DARTFORD LDF CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION
REPRESENTATION MADE ON BEHALF OF
GREENHITHE MARINA (MANAGEMENT) LLP
PUBLISHED APRIL 2011
1.
Introduction1.1. This representation is made in support of the provision of a marina on the riverside frontage of the Thames in Dartford Borough. It is noted that Dartford Borough Council (DBC) has a longstanding objective to provide a marina at Greenhithe since the mid 1980’s when the extensive land owned by F.T. Everard and Son along the river frontage came forward for development. The original development scheme contained a requirement for a marina to be provided and this aspiration was brought forward in the Dartford Local Plan at Policy RT6.
1.2 Planning Permission was granted for a marina at the western end of High Street, Greenhithe, with access by way of the former Everard slipway. A copy of the approved plan for the marina is included at Document A. For reasons explained later in this representation the marina was never brought forward for development.
1.3 The purpose of this representation is to ensure that this long held aspiration to provide a Marina at Greenhithe is not lost from the latest LDF Policy formulation.
1.4 The Greenhithe Marina Management LLP has undertaken considerable work in conjunction with the Port of London Authority (PLA) and other public bodies to develop the concept of a marina and it is apparent that they have a body of expertise that can inform the debate about the need for and considerations of the location for a marina on this part of the River Thames.
2.
Marina Requirement2.1 The LDF has not given any apparent consideration to the requirements for a marina and accordingly its reference to a location at Black Duck Marshes on Swanscombe Peninsula does not appear to have the benefit of any proper investigation. The danger with this approach is that the inclusion of this aspiration may therefore have little prospect of being delivered.
2.2 The practical requirements for a marina on the frontage of the Thames at Dartford Borough will be dependent on the following factors:
NavigationThe location of marina berths in the river must not affect navigation of shipping on the river. In this regard, the location of moorings must not impinge upon visibility splays for shipping, must not be located where ships may collide with moored vessels particularly where they are manoeuvring and the moorings should ideally be placed in deep water so that they are accessible at all states of the tide.
RadarThe provision of a concentration of moorings for leisure boats may have an impact upon radar on the river particularly if sited close to one of the radar facilities along the river frontage.
Ecology of the River ThamesIt is apparent that there is evidence of “Alkmaria romijni” (a protected species) within the riverbed. Whilst it has been accepted that mitigation can be provided to deal with the provision of piles in the riverbed to minimise impact on this creature, it is apparent that the provision of moorings above the low tide line such that leisure vessels will sit on the mud at low tide, is likely to have a damaging effect upon this protected species.
It is therefore the case that moorings will need to be located within deep water where they will not dry out at any state of the tide.
Land Based Ecological ImpactIt is apparent that care needs to be taken regarding siting of the shore based facilities to serve the marina. This will include various buildings and potentially parking and shore based storage of leisure vessels over the winter.
It is apparent that some of the remoter parts of the river frontage are the subject of localised nature conservation designations and that some of the marshland areas provide a wide range of habitats many of which may be protected species. This will rule out some locations from consideration.
Access RequirementIn terms of sustainability, it is apparent that the objective should be to locate leisure facilities such as this at locations where they are accessible by public transport or by walking/cycling from nearby residential locations.
Where the marina is dependent upon vehicular access, then it is important that a suitable roadway is available to serve the site that can accommodate the required amount of traffic generation.
Customer RequirementIt is apparent that the river is tidal and berths that are accessible to vessels entering or leaving the marina at any state of the tide will ensure that the marina is more likely to be used throughout a longer period of the year than a marina where access or egress is restricted to particular times either side of high water.
Given the likely high cost of establishing a marina on the River Thames along the Dartford Borough frontage, it is considered that accessibility at all states of the tide is essential.
3.
Marina Proposals3.1 It is apparent that the approved marina proposals at Greenhithe were not brought forward because they were not designed to meet the requirements set out above in section 2. This is considered to be in part due to the lack of awareness by DBC in their original concept for this development.
3.2 The Greenhithe Marina Management LLP have undertaken considerable work in connection with two recent planning applications for the provision of facilities at Greenhithe. It is apparent that at this location, the proposals are acceptable within navigation terms, they do not compromise radar, they are acceptable in terms of Alkmaria romijni and there are not shore based ecological issues. It is therefore the view of the GMMLLP that Greenhithe is the prime location for the provision of a marina facility.
3.3. It is accepted that the original proposal at Pier Road failed due to the limitations of the access and revised proposals were submitted with a view to overcoming that shortcoming identified by the Inspector in the original Appeal Decision see Document B.
3.4. A second proposal with access via the alleyway to the west side of the Sir John Franklin Public House was the subject of a revised application for Planning Permission and in terms of access had the support of Kent Highways, the Highway Authority. Whilst it is accepted that the LPA refused Planning Permission it is considered that this is a political decision and largely flies in the face of the matters deemed to be acceptable and meeting the terms of existing planning policy as outlined in the Appeal decision.
