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

26.09.07 GR/07/0516 10.10.07

Former Southfields School Site, Singlewell Road, Gravesend Details pursuant to outline planning permission reference no. GR/2004/814 relating to the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping for phases 2 and 3 of the development for a total of 134 residential units; formation of associated estate roads and laying out of associated car parking spaces; erection of a single storey building for sports changing facilities; provision of multi-use games area (MUGA) and laying out of associated parking spaces. Chart Partnership

Recommendation: A detailed recommendation will be set out in a supplementary report

1. Site Description

The Southfields School site is located on the east side of Singlewell Road and occupies a site of 11.07 hectares (27.35 acres) of land including school buildings and playing fields. The site extends east from Singlewell Road to Cedar Avenue and the grounds of Kings Farm County Primary School and Ifield School to the north and east and as far south as Cheltenham Close. The school closed in 1999. There is an existing main access into the school from Singlewell Road, midway between the junctions of Singlewell Road with Harman Avenue and Brenchley Avenue. There is a second means of access to the site from Cedar Avenue which provides access to the MEAPA gymnastics club and to the playing fields. There is also a pedestrian access (currently overgrown) to the north of 300 Singlewell Road. Within the site were two nursery schools, Springfield Lodge Day Nursery and Hever Court Pre-School Day Nursery, the latter was relocated elsewhere and the former temporarily relocated. A local dance school used to occupy part of a school building but this has now been taken over by another dance school elsewhere within the Borough. There was also a two storey school caretakers house within the site but this has now been demolished. There are currently two marked out playing pitches, without changing facilities, on the playing fields. These are used by the Gravesend Spartans Football Club for the playing of boys/youths football.

REPORT NO PAGE 2

The main access to the site was lined by a row of large cherry trees and there is a line of trees where the playing fields front onto Singlewell Road between 332 and 354 Singlewell Road. The latter are protected by a tree preservation order. There is an electricity substation within the site to the south of 332 Singlewell Road. The area surrounding the school generally comprises low density two storey dwellings. All the school buildings have now been demolished and the site is currently being developed by Rydon Homes for the Chart partnership (Hyde and Moat Housing) with the initial phase of 77 residential units under construction.

2. Planning History

Outline Application A planning application was submitted by the Kent County Council in February 2004 (GR/04/0141) for the development of part of the school site on an area of 4.85 hectares (12 acres) and being an outline application for residential development for up to 197 residential units and for community use including doctors surgery, nursery, open space with changing facilities and car parking, alterations to existing access to Singlewell Road between numbers 306 and 322 Singlewell Road; formation of a new vehicular access to Singlewell Road between numbers 322 and 354 Singlewell Road; use of vehicular access from Cedar Avenue to provide access to recreational facilities. The area proposed to be developed generally related to the area of the existing school buildings and hard surfaced areas but parts of the playing fields were also proposed to be developed to “round off” the developed area of the site.

The proposals were to provide up to 197 residential units with an average density of 36 dwellings per hectare. An illustrative layout plan was submitted with the application which indicated:-

64 two bed flats (each at 63m2) 39 two bed terrace houses (each at 70m2) 63 three bed terraced/semi detached houses (each at 81m2) 17 three bed detached houses (each at 90m2) 14 four bed detached houses (each at 110m2)

In the illustrative plan areas of high, medium and low density were proposed.

The submitted statement indicated that a proportion of the houses will be for affordable housing in accordance with national and local plan policies and it was also intended to include an element of key worker housing. The figures given for the affordable housing element was 50 units.

The proposals in the illustrative plan also included community uses namely:

• Open Space: The retention of 5.93 hectares (14.6 acres) to be available as formal open space.

• Changing Facilities and Car Parking to be located next to the MEAPA Gym.

REPORT NO PAGE 3

• Doctors’ Surgery and car parking located to the south of 332 Singlewell Road.

• A new nursery to be located next to the doctors’ surgery.

A new vehicular access was also proposed into the site to the south of 332 Singlewell Road to serve the development, close to the junction with Orchard Avenue. The existing main school access will serve also as an access to the development but was proposed to be realigned.

The existing access from Cedar Avenue would remain but would not provide a through route, serving only as an access to the MEAPA gym and for the recreation facilities and for emergency use only.

A transportation report accompanied the application. The report indicated a likely daily traffic generation of 1379 vehicles two-way associated with the housing, 150 vehicles two-way associated with the nursery and 725 vehicles two-way associated with the doctors’ surgery.

The transportation report also indicated various islands and build-outs to be provided in Singlewell Road. That application was first reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 19 May 2004. A decision was deferred as there were a number of issues to be resolved including the amount of affordable housing being offered, air quality issues, need for an archaeological investigation, a demonstration of the need for a doctors surgery, further explanation of the proposed community uses and not least the educational provision in Gravesham. Members instructed officers to arrange for presentations to be made to members by the Primary Care Trust and the County Council Education Division. Members received a presentation on the education provision issue and doctors surgery justification at a meeting on Tuesday 6 July. The application was reported back to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 28 July 2004. Two additional supporting documents had been submitted following the last report.

