by 500mm in relation to the adjoining dwelling. 

Mr Price advised that although it did not necessarily justify the height of the proposal 

as it stands nevertheless in planning law there could be a two metre high fence 

erected along the boundary without the need to apply for planning permission which 

could have the effect of reducing significantly the outlook from the bedroom window of 

the neighbour’s property. 

Cllr Jones noted that nobody was entitled to a view but he considered the new 

building was too close. 

Board Members viewed the application site from the adjoining property to the south 

(309 Wrotham Road) noting the current view from the neighbour’s bedroom window 

and the position of the proposed dwelling at the rear in relation to the back of the 

neighbour’s dwelling. 

Members then returned to the application site and noted where the site of the 

proposed building had been marked out. Mr Foster pointed out that following the 

marking out the dwelling marginally came further forward than anticipated. 

REPORT NO PAGE 4

Page 27 

Members looked at the plot in relation to the boundary at 305 Wrotham Road. Mr 

Foster advised that has not disputed the neighbour’s claims over where the boundary 

should be. Mrs Waller advised the actual boundary line was 900mm from their 

dwelling but there was no boundary fence to demarcate this. 

Mr Price suggested there was a need for a site survey drawing. Mr Downes felt this 

would help to have an accurate site survey. 

Mr Hart referred to existing dormer windows in the neighbouring properties that 

already overlook the plot. 

Councillor Jones was concerned about the undermining of the neighbours 

foundations. Mr Hart advised that this was not a planning matter but that the Party 

Wall Act applies. 

Cllr Theobald advised that there was need to look at the character of the area. Mr 

Foster considered that the dormers are in character. 

Mr Hart advised that the applicant had not submitted a street montage from the rear. 

Board members then looked at the application site from 305 Wrotham Road. Board 

Members then looked at the proposals from the road frontage. 

In closing Mr Foster advised that he will sort out any boundary issues before the next 

Board meeting. Mr Downes suggested that the applicants don’t know accurately the 

width of the plot and it was essential to need to know the constraints of the site. Mr 

Foster advised that the size of the dwelling wouldn’t reduce even with an accurate site 

survey. 

3. Service Manager (Development Control) comments 

Should any additional information or revised/amended plans be submitted following 

the discussions at the site visit this will be reported in a supplementary report. 

REPORT NO PAGE 5

Page 28 

Consultation expiry date: 21.04.09 



REPORT NO PAGE 6

1 

Page 29 

6 

lSubSta 

45 

48 

301 

56.7m 

26 38 

29 

315 311 

ROAD 

15 

WROTHAMROAD 

14 

BROOKSIDE 

325 

54.7m 




N^ 


SiteLocation: 

GR/09/192 

307,WrothamRoad 

IsteadRise 



BoardDate: 

24June2009 

Scale: 

1:1,250

Page 30 


Page 31 

GR/09/192 – 307, Wrotham Road, Istead Rise

Page 32 


Page 33 

Agenda Item 5c 


3 August 2009 20090347 24 June 2009 

Cygnet House, 132 Windmill Street, Gravesend. 

Change of use of building from offices into a 48 room hotel with disabled and 

communal facilities on ground floor; laying out of 42 car parking spaces, six 

motor cycle spaces, cycle and refuse stores. 

HFHA Group Ltd. 


Permission, subject to conditions. 

1. Site Description 

The application site, known as Cygnet House, is located between Windmill Street, Zion 

Place and Sheppey Place and is situated on the outskirts of Gravesend Town Centre. 

It is within the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area. 

The building was, up until March 2007, used as Council offices with the ground and 

first floors occupied by the Kent Register Office. The building is now completely vacant 

though as the Registrars vacated the premises in late 2008 and the Council offices 

have been relocated to the refurbished Civic Centre. However, whilst some of the 

upper floors were redecorated and being advertised on a short term/flexible tenancy, 

there are currently no tenants. 

The surrounding area has a mix of buildings including Georgian terraces, Victorian 

terraces, semi detached dwellings and larger post war buildings. The south and west 

of the site is predominantly residential however elsewhere exists a mix of uses 

including retail, offices and community uses. 

The site itself currently comprises a rather unattractive five storey building built along 

the main site frontage of Windmill Street with access to side and rear parking off of 

Zion Place. 

2. Planning History 

On the 17 April 2009 the LPA received allegations that the building was being 

renovated for use as a hostel as opposed to the approved 60 room hotel. Following 

investigations and upon discussion with Legal Services the LPA made an application 

for an injunction to prevent the owners HFHA from operating a hostel use in breach of 

planning control and to prevent the rooms being occupied by more than two persons. 

On the 14 May 2009 an undertaking was given by HFHA in the High Court , which 

was effectively an interim injunction not to use the building for accommodation 

purposes which included both as a hotel and hostel until the case had been fully 

considered at trial. On the 02 June 2009 the High Court rejected the LPA’s application 

for a full injunction to prevent HFHA opening as a hostel in breach of planning control.

Page 34 

The most recent planning application relating to this site was submitted under 

reference 20090015 which proposed the change of use of building from offices into a 

60 room hotel with communal facilities on the ground floor; laying out 44 car parking 

spaces and erection of covered cycle store. This application was effectively a stream 

lined version of the planning approval granted under reference 20080087 that deleted 

the proposed external works to the building and the surrounding land. This application 

was subsequently refused consent on the ground of failing to enhance the character 

and appearance of the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area by reason of failing to 

incorporate any enhancements to the building and associated land. 

Prior to this an application for the change of use of the building to a 60 room hotel was 

submitted under reference 20080087 which was conditionally approved on 30 May 

2008. 

Preceding this, in 2007 a full planning application was submitted for the conversion of 

first to fifth floors of the building from offices to 40 one and two bedroom self contained 

flats with Registry Office on ground floor involving five and six storey side extensions 

and single storey front and side extension to provide enlarged Registrar's facilities and 

refuse stores at ground floor level; laying out of 38 car parking spaces, cycle store and 

amenity playground. 

This application was withdrawn on 8 June 2007 due to various concerns with the 

scheme. 

However, a formal resubmission for a similar proposal under reference GR/08/173, 

was received but was refused by the Regulatory Board on 27 August 2008. The 

grounds for refusal of this application related to the scale and massing of the proposed 

extensions and detrimental impact upon adjoining residents. 

Aside from the above more relevant history, in 1998 permission was granted for 

erection of a wall mounted fence and gates to the boundary, enclosure of basement 

area and erection of a rubbish store. Also, in 1996, permission was granted for the 

erection of an infill extension at ground floor level and alterations to the front elevations 

to form an entrance foyer, control room and lobby. 

The change of use to professional offices was approved in the 1960s. 

3. Proposal 

The application before Members is for the proposed change of use of Cygnet House 

from offices to a 48 bedroom hotel. The level of internal accommodation proposed, in a 

floor by floor basis, is as follows: 

Ground Floor 

Reception area and counter leading to two store rooms and a 

disabled toilet; 3no. wheelchair accessible rooms served by 

communal disabled wc and separate shower room; laundry room; 

meeting room and small storage room. 

1 st /2 nd /3 rd Floors 9no. rooms served by a communal shower room with 4no. cubicles, 

male and female toilets and a communal lounge area; 2no. small 

storage areas are provided. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 2

Page 35 

4 th Floor 9no. rooms served by a communal shower room with 4no. cubicles, 



5 th Floor 9no. rooms served by a communal shower room with 4no. cubicles, 



In addition to the internal accommodation detailed above the site also comprises some 

ancillary land around the building to provide vehicle parking. In this respect vehicular 

access to the site is provided off of Zion Place as per the current arrangement with 

hardstanding that provides a total of 42no. car parking spaces, which includes two 

disabled spaces. Also provided to the south west of the site is an open area for bicycle 

and motor bicycle parking. 

The existing car park is reduced in size from the current layout on site by erecting a 

new brick wall with railings in line with the main front elevation along the Windmill 

Street elevation that will introduce and open landscaped area adjacent to the footway, 

with pedestrian access being provided to and from the reduced size car park. Along 

Zion Place it is proposed that the existing lay by is to be removed with the footway 

being reinstated. 

It is stated in the supporting Design & Access Statement that the accommodation has 

been designed to attract the construction, business and leisure group travel markets 

and will provide short stay accommodation only. Elsewhere in the same statement 

reference is made to the desire that it will also provide accommodation for visitors of 

the new Gurdwara. 

Furthermore, it is stated that the applicant believes that this scheme will provide 

flexible and economic accommodation which reflects the demand in Gravesend whilst 

still providing improvements to the Conservation Area. 

Finally, it is worthy of note that whilst the submitted plans indicate suggested 

advertisements, these do not form part of this planning application as they would 

require separate approval under the Town and Country Planning (Control of 

Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. 

4. Development Plan 

The following policies from the Gravesham Local Plan First Review are of relevance to 

the determination of this application: 

Policy TC1 – Design of New Developments 

Policy TC3 – Development Affecting Conservation Areas 

Policy P3 – Vehicle Parking Standards 

Also, the following policy from the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 is relevant. 

As this policy is more specific to this application and less familiar to Members, it is 

included in full: 

Policy EP12: Tourist Accommodation 

(a) Sites for the development of high quality tourist, business and conference hotels 

and for budget hotels will be identified as first priority in, or adjacent to, centres within 

the strategic hierarchy of centres as identified on the Key Diagram and in Table EP4. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 3

Page 36 

(b) Proposals for hotel development must demonstrate that they will have no 

significant adverse environmental or transport impact. 

(c) Proposals which would result in the loss, without replacement, of good quality 

accommodation will not be permitted unless there is overriding economic advantage to 

the area from the development. 

(d) The conversion or extension of existing buildings to provide small hotels, bed and 

breakfast or self catering accommodation will be permitted provided this causes no 

harm to the local environment. 

(e) The improvement of touring and static caravan and camping sites will be permitted 

if the development benefits the local environment. 

Further to the above policy, with the recent adoption of the South East Plan the 

policies contained in the Kent & Medway Structure Plan are effectively superseded 

and will cease to have any status after 6 July 2009. It is therefore relevant to refer to 

the following policy included within the South East Plan: 

POLICY TSR5: TOURIST ACCOMMODATION 

The diversity of the accommodation sector will be positively reflected in tourism and 

planning policies. 

i. In formulating planning policies and making decisions local planning authorities should: 

consider the need for hotel developments to be in the proposed location, including links 

with the particular location, transport interchange or visitor attraction, and seek measures 

to increase access for all by sustainable transport modes; 

• provide specific guidance on the appropriate location for relevant accommodation 

sub-sectors. This should be informed by their different site requirements and 

market characteristics and how these relate to local planning objectives 

• encourage the extension of hotels where this is required to upgrade the quality of 

the existing stock to meet changing consumer demands. 

• include policies to protect the accommodation stock where there is evidence of 

market demand 

• strongly encourage the provision of affordable staff accommodation as part of new 

and existing accommodation facilities in areas of housing pressure. The criteria for 

the application of such a requirement should be clearly set out in the development 

plans 

• facilitate the upgrading and enhancement of existing un-serviced accommodation, 

including extensions where this will not harm landscape quality or identified 

environmental assets. Particular attention should be paid to identifying suitable 

sites for the relocation of holiday parks under threat from coastal erosion or 

flooding. 

ii Tourism South East and local authorities should, working together, undertake active 

monitoring of the demand for and supply of tourism accommodation on a regional and 

sub-regional basis. 

5. Reason for Report 

Previous applications considered by the Board. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 4

Page 37 

6. Consultations and Publicty 

Consultations 

Kent Highways Services 

There are no objections in principle to these proposals. However, the alignment of 

parking bays 14 and 15 creates an avoidable pinch point which can be removed by 

setting these bays back to align with bay 16 and it is therefore recommended that this 

amendment be made. 

GBC Regulatory Services 

It is understood that there is no commercial kitchen proposed for this development. 

Were this to change this Service would need to be consulted in order to ensure the 

ventilation system is adequate to prevent detriment to the neighbourhood. There are 

no environmental protection objection to the application, subject to the following 

comments: 

Boundary treatment 

A scheme detailing the boundary of the car park with the adjacent residential 

properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority prior to commencement of any works on site. The scheme shall show how 

noise and light impacts from the car park are to be satisfactorily ameliorated. 

Traffic Noise. 

A scheme taking into account the existing noise levels due to traffic shall be submitted 

and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to commencement of 

any works on site. The noise scheme shall detail the noise attenuation provided by the 

construction, including design and installation of windows. Reference shall be made to 

the Kent County Standards as well as Planning Policy Guidance (Planning and Noise) 

PPG24. 

Commercial Refuse Arrangements 





Commercial Refuse Arrangements - Advisory Notes 

Compliance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 "Duty of Care" is essential. 

Advice on Solid Waste Management can be obtained from Waste Services on [01474] 

337533. 

Works of Construction. 

Please add code of construction practice informative. 

GBC Private Housing 

The proposal does not reflect the normal definition of a hotel in that: 

There is a lack of adequate and sufficient basic services specifically:- 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 5

Page 38 

The lack of provision for meals and dining arrangements and sufficient basic bathroom 

amenities. 

The premises may be classified as a House in Multiple Occupation. Therefore the 

comments raised in application 20090411 are applicable in this case also are included 

below for ease of reference. 

The occupation and use of premises will determine whether the property should be 

classified as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and whether licensing under the 

Housing Act 2004, Part 2 is appropriate. The prescribed definition of a HMO is set 

down in SI 2006 No. 371. It should be noted that in determining whether the premises 

will require a licence the maximum length of residency can be set by the local authority. 

Failure to licence such a premises is a criminal offence and is subject to a maximum 

fine of £20,000. 

Due to the possible fluctuating nature of the proposed population/occupancy of these 

premises it may move in and out of the definition of a HMO. To remove doubts about 

the premises status this department have the power to make a HMO declaration. 

