Station Road Greenhithe Development

 Objections must be raised by 28th June 2021 to be guaranteed to be included in the decision process

Application 21/00724/FUL

Our thinking on this application

As a group of local residents, we have been watching proposals for this site going back to 2014. Since the Outline permission refusal in 2015, successive applications have all exceeded what was approved in 2016. Whilst this proposal is an improvement on the previous application, it still exceeds the approved 33 dwellings. In addition the benefit of a medical centre, one of the key reasons for the approval has been removed. We believe this proposal fails multiple core council policies such as inadequate parking, housing mix, density and drives a loss of  greenspace and wildlife habitat. It will create a long period of disruption during the build phase, adding to the traffic congestion in the area and create dangerous conflicting movements at junctions. Allowing such development on a greenfield site will set a precedent for other sites.

 

We believe this application should be refused and invite you to join us in raising an objection or comments using the links in the menus on this page, to the Dartford Borough Council portal. Thank you for your support

 

Listed below is a personal and evolving opinion. It is a non-exhaustive compilation of some of the things we regard as key failings. These will be added to over time, but please feel free to adapt these into your comments if you agree they appear relevant. Policy and strategy documents  referred to here can be found in the Key documents tab

 

  • There is no urgent need to build on this green field site as the 5-year housing development plan is being met and other brownfield sites are available to develop first. Allowing development of high density dwellings on greenfield space might set a precedent going forward on other sites

 

  • This Council ruled against development here in 2015. Since then the benefits that the bus/rail and supermarket bring, remain the same, but the disbenefits have increased with higher density proposals and the removal of the medical centre. This then continues to fail core strategy CS10, where the Council ruled

"the resultant high-density layout would be compounded by the proximity of the existing residential dwellings to the north and that this would constitute an unneighbourly form of development, out of character with its immediate surroundings and this was not outweighed by the favourable accessibility factor."

 

  • The 2016 approval did nothing to mitigate this ruling. The required consideration of increased density at commuter hubs, coming from the National Planning Policy Framework consultation (NPPF) was qualified as wherever feasible, which this site was ruled in 2015 as being unfeasible, so is moot

 

  • The failure to achieve the Council Parking (Adopted SPD) standards will lead to inadequate spaces for residents and visitors overspilling onto neighbouring streets, especially at weekends and evenings when most people are at home. The quoted 47 spaces is actually 45 able bodied spaces with 2 disabled spaces that will be policed. The Census data used by the developer acknowledges some flats of this type will have more than one car, but there is no provision for this in the proposals. It is likely residents will have to look for parking across both car parks where visitor cars take resident spaces and despite wardens it is likely station pick ups will pull in here. A proposal requiring wardens and fines just so residents and visitors can park is unacceptable

 

  • Comprising 100% flats, this significantly fails core strategy CS18 where the aim is to achieve an approximate housing mix of 70% houses to 30% flats ratio to ensure there is a good mix of housing stock in the borough.

  • The site is overly dense against the Council housing density policy (CS17). Both the 2021 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and previous Council comments confirm this as an ‘Urban’ site (not adjoining the river) so limiting density to 55 dwellings per hectare

 

  • The developer has stated they will only provide 10.6% affordable housing failing to meet the 30% target in Core Strategy CS19

 

  • We believe there will be cumulative issues on neighbouring uses failing policy DP5, where the combination of increased pollution and traffic, poor parking facilities and the development of a high density site so close to existing residences may lead to anti-social behaviour. We are also concerned that issues like pollution, noise and road safety from conflicting traffic movements are not properly quantifiable at this time. All this notwithstanding the loss of green space and wildlife habitat.

  • Developer Infrastructure plans are based on a catchment area extending into Essex, which for schools and dentists is not practical and would increase car journeys. We do not believe sufficient focus has been applied on the corridor from the A206 through to the B255 connecting the Dartford Tunnel, Bluewater and the A2. Developments outside the immediate vicinity such as the Bridge estate also feed into this route and the epicentre of the regular logjams is at the roundabout by Asda and up to the Roundabout at McDonald's. The network cannot cope with further development at this junction, especially as the new Ashmere and Alkerden developments do not appear to be factored in