Firstly an air quality assessment for the development. The assessment of traffic levels on Singlewell Road had shown that the volume of traffic was substantially less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Government guidance states that roads with less than 10,000 vehicles per day are unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality. The assessment concluded that the development would not give rise to any measurable deterioration in air quality.

Secondly a tree survey had been carried out. The survey categorized trees into four groups. These were

• Trees whose retention was most desirable (18 trees were in this category)

• Trees whose retention was desirable (31 trees were in this category)

• Trees which could be retained (45 trees were in this category)

• Trees for removal or felling (16 trees were in this category).

REPORT NO PAGE 4

It was resolved that the application again be deferred for further consideration (to include a survey of patients at the surgery, revisiting the education figures supplied and the actual footprint of the proposed development including possible deletion of the surgery and increased open space).

On 17 August 2004 an appeal was lodged by the Kent County Council on grounds of non determination. At the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 1 September 2004 Members resolved that the Secretary of State be advised that the Borough Council would have approved the appealed application subject to:-

1. appropriate conditions;

2. a section 106 agreement to secure affordable housing, community

infrastructure contributions, long term maintenance and public access to open space, community buildings and changing facilities;

3. a reduction in the footprint of the development in the Singlewell Road frontage

and a revised indicative location for the surgery;

4. resolution of air quality issues.

The appeal was to be heard at a Public Inquiry in June 2005. However on 21 April 2005 the appeal was WITHDRAWN.

This was because in the meantime the Kent County Council had submitted a duplicate application to the appealed application in September 2004 (GR/04/814). At the time of its submission it was identical in content and being an outline application for the development of part of the school site on an area of 4.85 hectares (12 acres) with all matters reserved for detailed planning consideration with only means of access for determination at the outline planning stage. That application was reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 23 March 2005 with a recommendation for permission subject to the resolution of the following matters through negotiations:-

• That the development on that part of the site fronting Singlewell Road between 332 and 354 be deleted and with a consequent reduction in the footprint of development.

• The doctors surgery be deleted entirely from the scheme, along with the secondary means of access and the nursery be relocated elsewhere within the development area.

• Confirmation is given that the density of development is within the range of 30-50 dwellings per hectare.

• Confirmation is given that there is no detriment to existing community/leisure uses currently located on the site and that these are incorporated into the scheme.

REPORT NO PAGE 5

• Further information is provided on future public access to the playing fields and their management.

• The pedestrian link to the site from Singlewell Road between no’s 298 and 300 Singlewell Road be deleted.

However prior to the meeting a revised illustrative layout drawing was submitted. The application had been amended by, 1. the deletion of the development on that part of the site fronting Singlewell

Road between 332 and 354 with the consequent reduction in the footprint of the development.

2. the deletion of the doctors surgery from the scheme along with the

secondary means of access together with relocation of the nursery elsewhere within the development.

3. showing 210 units accommodated on site representing a density of

development within the target range of 30-50 dwellings per hectare.

4. deleting the proposed pedestrian link to the site between no’s 298 and 300 Singlewell Road.

The revised illustrative layout indicated a revised schedule of accommodation as follows:- 95 two bed flats (each at 63m2) 39 two bed terrace houses (each at 70m2) 49 three bed terraced/semi detached houses (each at 81m2) 18 three bed detached houses (each at 90m2) 3 four bed detached houses (each at 110m2)

Members were unhappy about the County Council’s assertion that the land was surplus to educational requirements but since the County Council was the responsible authority the Board was unable to do anything other than consider the application on that basis. The Board noted the undertaking that there would be no detriment to existing community/leisure uses currently located on the site and that these could be enhanced. Officers were requested to bear the following in mind when finalising the conditions. 1. Affect of the development on local roads and the wider highway network.

2. That generally the height of development should be two storey but where

three storeys are used they should not cover more than 20 per cent of the site.

3. The open land fronting Singlewell Road should be landscaped and

maintained.

4. Responsibility for maintenance of the open land and the sports pitches/community facilities needs clarification.

REPORT NO PAGE 6

It was resolved by Members that the application be PERMITTED subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure delivery, through the completion of a legal agreement, of affordable housing, highway improvements, community facilities and open space. Planning permission for up to 210 residential units and for community uses was finally issued on 1 August 2005.

Concurrent with the KCC application a further application had also been submitted in December 2004 by Chart (Hyde and Moat Housing Association) and being an outline planning application for up to 286 dwellings on this site with a children’s nursery, two A1 retail shops, sports fields and changing facilities (application reference GR/04/1146). The application site differed from the Kent County Council’s own application as the red line boundary included the adjacent playing fields and extended to an area of 11.22 hectares (27.72 acres). The application proposed the formation of a new access between numbers 332 and 354 Singlewell Road. The application also differed from the KCC application in that although the application was also an outline application it was stated that the only reserved matter for detailed planning consideration was external appearance so that the means of access, siting, landscaping and design were for consideration at the outline planning stage. Therefore the applicants were seeking a determination for the layout of dwellings as set out in the submitted plans.