The proposals do not meet the standards in the Kent wide ‘Standards to Houses in 

Multiple Occupation, Amenity Standards’, (a copy of these standards are enclosed for 

the applicant’s information). 

Should the premises not be classed as a HMO then any deficiencies or lacking 

amenities can be assessed and remedial works required under the Housing Health and 

Rating System (HHSRS). The applicant must be satisfied that no Category 1 hazards 

exist as defined by the HHSRS. Information on the Housing Act 2004 and HHSRS can 

be found at www.communities.gov.uk/housing/rentingandletting/housinghealth/ 

and www.lacors.gov.uk Local housing authorities have a mandatory duty to act should 

a category 1 hazard become evident and a discretionary duty to act on category 2 

hazards. 

The applicant is advised to consult with Kent Fire and Rescue regarding fire safety 

issues. 

The applicant is strongly advised to consult with the Private Sector Housing Team at 

their earliest convenience. A member of the team can be contacted on telephone 

number 01474 33 74 66. 

GBC Conservation Officer 

This is mostly a planning issue but I would question the signage proposed to the upper 

floors. 

Publicity 

The application was advertised to the adjoining residents by way of neighbour 

notification letters and a site notice. Letters from the following people were received: 

Patrick A Lee 

Mrs C A Tillson 

Mrs K Hills 

Andy Scott 

Flat 15 The Pavillion Wrotham Rd Gravesend 

82 Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0QQ 

26 Rose St Northfleet DA11 9EQ 

29 Darnley St Gravesend DA11 0PJ 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 6

Page 39 

Mr L F Ascott 

134 Parrock St Gravesend DA12 1EZ 

Mrs L D Ascott 


Mr J Deadman 

36 Kent Rd Gravesend DA11 0SY 

Mel Williams 

15A Brandon St Gravesend DA11 0PL 

Kirsty and Mark Durkin 26 Engisn Court Waterside Gravesend DA11 9FB 

Mr W Fowler 

38b Cobham St Gravesend DA11 0SA 

Gary Caplin 

32 Clarence Row Gravesend DA12 1HJ 

Mr P L Wells 

La Belle Cuisine 78 Windmill St Gravesend 

E Coleman 

11 Leith Park Rd Gravesend DA12 1LN 

Ms L Berry 

18 Kingswood Rd Gillingham ME7 1DZ 

Edward Barford 

53 Latham Rd Bexleyheath DA6 7NN 

Mr A King 

20 Glynde Rd Bexleyheath DA7 4ET 

John Miller 

5 Sheppy Place Gravesend DA12 1BT 

Mrs R White 

42 Lorton Close Gravesend DA12 4EX 

Mr Jhamel Singh 

92 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1LH 

Neil McGowan 

5 William House Windmill St Gravesend DA12 

Jhalman Singh Dosanijh 93 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1LH 

D Barnes 

Cicada Leith Park Rd Gravesend DA12 1LW 

Mr M J Simmonds 

8 Darnley St Gravesend DA11 0PJ 

Dan Tucker 

9 Clarence Place Gravesend DA12 1LD 

Mr Clive Noble 

123 Windmill ST Gravesend DA12 1BL 

Guy Bishop 

4 Portland Av Gravesend DA12 5HE 

Mrs C Merry 

375 Wrotham Rd Gravesend 

Mr & Mrs A Townsend 33 Clarence Row Gravesend DA12 1HJ 

Mr R Howes 

13 Bramble Av Bean Dartford 

Mr A Mansfield 

Flat 4 47 Pelham Rd Gravesend DA11 0JA 

Mr Dean Watts 

2 Basi House 115/117 Wrotham Rd Gravesend 

Daniel Aldous 

12 Kelso Drive Gravesend DA12 4NR 

Mark Montgomery 

18 Telegraph Hill Higham Rochester ME3 7NN 

Bobby Ayla 

10 Brandon St Gravesend DA11 0PL 

J Dhillion 

132 Sherwood Park Av Sidcup DA15 9JJ 

John Christie 

26 Lagonob Way Longo Way Dartford DA15 

S Unn 

2 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1DH 

Tim Lane 

48 Cobham St Gravesend DA11 0SA 

Sam Lane 

48 Cobham St Gravesend DA11 0SA 

Kuldic Singh 

9 Bronte View Gravesend DA12 1PX 

Jass Singh 

133 Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0QP 

Dalvinder Lotay 

Talbot Villa 24 Old Rd West Gravesend DA11 

Bill Dhesi 

13 Austin Rd Northfleet DA11 7BP 

Owner/Occupier 

5 Cobham St DA11 0SB 

P Singh 

111 Darnley Rd Gravesend DA11 0SN 

Anoop Singh 

74 Darnley Rd Gravesend 

Captain & Mrs Parfitt White Gables 25 Walmers Av Higham Rochester 

Ms A Tillman 

123 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BL 

P M Cunningham 


F Fearns 


T C Cadogam 

41 Milton Hall Rd Gravesend DA12 1QN 

Karen Williams 

38 Clarence Place Gravesend DA12 1LB 

Prof Philip Stott & Dr A Stott 24 Clarence Place Gravesend DA12 1LD 

Sophie Jordan 

63 Arthur St Gravesend DA11 0PR 

Tracey Rea 

125 Mulberry Rd Northfleet DA1 

Lee & Melissa Rousell 52 Norfolk Rd Gravesend DA12 2RX 

Maria Mathers 

19 Essex Rd Gravesend DA11 0SL 

James, Elissa & George Munns 8 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1AE 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 7

Page 40 

Elaine & Davis Moesli 26 Clarence Place Gravesend DA12 1LD 

A & C Nailor 

1 Farmcroft Gravesend DA11 7LT 

Michael Rose 

73 Cooper Close Greenhithe DA9 9PP 

Parvinder Gill 

26 Gwynn Rd Northfleet DA11 8AR 

Mr & Mrs J Hosegood Flat 23 The Pavillion Wrotham Rd Gravesend 

Tina Lee 

47 Phoenix Ct Blackeagle Drive Northfleet 

Misses D & H Moat 

Flat 16 The Pavillion Wrotham Rd Gravesend 

S Connor 

71 Shearwater New Barn DA3 7NL 

Mr & Mrs Roffey 

21 Nuthatch New Barn Longfield DA3 7NS 

K Curtis 

24 Arcadia Rd Northfleet DA13 9EH 

Bee Holmes 

69 Ridgeway Av Gravesend DA12 5BE 

D V Treadwell 

78 Dover Rd East Gravesend DA11 0RD 

Jessica Deadman 


Mr N J Blanche 

45 Lewis Rd Istead Rise DA13 9JQ 

Mr Mathew Waghorn 102 Gravesham Court Gravesend 

Mr Colin Watkins 

7 Victoria Av Gravesend DA12 1BU 

Mr L Ascott 

Prince Albert 26 Wrotham Rd 

Rachel Clear 

105 Ferndale Rd Gravesend DA12 5AE 

Paul Jacquemin 

Parrock Brokers 127/130 Windmill St 

P Saunders 

PPC 127/130 windmill St Gravesend 


Clarkes Electrical Services 127/128 Windmill St 

Gravesend 

Wayne & Faye Gurney 2 Victoria Av Gravesend DA12 1BU 

Mr & Mrs R King 


Mrs E P Miller 


David Bond 


Ms C German 


Mark Adams 


M Woods 


Owner/Occupier Zextra Euroguard Technical Services 127/130 

Windmill St 

Chris Barnard 

Basement Flat 110 Windmill St Gravesend 

Leon Meadley 

120C Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BL 

Mark Burton 

Flat 1 Campbell Arms 1 Campbell Rd Gravesend 

L Ascott 

12 Allington Close Gravesend DA12 2LS 

Lavina Street 

3 Brown Rd Gravesend DA12 4HX 

Charlotte Preston 

19 St James Rd Gravesend DA11 0HF 

Ben Beeby 

The White Swan Ash Rd Sevenoaks TN15 

Mr V Ball 

4 The Avenue Gravesend DA11 0NA 

P Dhillon 

20 Clarence Row Gravesend DA12 1HJ 

George Palanna 

7 Albion Rd Gravesend DA12 2SR 

P Hale 

122D Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BL 


122A Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BL 


72B Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BJ 

Matthew Blake 

3 Zion Place Gravesend DA12 1BH 

Kevin Tilson 


L Williams 


Nina & Sean Cadogan 5 Victoria Av Gravesend DA12 1BU 

Mr Derek Greenwood 4 Victoria Av Gravesend DA12 1BU 

Mr Robert & Mrs Dyer 3 Victoria Av Gravesend DA12 1BU 

William Azzi 


Ian Parsons 


Robin & Kelly Lynch 2 Sheppy Place Gravesend DA12 1BT 



REPORT NO 7 PAGE 8

Page 41 

G Humphrey 

Marco Manente 

Mario Edmund 

Mr Conleth Keely 

Paul Bennett 

Cezany Perdian 

72 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BJ 





71 Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0QB 

The general comments made in these letters are summarised in the list below: 

• It will be contrary to the Council’s stated development and regeneration plans 

for Gravesend Town Centre; 

• The proposal is for a hostel and not a hotel; 

• Consider the previously approved hotel with en-suite bedrooms and 

landscaping of the immediate area to be more appropriate; 

• Will be detrimental to the immediate surroundings and Gravesend as a whole; 

• Gravesend is not a tourism centre and an influx of migrant workers to an 

extremely low priced hostel cannot automatically equate to an injection of funds 

to the local economy; 

• The proposal is not in keeping with the Conservation Area; 

• If approved would welcome provisions to be put in place preventing certain 

“groups” using the premises; 

• No CCTV cameras overlooking this area; 

• A town centre hostel with undesirable patrons and unpleasant aesthetic does 

not uphold status of Gravesend as a heritage town; 

• Insufficient parking facilities; 

• Overlooking to adjoining properties; 

• Visit to other Journeys Hostel at Deptford found a building in a dilapidated 

condition and overcrowded due to number of residents; 

• No improvements to the exterior façade of the building or landscaping; 

• Potential for light and noise pollution at the rear of Cygnet House. 


Background 

The Local Planning Authority recognises the importance of hotel development to help 

underpin its objectives for both business and leisure development. Gravesend town 

centre and its revitalisation is a key priority, and there is a desire to attract hotel 

development here. Furthermore, in planning terms, it recognises also the need for 

hotel development to support activity around Ebbsfleet and along the A2 corridor. 

There has been some loss of hotel accommodation, most recently with the closure and 

sale of the Clarendon Hotel along the river front. Also, the Tollgate on the A2 has been 

closed as a hotel and was used by Skanska as a base for the A2 widening project. 

In June 2007 the Kent Thameside Hotel Futures Study was published by the Kent 

Thameside Delivery Board, with the support of Tourism South East, which provides a 

robust evidence base of the current and potential future demand and development 

potential for hotels in Kent Thameside. 

This report identified that the contractors market is very strong for budget hotels, 

particularly in Gravesend. It also concluded that midweek occupancies are very high 

for Kent Thameside budget hotels. Most of them regularly deny business during the 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 9

Page 42 

week, at times to significant levels. Midweek denials are especially high for Gravesend 

budget hotels. 

Similarly, Saturday occupancies are also strong for budget hotels. Friday and Sunday 

occupancies are lower, but pick up in the summer months as a result of increased 

trade from people attending weddings and family functions, families travelling en-route 

to the Continent and Brands Hatch events. Group tours are also a significant weekend 

market for one budget hotel. 

This research suggests potential for significant growth in demand for hotel 

accommodation of all standards in Kent Thameside over the next 20 years, particularly 

from the corporate and contractors market. In specific relation to budget and upper tier 

hotels, it recognises the potential for up to 5-9 budget and upper-tier budget hotels by 

2026, with immediate potential for at least one new budget hotel and scope for a 

further 1-2 budget/ upper-tier budget hotels by 2011. 

In particular this report identifies that there will a growing demand for budget hotel 

accommodation due to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, primarily from 

construction companies and contractors working on the Olympic Park. 

Location and accessibility 

Having established that there is an identified need for budget and upper tier budget 

hotels in Gravesend, it is important to consider the issues of location and accessibility. 

As stated in the Governments Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism it is 

important to recognise that the particular market being met by the accommodation may 

influence the suitability of a location. 

The hotel being proposed is for the budget market and, as identified by the applicant, 

will cater primarily for building contractors working in the vicinity and general visitors to 

the area. 

It is therefore considered that the site of Cygnet House, which is located on a main 

distributor road into and out of Gravesend Town Centre, as well as its proximity to 

Gravesend train station and other public transport links such as Fasttrack, is a suitable 

location for such a hotel. This site, whilst being quite sustainable in terms of its location 

to public transport and the town centre, is also suitable to cater for the anticipated high 

demand for use by car born visitors due to easy links to and from the A2. 

Use Classes Order 

In respect of classified use, hotels fall within Use Class C1 of the Town and Country 

Planning (Use Classes) 1987 Order. This Class includes boarding houses and guest 

houses where no significant element of care is provided. As such, if approved, the use 

of Cygnet House hereby sought can vary between these uses without planning 

consent being required. 

However, it is worthy of note that the change of use from a hotel (or any abovementioned 

C1 use) to a hostel would be a material change that would require planning 

permission that would be considered on its individual merits by the Local Planning 

Authority. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 10

Page 43 

Impact upon Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area 

The application building lies within the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area and 

therefore its impact upon the character and appearance of the area is a material 

consideration. However, by reason of the works being restricted primarily to 

conversion of an existing building, there is unlikely to be any significant impact upon 

the surrounding area. Furthermore, the elevational works proposed, such as new 

windows, a fresh colour scheme and a canopy at ground floor, as well as enhanced 

landscaping and boundary alignment, could go some way to improving the appearance 

of the building and its setting. 

The new use, in an area which already has a strong commercial character should have 

a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such 

it is considered that the scheme will visually enhance the character and appearance of 

the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area and is appropriate within its setting. 

