Six one-bedroom flats at Garage Block, Arthur Street, Gravesend

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing two garage blocks and building a detached building containing six one-bedroom flats with a communal garden.

“This proposal involves the demolition of the garages and their replacement with a detached building containing six flats. The building would accommodate two flats at ground floor level and two flats at first floor level. An additional two flats would be accommodated within the roofspace of the building. All six flats would have one bedroom. A communal garden area is shown to serve the development.”

“Demolish of existing garage block and construction of 6 no 1 bedroom flats. Refused 28.08.2024”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was in the urban area and Darnley Road Conservation Area, on Arthur Street, with two blocks containing four garages each.

“The application site is defined on the Core Strategy Policies Map as lying within the urban area and the Darnley Road Conservation Area.”

“The site lies on the southern side of Arthur Street and comprises two garage blocks each of which contains four garages. The site can be seen in the following photograph:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm the conservation area and neighbouring and future occupiers, displace parking and lack ecological information.

“The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Darnley Road Conservation Area designated heritage asset, through development within it’s setting. The NPPF requires decision takers to give great weight to the assets’ conservation, irrespective of the level of harm. According, considerable weight is given to the harm to the Conservation Area’s significance.”

“Despite the benefits of the proposal listed above, the harm to heritage, habitat sites and a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest, as well as other harm identified in the form of design, amenity, living standards, and parking, results in the proposal conflicting with the development plan, when read as a whole. No other material considerations, including the NPPF, indicated that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with the Development Plan.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Two neighbours objected over overlooking, privacy, light, height, conservation, a protected tree, parking, biodiversity and the plans’ context.

“The application was advertised by the displaying for a site notice, press notice and individual letters sent to fifteen surrounding properties with an overall expiry date of 26th March 2025. Two letters of objection were received making the following summarised comments:”

“Objections Summary • Overlooking • Loss of privacy • Many windows directly overlooking garden and into the back of the house • Would change the character of outdoor space • Loss of light • Height of the building looks higher than the existing houses • Not in keeping with the conservation area • Impact on protected Horse Chestnut tree in the garden • Tree not plotted on any of the plans • Drawings don’t show height of building in context to others • Parking • Biodiversity…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A registered speaker spoke against the application, and [the local resident] was identified as a local resident who opposed it.

What members discussed

Members discussed parking displacement, loss of light, the large tree, privacy, window separation, the conservation area and public benefits.

“Clarity was sought regarding the current use of the garages and whether the loss of garages would result in displacement of available parking for residents. The Head of Planning advised that insufficient information had been provided by the applicant in relation to the use of the onsite parking. On this basis worst case scenario had been considered. It was noted that this information had also been requested on previous applications and not provided.”

“Members acknowledged the Conservation Area and the positive buildings within it. It was felt the proposal would not be appropriate in the proposed location, and despite the benefits it would harm the Conservation Area. • The Committee agreed that the development could have a negative impact to on traffic along the street.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse the application on the grounds set out in the officer report.

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED due to the grounds set out in the report…”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The refusal grounds concerned conservation area harm, neighbour amenity, future occupiers’ outlook, parking displacement and missing ecological evidence.

“The scale and appearance of the proposed development would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. It would also constitute an overdevelopment of the site which would result in a cramped form of development out of keeping with the character of the area. The development would therefore and fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Darnley Road Conservation Area.”

“The proposed development would fail to provide a satisfactory level of residential amenity for future occupiers due to lack of outlook from habitable rooms. The development would therefore fail to meet the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), the Technical Housing Standards – nationally described space standard (2015) and the Council’s Residential Layout Guidelines including Housing…”

Officer report