The housing element of the development comprised:-

61 x one bed apartments 60 x two bed apartments 52 x two bed houses 54 x three bed houses 40 x four bed houses 19 x five bed houses

It was stated that 30 per cent (86 homes) would be allocated for social and affordable housing with the remaining 70 per cent being for private sale.

The development comprised a range of different house types including terraces, semi-detached dwellings, courtyard housing (housing which provides patio gardens and roof terraces), apartment buildings and “barns” to be located in a wooded environment on the southern part of the development site in a concept known as ‘living in the woods’. This was in the current open space area of the school fronting Singlewell Road between numbers 332 and 354 Singlewell Road.

The height of development ranged from two to four storeys, with the terraces, semi-detached dwellings and courtyard dwellings being principally 2-2.5 storeys and the apartments and barns 3-4 storeys.

There were two density calculations given by the applicants. The first was based on the development area of the site (7.17 hectares) which includes the MEAPA gym. This gave a density of 40 homes per hectare (98 dwellings per acre). The second was based on the total site including the open space which gave an overall density of 25.2 homes per hectare.

REPORT NO PAGE 7

The illustrative proposals stated that 369 dedicated parking spaces would be provided with 30 per cent of homes (one and two bed homes) having a 1:1 parking ratio; the barns having also a 1:1 ratio and the remainder having a 1:1.5 parking ratio.

In respect of open space it was stated that 5.92 hectares of open space would be retained, 5.51 hectares for use as a new public park and 0.41 hectares as civic spaces and squares.

The proposals for the open space included the provision of three pitches – a senior full size pitch, a junior football pitch and sports facility for women/ethnic minority use, plus a basketball court and potential for a summer cricket pitch.

It was stated that it was intended to offer the management of the football fields to the Spartans football club (who currently run boys football at this site) who would manage these facilities on behalf of the community rather than the Borough Council.

It was proposed to provide a 100m2 space for a sports changing facility. The existing Meapa Gymnastics Club would remain within the site.

A new 50 place nursery of 400m2 over two floors with three ancillary car parking spaces with some dedicated outdoor playing provision was to be provided.

Two local centre type retail units (corner shops) would be provided within the site.

In respect of access the main school entrance from Singlewell Road was to remain as the primary vehicular entrance to the site but with alterations to provide for better visibility.

A new secondary vehicular entrance was proposed, also off Singlewell Road to the south of the main entrance to primarily service the ‘living in the woods’ barns but this would also act as a secondary ingress and egress point. The existing vehicular entrance off Cedar Avenue which services the MEAPA gym would remain although there would be no through route provision from this entrance to or from the development site. This vehicular access would also be used to access 31 proposed parking spaces dedicated for the sports field users. The Chart application was also reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 23 March 2005. The recommendation was:- Subject to the following matters being addressed satisfactorily through negotiations,

1. That all matters are reserved for detailed planning consideration.

2. That the “living in the woods” concept is deleted and consequently the

development footprint reduced with no development in the Singlewell Road Frontage between 332 and 354 Singlewell Road.

3. The quantum and density of development is reconsidered such that the net

density is within the range of 30-50 dwellings per hectare.

4. That the reference to the number of parking spaces proposed is deleted.

REPORT NO PAGE 8

5. That further consideration is given to the quantity and location of

community facilities.

6. Resolution of the Sports England objections.

PERMISSION subject to appropriate conditions including Grampian type conditions to ensure the delivery through legal agreement of affordable housing, highway improvements, community facilities and open space. Prior to the meeting Chart removed the ‘living in the woods’ concept from the application and reduced the development area in the proposals. Chart then subsequently WITHDREW their application on 23 March 2005 prior to consideration by the Regulatory Board. A copy of the outline planning permission setting out the various conditions is appended to this report. The Southfields School site was purchased by Chart (Hyde and Moat Housing). Detailed Planning Application for Phase 1 A detailed (reserved matter) planning application, reference GR/2006/0337, was submitted by Chart Partnership in May 2006 pursuant to the outline planning permission granted to KCC. The application sought approval for the siting, design, external appearance, and landscaping for Phase 1 of the development and for approval of siting and landscaping of phases 2 and 3 of the development. The vehicular access to the site modifying the current school access was not a reserved matter as this was approved at the outline planning stage Phase 1 of the development comprised the north west part of the site including development along the main entrance road and includes 77 residential units. Of the 77 units proposed for phase 1, and which included a replacement for the former school caretakers unit, it was proposed to have 53 houses and 24 flats. This was broken down into 48 private houses and 5 affordable houses and of the 24 flats, 12 were private and 12 shared ownership, therefore 17 affordable units in total. Two of the houses were wheel chair standard. The general mix of units included some eight detached houses including detached “gatehouses” at the entrance to the site, seven pairs of semi-detached dwellings and the remainder as terraced dwellings. Building heights for Phase 1 were mostly two storeys with three storeys only for the block of shared ownership flats, the block of private flats and an adjoining terrace of seven 3-bed houses, the latter being arranged in an intriguing crescent form around a proposed “village green”. In addition to the full details and plans of phase 1 of the development and the plans showing the siting/landscaping of the later phases of the development this submission included a number of supporting documents including,

REPORT NO PAGE 9

• A design statement incorporating access statement, sustainability statement and summary of consultation carried out by the applicants.