3.5 The Greenhithe Marina Management LLP is not aware of any detailed investigations undertaken by DBC in respect of the suggested location at Swanscombe Peninsula. Furthermore, it is understood that there have not been any discussions with the PLA regarding a location on the River Thames along the Dartford Borough frontage other than at Greenhithe. It is therefore considered that it is most unlikely that there can be any certainty that this facility will be delivered in the way that is identified in the Core Strategy.
4.
Soundness4.1 It is noted that Policy CS22 identifies the Council’s aspirations for sports, recreation and cultural facilities to serve the Borough. At paragraph 4 of the Policy, the Council indicate that they will work with partners to develop water sport activities on the River Thames in particular at Swanscombe Peninsula.
4.2 Policy CS22, paragraph 4 81
The Council will work with its partners to develop leisure uses of an outdoor nature set within green space at Swanscombe Peninsula.
On the issue of and the use of the term Partners: 4.3 It is considered that this is capable of being misconstrued by the casual reader as meaning that DBC is, or is likely to become, a partner in the project, or at least that it supports the project in some way.
4.4 The Council has previously advised that:
"It is an important matter of public interest that the Council is seen to be impartial in relation to any proposed project particularly while a planning application is under consideration. Otherwise, members of the public who support the project, or that have concerns about the proposal may not feel confident that the Council will give these concerns due weight".
4.5 The reference to ‘partner’ raises the question of what happens if an applicant decides that they do not wish to be in a partnership agreement with the council, or visa versa, will this then result in refusal of planning applications. It seems in the case of the Greenhithe Marina proposals; this is precisely what has happened. It is also evident that the Council wants to change the policy which until recently supported a marina at Greenhithe to one that now hinders any possibility of that happening at this location.
4.6 It is considered that most developers are happy to work with the Council to ensure a proposed development is acceptable and policy compliant etc. prior to submission of an application. However I think most applicants would agree that they then simply want to apply for planning permission, and if approved, proceed to deliver their proposals accordingly, rather than becoming involved in a partnership.
4.7 In the recent case regarding the Marina proposals at Greenhithe, it was clear the Council did not want to partner with the applicant, in fact, the Council categorically refused to engage with the project on any level, so it seems highly improper to suggest that proposals will only be considered viable if the council accepts the developer/s as its partner. This notion simply does not sit well with planning process and represents an unnecessary interference by the Council. It might be different if the Council wished to develop its own land or approached a landowner accordingly with one of its own ideas but clearly in such cases this would most likely involve a substantial financial agreement or some form of concessions involving the Council. This is clearly far beyond the realms of a straightforward planning application even including S106 agreements.
4.8 This approach to partnering could cause conflict where a planning application came forward by a partner at the same time as an application from a non-partner. Would the Council then be obliged to favour its so-called partner. Most people would surely expect their organisation to receive preferential treatment from its partners over its rivals, hence the reason why they became a partner in the first instance.
4.9 For these reasons it is considered the term ‘Partner’ per se should be removed from the Core Strategy as it a) confusing, b) misleading c) appears contrary to the governments national development policy guidance as it should not be necessary for an applicant to become a partner, to reach agreement with the council in order to get its plans approved.
On the issue of leisure uses of an outdoor nature set within green space at Swanscombe Peninsula:4.10 This is far too vague and gives rise to further confusion and inevitably confrontation: for example golf, tennis, motocross, model aeroplane flying, and clay pigeon shooting are all of an outdoor nature, but does that mean these activities could be considered acceptable at this location.
4.11 It is unclear whether the Council are saying that this location is suitable for development of a boatyard with launching facilities as well as a yacht club at Swanscombe Peninsula.
4.12 For clarification and for consistency with CS6:
It is considered essential in respect of the above, and where applicable to points 1 through 9 of Policy CS6 on Page 44, Greenhithe in particular should remain/be included as a preferred site/location suitable for a marina development /water compatible uses in order to provide leisure activities including craft moorings for the purpose of bringing life to the river and the Greenhithe riverfront.
4.13 It is therefore apparent that the Core Strategy is unsound due to it not being justified by evidence and not effective because it is not deliverable.
4.14 It is suggested that the Core Strategy could be made sound by the deletion of Swanscombe Peninsula and substitution of Greenhithe in para. 4 of CS22.
4.15 It is considered that for consistency, Policy CS6 relating to Thames Waterfront should make reference to the need to provide access for leisure use of the river and to indicate that a location at Greenhithe is most likely to be the most suitable location.
5.00
List of documents 3A Copy of approved plan for marina
3B Original Appeal Decision