However, it is again stated that the advertisements indicated on the proposed 

elevations are not subject to consideration under this planning application as they 

require separate consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of 

Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Notwithstanding this comment, concern 

is expressed at this stage about the likely adverse impact of these on the character 

and appearance of the conservation area. It is considered that any advertisements on 

this building should be more modest in size and of a more appropriate design. 

Hotel v Hostel 

This application has been submitted alongside a similar application for the conversion 

of Cygnet House to a hostel (20090411). As is evident from the vast amount of local 

representation that has been received to both applications, there is a strong opinion 

from local residents that, regardless of the submitted description, both proposals will 

provide hostel type accommodation. 

However, in assessing this application it is necessary to consider only the planning 

merits of the application and the likely impact that it will have upon the character of the 

area and the amenity of the adjoining residents. In the first instance it is therefore 

considered appropriate to compare the internal accommodation proposed with that 

previously considered by Members to be acceptable and subsequently approved in 

order to broadly establish whether the proposal is actually for a hostel. It is worthy of 

note that whilst planning legislation distinguishes that hostels are a materially different 

use to hotels, hence being classed as sui generis rather than being within Use Class 

C1, there is no recognised definition of a hostel. 

It is therefore argued that the key considerations are the impact that the 

accommodation proposed is likely to have upon the character of the area and 

the amenity of the residents rather than that of what it should be called. 

Proposed Scheme (20090347) Approved Scheme (20080087) 

48 bedrooms 60 bedrooms 

Communal shower rooms/wc’s 

En-suites in each room 

5no. small communal residents lounges 1no. large ground floor residents 

(one on each of the upper floors) 

lounge 

No on site provisions for food/drink 

Commercial kitchen with bar 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 11

Page 44 

The above list compares the approved hotel and the proposed one with the most 

significant difference being that the bedrooms no longer include en-suite bathrooms, 

which have been replaced by the provision of communal washing facilities and toilets 

on each floor. Also, the ground floor residents lounge, which was served by a kitchen 

that would afford residents the provision of food and drink, has been removed in place 

of small communal lounge areas on each floor. 

It is suggested by GBC Private Housing Manager that the premises may be classified 

as a House in Multiple Occupation. This stance is resolved partly by the fact that there 

is “a lack of adequate and sufficient basic services, specifically the lack of provision for 

meals and dining arrangements and sufficient basic bathroom amenities”. However, 

notwithstanding this comment, the argument to be assessed under this application is 

whether or not this revised means of accommodation would justify refusal of the 

application in planning terms. 

To that end it is questioned whether the deletion of en-suite bathrooms would have a 

significant impact in planning terms, and also in terms of defining the building as a 

hostel rather than a hotel. This is very much an internal arrangement and would not, for 

example, exacerbate concerns over disturbance to the neighbouring residents. 

Similarly, whilst the provision of small residents lounges may not be fundamental to the 

issue of whether the accommodation proposed is a hotel or a hostel, this does raise 

some planning concern over the potential impact upon adjoining residents. This matter, 

and the potential harm it may cause, is explored in more detail in the following section. 

For the purposes of this section however, it is resolved that the level of accommodation 

being proposed under application 20090347 is still a hotel falling within Use Class C1 

of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. 

In considering this resolution it is of interest to refer to a chain of hotels found within 

England and Europe known as Formula 1 Hotels. The level of accommodation 

provided in these premises is very similar to that being proposed under this current 

application and research indicates that it provides clean and cheap overnight 

accommodation. 

Impacts upon adjoining residents 

The first and perhaps most obvious issue to consider with regards to the impact of this 

proposal is on the adjoining properties relates to potential disturbance caused by 

residents coming, going and generally using the hotel and its facilities. In order to 

respect the amenity of the adjoining residents a condition can be imposed on any grant 

of consent to ensure that the noise emitted from the building shall not exceed the 

existing background noise level by more than 3dB, as determined at the nearest 

residential premises. However, a condition is not reasonable if it were to restrict the 

hours that vehicles could enter and leave the premises. Given the location of the site 

within close proximity to Gravesend Town Centre, and its current authorised use as an 

office block, some disruption will currently exist and this should not be significantly 

worsened by this proposal. 

It is noted that this proposal, unlike the previous consent under reference 20080087, 

does not include a residents lounge at ground floor level, but it does comprise 

communal residents lounges on each of the upper floors. This has the potential to 

raise additional concerns over amenity due to the presence of what will be 5no. 

residents lounges rather than one. Due to the restricted size of these communal 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 12

Page 45 

residents lounges it is likely that they will be furnished with televisions and audio 

systems to provide entertainment to the residents, which would have obvious potential 

to cause disturbance from amplified sound and people noise to nearby residents, 

particularly when the large windows are open. This concern is exacerbated by the 

potential for this premises to accommodate a greater number of residents over and 

above the proposed hotel use. The above referred condition controlling noise emitted 

from the premises relates to fixed plant and machinery noise. 

This matter has been raised with the Borough Council’s Senior Environmental Health 

Officer and it was commented that whilst there may exist the potential for some 

disturbance through this arrangement, the concern is not so obvious that the use 

should be resisted on this ground. It was acknowledged though that should this matter 

become a problem and give rise to complaints by neighbouring residents that it can be 

controlled by statutory nuisance legislation. 

Due to the omission in this application of a residents lounge with provisions for food 

and drink, it would not be necessary to impose a planning condition restricting the use 

of the hotel facilities to residents only. This matter was addressed under the previous 

hotel consent as it was providing communal ground floor eating/drinking facilities which 

would have had the potential to attract its own customers which may have created 

additional movements and disturbance as people come and go. 

Secondly, there is the impact that this proposal will have on the adjoining properties in 

respect of overlooking. Whilst it is appreciated that this situation currently exists with 

the buildings permitted use as offices, such occupation is principally during the working 

day rather than in the evenings and weekends. The introduction of a hotel will 

generally alter this situation with the majority of visitors occupying the rooms in the 

evenings and at weekends. 

This matter was addressed in the previous consent for a hotel by the imposition of a 

planning condition that required the installation of external louvre style blinds over 

each window opening before the use is first commenced. It is therefore considered that 

an identical approach would be reasonable under this application if Members are 

minded to approve the application. 

Highways Matters 

Comments made by Kent Highways Services suitably cover the highways assessment 

of this scheme. It is important to note the comment regarding the deletion of the 

previously proposed coach lay by on the Windmill Street frontage. The general 

comment in this respect is that, due to the limited demand for such a facility, it is not 

essential and may in fact create more problems in terms of highway safety and also 

unauthorised use by general vehicles, which would be difficult to control. 

Secondly, the comment regarding re-aligning parking spaces 14 and 15 can be 

required through condition if Members are minded to approve this application. 

The proposal also requires the loss of the existing lay by in Zion Place. Whilst there is 

no objection to the loss of this facility due to the level of on site provision for access 

and turning, on balance the preference would be to retain this facility. It is recognised 

by highway officers that the likelihood for this facility to generate significant coach 

movements is limited, but this existing smaller lay by could provide a useful dropping 

off area for cars and/or taxis. It has been confirmed by the applicant that should 

Members prefer to see this facility retained then the scheme can be amended to 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 13

Page 46 

accommodate this. It is however reiterated that whilst the retention of this lay by is the 

preference of officers, its deletion does not raise a fundamental highway objection. 

Ancillary Uses 

Turning to other impacts, a potential source of concern regarding applications for 

hotels relates to ancillary uses. This issue also causes some contention in determining 

which uses are ancillary and which result in a material change of use. If a hotel use is 

approved, uses which are judged to be ancillary, perhaps such as a hotel shop, 

restaurant and/or bar, will not require further planning consent. 

It is not anticipated though that the application subject of this report will raise 

significant issues with regards to ancillary uses due primarily to the restricted size of 

the building itself as well as the site. The majority of the site around the building will be 

allocated for car parking, whilst the only communal spaces within the building are 

modest rooms on the upper floors. 

Unlike the previously approved hotel, this proposal does not include a communal 

dining/drinking area to serve the residents. However, as identified in the earlier 

paragraph some small scale ancillary uses could be incorporated into the building 

without the need for planning permission. To this end, subject to the necessary 

licensing requirements, a residents bar/restaurant could be provided within this 

building without the requirement for planning permission. 

In view of the above raised issues with possible disturbance to the neighbouring 

residents, the introduction of such a facility only has the potential to worsen this 

situation. However, being an ancillary use the cumulative harm that may be caused by 

the introduction of this facility over and above the principle use may not be explicit. To 

overcome this concern the Local Planning Authority is able to impose a planning 

condition to require the applicant to make a formal application for any proposed 

ancillary uses such as a hotel bar, restaurant or shop. However, in considering this 

option it is relevant for Members to be aware that planning conditions are required to 

meet the basic tests set out in Circular 11/95, two of which requires the condition to be 

“reasonable” and “necessary”. In the situation whereby the harm that may be caused 

by the introduction of ancillary uses is not clear cut, it may be that such a condition 

would fail to meet these tests. 

Buildings Regulations/Fire Safety 

Whilst matters of fire safety and building regulations are not subject to consideration at 

this stage, it was considered prudent to informally discuss the proposal with relevant 

officers to gauge an initial opinion. In this respect, comment received from both a fire 

safety officer and a building control officer confirmed that the layout and arrangement 

of the building, with staircase access at either end and a spine corridor within, would 

appear to lend itself to the proposed use. 

Conclusion 

The previous planning permission for hotel use granted under reference 20080087 is a 

material consideration to be taken into account by Members in determining this 

application. In considering this application it is the stance of the Local Planning 

Authority that, although the arrangement of the accommodation has altered from the 

previous approval, it is still tantamount to being a hotel. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 14

Page 47 

Whilst the principle of a hotel use at this location is acceptable, it is though considered 

that the key issue for consideration by Members under this application is the possible 

impacts that this proposal will have over and above that of the originally approved 

hotel. To this end it is worthy of note that the overall number of bedrooms has been 

reduced from 60 to 48 and so at maximum occupancy would accommodate less 

people. However, the revised internal arrangement does have the potential to generate 

additional disturbance by incorporating a residents lounge at each level that may be 

more difficult to control, which would require control through good management of the 

premises. 

It would appear as though the key concern with a hostel type use over that of a hotel 

relates primarily to occupation. Generally speaking a hotel would provide 

accommodation for smaller groups of people, perhaps a family or few friends, whereas 

a hostel would provide accommodation for larger groups. It is therefore considered that 

to impose an occupancy limit on this hotel to require that it is not used for large groups 

of people being crammed together in single rooms may reduce concerns with the 

possible disturbance that could be generated by a higher intensity of use. To that end 

it is suggested that a planning condition be imposed restricted the number of 

residents occupying the premises at any one time to not exceed 150 persons. 

This would account for approximately two people per room, but cater for family rooms 

as well. This number has been derived from the view that generally a hotel bedroom 

will include either a double bed or twin beds that will provide sleeping accommodation 

for two people, but also that in some instances pull out beds are provided to cater for a 

child or children. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 15

Page 48 

Consultation expiry date: 


Permission, subject to the following conditions: 

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the 

expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. 

2. The premises hereby approved shall provide sleeping accommodation for not more 

than 150 persons at any one time. 

3. Prior to the commencement of the works to facilitate the conversion of the building 

as hereby approved, a scheme taking into account the existing noise levels due to 

traffic shall be submitted and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The 

noise scheme shall detail the noise attenuation provided by the construction, including 

design and installation of windows. Reference shall be made to the Kent County 

Standards as well as Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise). 


as hereby approved, details of the proposed boundary treatment shall be submitted to 

and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then 

be carried out in accordance with this approved detail prior to the premises first being 

brought into use. This scheme shall specifically include details of the boundary of the 

car park with the adjacent residential properties, including how noise and light impacts 

from the car park are to be satisfactorily ameliorated, and the enclosure fronting 

Windmill Street. 


as hereby approved, details of the proposed entry barrier off of Zion Place, as 

indicated on drawing HES0037/60, shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by 

the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance 

with this approved detail prior to the premises first being brought into use. 

6. The areas shown on approved drawing number HES0037/60 for vehicle/cycle 

parking, turning and service provision shall be provided before the use hereby 

permitted commences and no further development whether or not permitted by the 

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 shall be 

carried out on the land shown, or in such a position as to preclude vehicular parking, 

loading, off-loading and turning. 

7. A landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and be approved by or on behalf of the 

Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced and such scheme shall be 

implemented to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority within twelve months 

from the commencement of the works and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of 

the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years. 


as hereby approved, details of a refuse storage enclosure in the location proposed on 

approved drawing number HES0037/60 shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, 

by the Local Planning Authority. The approved storage area shall then be provided 

prior to the use hereby approved first commencing. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 16

Page 49 

9. The rating level of the noise emitted from any plant and equipment associated with 

this building (other than noise from the exit or entry of road vehicles), shall not exceed 

the existing background noise level by more than 3dB. The noise levels shall be 

determined at nearest residential premises. The measurements and assessments 

shall be made according to BS4142:1997. 

10. At no time shall any paraphernalia associated with the hotel use hereby approved 

be located on the open space adjacent to the building along the Windmill Street 

frontage. 


as hereby approved, details of an amended car parking layout showing parking spaces 

14 & 15 as annotated on approved drawing number HES0037/60 shall be set back to 

align with parking space 16 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. The car parking shall then be provided in accordance with this 

approved detail. 


as hereby approved, details of external louvre style window blinds on the west facing 

elevation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning 

Authority. The scheme shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved 

details prior to the use hereby approved first commencing. 

On the following grounds: 

1. In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

2. To prevent the hotel being over-intensively occupied. 

3. In the interest of amenity. 

4 & 5. Such details have not been submitted at this stage. 

6. To ensure adequate parking provision to serve the development. 

7. No such scheme has been submitted at this stage. 


9. In the interest of residential amenity. 

10. In order to respect the character and appearance of the Upper Windmill Street 

Conservation Area. 