• A desk study and intrusive ground investigation.

• A contaminated land assessment.

• An archaeological desk-based assessment and walkover survey.

• A Landscape and Ecological Strategy.

• An Ecological Enhancement and Management Plan.

• A Sports and Open Spaces Statement, although this is the same document that was submitted with the outline planning application.

• A statement setting out detailed responses to all the various planning conditions, including a strategy for the provision of community facilities, open space and sport and recreation.

Following extensive negotiations the application was reported to the meeting of the Regulatory Board on 26 July 2006. Members were advised that it had been agreed with the applicants that the layout/landscaping of Phases 2 and 3 of the development was for information only at this stage and not for approval as it was felt that there was insufficient detail at this stage for these matters to be approved and this would also restrict the ability of the Planning and Highway Authorities to amend the later phases. In addition members were advised that there also needed to be further discussion and negotiation on the details of the community facilities and including the provision and management of the open space and sporting elements of the proposals. Nevertheless as part of the Phase 1 development the applicants advised that the following community provision would be made:

• Chart would make land available to allow an expansion to the MEAPA gym subject to a separate planning application to be submitted by MEAPA

• Chart would make land available for the future provision of a nursery subject to a separate detailed planning application

• Chart would undertake to provide the landscaped meadow land in the south of the site. The existing meadow is currently a private space but the Chart proposals would allow for public access and use, during day light hours. The meadow landscape proposals, as identified in the Landscape and Ecology reports and submitted as part of the planning application on 21 April 2006, include planting, footpaths, and cycle ways and would maximise the biodiversity of the site.

• Chart would consult with Sport England in respect of potential future use and provision of football facilities

The details of Phase 1 were APPROVED subject the following conditions and informatives: 1. Notwithstanding the details shown in the preliminary schedule of external

materials pursuant to conditions 1 and 7 of the grant of outline planning permission reference GR/2004/0814 as set out in the document “Conditions” accompanying this reserved matter application, full details including samples of the external facing materials to be used in the construction of all the dwelling units for Phase 1 of the development, including all surface treatments of driveways, parking bays, access roads, traffic calming features as well as street furniture, lighting and signage shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Local Planning

REPORT NO PAGE 10

Authority before the development commences; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of and Part 1 Classes A, B and

D of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the dwellings hereby permitted within the first Phase of development, including an addition or alteration to the roof or the construction of a porch outside any external door shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained.

3. Notwithstanding the details submitted pursuant to conditions 1 and 26 of

the grant of outline planning permission reference GR/2004/0814 as set out in the landscape and ecological strategy, the Ecological Enhancement and Management Plan and drawing no. 05-937 PL(00) 03 revision B full details of the proposed new tree planting and managed planting areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained in accordance with the requirements of condition 26 of the outline permission.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of and Part 1 Class F, and Part

2 Classes A and B of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, no additional hard surface for the purpose of parking a motor car, no additional means of access to a highway and no erection, construction or alteration to a gate fence or other means of enclosure beyond that shown on the approved drawing no 05-937 PL(00) 03 rev. B shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained.

5. The area shown on the approved drawings as garaging, on plot parking

and on street parking submitted pursuant to conditions 1 and 18 of the grant of outline planning permission reference GR/2004/0814 shall be used for and kept available for the parking of private motor cars and for no other purpose.

6. The gated entrance to the parking court for plots 57 to 77 shall be

maintained at all times. 7. No boundary wall fence or other means of enclosure or obstruction shall be

erected or placed within the pedestrian visibility splays to the vehicle parking spaces as shown in the approved drawing no. 05-937 PL(00) 03 rev. B.

8. None of the parking spaces/vehicle driveways shall be brought into use

until vehicle crossovers have been constructed in accordance with the requirements and specification of the Highway Authority.

9. The car parking area shown in drawing no. 05-937 SK64 rev A as temporary

spaces for show home visitors shall be used for such purposes when the sales office is open for business; upon the cessation of use of the sales office and the reversion of the show home to residential occupation detailed

REPORT NO PAGE 11

proposals for the subsequent use of the temporary car parking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

10. The temporary turning heads to the proposed internal roads serving the

development in Phase 1 shall be constructed in accordance with the details shown in the approved drawing no 05-937 PL(00)03 rev C and to a specification of the Highway Authority and shall not be removed until the construction of the continuation of the access roads for the later phases of the development.

11. No works shall commence until the highway improvements in Singlewell Road

as previously approved under the outline permission for this development are completed under a Section 278 Agreement with the Highway Authority, Kent County Council.

12. All adoptable on-site highway works shall be implemented under a Section 38

Agreement with the Highway Authority, Kent County Council.

