So people drive to places they can walk to...

Greenhithe Marina Residents Association

WHY THE TOWN NEEDS A MARINA

Plans for Greenhithe marina resurface (From News Shopper)

Published Date: 4:19pm Wednesday 25th April 2012

Landlord of Sir John Franklin pub Gary Snell and with secretary of Greenhithe Community Group,Tim Carrington with their petition last year. Photo courtesy of the News Shopper

WHY THE TOWN NEEDS A MARINA by GMRA

It is sad and depressing to read the lead article in this week’s News Shopper by Kelly Smale. 

It is equally sad and depressing to see a recycled photograph of a prominent local businessman pub manager Gary Snell photographed alongside fallen Town Mayor and ex-Swanscombe and Greenhithe Resident Association Town Councillor Tim Carrington clutching what we believe to be a litigious 214-signature petition against the marina plans.

Since being forced to step down as a Town Councillor for MISCONDUCT:

• in that he (Mr Carrington) had damaged the reputation of the office of Town Mayor and the reputation of the Town Council; 
• That he had used his position improperly to his own or someone else’s advantage or disadvantage; 
• That he had failed to declare a personal interest at a meeting (Finance and General Purposes Committee meeting 6 April 2006 and Town Council meeting 20 April 2006);
•  That he had breached the Council’s Standing Orders by issuing orders, instructions of direction that he was not authorised to do so by the Council, or relevant Committee or Sub-Committee (Standing Order 35(b)).

AGENDA ITEM 5 STANDARDS COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH 2007 REPORT ON ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY COUNCILLOR T J CARRINGTON

 

Mr Carrington appears to have reinvented himself as a self-proclaimed ‘Community Activist’ and apparently he is also the Secretary of the Greenhithe Community Group. 

The article it seems is based on the views of this small but very affective group of mostly ex but also current Town Councillors which unfortunately and disappointingly neither shows any regard for the merits of what a marina could do for Greenhithe and the area as a whole; such disregard exposes a complete lack of understanding of marina operations and economics.

Possibly this is because the developer never provided a complete financial evaluation of its original marina proposals but clearly Dartford Borough Council were convinced by the merits of a marina at this location when they (DBC) approved outline planning consent for a 350 berth marina in the late 80s. In fact, many residents living in Greenhithe today were attracted to the area by the promise of a marina.

Years on the promised level of residential development has ensued without providing the provision of Council planned riverside community facilities associated with the approved 350-berth marina development.

More recently there were proposals from private enterprise, yes even "yachties" and businessmen, to build a marina at Greenhithe; unfortunately those proposals were always turned down by the council.

But why when it is clear that the promise of a marina along with the residential development of the waterfront helped turn the economic fortunes of Greenhithe around at a time when in the late 80s early 90s many properties suffered negative equity as a result of the financial crises we all know as ‘Boom and Bust’.

Today we face a different set of challenges which following the collapse of the world banking system has led to a global banking crisis. The impact of which is clearly being felt by Governments, International organisations, financial Institutions, businesses both large and small worldwide, and here locally the ‘Credit Crunch’ has made private borrowing more difficult, if not impossible. 

Add to that the governments’ severe austere measures, cutbacks in public services and the banks reluctance to provide finance have made taking out a mortgage more difficult than it had been for years, especially for first-time buyers. This is being felt by every individual on the street and in some cases the economy has had a devastating impact on the quality of everyday life all of which has led to an unprecedented lack of confidence in our domestic property market. 

If Global warning has taught us anything then its "think globally act locally". However GMRA is not suggesting that a marina at Greenhithe is going to solve the world banking crises that’s just silly but in these tough times it could help restore some confidence back into the local property market and the area as a whole  by attracting new home buyers and investment to Greenhithe at a time when it is needed the most.

Marinas have been built all over the UK and throughout the world and it is clear that businesses and government authorities do not build marinas for altruistic reasons. 

They build them because recreational boating brings profits, progress and employment plus many associated developments bringing prosperity to local communities.

A recent survey in the Yachting Monthly magazine showed the average British cruising yacht owner is 50 years old, keeps a 32ft yacht in a £4,000pa marina berth, lives at least 65 miles from the sea and drives to the marina around 12 weekends between April and October.

Other statistics quoted were that abroad, 93% of boats are berthed in a marina while in Holland and the Baltic every boat is berthed in a marina, but in the UK only 55% are – leaving opportunities for the further development of marina berths.

In 2010-11 the UK average marina berth cost circa £3,550pa but £4,750 and more per annum on the south coast.

There is a severe shortage of marina berths in the UK, with boat owners having to wait for several years for a berth.

Kim Matthews, who owns the Pier Hotel pub in Greenhithe High Street, is reported in the News Shopper to have said: "There's a major parking problem now and it's just going to make it 100 times worse”. "We will lose customers because there will be physically nowhere to park at all”. 

We understand the concern however as there is no evidence to support this view, we urge caution about using such rhetoric as it could cause hysteria, and therefore without proper foundation this is seen as nothing more than scaremongering.   

At a meeting of the Joint Transportation Board on 6 December 2011 at Dartford Borough Council it emerged that more than two hundred (200) vehicles have been removed from Greenhithe streets thereby improving traffic movement and safety related pressures they had caused. It is therefore clear that the introduction of CPZs have been effective in deterring commuter parking in residential streets.

A copy of the full report that went before the Joint Transportation Board can be downloaded via the following link: Chairman’s Update Greenhithe Parking Review

Pier Road and High Street: Residents here did not support the council’s initial parking management proposals and following discussions led by Mr Carrington and supported by former Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Mayor Councillor Peter Harman the proposals were deleted.

This led to 19 on street parking spaces at the eastern end of the village being unprotected meaning those spaces were not subject to the newly introduced Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on the Avenue, Pier Road and The High Street.