11. To improve access within the site by removing an unnecessary pinch point. 

12. In order to mitigate overlooking to the adjoining dwellings. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 17

Page 50 

INFORMATIVE: REASONS FOR GRANT OF PERMISSION. 

1. Having regard to all relevant material planning considerations, permission has been 

granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, the 

development would not materially harm any interest of acknowledged importance. 

The decision has been taken having regard to national planning policy guidance 

and the policies and proposals of the development plan, principally: 


TC1 Design of New Developments 

TC3 Development in Conservation Areas 

T1 Highways 

P3 Parking 

TC1 

TC3 

The location, design and appearance of the proposed development is 

considered to be acceptable and would not have a detrimental effect on 

the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties and is in 

accordance with policy TC1 of the Development Plan. 

The proposed conversion of the existing building, by reason of the 

elevational works proposed, such as new windows and a fresh colour 

scheme, along with full height windows at ground floor and a canopy, 

aswell as enhanced landscaping, could go some way to improving the 

appearance of the building and its setting within the Upper Windmill Street 


T1 

The proposed development would not be detrimental to highway safety 

and is in accordance with the above policies in the Development Plan. 

P3 

The proposed development meets the requirements of parking standards 

set by Kent County Council and is in accordance with Policy P3 of the 

Development Plan. 

INFORMATIVE: ADVERTISEMENTS 

The submitted plans include details of suggested advertisements on the proposed 

hotel but, for the avoidance of doubt, these are only indicative at this stage and do not 

form part of this approval. Any applications would require separate approval under the 

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. 

Attach works of construction informative. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 18

House 

CLARENCEROW 

SHEPPYPLACE 

William 

Church 

51to54 

55 

44 

45 

59 

128 

3.8m 

LB 

132 

NORTHSTREET 

PoliceStation 

WOODVILLEPLACE 

Cygnet 

House 

Posts 

PH 

ZIONPLACE 

WROTHAMROAD 

61 

60 

50 

43 46 47 

62 

1 

51 

PH 

PO 

40 

49 

Posts 

1 6 

16 

21.8m 

17 

PH 

29.7m 

78 

2 

50 

49 

73 

72 72b 

72a 

122129 

48 

25 

12 

66 

71 

39 

30 

5 

62 

VictoriaAvenue 

23.1m 

27 

37 

25.9m 

Posts 

22 

1 

38 

Emmanuel 

SOUTHSTREET 

WINDMILLSTREET 

22.9m 

37a 

20.7m 

71b 

71a 

9 

6 

18to21 

116 

130 

1to6 

7 

Posts 

7 

House 

Windmill 

MasonicHall 

35 

40 41to54 

TheFleming 

ResourceCentr 

1 

ChurchCourt 

1to7 

SouthStreet 

Mews 

1to4 

Wrotham 

18to23 

Court 

1to17 

ED&WardBdy 

CR 

1:1,250 

Scale: 




N^ 


SiteLocation: 

BoardDate: 



GR/09/347 

ProposedHotel 

CygnetHouse 

132WindmillStreet 

Gravesend 

24June2009 

Page 51

Page 52 


Page 53 

Agenda Item 5d 


15 July 2009 20090396 24 June 2009 


Application for removal of conditions 2 and 14 of planning permission 

reference number 20080087 for change of use from offices to a 60 room hotel, 

relating to the coach drop off bay. 



Remove conditions 2 and 14 of planning permission reference 20080087 for 

change of use from offices to a 60 room hotel, relating to the coach drop off 

bay. 


The application site, known as Cygnet House, is located between Windmill Street, 

Zion Place and Sheppey Place and is situated on the outskirts of Gravesend Town 

Centre. It is within the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area. 


first floors occupied by the Kent Register Office. The building is now completely 

vacant though as the Registrars vacated the premises in late 2008 and the Council 

offices have been relocated to the refurbished Civic Centre. However, whilst some of 

the upper floors were redecorated and being advertised on a short term/flexible 

tenancy, there are currently no tenants. 







Zion Place. 


In the interest of brevity this section will only cover the planning history directly 

related to this application to remove two conditions attached to planning permission 

reference 20090087 for the conversion of Cygnet House to provide a 60 bedroom 

hotel.

Page 54 

Planning permission for the conversion of Cygnet House to provide a 60 bedroom 

hotel was granted on 30 May 2008 after having been referred to Regulatory Board on 

16 April 2008 and 28 May 2008. 

At the first meeting the officer’s recommendation was that planning permission should 

be granted subject to 12no. planning conditions. This initial proposal sought to retain 

the existing lay by in Zion Place to be used in conjunction with the proposed hotel. 

However, at this meeting it was resolved by Members to defer determination in order 

to assess possible changes to the site access and parking arrangements. 

In the interim period some ideas were put forward by the applicant and it was finally 

reported back to Members on 28 May 2008 with the recommendation that a coach lay 

by on Windmill Street be incorporated into the scheme with the existing smaller lay by 

on Zion Place being reinstated to footway. This approach was accepted by Members 

and it was resolved that determination be delegated to the Director (Business) for the 

issue of planning permission subject to the imposition of additional conditions relating 

to the proposed lay-by (including its use, dimensions and the materials used in its 

construction). 

This facilitated the need for an additional 2no planning conditions (conditions 2 and 

14) which are included below for information: 


as hereby approved, an amended site layout plan showing a coach drop off lay by in 

Windmill Street with dimensions to reflect the minimum standard for such a facility, 

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

said lay by shall then be fully constructed in accordance with these approved details, 

to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, prior to the approved use first 

commencing. Thereafter the drop off lay by shall be used only for loading/unloading 

and the setting down and picking up of passengers. 

14. Prior to the use hereby approved first commencing, the highway works to 

Windmill Street and Zion Place, to facilitate the coach lay by on Windmill Street and 

reinstatement of the footway on Zion Place (details of which are to be confirmed in 

pursuance to condition 2 of this consent), shall be carried out in accordance with the 

required specification to the satisfaction of Kent Highways Services and the Local 

Planning Authority. For the avoidance of any doubt, this shall be confirmed in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority before the use first commences. 

3. Proposal 

This current application seeks to remove the above two planning conditions and 

therefore the requirement to provide a dedicated coach drop off bay along Windmill 

Street, in favour of retaining the existing lay by in Zion Place to serve the hotel. 


The following policies from the Gravesham Local Plan First Review are of relevance 

to the determination of this application: 




REPORT NO 7 PAGE 2

Page 55 


Previous application considered by the Board. 

6. Consultations 


It is noted that the previously proposed lay by/drop off facility on the Windmill Street 

frontage has, as a result of the Safety Audit recommendations, been removed from 

the proposal. The existing facility on the Zion Place frontage has been re-introduced 

(ie retained) and, whilst this facility does not provide scope to park a coach as per the 

previous Windmill Street facility, it will nevertheless provide a drop off facility for taxis 

etc and will be located away from the classified road frontage in a location which 

does not adversely effect existing pedestrian movements. Furthermore, it is accepted 

that coach movements associated with a use of this type would be occasional at 

most. 


Comments made by Kent Highways Services suitably cover the highways assessment 

regarding the proposed deletion of the previously proposed coach lay by on the Windmill 

Street frontage. The general comment in this respect is that, due to the limited demand 

for such a facility, it is not essential and may in fact create more problems in terms of 

highway safety and also unauthorised use by general vehicles, which would be difficult 

to control. 

This matter has previously been considered under planning application reference 

20090015 for an almost identical hotel conversion as previously approved but omitting 

the previously proposed external alterations to the building. This application also deleted 

the coach lay by on Windmill Street. Upon consideration of this application by the 

Regulatory Board at the meeting on 18 March 2009 it was resolved that planning 

permission should be refused on the ground that it fails to enhance the character and 

appearance of the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area. The issue of deleting the 

coach lay by on Windmill Street was not included as a ground for refusal. 

It is therefore considered to be an acceptable arrangement to delete the previously 

proposed coach lay bay on Windmill Street in place of retaining the existing lay by on 

Zion Place. To this end the removal of conditions 2 and 14 of planning permission 

reference 20080087 is acceptable. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 3

Page 56 



Remove conditions 2 and 14 of planning permission reference 20080087 

subject to the following condition: 

The existing lay by on the Zion Place frontage shall be retained and kept available for 

use in conjunction with the approved 60 bedroom hotel use at all times. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 4

House 

CLARENCEROW 

SHEPPYPLACE 

William 

Church 

51to54 

55 

44 

45 

59 

128 

3.8m 

LB 

132 

NORTHSTREET 

PoliceStation 


Cygnet 

House 

Posts 

PH 

ZIONPLACE 

WROTHAMROAD 

61 

60 

50 

43 46 47 

62 

1 

51 

PH 

PO 

40 

49 

Posts 

1 6 

16 

21.8m 

17 

PH 

29.7m 

78 

2 

50 

49 

73 

72 72b 

72a 

122129 

48 

25 

12 

66 

71 

39 

30 

5 

62 


23.1m 

27 

37 

25.9m 

Posts 

22 

1 

38 

Emmanuel 

SOUTHSTREET 


22.9m 

37a 

20.7m 

71b 

71a 

9 

6 

18to21 

116 

130 

1to6 

7 

Posts 

7 

House 

Windmill 

MasonicHall 

35 

40 41to54 

TheFleming 

ResourceCentr 

1 

ChurchCourt 

1to7 

SouthStreet 

Mews 

1to4 

Wrotham 

18to23 

Court 

1to17 

ED&WardBdy 

CR 

1:1,250 

Scale: 




N^ 


SiteLocation: 

BoardDate: 



GR/09/396 

CygnetHouse 


Gravesend 

24June2009 

Page 57

Page 58 


Page 59 

Agenda Item 5e 


14 July 2009 20090411 24 June 2009 


Change of use of building from offices into a 48 room hostel with shared 

communal facilities involving demolition of single storey store and external 

alterations. 



Temporary permission (12 months), subject to conditions. 


The application site, known as Cygnet House, is located between Windmill Street, 

Zion Place and Sheppey Place and is situated on the outskirts of Gravesend Town 

Centre. It is within the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area. 


first floors occupied by the Kent Register Office. The building is now completely 

vacant though as the Registrars vacated the premises in late 2008 and the Council 

offices have been relocated to the refurbished Civic Centre. However, whilst some of 

the upper floors were redecorated and being advertised on a short term/flexible 

tenancy, there are currently no tenants. 







Zion Place. 


On the 17 April 2009 the LPA received allegations that the building was being 

renovated for use as a hostel as opposed to the approved 60 room hotel. Following 

investigations and upon discussion with Legal Services the LPA made an application 

for an injunction to prevent the owners HFHA from operating a hostel use in breach 

of planning control and to prevent the rooms being occupied by more than two 

persons. On the 14 May 2009 an undertaking was given by HFHA in the High 

Court , which was effectively an interim injunction not to use the building for 

accommodation purposes which included both as a hotel and hostel until the case 

had been fully considered at trial. On the 02 June 2009 the High Court rejected the

Page 60 

LPA’s application for a full injunction to prevent HFHA opening as a hostel in breach 

of planning control. 

The most recent planning application relating to this site was submitted under 

reference 20090015 which proposed the change of use of building from offices into a 

60 room hotel with communal facilities on the ground floor; laying out 44 car parking 

spaces and erection of covered cycle store. This application was effectively a cut 

down version of the planning approval granted under reference 20080087 that 

deleted the proposed external works to the building and the surrounding land. This 

application was subsequently refused consent on the ground of failing to enhance the 

character and appearance of the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area by reason 

of failing to incorporate any enhancements to the building and associated land. 

Prior to this an application for the change of use of the building to a 60 room hotel 

was submitted under reference 20080087 which was conditionally approved on 30 

May 2008. 

Preceding this, in 2007 a full planning application was submitted for the conversion of 

first to fifth floors of the building from offices to 40 one and two bedroom self 

contained flats with Registry Office on ground floor involving five and six storey side 

extensions and single storey front and side extension to provide enlarged Registrar's 

facilities and refuse stores at ground floor level; laying out of 38 car parking spaces, 

cycle store and amenity playground. 

This application was withdrawn on 8 June 2007 due to various concerns with the 

scheme. 

However, a formal resubmission for a similar proposal under reference GR/08/173, 

was received but was refused by the Regulatory Board on 27 August 2008. The 

grounds for refusal of this application related to the scale and massing of the 

proposed extensions and detrimental impact upon adjoining residents. 

Aside from the above more relevant history, in 1998 permission was granted for 

erection of a wall mounted fence and gates to the boundary, enclosure of basement 

area and erection of a rubbish store. Also, in 1996, permission was granted for the 

erection of an infill extension at ground floor level and alterations to the front 

elevations to form an entrance foyer, control room and lobby. 

The change of use to professional offices was approved in the 1960s. 

3. Proposal 

The application before Members is for the proposed change of use of Cygnet House 

from offices to a 48 bedroom hostel. The level of internal accommodation proposed, 

in a floor by floor basis, is as follows: 

Ground Floor 

Reception area and counter leading to two store rooms and a 

disabled toilet; 3no. wheelchair accessible rooms served by 

communal disabled wc and separate shower room; laundry 

room; meeting room and small storage room. 

1 st /2 nd /3 rd Floors 9no. rooms served by a communal shower room with 4no. 

cubicles, male and female toilets and a communal lounge area; 

2no. small storage areas are provided. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 2

Page 61 

4 th Floor 9no. rooms served by a communal shower room with 4no. 



5 th Floor 9no. rooms served by a communal shower room with 4no. 



In addition to the internal accommodation detailed above the site also comprises 

some ancillary land around the building to provide vehicle parking. In this respect 

vehicular access to the site is provided off of Zion Place as per the current 

arrangement with hardstanding that provides a total of 42no. car parking spaces, 

which includes two disabled spaces. Also provided to the south west of the site is an 

open area for bicycle and motor bicycle parking. 