13. Details of the proposed emergency access route serving the Phase 1 site shall submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and Highway Authority, Kent County Council prior to the commencement of any works on site.

INFORMATIVE: PROVISION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES INCLUDING SPORTS PROVISION 1. The applicants are advised that the Borough Council will not permit any further

development beyond the first phase of development until a firm commitment is given to the provision of the leisure and community facilities in accordance with the obligations as set out in condition 24 of the outline planning permission; the Borough Council will nevertheless expect to see the provision of community facilities during the first phase of development as set out in paragraph 7 of the applicants architects letter of 13th July 2006.

2. In respect of the creation of the landscaped meadow the applicant’s attention

is drawn to the concerns of local residents adjoining the site to ensure that any footpaths and cycle ways to be provided shall be located well away from the boundary of the site to adjoining rear gardens.

3. The applicants shall take into account in the design of community facilities the

report produced by DENK (Design Excellence in North Kent) suggesting public realm improvements to the Southfields School site.

INFORMATIVE: LATER PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT For the avoidance of doubt the siting and landscaping of Phases 2 and 3 of the development are accepted as informing the development only and are not approved. INFORMATIVE: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS The Borough Council will expect to see the imposition of restrictive covenants on the residential units by Chart addressing the points in the letter from the applicant’s

REPORT NO PAGE 12

architects dated 13 July 2006 and in the e-mail dated 18 July 2006 from Moat Homes. INFORMATIVE: AFFORDABLE HOUSING The applicant is reminded of their obligations to enter into a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or by another mechanism to provide for the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with the terms of condition 6 of the grant of outline planning permission reference GR/2004/0814 The legal agreement was completed and signed on 7th August 2007. MEAPA Gymnastics Club Planning permission for the MEAPA gymnastics club was granted in the mid 1990’s.

3. Proposal

This application is for detailed approval for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping for both phases 2 and 3 of the residential development to provide 134 residential units, thus taking the total on the site to 211 units. The outline permission was up to 210 units but the additional unit is because originally it was proposed that the former school caretaker’s house on the site would remain. Subsequently it was decided to demolish the house and replace it with a new unit for the caretaker. The residential units will comprise 87 market units and 47 affordable units, the latter being made up of 36 flats and 11 two/three bedroom dwellings including 2 wheelchair accessible units. Of the 47 affordable units, 12 will be shared ownership and the remainder social rented. In terms of the 87 private (market) units 24 would be flats with the remainder as family dwellings, broken down as 27 two bed units (terraced/detached), 24 three bed units (terrace/semi-detached), 8 four bed detached and 4 five bed detached dwellings. Overall, including the approved phase 1 (77 units), the development will comprise 147 private market units and 64 affordable units and with a split between family dwellings and flats of 127 family dwellings and 84 flats. The overall development density is 45 dwellings per hectare. In respect of the layout of phases 2 and 3 the development continues eastwards in the form a three storey crescent of family dwellings around the village green in the centre of the site; there are two storey detached family dwellings adjoining the rear of existing dwellings in Singlewell Road, with a mixture of three storey flats and two storey family dwellings both in the north east part of the development site, adjoining the MEAPA gymnastics building and also in the south east part of the development site adjoining the playing fields.

Concurrent with the submission of details of phases 2 and 3 the applicants have

REPORT NO PAGE 13

submitted a conditions report that indicates how the various planning conditions imposed on both the grant of outline consent and the detailed planning approval for phase are being met. The application is accompanied by a design statement and an archaeological evaluation.

4. Development Plan

In the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 the site is not specifically notated. However policy LT3 relating to the policy for existing playing fields is relevant to consideration of this application. Policy LT3 states:

Policy LT3 Planning permission will not normally be granted for proposals which involve the loss of playing fields, whether that land consists of public or private playing fields, or playing fields used for educational purposes unless: (a) sports and recreation facilities can best be retained and enhanced

through the redevelopment of a small part of the site; or (b) alternative provision of equivalent community benefit will be quickly

made available; or (c) there is an excess of sport pitch provision and public open space in

the area, taking account of the recreation and amenity value of such provision, including the contribution of the playing fields to the quality of the local environment.

The transport policies of the Local Plan are applicable (policies T1 and T5), together with parking policy P3 (policy for vehicle parking standards) and leisure policy LT6 (additional open space in new housing development). In the draft deposit version of the Local Plan Second Review 2000 the site is shown as a major development site and is subject to Policy MDS6. The preamble to policy MDS6 is as follows:- This is an important area of land with amenity value and community potential in the southern part of the urban area of Gravesend, particularly when considered alongside the larger complex of adjacent sites, all of which are in Kent County Council (KCC) ownership.

The former Southfields School site lies between Cedar Avenue and Singlewell Road and in addition to the 1960s buildings, there is a playing field which accommodates seven pitches. The principal vehicular access is from Singlewell Road but pedestrian access is from both Singlewell Road and Cedar Avenue. The site has only recently been declared surplus to educational requirements and the Local Plan Review provides the ideal opportunity for its future to be considered.