Mr Carrington was the chief objector to the Councils original proposals and many residents having taken his advice to reject the Councils parking measures at that end of the village are now requesting parking controls be introduced.

Residents here are now reporting increased parking related problems and have requested a parking management scheme, however we are yet to see any physical evidence that suggests commuter parking has become a problem and it seems that Mr Carrington and the Greenhithe Community Group may have cried ‘WOLF’ once too often, perhaps even for the last time!

It is clear from the councils own report that residents’ feedback has been mostly positive with only a few of the one thousand households reporting varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the scheme for various reasons.

Never the less Mr Carrington, of Greenhithe High Street, is reported in the News Shopper to have said "Since the last set of plans were rejected by the Planning Inspectorate in 2011 there has been a marked increase of vehicles chasing the limited unrestricted parking spaces available in Greenhithe due to new housing development”.

"A 200 berth marina will only exacerbate an already overburdened village and we are sure Dartford’s Councillors will again sensibly reject unanimously this new proposal as they did the previous two".   

Clearly Councillors have in the past listened to the advice of Mr Carrington and Mr Harman, The Greenhithe Community Group, instead of advice from planning officers, hopefully and unlike Mr Carrington, the planning committee will at least wait until they have seen the revised proposals before proclaiming them sunk. 

The constant cry of WOLF has clearly contributed to the failure of the previous marina proposals; however the previous plans were not turned down on parking grounds alone. In fact, the developer was awarded a cost judgement against the Council when Councillors added a fourth reason for refusal which was clearly influenced by those with close ties to the planning committee members. We hope council tax payers realise that very large sums of their money have been expended, much, if not the major portion of this, on paying lawyers and consultants. 

This is what the Planning inspector said about that decision:

“The Council did not turn down the application purely on parking grounds but mainly due to the ‘knock-on’ implications of relying on public or street parking and of short-term stopping near the passageway. However, based on the actual conditions along High Street an objective assessment would also have found that there is scope for loading and unloading to occur without creating hazards. Furthermore there is no evidence to indicate that use of the car parks by those using the marina would have any adverse implications for others since there is adequate space within them at weekends to accommodate extra vehicles. The concern about the quality and general amenities of the conservation area was not spelt out".

"Paragraph B20 indicates that planning authorities are not bound to accept the recommendations of their officers. Whilst local knowledge is important it was not translated into an adequate justification for the stance taken especially in the light of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport. Indeed, no reasonable planning grounds were shown for imposing the fourth reason for refusal in addition to the three advised by officers.

Therefore, as set out in paragraph B17, a partial award is warranted in that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, took place".

Costs Order

In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dartford Borough Council shall pay to Greenhithe Marina (Management) LLP the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision limited to those costs incurred in respect of Ground 04 of the decision notice dated 24 December 2010.

The applicant is now invited to submit to Dartford Borough Council to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed.

David Smith

INSPECTOR

The inspectorate’s full report is available via the following link: http://publicaccess.dartford.gov.uk/online-applications/files/E5AB83A41C99D44F41B4A9DB129F1ECD/pdf/10_00805_OUT-APPEAL_DECISION_-_COSTS-102286821.pdf

Our members and readers will recall early this year GMRA blog acknowledged the positive impact the pay and display regime was also having on the Public Car Parks which has had the effect of freeing up additional visitor parking. 

In total we understand that there are nearly Six Hundred (600) less commuter related vehicles parked in and around the Streets near to Greenhithe Railway Station each day. 

This is clearly welcome news and a job well done resulting from the Councils efforts, which many of our members believe would never have come to fruition had it not been for the marina planning application.  A review of available parking spaces near to the proposed marina entrance can be found via the following link:  http://www.flickr.com//photos/thegmra_blog/show/

Those who oppose a marina should ask themselves if they truly believe that everyone else in the UK is out of step except Swanscombe & Greenhithe.

Local residents Maria and her husband are experienced sailors and they support the plans for a marina said “the marina proposals will mainly be targeted at residents, therefore additional parking will only be ad hoc”

Paul a GMRA member from Ingress Park said “If parking was that much of an issue for the pub then why on earth did the Council allow the pub to build an outside deck on the pubs 14 space car park”.

Our members love the Pier Hotel Pub and we know Kim Matthews runs a fantastic pub, Kim is also responsible for the pubs growing reputation for serving fantastic food at reasonable prices and if the marina was to get built then we are sure visitors to the marina especially those by boat will also love the Pier Hotel Pub.

Contrary to some opinions, particularly those of the Sir John Franklin Pub Managers Allison and Gary Snell, recreational boat owners generally do not bring their own sandwiches, sit on their boat, eat the sandwiches and then go home. They spend money in local restaurants, pubs and shops.

Many stay with their families in local hotels, guest houses and holiday flats and use local businesses for repairs and maintenance in winter as well as during the season.

Recreational marine activity brings in several ancillary business needs, including engineering, engine overhaul and maintenance, electrics, electronics, plastics, joinery, storage and general boat care.

Even with a modest marina in Greenhithe it is feasible that boat builders could be attracted to the area and why the developers’ future plans include the possibility for development at Swanscombe Peninsula West to provide a new Swanscombe Yacht club, boat launching facilities with boat storage and repair services where there is space and the labour force available.

If you are going to develop the Dartford 9-mile area of waterfront then you cannot run such businesses without a marina to support those facilities.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DARTFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPEAL 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/OUT

1.0 Introduction
1.1 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 advice
2.1 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 Plan
3.1 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 1
4.1 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 2
5.1 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 3
6.1 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 4
7.1 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 Conclusion
8.1 The Council would respectfully request that the Inspector refuses the application by the appellant for an award of costs.