Public reports pack PDF 9 MB - Gravesham Borough Council

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