REPORT NO PAGE 14

The Funding Agency for Schools (FAS) propose the closure of Southfields School because of falling numbers of pupils. The Borough Council objected to the closure but to no avail.

The population of east Gravesend, taking account of the housing allocations contained in this Local Plan Review, is not expected to grow significantly. This is because the population in new development will be counterbalanced by the impact of declining numbers in the existing housing stock. Over the urban area as a whole, there may well be a requirement for new school provision at both primary and secondary level. Careful monitoring will be needed to relate the provision of school and other services to the actual population. With the closure of the closure of the school, it is important to ensure that the remaining facilities within the area are protected and any future use of the site benefits the community within which the site is located. The closure of the school and the proposed disposal provides an opportunity to examine the use of the whole of the KCC complex and to adopt a comprehensive approach to future use and development of the area.

KCC has not yet decided on the area of land which it intends to dispose of. There could be an opportunity to reinvest some of the money from the sale of the site in upgrading the facilities at Ifield School, to make it a centre of educational excellence and this is an approach which the Borough Council would wish KCC to consider. Given the uncertainty as to the exact areas of land to be disposed of by KCC, it is difficult to be too prescriptive about the approach to be taken with the site. However, there are a number of fundamental issues which need to be considered with regard to possible future uses. In looking at the component parts of the school site, the following matters need to be considered:-

• The school buildings are a valuable asset. In addition to the educational function, they also provide accommodation for a number of other community uses, both educational and recreational. The disposal of the buildings for redevelopment will result in the displacement of these uses. Before consideration is given to the redevelopment of any part of the site, the Borough Council would wish to see a full assessment of alternative uses for the existing buildings carried out, particularly with a view to their suitability for community use.

• The playing fields attached to the school offer a valuable opportunity to address the current open space and sports pitch deficiency both in the local area and within the Borough as a whole. The site also forms part of the Green Grid network included in this Local Plan Review. The Green Grid covers school playing fields and open space, irrespective of public access and aims to protect and enhance areas such as this for the benefit of the community. Therefore, the loss of all the playing fields to development will be resisted by the Borough Council, with a view to securing their retention for the benefit of the local community and the wider area.

If some redevelopment is to be allowed, consideration needs to be given to the demands that such development will place on the existing community facilities in the area. Therefore, it is likely that in the event of allowing some redevelopment

REPORT NO PAGE 15

of the site additional community benefits will be sought by the Borough Council. The future use of the Southfields School site needs to be considered together with the adjacent sites in KCC ownership. The nearby Kings Farm and Christianfields Estates are recognised areas of social deprivation. The school site could present opportunities to meet the Government’s modernisation agenda in this area for health, education, community safety and social inclusion. Any potential regeneration implications also need to be considered. A planning brief should be prepared to explore the various options available. It will be important to ensure that the opportunity to provide a mix of community and leisure uses for the benefit of the local area and the Borough as a whole is fully explored. The policy states: Policy MDS6 Former Southfields School The Borough Council will support proposals for a mixed use development on the site of the former Southfields School, such a scheme to include some or all of the following elements: -

i. community facilities;

ii. leisure uses, including playing fields and public open space; and

iii. residential development.1

Development options should be explored in a planning brief and will depend on the area of land to be released by Kent County Council. Proposals will be subject to Policies T1 (Location of Development), H9 (Affordable Housing), LT3 (Green Grid) and SC1 (Social and Community Infrastructure), depending on the mix of development. Footnote: 1 No allowance has been made for residential development in Policy H1 of this

Local Plan Review because of the current uncertainty about the extent of the land to be released.

Policy LT2 Green Grid Site Protection The Borough Council will protect and enhance the existing elements of the Green Grid network to help achieve the objectives of the Green Grid. Policy LT3 Development of Green Grid Sites Any development within the Green Grid network justified in terms of other policies in this Local Plan Review or specifically defined on the Proposals Map must incorporate Green Grid links, areas, corridors and linear features within the proposal, in accordance with the objectives of the Green Grid.

Other policies in the Second Review of relevance are H3 (Design of new housing development, H9 (character of the existing housing area) and Policy H8 (density).

REPORT NO PAGE 16

The latter policy requires a minimum density of 50 dwellings per hectare where sites are well related to public transport and local services and that densities elsewhere of less than 20 dwellings per hectare will not be acceptable. Other more general policies of the Local Plan Second Review are also of some relevance including T1 (location of new development), T12 (new accesses on highway and public transport network), T16 (car parking standards) and policy T8 (open space in new residential development). General policies in the approved Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 relating to housing and transport are also material considerations.

5. Reason for Report

The site has been the subject of previous reports to the Regulatory Board and it is a major development proposal.

6 Consultations and Publicity Consultations Kent Highways

The highway layout for this site has been the subject of pre-planning negotiation in conjunction with the planning authority and is acceptable in principle. A number of amendments however have been sought to the master plan.

Regulatory Services (Environmental Health)

Condition 12 (contaminated land assessment) views to follow.