The existing car park is reduced in size from the current layout on site by erecting a 

new brick wall with railings in line with the main front elevation along the Windmill 

Street elevation that will introduce and open landscaped area adjacent to the 

footway, with pedestrian access being provided to and from the reduced size car 

park. Along Zion Place it is proposed that the existing lay by is to be removed with 

the footway being reinstated. 

It is stated in the supporting Design & Access Statement that the hostel will be aimed 

at backpackers and student groups visiting London and the south east, as well as 

construction staff and other workers working away from home. It is also hoped that it 

will provide accommodation to visitors of the new Gurdwara. 

Each floor of the building will be able to operate independently so that the 

different visitor groups can be separated if required. The number of beds per 

room will vary with demand and the needs of the client, for example student 

groups may require a number of shared rooms as well as single rooms for 

supervising teaching staff. 

It is proposed that visitors will have the option of booking rooms as a whole, in 

a way a conventional hotel would operate, or booking individual beds within 

shared dormitories. It is also stated that the building will provide short stay 

accommodation only. 

Finally, it is worthy of note that whilst the submitted plans indicate suggested 

advertisements, these do not form part of this planning application as they would 

require separate approval under the Town and Country Planning (Control of 

Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. 







REPORT NO 7 PAGE 3

Page 62 

Also, the following policy from the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 is relevant. 

As this policy is more specific to this application and less familiar to Members, it is 

included in full: 

Policy EP12: Tourist Accommodation 

(a) Sites for the development of high quality tourist, business and conference hotels 

and for budget hotels will be identified as first priority in, or adjacent to, centres within 

the strategic hierarchy of centres as identified on the Key Diagram and in Table EP4. 

(b) Proposals for hotel development must demonstrate that they will have no 

significant adverse environmental or transport impact. 

(c) Proposals which would result in the loss, without replacement, of good quality 

accommodation will not be permitted unless there is overriding economic advantage 

to the area from the development. 

(d) The conversion or extension of existing buildings to provide small hotels, bed and 

breakfast or self catering accommodation will be permitted provided this causes no 

harm to the local environment. 

(e) The improvement of touring and static caravan and camping sites will be 

permitted if the development benefits the local environment. 

Further to the above policy, with the recent adoption of the South East Plan the 

policies contained in the Kent & Medway Structure Plan are effectively superseded 

and will cease to have any status after 6 July 2009. It is therefore relevant to refer to 

the following policy included within the South East Plan: 

POLICY TSR5: TOURIST ACCOMMODATION 

The diversity of the accommodation sector will be positively reflected in tourism and 

planning policies. 

i. In formulating planning policies and making decisions local planning authorities 

should: 

• consider the need for hotel developments to be in the proposed location, 

including links with the particular location, transport interchange or visitor 

attraction, and seek measures to increase access for all by sustainable transport 

modes; 

• provide specific guidance on the appropriate location for relevant 

accommodation sub-sectors. This should be informed by their different site 

requirements and market characteristics and how these relate to local planning 

objectives 

• encourage the extension of hotels where this is required to upgrade the quality of 

the existing stock to meet changing consumer demands. 

• include policies to protect the accommodation stock where there is evidence of 

market demand 

• strongly encourage the provision of affordable staff accommodation as part of 

new and existing accommodation facilities in areas of housing pressure. The 

criteria for the application of such a requirement should be clearly set out in the 

development plans 

• facilitate the upgrading and enhancement of existing un-serviced 

accommodation, including extensions where this will not harm landscape quality 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 4

Page 63 

or identified environmental assets. Particular attention should be paid to 

identifying suitable sites for the relocation of holiday parks under threat from 

coastal erosion or flooding. 

ii Tourism South East and local authorities should, working together, undertake active 

monitoring of the demand for and supply of tourism accommodation on a regional and 

sub-regional basis. 


Previous application considered by the Board. 

6. Consultations and Publicity 

Consultations 


There are no objections in principle to these proposals. However, the alignment of 

parking bays 14 and 15 creates an avoidable pinch point which can be removed by 

setting these bays back to align with bay 16 and it is therefore recommended that this 

amendment be made. 

Private Sector Housing 

The proposals are unsatisfactory for the following reasons: 

There is a lack of adequate and sufficient basic amenities specifically:- 

The personal washing facilities are insufficient for the numbers proposed. 

The absence of cooking facilities (or provision of board in the absence of cooking 

facilities) 

Section 622 of The Housing Act 1985 defines the term hostel – 

“means a building in which is provided, for persons generally or for a class or classes 

or persons – 

a) residential accommodation otherwise than in separate and self-contained sets of 

premises, and 

b) either board or facilities for the preparation of food adequate to the needs of those 

persons, or both.” 

Hostels generally offer short term accommodation usually for a specific client group 

e.g people with mental health problems, women fleeing domestic violence, homeless 

people or young people at risk. 

This application clearly does not meet with this definition. 

The occupation and use of premises will determine whether the property should be 

classified as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and whether licensing under the 

Housing Act 2004, Part 2 is appropriate. The prescribed definition of a HMO is set 

down in SI 2006 No. 371. It should be noted that in determining whether the 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 5

Page 64 

premises will require a licence the maximum length of residency can be set by the 

local authority. 

Failure to licence such a premises is a criminal offence and is subject to a maximum 

fine of £20,000. 

Due to the possible fluctuating nature of the proposed population/occupancy of these 

premises it may move in and out of the definition of a HMO. To remove doubts about 

the premises status this department have the power to make a HMO declaration. 

The proposals do not meet the standards in the Kent wide ‘Standards to Houses in 

Multiple Occupation, Amenity Standards’, (a copy of these standards are enclosed 

for the applicant’s information). 

Should the premises not be classed as a HMO then any deficiencies or lacking 

amenities can be assessed and remedial works required under the Housing Health 

and Rating System (HHSRS). The applicant must be satisfied that no Category 1 

hazards exist as defined by the HHSRS. Information on the Housing Act 2004 and 

HHSRS can be found at 

www.communities.gov.uk/housing/rentingandletting/housinghealth/ 

and www.lacors.gov.uk 

Local housing authorities have a mandatory duty to act should a category 1 hazard 

become evident and a discretionary duty to act on category 2 hazards. 

The applicant is advised to consult with Kent Fire and Rescue regarding fire safety 

issues. 

The applicant is strongly advised to consult with the Private Sector Housing Team at 

their earliest convenience. A member of the team can be contacted on telephone 

number 01474 33 74 66. 


It is understood that there is no commercial kitchen proposed for this development. 

Were this to change this Service would need to be consulted in order to ensure the 

ventilation system is adequate to prevent detriment to the neighbourhood. There are 

no environmental protection objections to the application, subject to the following 

comments: 

Boundary treatment 

A scheme detailing the boundary of the car-park with the adjacent residential 

properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning 

Authority prior to commencement of any works on site. The scheme shall show how 

noise and light impacts from the car park are to be satisfactorily ameliorated. 

Traffic Noise. 

A scheme taking into account the existing noise levels due to traffic shall be 

submitted and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to 

commencement of any works on site. The noise scheme shall detail the noise 

attenuation provided by the construction, including design and installation of 

windows. Reference shall be made to the Kent County Standards as well as Planning 

Policy Guidance (Planning and Noise) PPG24. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 6

Page 65 

Commercial Refuse Arrangements 





Commercial Refuse Arrangements - Advisory Notes 

Compliance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 "Duty of Care" is essential. 

Advice on Solid Waste Management can be obtained from Waste Services on 

[01474] 337533. 

Works of Construction. 

Please add code of construction practice informative. 


This is mostly a planning issue but I would question the signage proposed to the 

upper floors. 


The application was advertised to the adjoining residents by way of neighbour 

notification letters and a site notice. Letters from the following people were received: 

Marco Manente 


M & D Wine Merchants Ltd 

S Claricoats 

Mr Blake 

L Williams 

D Greenwood 

Mr & Mrs Coldwell 

William Azzi 

I & J Parsons 

Miss V Dering 

Paul Bennett 

Lee Ascott 

Mr Axon 

Mr & Mrs Gibson 

K Ahuja 

D Watts 

Helen Black 

George Palanna 

R Wittenbaker 

J Viner 

J Cadogan 

Miss Deakins 

Mrs Burke 

M Maynard 

Sue Christiansen 

M Ferrara 

K White 

Mrs R Nafri 

Mrs R Heron 


122a Windmill St Gravesend DA23 1BL 

60/61 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BB 

72B Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BJ 







Flat4 67 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BJ 


Prince Albert 26 Wrotham Rd Gravesend 

31 Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0PN 

116 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BN 


2 Basi House 115/117 Wrotham Rd 

3 Cambrian Grove Gravesend DA11 0PU 

Flat 6 7 Albion Rd Gravesend DA12 2SR 

200 Waterdales Northfleet DA11 8JW 

Flat 42 Carl Ekman House Tooley St Northfleet 

41 Milton Hall Rd Gravesend DA12 1QN 

36 Cameron Drive Dartford DA1 5GN 

70 Woolwich Rd Upper Belvedere DA17 5EN 

12 Christchurch Rd Gravesend DA12 1JL 

23 Priolo Rd Charlton London SE7 7PU 

12 Essex Rd Gravesend DA11 0SP 

2 Bridge Cottage Sole St Cobham 

102 Homemead Close Gravesend DA12 1HS 

4 The Avenue Greenhithe DA9 9NT 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 7

Page 66 

J Hayre 

Mr D A Holmer 

Camilla Goh 

Mr M Lloyd 

Mrs Photay 

L Hughes 

Mrs K Davies 

D Holmes 

Mr & Mrs S Greenwood 

I Rees 

Louisa Tandy 

Jenny Cooper 

Mrs E Comerford 

Lorna Humphrey 

Mrs L A Parkinson 

Mr G Hamblett 

H Cheema 

M Goldberg 

Mrs K Friday 

D V Solanki 

T Tester 

C Lee 


Susan Manente 

Peter De Klert & Liz Fox 

J Collins 

Miss Wall 

Mrs C Tillson 

Ms C Preston 

Ms C Bradbrook 

Ms l Bradbrook 

Ms M Mathers 

C Deadman 

J Matthews 

David Collins 

Mrs C Keane 

L Archibald 

A Chapman 

J Le-Calvez 

Mr J Agar 

L Ascott 

M Burton 

Mr A King 

Mr Barford 

Lorraine Berry 

Sophie Jordan 

Mark Simmonds 

Darren Still 

Miss Froelich 

Munns 

Michael Jones 

Sharon Hills 

Mr & Mrs Miller 

122 Wellington St Gravesend DA12 1JE 

18 Hollybush Rd Gravesend DA12 5QQ 

91 Darnley Rd Gravesend DA11 0SQ 

37 Elm Rd Gravesend DA12 5LE 

13 Barr Rd Gravesend DA12 4DU 

49 Cross Lane East Gravesend 

32 Elmfield Close Gravesend DA11 0LP 

18 Hollybush Rd Gravesend DA12 5QQ 

12 The Old Yews New Barn DA3 9J 

82 Medhurst Gardens Gravesend DA12 4HE 

Louisa’s Grooming Saloon 23 Harmer St 

Gravesend 

121 Milton Rd Gravesend DA12 2PF 

Flat 43 Clarence Row Gravesend DA12 1HJ 

Laurel House 39 South Hill Rd Gravesend 

11 Clarendon Rd Gravesend DA12 2BP 

9 Park Rd Gravesend DA11 7PR 

408 Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 7PF 

80 Edwin St Gravesend DA12 1EJ 

2 Pinnocks Av Gravesend DA11 7QD 

72 Pine Av Gravesend DA12 1QZ 

15 Singlewell Rd Gravesend DA11 7PN 

12 Portland Av Gravesend DA12 5HE 

4 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1AD 

29 Old Rd West Gravesend DA11 0LH 

82 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1BN 

64a Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0QF 

64B Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0QF 

82 Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0QQ 

19 St James Rd Gravesend DA11 0HF 

4 Primrose Terrace Shrubbery Rd Gravesend 

4 Primrose Terrace Shrubbery Rd Gravesend 

19 Essex Rd Gravesend DA11 0SL 


34 Lennox Rd Gravesend DA11 0EP 

31 London Rd Northfleet DA11 9JR 

7 Lydia Cottages Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 






First Floor Flat 1 Campbell Arms 1 Campbell Rd 

20 Glynoe Rd Bexleyheath DA7 4ET 

53 Latham Rd Bexleyheath DA6 7NN 

18 Kingswood Rd Gillingham ME7 1DZ 

63 Arthur St Gravesend DA11 0PR 

8a Darnley St Gravesend DA11 0PJ 

4 Pennine Way Northfleet DA11 8LA 

23 Colvin Gardens Herts EN8 9QZ 

8 Windmill St Gravesend DA12 1AE 

10 Sheppy Place Gravesend 

26 Wrotham Rd Gravesend DA11 0PW 


REPORT NO 7 PAGE 8

Page 67 

David Bond 

Claire Grehan 

Mr & Mrs Woods 

Miss G Douglas 





The comments made in these letters are summarised in the list below: 

• It will be contrary to the Council’s stated development and regeneration plans 

for Gravesend Town Centre; 

• Consider the previously approved hotel with en-suite bedrooms and 

landscaping of the immediate area to be more appropriate; 

• Will be detrimental to the immediate surroundings and Gravesend as a whole; 

• Gravesend is not a tourism centre and an influx of migrant workers to an 

extremely low priced hostel cannot automatically equate to an injection of 

funds to the local economy; 

• The proposal is not in keeping with the Conservation Area; 

• If approved would welcome provisions to be put in place preventing certain 

“groups” using the premises; 

• No CCTV cameras overlooking this area; 

• A town centre hostel with undesirable patrons and unpleasant aesthetic does 

not uphold status of Gravesend as a heritage town; 

• Insufficient parking facilities; 

• Overlooking to adjoining properties; 

• Visit to other Journeys Hostel at Deptford found a building in a dilapidated 

condition and overcrowded due to number of residents; 

• No improvements to the exterior façade of the building or landscaping; 

• Potential for light and noise pollution at the rear of Cygnet House. 


