TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990APPEAL BY GREENHITHE MARINA (MANAGEMENT) LLP AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CREATION OF A DEEPWATER MARINA FOR UP TO 200 BERTHS WITH ASSOCIATED MARINA FACILITIES TO INCLUDE FUEL PONTOON, PUMP OUT FACILITIES, WASTE STORAGE AND COLLECTION, CLUBHOUSE WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT MEANS OF ACCESS; AND THE DETAILED PROPOSAL FOR A NEW DEMOUNTABLE PEDESTRIAN RAMP ACCESS; A SERIES OF FIXED STEEL BRIDGES ON THE RIVER END SIDE OF THE FLOOD WALL AND A NEW CANTING BROW TO CONNECT THE FLOATING MARINA PONTOONS ON THE SITE KNOWN AS THE PUBLIC PASSAGEWAY OFF THE HIGH STREET AT LAND ADJACENT TO SIR FRANKLIN PUBLIC HOUSE AND RIVER THAMES FORESHORE AND AREA OF HIGH WATER TO THE NORTH OF GREENHITHE VILLAGE, GREENHITHE, KENT.Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/T2215/A/11/2148868/NWF
Dartford Borough Council Reference: DA/10/00805/OUT1.0 Introduction1.1 The Council considers that they have not behaved unreasonably in reaching the decision on the above planning application and have produced a substantive case in response to the appeal. They consider that in line with the advice given in paragraph B16 of Circular 3/2009 they have produced adequate explanation and evidence in support of each reason for refusal.
1.2 However, for clarity the Council would like to make comment on some of the issues raised by the appellants and these are set out below.
2.0 Pre-application advice2.1 In line with paragraph B3 of Circular 3/2009 the Council had extensive discussions with the appellant prior to the proposal which is the subject of this appeal being submitted as a planning application. The Council would refute very strongly the appellants assertion that a positive response was given to the proposal by the LPA. By way of evidence I have attached a copy of an appeal conversation between the Development Control Manager, Mr Alec Lauder, and the appellant Mr Martin Murphy where Mr Lauder concludes by advising that his recommendation would be one of refusal.
3.0 Development Plan3.1 The decision issued by the Council includes both adopted Local Plan and Local Plan Review policies. Although the Council would accept that the Local Plan Review policies carry reduced weight, they are still one of the material considerations that the Council takes into account when making a planning decision and therefore have been included within the Reason for Refusal. The Council does not consider it has behaved unreasonably by doing this as adopted planning policies have also been referred to.
4.0 Reason 14.1 In paragraph 3.3 the appellant seems to be referring to the Council’s wording at paragraph 4.5 of their statement of case which states “This is predominantly due to the differing tidal ranges such that the brows do not have to cover such a distance in order to reach high water”, which seems to have been misunderstood. Although the Council consider that the meaning is clear within the context of the paragraph, perhaps it would be useful to explain further. As the tidal range is great at Greenhithe at low tide the water is much further away from the foreshore thus leading to a much longer pontoon. The Council are fully aware of the desire by the applicants to ensure that all moorings will remain afloat even at low tide as this is clearly the reason for the long brow proposed.
4.2 At paragraph 3.6 the appellants refer to large warehouse buildings. Again the point made by the Council in paragraph 4.5 has been misconstrued as there is no reference to large wharf buildings in Greenhithe. The point being made is simply that the scale of the river frontage in London (as referred to by the Appellant in their application) is different to that Greenhithe.
4.3 At paragraph 3.7 the appellants refer to the detailing of the river defence around the inlet area. The Council however, were seeking to make the point in their statement of case that it is about the character of the space (of the inlet in the Conservation Area) that will be altered by the proposal rather than the detail of the edging or the original riverside detailing as suggested here by the appellant.
4.4 With reference to the comments by the appellant at paragraph 3.8 the Council understand fully that the flood defence works have significantly altered the historic character of Greenhithe and this was discussed in the officer’s report to Members on 21 December 2010 (paragraph 66). The views from the High Street or the setting of the Listed Building have not therefore been referred to in the reason for refusal.
5.0 Reason 25.1 With reference to the comments at paragraph 3.11, the Inspector notes that the SoCG records that neither the marina structures nor the movements of marina craft on the river would have a harmful effect on the Conservation Area. But this SoCG was based on a completely separate application where the access to the Marina structures was in the Conservation Area and therefore there were different considerations to the current appeal proposal. The consideration in the SoCG referred to were based on a completely different application to the proposal under consideration and in the Council’s opinion cannot be used in defence of the current appeal.
5.2 With reference to the appellants comments at paragraph 3.17, the Council do not object to the “lightship” per se in paragraph 4.13 but simply point out that this is not part of the detailed submission and therefore the possibility of a clubhouse building must be taken into account.
6.0 Reason 36.1 With respect to the appellants’ comments at paragraph 3.22 the Council would point out that the Public House does have residential accommodation at first floor which in their opinion should be taken into account. But also they consider that the cumulative effect of additional disturbance through the addition of another commercial use with public comings and goings adjacent to an existing public house is a concern and the impact on neighbouring residents should be considered.
6.2 In response to comments at paragraph 3.25, the Council has spent some time considering other marinas to determine whether there are similar circumstances which can be surveyed but have concluded that there is no marina where the circumstances are the same, such as full tidal access to boats, no parking or servicing, size of boats proposed to accommodated etc. As such they take the view that surveys have little benefit as too many differences could be found to undermine the figures. In addition, as referred to in the Statement of Case people will have different preferences and behaviours and it is not, in the Council’s opinion, possible to generalise, but rather regard should be had to the variety of behaviour that may occur as a result of the proposal and whether this is likely to have a detrimental impact.
7.0 Reason 47.1 The Council consider that their concerns about the likely impact of the proposal on parking in the local area is an important matter of local judgement about the local area and the competing pressures on parking in the area, and consider that they have substantiated these concerns in the Statement of Case. It is of course difficult to survey the concern of residents who have driven around for a number of hours and then parked a considerable distance from their house because there is no parking nearby or the fact that the public houses may lose trade as customers cannot find parking spaces available within a reasonable walking distances. It is these issues that the Council has tried to present with regard to reason 4.
7.2 The Council gave considerable consideration to the evidence of the highway authority before determining the application. They consider the impacts of the parking pressure cannot be assessed by a survey, as outlined above. Rather members, officers and local residents with their considerable local knowledge have sought to demonstrate the potential impacts that could arise as a result of the zero parking/servicing provision for the development. With regard to paragraph B23 of circular 3/2009 the Council consider that they have demonstrated a clear and rational explanation of the position taken.
8.0 Conclusion8.1 The Council would respectfully request that the Inspector refuses the application by the appellant for an award of costs.