In respect of condition 24 (strategy for the provision of community facilities and open space), this Service has noted the contents of the letter form Cole Jarman Associates dated 28th February 2006 that outlines their proposals for the noise assessment of the gym and playing areas/changing rooms which are satisfactory. We await the noise report as part of the detailed consent for this phase. There are a number of proposed buildings close to the MEAPA Gym and to the car park serving the same. The building that will be most exposed to noise are the 3 storey block of affordable units (flats) to the south west of the gym annotated as plots 121-132 albeit it is orientated so that its narrowest end is nearest to the building; and the properties to the north west of the gym annotated as plots 97, 98, 111, 112 and 113 and the block annotated as plots 99-110 to the north of the gym.

Sport and Recreation Manager, Gravesham Borough Council

1. The drawing of the proposed changing facilities to support the playing pitches is different to the drawings that have been seen before from Spartans FC in the last few months. Has there been a change of view? Without going into specific details and research, the changing rooms appear to have limited shower heads per team member, no accommodation for referees and no consideration for mixed use i.e. female/male. Surprised if the current drawings met Sport England guidelines or Football Foundation specifications, especially if the latter is used to fund the build from the developer/club perspective.

REPORT NO PAGE 17

2. Is there a specific distance required between the MEAPA and the changing rooms? There appears to be no clear indication of distances within the plans. There are no front and rear elevation drawings within the application to comment on either.

3. Has the lease agreement been finalised with MEAPA? Are they satisfied with the new boundary alignments etc? Is there any improvement to the associated car parking between the various community users on site, including lorry turning circle distances, disabled car parking and an onsite management agreement to supervise the arrangements for shared car parking usage between the nursery, MEAPA and FC Spartans?

4. The MUGA size is quoted as being 37m x 18.5m as well as 44m x 26m. Which is it? There are also no detailed plans or elevation drawings for this facility. Has a lease been agreed with FC Spartans for managing this facility, funding of the build, as well as the pitches and ancillary accommodation?

5. In relation primarily to the changing facilities, it is understood that there have been some discussions about a 'bigger picture' scenario which included developing the AEI Sports Ground and neighbouring Ifield School land to create a community sports hub. However, timing and land ownership issues may delay this thinking and therefore it is assumed this would make granting planning permission on the current submission detail difficult.

Sport England

Sport England were consulted on the outline application and sought the imposition of condition 24 requiring a strategy for the provision of sport facilities. Sport England is satisfied with the intent that the new pitches will be provided in accordance with its guidance “A Natural Turf for Sport” and that the MUGA will be designed and constructed in accordance with its guidance.

Sport England is satisfied that the proposed development still meets with exception E4 to the above policy, in that:

E4 “The playing field or playing fields which would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent of better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of the development”

Consequently Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to the proposed development.

Sport England would wish to see detailed plans and specifications of the proposed pitches and MUGA.

Environment Agency

No objection to the reserved matters. In response to the conditions report in respect of condition 12 – contamination, this condition should not be discharged until the closure report has been submitted and approved by the planning authority; in respect of condition 21 – drainage, the report refers to “PTA Drainage Drawings to follow”. The EA would wish to be consulted on these details prior to

REPORT NO PAGE 18

the condition being discharged.

Southern Water No comments but await details for conditions 21 and 22. Kent Fire and Rescue Service

Access to the site for fire and rescue as required by section 53 of the County of Kent Act is inadequate. Vehicle access for a pump appliance to blocks of flats should be to within 45m of all points within each dwelling. Publicity

The proposal was advertised on the site and in a local newspaper as a major development and under Article 8 (neighbouring land). In addition the owners/occupiers of 132 adjoining dwellings/premises have been notified of the proposal. The following representations have been received:-

Jaroslaw Wrubel, MEAPA Gymnastics Club

1) There are no details submitted which show the boundary conditions especially around the MEAPA's new boundary alignment. With the changes to our leased area, which have yet to be finalised as there is no formal documentation regarding the change, we are concerned how the boundary will be left following construction of the new development pending any extension that the MEAPA may wish to seek consent on. Any detail reference to the fencing on other plans submitted for our consideration and as part of submissions to the Local Authorities have been removed from the latest set of plans that we were able to view on the Planning File. We would expect that a new weld mesh fence and secure access gates would be erected to the new demise on the line of the new boundary as indicated subject to the points raised in item 2 below.

2) It should be noted that the levels immediately to the south of the MEAPA Gym falls quite steeply. To maintain the levels with the existing gym, any extension will have to be built up to the same floor level. Accordingly it will be necessary to build a retaining wall around the building along the south elevation and part way along the other two flanks. If this is not addressed as part of this application it will incur the MEAPA in a substantial amount of money which may preclude any development form taking place. We do not believe this has been addressed by the Housing development company despite having brought this matter up on several occasions. This will have a bearing on the aspect of the properties and the end of road and parking provision in this location. With the retaining wall and any security fencing there may be a face some 4m high. We suggest that this matter is considered under this application. We would be only too happy to attend a joint meeting with the Development Company and the Local Authority to discuss this issue further.