Background 

The Local Planning Authority recognises the importance of hotel development to help 

underpin its objectives for both business and leisure development. Gravesend town 

centre and its revitalisation is a key priority, and there is a desire to attract hotel 

development here. Furthermore, in planning terms, it recognises also the need for 

hotel development to support activity around Ebbsfleet and along the A2 corridor. 

There has been some loss of hotel accommodation, most recently with the closure 

and sale of the Clarendon Hotel along the river front. Also, the Tollgate on the A2 has 

been closed as a hotel and is currently being used by Skanska as a base for the A2 

widening project. 

In June 2007 the Kent Thameside Hotel Futures Study was published by the Kent 

Thameside Delivery Board, with the support of Tourism South East, which provides a 

robust evidence base of the current and potential future demand and development 

potential for hotels in Kent Thameside. 

This report identified that the contractors market is very strong for budget hotels, 

particularly in Gravesend. It also concluded that midweek occupancies are very high 

for Kent Thameside budget hotels. Most of them regularly deny business during the 

week, at times to significant levels. Midweek denials are especially high for 

Gravesend budget hotels. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 9

Page 68 

Similarly, Saturday occupancies are also strong for budget hotels. Friday and Sunday 

occupancies are lower, but pick up in the summer months as a result of increased 

trade from people attending weddings and family functions, families travelling enroute 

to the Continent and Brands Hatch events. Group tours are also a significant 

weekend market for one budget hotel. 

This research suggests potential for significant growth in demand for hotel 

accommodation of all standards in Kent Thameside over the next 20 years, 

particularly from the corporate and contractors market. In specific relation to budget 

and upper tier hotels, it recognises the potential for up to 5-9 budget and upper-tier 

budget hotels by 2026, with immediate potential for at least one new budget hotel 

and scope for a further 1-2 budget/ upper-tier budget hotels by 2011. 

In particular this report identifies that there will a growing demand for budget hotel 

accommodation due to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, primarily from 

construction companies and contractors working on the Olympic Park. 

Location and accessibility 

Having established that there is an identified need for budget and upper tier budget 

hotels in Gravesend, it is important to consider the issues of location and 

accessibility. As stated in the Governments Good Practice Guide on Planning for 

Tourism it is important to recognise that the particular market being met by the 

accommodation may influence the suitability of a location. 

The hotel being proposed is for the upper tier budget market and, as identified by the 

applicant, will cater primarily for transient business travellers during the week and for 

short term stays at weekends for family visits and tourists. 

It is therefore considered that the site of Cygnet House, which is located on a main 

distributor road into and out of Gravesend Town Centre, as well as its proximity to 

Gravesend train station and other public transport links such as Fasttrack, is a 

suitable location for such a hotel. This site, whilst being quite sustainable in terms of 

its location to public transport and the town centre, is also suitable to cater for the 

anticipated high demand for use by car born visitors due to easy links to and from the 

A2. 

Whilst the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 provides no specific policy on 

hotel provision, the more recent Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 does. Policy 

EP12 of this adopted document states that sites for high quality tourist, business and 

conference hotels and for budget hotels will be identified as first priority in or adjacent 

to centres within the defined strategic hierarchy of centres. Gravesend is defined as a 

Principle Town Centre within Kent and whilst the site subject of this application is not 

immediately within the town centre, it is considered to be close enough to take 

advantage of the services that it offers and also to contribute towards improvements 

in the economic development of the Town by providing accommodation for visitors. 

Use Classes Order 

In respect of classified use, hostels fall to be classed as Sui Generis in terms of the 

Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) 1987 Order. This excludes them from Use 

Class C1 within which hotels are included and basically states that they are in a class 

of their own for planning purposes. In the event that permission is granted for a 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 10

Page 69 

hostel then planning permission would be required to convert the premises to any 

alternative use in the future, unlike hotels that are able to change between uses such 

as boarding houses and guest houses. 

Impact upon Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area 

The application building lies within the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area and 

therefore its impact upon the character and appearance of the area is a material 

consideration. However, by reason of the works being restricted primarily to 

conversion of an existing building, there is unlikely to be any significant impact upon 

the surrounding area. Furthermore, the elevational works proposed, such as new 

windows, a fresh colour scheme and a canopy at ground floor, as well as enhanced 

landscaping and boundary alignment, could go some way to improving the 

appearance of the building and its setting. 

The new use, in an area which already has a strong commercial character should 

have a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 

As such it is considered that the scheme will visually enhance the character and 

appearance of the Upper Windmill Street Conservation Area and is appropriate within 

its setting. 

However, it is again stated that the advertisements indicated on the proposed 

elevations are not subject to consideration under this planning application as they 

require separate consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of 

Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Notwithstanding this comment, 

concern is expressed at this stage about the likely adverse impact of these on the 

character and appearance of the conservation area. It is considered that any 

advertisements on this building should be more modest in size and of a more 

appropriate design. 

Hotel v Hostel 

This application has been submitted alongside a similar application for the 

conversion of Cygnet House to a hostel (20090411). As is evident from the large 

number of local representation that has been received to both applications, there is a 

strong opinion from local residents that, regardless of the submitted description, both 

proposals will provide hostel type accommodation. To this end there is significant 

local objection. 

However, in assessing this application it is necessary to consider only the planning 

merits of the application and the likely impact that it will have upon the character of 

the area and the amenity of the adjoining residents. In the first instance it is therefore 

considered appropriate to compare the internal accommodation proposed with that 

previously considered by Members to be acceptable and subsequently approved in 

order to broadly establish whether the proposal is actually for a hostel. It is worthy of 

note that whilst planning legislation distinguishes hostels as a materially different use 

to hotels (hence being classed as sui generis rather than being within Use Class C1) 

there is no recognised definition of a hostel. 

It is therefore argued that the key considerations are the impact that the 

accommodation proposed is likely to have upon the character of the area and 

the amenity of the residents rather than that of what it should be called. 

Proposed Scheme (20090411) Approved Scheme (20080087) 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 11

Page 70 

48 bedrooms 60 bedrooms 

Communal shower rooms/wc’s 

En-suites in each room 

5no. small communal residents lounges 1no. large ground floor residents 

(one on each of the upper floors) 

lounge 

No on site provisions for food/drink Commercial kitchen with bar 

The above list compares the approved hotel and the proposed hostel with the most 

significant difference being that the bedrooms no longer include en-suite bathrooms, 

which have been replaced by the provision of communal washing facilities and toilets 

on each floor. Also, the ground floor residents’ lounge, which was served by a kitchen 

that would afford residents the provision of food and drink, has been removed in 

place of small communal lounge areas on each floor. 

It is suggested by GBC Private Housing Manager that the premises may be classified 

as a House in Multiple Occupation. This stance is resolved partly by the fact that 

there is “a lack of adequate and sufficient basic services, specifically the lack of 

provision for meals and dining arrangements and sufficient basic bathroom 

amenities”. However, notwithstanding this comment, the argument to be assessed 

under this application is whether or not this revised means of accommodation would 

justify refusal of the application in planning terms. 

To that end it is questioned whether the deletion of en-suite bathrooms would have a 

significant impact in planning terms, and also in terms of defining the building as a 

hostel rather than a hotel. This is very much an internal arrangement though and 

would not, for example, exacerbate concerns over disturbance to the neighbouring 

residents. 

Similarly, whilst the provision of small residents lounges may not be fundamental to 

the issue of whether the accommodation proposed is a hotel or a hostel, this does 

raise some planning concern over the potential impact upon adjoining residents. This 

matter, and the potential harm it may cause, is explored in more detail in the following 

section. 

A strong argument that this use would have a greater impact upon the neighbouring 

properties is due to the greater number of persons that could be accommodated 

within the building. Whilst the number of bedrooms is set at 48, as stated in the 

applicants accompanying statement the number of beds per room will vary with 

demand and the needs of the client. This appears to be a key juncture where this 

accommodation perhaps shifts away from being a hotel and becomes more hostellike. 

Whilst there may be no objection to the principle of providing some sleeping 

accommodation on a bed by bed basis, this situation would create the potential 

for a building that is intensely occupied, with possible knock on effects in 

terms of adjoining residential amenity. 

It is to this end, namely the matter of occupancy levels, that raises the key difference 

between the hostel proposed under this application and the hotel proposed under 

reference 20090347. 

Impacts upon adjoining residents 

The first and perhaps most obvious issue to consider with regards to the impact of 

this proposal is on the adjoining properties relates to potential disturbance caused by 

residents coming, going and generally using the premises. In order to respect the 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 12

Page 71 

amenity of the adjoining residents a condition can be imposed on any grant of 

consent to ensure that the noise emitted from the building shall not exceed the 

existing background noise level by more than 3dB, as determined at the nearest 

residential premises. However, a condition is not reasonable if it were to restrict the 

hours that vehicles could enter and leave the premises. Given the location of the site 

within close proximity to Gravesend Town Centre, and its current authorised use as 

an office block, some disruption will currently exist and this should not be significantly 

worsened by this proposal. 

It is noted that this proposal, unlike the previous consent under reference 20080087, 

does not include a residents lounge at ground floor level, but it does comprise 

communal residents lounges on each of the upper floors. This has the potential to 

raise additional concerns over amenity due to the presence of what will be 5no. 

residents lounges rather than one. Due to the restricted size of these communal 

residents lounges it is likely that they will be furnished with televisions and audio 

systems to provide entertainment to the residents, which would have obvious 

potential to cause disturbance from amplified sound and people noise to nearby 

residents, particularly when the large windows are open. This concern is exacerbated 

by the potential for this premises to accommodate a greater number of residents over 

and above the proposed hotel use. The above referred condition controlling noise 

emitted from the premises relates to fixed plant and machinery noise. 

This matter has been raised with the Borough Council’s Senior Environmental Health 

Officer and it was commented that whilst there may exist the potential for some 

disturbance through this arrangement, the concern is not so obvious that the use 

should be resisted on this ground. It was acknowledged though that should this 

matter become a problem and give rise to complaints by neighbouring residents that 

it can be controlled by statutory nuisance legislation. 

Due to the omission in this application of a residents’ lounge with provisions for food 

and drink, it would not be necessary to impose a planning condition restricting the 

use of the hotel facilities to residents only. This matter was addressed under the 

previous hotel consent as it was providing communal ground floor eating/drinking 

facilities which would have had the potential to attract its own customers which may 

have created additional movements and disturbance as people come and go. 

Secondly, there is the impact that this proposal will have on the adjoining properties 

in respect of overlooking. Whilst it is appreciated that this situation currently exists 

with the buildings permitted use as offices, such occupation is principally during the 

working day rather than in the evenings and weekends. The introduction of a hostel 

will generally alter this situation with the majority of visitors occupying the rooms in 

the evenings and at weekends. 

This matter was addressed in the previous consent for a hotel by the imposition of a 

planning condition that required the installation of external louvre style blinds over 

each window opening on the west facing elevation before the use is first 

commenced. It is therefore considered that an identical approach would be 

reasonable under this application if Members are minded to approve the application. 

Highways Matters 

Comments made by Kent Highways Services suitably cover the highways 

assessment of this scheme. It is important to note the comment regarding the 

deletion of the previously proposed coach lay-by on the Windmill Street frontage. The 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 13

Page 72 

general comment in this respect is that, due to the limited demand for such a facility, 

it is not essential and may in fact create more problems in terms of highway safety 

and also unauthorised use by general vehicles, which would be difficult to control. 

Secondly, the comment regarding re-aligning parking spaces 14 and 15 can be 

required through condition if Members are minded to approve this application. 

The proposal also requires the loss of the existing lay by in Zion Place. Whilst there 

is no objection to the loss of this facility due to the level of on site provision for access 

and turning, on balance the preference would be to retain this facility. It is recognised 

by highway officers that the likelihood for this facility to generate significant coach 

movements is limited, but this existing smaller lay by could provide a useful dropping 

off area for cars and/or taxis. It has been confirmed by the applicant that should 

Members prefer to see this facility retained then the scheme can be amended to 

accommodate this. It is however reiterated that whilst the retention of this lay by is 

the preference of officers, its deletion does not raise a fundamental highway 

objection. 

Ancillary Uses 

Turning to other impacts, a potential source of concern regarding applications for 

hotels/hostels relates to ancillary uses. This issue also causes some contention in 

determining which uses are ancillary and which result in a material change of use. If 

a hostel use is approved, uses which are judged to be ancillary, perhaps such as a 

snack bar and/or eating area, will not require further planning consent. 

It is not anticipated though that the application subject of this report will raise 

significant issues with regards to ancillary uses due primarily to the restricted size of 

the building itself as well as the site. The majority of the site around the building will 

be allocated and kept available for car parking, whilst the only communal spaces are 

small residents lounges on the upper floors. 

Unlike the previously approved hotel, this proposal does not include a communal 

dining/drinking area to serve the residents. However, as identified in the earlier 

paragraph some small scale ancillary uses could be incorporated into the building 

without the need for planning permission. To this end, subject to the necessary 

licensing requirements, a residents bar/restaurant could be provided within this 

building without the requirement for planning permission. 

In view of the above raised issues with possible disturbance to the neighbouring 

residents, the introduction of such a facility only has the potential to worsen this 

situation. However, being an ancillary use the cumulative harm that may be caused 

by the introduction of this facility over and above the principle use may not be explicit. 

