Land between West Street, Bath Street, Royal Pier Road and Queen ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of small and undersized flats; fail to promote a mixed community; fail to provide sufficient onsiteaffordable housing; cause serious harm to residents of existing properties; cause seriousharm to amenity of public spaces and buildings; cause blight and sterilise land around the site;either draw trade away from the existing Town Centre or echo existing retail unit vacancy rates;and reduce the net quantity of public car parking in this part of the Town. It is also suggestedthat the scheme is premature in the context of the emerging Core Strategy and that theabsence of a viability assessment and heads of terms for a s.106 Agreement means it is notpossible to be satisfied that the scheme will deliver appropriate contributions to infrastructure.The Victorian SocietyThe Society welcomes the re-animation and re-densification of this area and thus supports theprinciple, but have serious reservations about the quality and suitability of the current designwhich it feels are not of a quality to make the prominence of the buildings acceptable.Dartford Borough CouncilNo objections.No responses were received from the following notified consultees:SE Coast Ambulance ServiceThames Watermen AssociationArriva Southern CountySUSTRANSNetwork RailSouth Eastern TrainsRSPBKent Wildlife TrustNW Kent Racial Equality CouncilRamblers AssociationOpen Spaces SocietyMedway CouncilThurrock CouncilThames Defence HeritageGeorgian GroupGravesend Historical SocietyWindmill Hill AssociationRochester Diocesan OfficeShorne Parish CouncilCobham Parish CouncilHigham Parish CouncilVigo Parish CouncilMeopham Parish CouncilSouthfleet Parish CouncilLocal RepresentationsThis planning application was publicised locally by a press notice as well as numerous sitenotices on and around the site, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2010 advertised as the following:• EIA development – accompanied by an Environmental Statement;• Major development proposal;• Development not in accordance with the Development Plan;• Development affecting the setting of Listed Buildings;• Development affecting Public Rights of Way; and• Development affecting the character or appearance of two Conservation Areas.In addition to the above, the application was publicised to local residents and businesses byneighbour notification letters to households and businesses within an approximate 100 metreboundary of the site – this amounted to a total of 1,147no. letters being sent.
At the time of writing this report a total of 728no. written representations had been received,comprising:195no. in support;528no. objecting; and5no. neutral.Appendix 3 includes an overview of the comments received from local residents and businesses,as summarised by the case officer. The originals are a matter of public record and are available forinspection in the Civic Centre.In summary, the principal comments in support of the application relate to the current schemerepresenting an improvement to the original unsuccessful scheme, providing much neededinvestment into the Town to provide employment and training opportunities for local people andbenefitting existing Town Centre traders. The principal comments in opposition to the proposalrelate to questioning the need for new shops when many existing units are vacant, thedetrimental impact upon living conditions of the adjoining residents, impacts on Town centre carparking, the scale and massing of the proposed buildings, the provision of small flats and thedesign failing to reflect the unique character of Gravesend. Many of the objections are howevermade on the belief that regeneration is needed for the Town, but just that the current proposalsare unsympathetic to its riverside heritage location. There have also been questions askedabout the viability of the development and whether it would actually be built if approved.In addition to the above representations, details of the responses following an exhibitionpresented by EHEL at the Gurdwara in Gravesend were submitted by the applicant in supportof the proposals.Revised PlansIn response to concerns raised by officers and members of the public the applicant submittedrevised plans on 11 April 2013 comprising the following:• Amended internal arrangement to some of the residential units within the Eastern Quarter;• Updating the layout of the entrance level car park off Crooked Lane to avoid obstruction ofspaces by structural columns;Upon receipt of these amended plans the LPA considered whether it was necessary to republicisethe application and resolved that - owing to the nature of the changes relating only tothe internal arrangement of individual flats and one level of the residential car parking (neitherof which affect the quantum of apartments or parking spaces) – additional public consultationwas not required.It is necessary to note that a submitted change to reduce the height of the southernmost bay ofBuilding W03 by one storey has since been withdrawn by the applicant due to their concernsthat it may have legal implications with the submitted Environmental Statement and wouldtherefore introduce excessive ‘risk’ to the validity of any permission that may be granted.PLANNING ANALYSISAs a starting point for assessment of this development proposal, and to appreciate the originalobjectives of the development, it is appropriate to refer to the Heritage Quarter Development Briefprepared by the Council in 2005. The Brief sought a comprehensive and integrated developmentto “deliver a step change in the retail, business, residential and leisure offer of Gravesend,ensuring that the proposal is fully integrated into the urban design philosophy of the town”, and
Page 1 and 2: Application no: 20120931Location:De
Page 3 and 4: 3. The preponderance of 1 bedroom f
Page 5 and 6: Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1
Page 7 and 8: Local Plan Core Strategy. Other asp
Page 9 and 10: GBC Parking ServicesFollowing discu
Page 14 and 15: stated further that the development
Page 16 and 17: quality of consumer choice is a pri
Page 18 and 19: The Proposed Submission Core Strate
Page 20 and 21: modest alteration to reduce both th
Page 22 and 23: appears to be acceptable, and along
Page 24 and 25: than for St George’s Church, with
Page 26 and 27: Policies seeking to protect amenity
Page 28 and 29: Living Conditions for Future Reside
Page 30 and 31: Air Quality - As described previous
Page 32 and 33: so improvements to this area will b
Page 34 and 35: planting which is hoped will strike
Page 36 and 37: elsewhere within the Town - with po
Page 38 and 39: Servicing and DeliveriesThe NPPF ad
Page 40 and 41: disposal to serve the proposed deve
Page 42: provision of a high quality mixed-u

Land between West Street, Bath Street, Royal Pier Road and Queen ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?