3) The proximity of the Community Changing Rooms appear to vary depending on the drawing viewed. Drawing 937_02 SK93 rev B shows the building 1500mm from the boundary fence with the MEAPA Gym Club. If you look at other drawings whilst not dimensioned the scale would suggest that the building is little more than 500mm from the fence line. We would expect at least the 1500mm provision to allow for construction and maintenance of the façade to the Community Building along this

REPORT NO PAGE 19

elevation. As there are no elevations or sections to support the plans for the Community Changing Rooms, we would also ask that a condition be made to ensure that any overhang to this building be limited to prevent access to the fence and then onto the MEAPA building which will be located less than a metre from the boundary fence.

4) The size and requirements for the Disabled Parking spaces shown within the MEAPA's curtilage have not been met under the British Standards. Manoeuvring space in front of the bays will be within the traffic flow.

5) The turning of lorries and the delivery within the new MEAPA demise shows the vehicles mounting the pavement which won't be acceptable.

6) The Community Changing Rooms do not show any Changing Rooms/Showers or toilets for Females is this acceptable? Or is this a male only facility? Should the kitchen be separated from the Community Room?

B E Driscoll 6 Davis Avenue Northfleet

Gravesham Friends of the Earth have no objection but point out that the environmental damage has already been done. Still objects to the original outline application and allowing it was detrimental to the environment and to present and future residents. Considers that it was unsustainable, unbalanced and ignores warnings on climate change. A M Williams, 332 Singlewell Road Seeks clarification on whether the wall at the rear of his garden being the wall of the former bike sheds is to remain and who will be responsible for its maintenance.

Mrs D Ritchie, 14 Cheltenham Close, Gravesend

Concerned that the plans do not indicate what is happening in the buffer zone on the southern edge of the proposed meadow area.

7. Director (Planning and Regeneration) Comments

This application is for detailed planning approval for phases 2 and 3 of the development of the former Southfields School site providing a further 134 residential units in addition to the 77 permitted in phase 1 which is now under construction. The development will be wholly contained within the site of the former school buildings and hard surfaced areas of the school whilst retaining the former school playing fields to the east and south as a meadow and playing fields.

Like the previous phase of development the current proposals are generally satisfactory in respect of the layout, design and quantum of development, striking a balance between the character of the locality and the principles of achieving higher density and sustainable development of existing Brownfield sites. The proposals include the site for a new nursery to be located to the north of the MEAPA gym and utilising access from Cedar Avenue. The details show the

REPORT NO PAGE 20

possible siting of the nursery but without a detailed design. The Springfield Lodge Day Nursery which had moved to temporary premises following the demolition of the school buildings in which it was previously located is not proposing to return to this site and Chart are currently in discussion with future nursery providers with regard to the proposals. The applicants indicate that the MEAPA Gym will continue to operate through all the stages of the development as it self contained with access from Cedar Avenue. The site layout allows for the expansion of the gymnasium and Chart have been consulting with MEAPA regarding their requirements and leasing arrangements. Some concerns have been raised by MEAPA following consultations on the current phases of development regarding fencing to their site, the level difference between the housing site and their premises that will require the construction of a retaining wall, sufficient distance between their building and the proposed community changing rooms to enable maintenance of their building, the layout of the proposed changing rooms and the practicalities of parking and turning. The applicants have advised that discussions are ongoing over the leasing arrangements with MEAPA (and with the nursery provider and Spartans football club) which will incorporate management and maintenance issues, that conditions could be imposed to ensure appropriate fencing is provided, that a retaining wall be of no value unless the MEAPA building were extended and that the parking and turning areas are compliant. Related to these concerns are the queries raised by the Sports and Recreation manager in respect of the sports provision. The applicants confirm that Spartans, the football club that has been running boys/youth football at this site for a number of years, will be responsible for the future use of the pitches and will be the end user of the MUGA. Discussions on these facilities are still on-going and the applicants suggest that conditions can be imposed on the current detailed application. All recreation facilities have been designed in accordance with standards set out by Sport England. The applicants have confirmed that the wall, formerly the bike shed wall, at the rear of properties in Singlewell Road, will remain the responsibility of the management company or future owner of the house, but will be retained. Additional planting is proposed at the southern end of the meadow to provided screening and a buffer to houses in Cheltenham Close. In terms of the Kent Fire and Rescue Service concerns over access this was simply to draw attention to new Building Regulation requirements to ensure access to all properties including all individual flats that may require the installation of sprinkler systems, rather than a criticism of the proposed estate layout. Archaeological investigations have already been undertaken at the site in the area of phases 2 and 3 which did not reveal any significant finds. Discussions are still continuing with the applicant’s architects over the detailed layout to address some planning and highway concerns, and which will result in some changes to the master plan layout, in terms of privacy, amenity areas, retention of trees and parking provision. It is anticipated that this will be concluded prior to the meeting and therefore a recommendation will be set out in a supplementary report.

REPORT NO PAGE 21

Consultation expiry date: 26.09.07 Recommendation: A recommendation will be set out in a supplementary report.