To overcome this concern the Local Planning Authority is able to impose a planning 

condition to require the applicant to make a formal application for any proposed 

ancillary uses such as a drinking area or a cafe. However, in considering this option it 

is relevant for Members to be aware that planning conditions are required to meet the 

basic tests set out in Circular 11/95, two of which require the condition to be 

“reasonable” and “necessary”. In the situation whereby the harm that may be caused 

by the introduction of ancillary uses is not clear cut, it may be that such a condition 

would fail to meet these tests and be open to a challenge. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 14

Page 73 

Buildings Regulations/Fire Safety 

Whilst matters of fire safety and building regulations are not subject to consideration 

at this stage, it was considered prudent to informally discuss the proposal with 

relevant officers to gauge an initial opinion. In this respect, comment received from 

both a fire safety officer and a building control officer confirmed that the layout and 

arrangement of the building, with staircase access at either end and a spine corridor 

linking them, would appear to lend itself to the proposed use. 

Conclusion 

The previous planning permission for hotel use granted under reference 20080087 is 

a material consideration to be taken into account by Members in determining this 

application. Whilst the proposal subject of this application is tantamount to being a 

hostel rather than a hotel, the principle has been established that Cygnet House is 

well suited to providing this form of short stay accommodation. 

It would appear as though the key concern with a hostel type use over that of a hotel 

relates primarily to the potential levels of occupation. Generally speaking a hotel 

would provide accommodation for smaller groups of people, perhaps a family or few 

friends, whereas a hostel would provide accommodation for larger groups on a more 

intensive basis. 

However, the harm that may be caused by the intensive use of these premises is not 

explicit, and it is therefore suggested that a temporary planning permission be 

granted in order that the impact of the use can be fully assessed as it operates. In 

this respect it is considered that a 12 month temporary planning permission would 

provided a sufficient period of time to enable an accurate assessment of its impact 

whilst at the same time not allowing an excessive period in the event that significant 

impacts are experienced. 

Furthermore, as per the concurrent hotel application, the imposition of an occupancy 

limit is recommended to safeguard against excessive occupancy. To this end it is 

suggested that a planning condition be imposed restricting the number of 

residents occupying the premises at any one time to not exceed 300 persons. 

This number has been derived from information provided on submitted drawing 

numbers HES0037/70 and HES0037/71 which indicate bed spaces (bunk beds) for 

up to 279 persons. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 15

Page 74 



Temporary permission, subject to the following conditions: 

1. The permission hereby granted for the change of use of the premises to hostel 

shall be for a temporary period of 12 months only to expire on [add relevant date]. 

2. The premises hereby approved shall provide sleeping accommodation for not 

more than 300 persons at any one time. 


as hereby approved, a scheme taking into account the existing noise levels due to 

traffic shall be submitted and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 

The noise scheme shall detail the noise attenuation provided by the construction, 

including design and installation of windows. Reference shall be made to the Kent 

County Standards as well as Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and 

Noise). 


as hereby approved, details of the proposed boundary treatment shall be submitted 

to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall 

then be carried out in accordance with this approved detail prior to the premises first 

being brought into use. This scheme shall specifically include details of the boundary 

of the car park with the adjacent residential properties, including how noise and light 

impacts from the car park are to be satisfactorily ameliorated, and the enclosure 

fronting Windmill Street. 


as hereby approved, details of the proposed entry barrier off of Zion Place, as 

indicated on drawing HES0037/70, shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by 

the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in 

accordance with this approved detail prior to the premises first being brought into 

use. 

6. The areas shown on approved drawing number HES0037/70 for vehicle/cycle 

parking, turning and service provision shall be provided before the use hereby 

permitted commences and no further development whether or not permitted by the 

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 shall be 

carried out on the land shown, or in such a position as to preclude vehicular parking, 

loading, off-loading and turning. 

7. A landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and be approved by or on behalf of 

the Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced and such scheme 

shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within twelve 

months from the commencement of the works and thereafter maintained to the 

satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years. 


as hereby approved, details of a refuse storage enclosure in the location proposed 

on approved drawing number HES0037/70 shall be submitted to and approved, in 

writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved storage area shall then be 

provided prior to the use hereby approved first commencing. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 16

Page 75 

9. The rating level of the noise emitted from any plant and equipment associated 

with this building (other than noise from the exit or entry of road vehicles), shall not 

exceed the existing background noise level by more than 3dB. The noise levels shall 

be determined at nearest residential premises. The measurements and assessments 

shall be made according to BS4142:1997. 

10. At no time shall any paraphernalia associated with the hotel use hereby 

approved be located on the open space adjacent to the building along the Windmill 

Street frontage. 

11. Prior to the commencement of the works to facilitate the conversion of the 

building as hereby approved, details of an amended car parking layout showing 

parking spaces 14 & 15 as annotated on approved drawing number HES0037/70 

shall be set back to align with parking space 16 shall be submitted to and approved 

in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car parking shall then be provided in 

accordance with this approved detail. 

12. Prior to the commencement of the works to facilitate the conversion of the 

building as hereby approved, details of external louvre style window blinds on the 

west facing elevation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local 

Planning Authority. The scheme shall then be implemented in accordance with the 

approved details prior to the use hereby approved first commencing. 


1. In order to be able to monitor the use with regards to possible amenity impacts 

upon surrounding residents. 

2. In order to ensure satisfactory accommodate for residents. 


4 & 5. Such details have not been submitted at this stage. 

6. To ensure adequate parking provision to serve the development. 

7. No such scheme has been submitted at this stage. 


9. In the interest of residential amenity. 

10. In order to respect the character and appearance of the Upper Windmill Street 


11. To improve access within the site by removing an unnecessary pinch point. 

12. In order to mitigate overlooking to the adjoining dwellings. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 17

Page 76 

INFORMATIVE: REASONS FOR GRANT OF PERMISSION. 

1. Having regard to all relevant material planning considerations, permission has been 

granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, the 


The decision has been taken having regard to national planning policy guidance 

and the policies and proposals of the development plan, principally: 


TC1 Design of New Developments 

TC3 Development in Conservation Areas 

T1 Highways 

P3 Parking 

TC1 

TC3 

The location, design and appearance of the proposed development is 

considered to be acceptable and would not have a detrimental effect on 

the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties and is in 

accordance with policy TC1 of the Development Plan. 

The proposed conversion of the existing building, by reason of the 

elevational works proposed, such as new windows and a fresh colour 

scheme, along with full height windows at ground floor and a canopy, as 

well as enhanced landscaping, could go some way to improving the 

appearance of the building and its setting within the Upper Windmill Street 


T1 

The proposed development would not be detrimental to highway safety 

and is in accordance with the above policies in the Development Plan. 

P3 

The proposed development meets the requirements of parking standards 

set by Kent County Council and is in accordance with Policy P3 of the 

Development Plan. 

INFORMATIVE: ADVERTISEMENTS 

The submitted plans include details of suggested advertisements on the proposed 

hotel but, for the avoidance of doubt, these are only indicative at this stage and do not 

form part of this approval. Any applications would require separate approval under the 

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. 

Attach works of construction informative. 

REPORT NO 7 PAGE 18

House 

CLARENCEROW 

SHEPPYPLACE 

William 

Church 

51to54 

55 

44 

45 

59 

128 

3.8m 

LB 

132 

NORTHSTREET 

PoliceStation 


Cygnet 

House 

Posts 

PH 

ZIONPLACE 

WROTHAMROAD 

61 

60 

50 

43 46 47 

62 

1 

51 

PH 

PO 

40 

49 

Posts 

1 6 

16 

21.8m 

17 

PH 

29.7m 

78 

2 

50 

49 

73 

72 72b 

72a 

122129 

48 

25 

12 

66 

71 

39 

30 

5 

62 


23.1m 

27 

37 

25.9m 

Posts 

22 

1 

38 

Emmanuel 

SOUTHSTREET 


22.9m 

37a 

20.7m 

71b 

71a 

9 

6 

18to21 

116 

130 

1to6 

7 

Posts 

7 

House 

Windmill 

MasonicHall 

35 

40 41to54 

TheFleming 

ResourceCentr 

1 

ChurchCourt 

1to7 

SouthStreet 

Mews 

1to4 

Wrotham 

18to23 

Court 

1to17 

ED&WardBdy 

CR 

1:1,250 

Scale: 




N^ 


SiteLocation: 

BoardDate: 



GR/09/411 

ProposedHostel 

CygnetHouse 


Gravesend 

24June2009 

Page 77

Page 78 


Page 79 

Agenda Item 5f 

8/13 week date Application No. Date of meeting Report No. 

16/07/2009 GR/2009/0424 24/06/2009 

5 Clarendon Road, Gravesend 

Installation of replacement windows in the front elevation. 

Mr M Ahern 


Refusal 


The application site is a two storey terraced dwelling in single family occupation. 

The dwelling is faced with pebbledash, has a tiled roof and modern timber 

windows with single glazing and a modern timber front door. 

The application site is within the Riverside Conservation Area and is covered by 

an Article 4 (2) Direction which removes some ‘permitted development’ rights. 


An application for planning permission for the installation of replacement windows 

and doors was refused on 19 March 2009. The proposal was to replace seven 

existing single glazed painted timber casement windows – three on the front 

elevation of the property and four on the rear – with upvc double glazed casement 

windows. The existing wooden front and back doors were also to be replaced by 

upvc doors. 

3. Proposal 

The proposal is for the installation of three replacement windows in the front 

elevation of the property. They are to be white upvc with a ‘wood effect finish’ 

sliding sash windows and are to be double glazed. 


The following policies from the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (adopted 

version) 1994 are of relevance to the determination of this application: 

Policy TC1 

Policy TC3 

Design of New Developments 

Development Affecting Conservation Areas 

The following policies from the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (deposit 

version) 2000 are of relevance to the determination of this application: 

BE5: Alterations and Extensions to Buildings in Conservation Areas

Page 80 

BE12: Design of New Development, Extensions and Alteration 


At the request of Councillor Croxton. 


Consultations 


It is the Conservation Officer’s understanding that the Article 4 (2) Direction has 

been applied to ensure period features such as windows and doors are retained 

wherever possible, and that any replacement of modern windows results in the 

reinstatement of an appropriately traditional type. The Conservation Officer’s 

opinion is that “traditional” relates to type of material as well as appearance. Upvc 

windows are not able to replicate precisely the detail of timber and are not 

environmentally sustainable. Therefore the Conservation Officer does not support 

the application to install upvc replica sash windows. However, as this is 

something of a ‘test case’ for Clarendon Road it might be useful to have members’ 

views on the proposal. 


Works of Construction 

Please add works of construction informative. 


This application was publicised as development affecting the character and 

appearance of a conservation area; a press notice was published, a site notice 

posted on site and neighbour notification letters sent to seven neighbouring 

properties. This period of publicity is due to expire on 3 July 2009 and at present 

no representations have been received. 

7. Service Manager (Development Control) comments 

This proposal is for installation of three replacement windows in the front elevation 

of the property. The existing three windows on the front elevation are single 

glazed painted timber casement windows. The replacement windows proposed 

are double glazed, upvc sliding sash windows in a ‘wood effect’. 

. 

Planning permission was refused to replace the existing windows in the property 

to upvc, double glazed casement windows (planning reference GR/09/0048). This 

application was refused as it was deemed that the replacement windows would by 

virtue of their material, design and detailing be unsympathetic alterations to the 

building and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the 

Riverside Conservation Area. 

The property, 5 Clarendon Road was included in the Riverside Conservation Area 

on 14/02/01 when the boundary of the Conservation Area was extended. An 

Article 4 (2) Direction was made covering the Riverside Conservation Area 

REPORT NO PAGE 2

Page 81 

(reference Ar.08/3) which came into force in November 2008. Planning 

permission is actually only required for the replacement of the windows on the 

front elevation as the Article 4 (2) Direction affects alterations on the elevation 

facing the highway in Clarendon Road. The Article 4 (2) Direction has been 

introduced as the Council was concerned that unsympathetic alterations to 

houses that harm or erode the character of the area had been carried out. A 

number of unattractive replacement windows have been installed in properties in 

Clarendon Road. The aim of the Direction is to prevent harmful changes and 

encourage careful repair of original features. Planning permission is needed for 

altering existing windows or doors or installing new ones on the front elevation. 

An essential part of the character of an historic property is the traditional elements 

that make up the whole façade of a building; this includes the windows. In this 

case the existing windows in 5 Clarendon Road are not traditionally detailed but 

they are wooden. The proposal to replace the three wooden windows in the front 

elevation with upvc windows is not considered acceptable. It is noted that the 

windows are to be ‘wood effect’ but the windows are still going to be upvc and will 

therefore not look like timber windows as they will have thicker proportions, 

detailing and a different appearance as upvc windows such as those proposed 

cannot fully replicate wooden windows in terms of these details. The window 

frames and detailed proportions such as the glazing bars would be thicker. Double 

glazed windows in unlisted buildings in conservation areas on elevations fronting 

a highway are generally not considered suitable due to the thickness of the frame 

and the glazing bars. Upvc windows in historic buildings in conservation areas 

are generally not considered satisfactory as they are not sympathetic to historic 

properties. Where traditional doors and windows have already been lost, the 

Council will encourage the installation of appropriate replacements. 

The Article 4 (2) Direction was introduced due to concern at the harmful changes 

which have been carried out to properties and to encourage careful repair of 

original features. Now the Article 4 (2) Direction has come into force, work has to 

begin on trying to reinstate traditional features which have been lost and this work 

has to start somewhere otherwise the aim of the Article 4 (2) Direction would be 

undermined. The Article 4 (2) Direction is now in force and the Council has a duty 

to make sure that proposed alterations to dwellings that are covered by the 

Direction, preserve and enhance the conservation area and cannot therefore 

make an exception in this case. 

The issue of cost is recognized and sympathized with. However as stated, 5 

Clarendon Road is situated within the Riverside Conservation Area and covered 

by the Article 4 (2) Direction. Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings 

and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the primary consideration for applications in 

conservation areas is that the proposals should preserve and enhance the 

character and appearance of the conservation area. 

It is noted that the majority of the other properties in Clarendon Road have upvc 

casement windows (and some casement windows which mimic a sash window 

appearance). It does not follow that upvc windows are acceptable because they 

would match other plastic windows in the road. It is not the other upvc windows, 

which have already been installed in properties in the road which should be used 

as a guide for the proposed windows. Properties in Clarendon Road if in use as a 

single family dwelling would not have required planning permission for 

replacement windows before the Article 4 (2) Direction came into force during 

November last year. No planning permission has ever been granted for 

REPORT NO PAGE 3

Page 82 

replacement windows in Clarendon Road by the Council. The modern 

replacement windows which have been installed are all generally considered 

detrimental to the character and appearance of the Gravesend Riverside 


With regards to energy efficiency and replacement windows, Part L of the Building 

Regulations is concerned with energy performance of buildings and within it is 

specific guidance on energy efficiency in historic buildings. It states that energy 

efficiency should be improved where and to the extent that is practically possible, 

always providing that the work does not compromise or prejudice the character 

and appearance of the historic building. A balance needs to be met between 

improving energy efficiency and conserving the historic environment. Protecting 

and conserving our historic buildings is equally a part of sustainability as is energy 

efficiency. In this case it is considered that the plastic double glazed windows 

which are proposed would be harmful to the character and appearance of this 

historic building by virtue of their material, the thicker proportions and differences 

in appearance when compared to wooden windows. 

The only window type and design which is considered acceptable for replacement 

windows are single glazed, timber sliding sash windows. The proposed plastic 

windows would further erode the character of this historic property and would be 

detrimental to the character and appearance of the Riverside Conservation Area. 

The Article 4 (2) Direction has been designated in order to prevent further 

damaging alterations, like inappropriate replacement windows such as those 

which are proposed. If this proposal for upvc windows is allowed then this will 

weaken the Council’s position in being able to refuse further applications for upvc 

windows in Clarendon Road. The whole purpose of the Article 4 (2) Direction in 

this road will be undermined and it will be likely few improvements to reinstate 

traditional features will be made. 

REPORT NO PAGE 4

Page 83 

Consultation expiry date: 03 July 2009 


Refusal 

1. The replacement windows by virtue of their material, design and detailing would be 

unsympathetic alterations to the building and would be detrimental to the character and 

appearance of the Riverside Conservation Area. As such the development is contrary to 

Policies TC1 and TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (adopted version) and 

Policies BE5 and BE12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (deposit version). 

REPORT NO PAGE 5

Page 84 


29 

45 

12 

3 

ROYALPIERROAD 

1to12 

26 

1to21 

CLARENDONROAD 

THETERRACE 

Pier 

18 

Stone 

19 

42 

Shingle 

1a 

Stone 

The 

2 

House 

3a 

14 

3to11 

Bollards 

MooringPosts 

35 

Pier 

Pier 

CustomHouse 

5a 

16 

Shingle 

MooringPosts 

Sta 

1b 

19 

26 

COMMERCIALPLACE 

FB 

EASTTERRACE 

ChantryCourt 

PCs 

STREET 

LB 

13 

1 

7 

7.0m 

2 

13 

5 

14 

MooringPosts 

54 

andShingle 

42 

52 

TERRACESTREET 

(PH) 

LondonRiverHouse 

Stone 

TCB's 

Post 

Shingle 

1 

12 

43 

PH 

39 

GORDONPLACE 

RoyalTerrace 

MooringPosts 

Alexandra 

El 

Sub 

41 

16 

21 

Shingle 

PILOTSPLACE 

HeritageQuay 

12.5m 

ThePilot 

Shingle 

Callboy 

Pier 

4 6 

17 

10 

PH 

1 

1atoe 

32 

47 

11.6m 

Bollards 

MooringPosts 

15 16 

14.3m 

1a 

1to89 

14to31 

7.9m 

1:1,250 

Scale: 




N^ 


SiteLocation: 

BoardDate: 



GR/09/424 

5ClarendonRoad 

Gravesend 

24June2009 

Page 85

Page 86 


GR/09/424 – 5, Clarendon Road, Gravesend 

Page 87

Page 88 


Page 89 

Agenda Item 5g 


14.07.2009 2009/0410 24/6/09 

Copperfield, Wrotham Road, Meopham, Gravesend, Kent, DA13 0HX 

Application for variation of condition 4 of planning permission reference number 

2008/0730 to allow minor changes to the windows and the incorporation of access 

to the rear first floor which are not in precise accordance with the approved plans. 

Mr M Nugent 


Permission subject to conditions see Page 5 


Copperfield is located on a private access road off of Wrotham Road, adjacent to the 

Hook Green Conservation Area. The property was initially a detached bungalow in 

use as a single dwelling. Consent was granted in 2008 for the construction of a first 

floor to replace the existing part first floor, incorporating a two storey front extension to 

form entrance porch at ground floor level with three bedrooms, drawing room, 

bathroom, ensuite bathroom, dressing room and linen room at first floor level 

(2008/0730). The surrounding properties vary in both size and style, including 

bungalows and two storey dwellings. The immediately adjacent properties and those 

most liked to be impacted by the proposal are those of Pine Rise, Meopham. 

The plot is L-shaped and the property is located to the east of the plot. The length of 

the plot is 65 metres, and the width is 16 metres. 


The relevant planning history of this site is as follows: 

2008/0703 Construction of first floor to replace existing part first floor 

incorporating two storey front extension to form entrance porch at 

ground floor level with three bedrooms, drawing room, bathroom, 

ensuite bathroom, dressing room and linen room at first floor level. 

Permitted: 13/11/2009 

2007/1009 Erection of a first floor level to replace the existing part first floor 

incorporating a two storey front extension to form entrance porch 

on the ground floor with bathroom, three bedrooms, two ensuite 

w.c/shower rooms, linen cupboard, drawing room and balcony at 

first floor level. 

Refused: 29/01/2008

Page 90 

3. Proposal 

The current proposal is a retrospective planning application for the variation of 

condition 4 of planning permission reference number 2008/0730 to allow minor 

changes to the windows and incorporation of access to rear first floor which are not in 

precise accordance with the approved plans. 




Policy TC1 

Design of New Development 

The Borough Council will not normally permit proposals for new development 

which cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance. Applications will be 

considered in accordance with the following design principles:- 

(i) The scale and massing of the buildings should normally be in 

keeping with their surroundings. 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

The design of new developments should accord with the principles of 

the Kent Design Guide and in the case of residential development, with 

Housing Policies H2 and H3 of this Plan. 

The design of any alteration or extension shall respect the character and 

appearance of the existing building and safeguard the privacy and 

amenity of adjoining residents. 

Materials used should be of good quality and sympathetic to the 

area concerned. 

Policy V1 

Villages 

The settlements listed below are villages and their built confines are shown on the 

Proposals Map:- 

Cobham* 

Sole Street 

Culverstone Green 

Hook Green* 

Meopham Green* 

Vigo Village 

Istead Rise 

Higham Upshire 

Lower Higham 

Three Crutches 

Shorne* 

Shorne Ridgeway* 

Lower Shorne 

Policy C4 

Policy for Special Landscape Areas 

Policy CC7 of the Approved Kent Structure Plan, which defines Special 

Landscape Areas, will be applied to the areas delineated in this Plan. The 

Borough Council will give long term protection to these areas (which 

incorporate that part of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

REPORT NO PAGE 2

Page 91 

which falls within the Borough) and will normally give priority to their 

landscape over other planning considerations. 


At the request of Councillor Snelling. 


Regulatory Services 

No objection. Attach the works of construction informative. 

Meopham Parish Council 

Recommend approval of this planning application. 

Neighbour Comments 

Following the consultation of all properties surrounding Copperfield, the following 

comments have been received: 

Prof J R A Lakey and Dr P J Lakey, 5 Pine Rise, Meopham 

Strong objection to the proposed variation of Condition 4. The variations proposed 

would permit a partial reversion to the original proposal which GBC rejected and also 

open the way to further changes. The proposal would restore the deep balcony and 

also makes reference to access to the rear of first floor. 

The application proposes extension of the balcony to a depth 5 times deeper then the 

approved plan and includes outward opening windows bringing it close to the rejected 

plan. This is intrusive and reduces the privacy of the gardens of 5 and 6 Pine Rise. 

The large windows would create a nuisance to 5 and 6 Pine Rise due to the emission 

of noise from music. The ugly glass panel on the north end would not significantly 

reduce the impact since the balcony could carry a number of adults leaning over the 

balustrade. 

Request that the modification to the front window be reversed to the original 

permission. 

Strongly object to the proposed variations of the Condition 4 because this would 

permit changes to the approved plan which are intrusive and give the opportunity for 

future changes which is likely to reduce the amenities for the residents in 5 and 6 Pine 

Rise. Whatever plans may be approved for Copperfield we strongly recommend that 

you make it a condition of the approved plans that no windows in the first floor is to be 

replaced by long windows or French doors and no balcony or balconette is to be 

constructed at a later date. We therefore object to the planning proposal because it 

would permit changes which would be visually intrusive and would be a source of 

noise. 


This is a retrospective planning application is for the proposed variation of condition 4 

of planning permission reference number 2008/0730 to allow minor changes to the 

windows and the incorporation of access to the rear first floor which are not in precise 

REPORT NO PAGE 3

Page 92 

accordance with the approved plans. The property was originally a detached 

bungalow with dormer windows in the roof to provide two bedrooms on the first floor. 

Works have now begun on planning application 2008/0730 for the construction of a 

first floor to replace the existing part first floor, incorporating a two storey front 

extension to form an entrance porch at ground floor level with three bedrooms, a 

drawing room, bathroom, ensuite bathroom, dressing room and linen room at first 

floor level. This application is a retrospective application for alterations to the 

permitted application. The site is accessed by a private road off of Wrotham Road, 

adjacent to the Hook Green Conservation Area. The surrounding properties vary in 

both size and style and include both detached bungalows and two storey detached 

dwellings. 

The first alteration to the permitted scheme is the increase in size of the first floor 

bathroom window on the front elevation of the property. The permitted window had 

two small windows separated by an inset panel. However, the window has been 

extended in height and width to 3.75m². While this is a considerable increase, the 

window serves a bathroom and so will be obscure glazed. Due to the fact the window 

serves a bathroom, there will be no increased overlooking affecting the amenity of any 

neighbouring properties. 

The second aspect of the retrospective planning application is the alteration of the 

permitted juliette balcony to an accessible balcony. The permitted juliette balcony 

projected by 0.1 metres and the proposed balcony projects 0.7 metres. It has been 

stated by the applicant that this is the depth needed to the doors to open. Although a 

balcony was refused with the application 2007/1009, the balcony extended along a 

large proportion of the rear elevation. While it is accepted that the balcony is now 

accessible as opposed to a juliette balcony, 0.7 metres is still considered modest. The 

applicant understands the main concern with an accessible balcony is its impact on 

the amenity of the neighbouring properties, and to overcome this issue has proposed 

a cast (obscure) glass screen. This will help prevent any potential overlooking. 

However, it should be pointed out that the balcony will only cause potential 

overlooking to the garden of 5 Pine Rise, not the dwelling itself. The site plan 

indicates how 5 Pine Rise is staggered forward of Copperfield, therefore 

demonstrating that the balcony will not cause overlooking to the dwelling. The 

resident of 5 Pine Rise states the balcony may lead to increased noise and increased 

overlooking with people accessing the balcony. I would suggest that there would be a 

minimal increase in noise. The juliette balcony still had full length doors like the 

proposed balcony has. The balcony is only 2.8 metres wide by 0.7 metres deep with 

minimal room. Due to the obscure glass panel and the modest depth of the extension, 

it is not perceived the proposed balcony will have a detrimental effect on the amenity 

of the neighbouring properties. 

Additional windows have been proposed in the north elevation of the property. Being 

that these windows are in the flank elevation and are secondary windows, a condition 

will be attached to ensure that these windows are obscure glaze. They will therefore 

have minimal impact on the neighbouring property. 

It is considered that the amendments to 2008/0730 are fairly modest and will have a 

minimal impact on the neighbouring properties, particularly those of Pine Rise. 

REPORT NO PAGE 4

Page 93 

Consultation expiry date: 12 June 2009 


Permission 

Subject to the following conditions: 

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not 

later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which 

this permission is granted. 

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in precise 

accordance with the approved details, plans and specifications and 

there shall be no deviation therefrom without the prior permission, in 

writing, of the Local Planning Authority. 

3. Notwithstanding the provision of Article 3, Part 1, Class A of the 

Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995, or any provision equivalent to that Class in 

any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, no 

window, door or other form of opening other than those shown on the 

approved drawings shall be formed in either flank elevation of the 

extension hereby permitted without the prior permission, in writing, of 

the District Planning Authority. 

4. The first floor window on the front elevation of Copperfield serving the 

bathroom shall be fitted with obscure glass only at all times. 

5. All windows in the North and South elevation of the dwelling shall be 

fitted with obscure glass only at all times. 

6. The obscure cast glass screen on the North elevation of the balcony 

shall remain at all times. 


1. In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

2. To ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 

3. In order to ensure that any alterations to the permitted scheme may be 

the subject of a planning application that the Local Planning Authority 

would wish to determine on its merits. 

4. In order to prevent overlooking both into and out of the property. 

5. In order to prevent overlooking both into and out of the property. 

6. In order to preserve the amenity of the neighbouring property, 5 Pine 

Rise, Meopham. 

REPORT NO PAGE 5

Page 94 



been granted because, subject to compliance with the planning conditions, the 


2. The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals of the 

development plan, principally: 


TC1: Design of New Developments 

V1: Villages 

C4: Policy for Special Landscape Areas 

Works of Construction Informative 

REPORT NO PAGE 6

Page 95

Page 96 


Page 97 

GR/09/410 – Copperfield, Wrotham Road, Meopham

Page 98 

GR/09/410 – Copperfield, Wrotham Road, Meopham

Public reports pack PDF 9 MB - Gravesham Borough Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?