Ashford Borough Council

Public consultation launched on plans to develop derelict land at the rear of Eastmead Avenue

Ashford Borough Council’s housing services team is proposing to develop unused land at the rear of Eastmead Avenue which often attracts flytipping and anti-social behaviour. The council is proposing to create a multi-purpose site which will include a community project aimed at combating isolation in older people; a brand new parkland area; additional parking, a small number of commercial units for startup businesses; and 35 affordable homes comprising of a mixture of houses, flats and town houses, which will be the enabler for the other proposed improvements.

The site at the rear of Eastmead Avenue is a derelict patch of land that is currently overgrown and drab and has become an area unfortunately used for fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour. It is no longer allotment land, having been declassified by the Government for the purpose of potential development some time ago. It is currently divided in two. There is land that was previously used for allotment gardens to the west of the site, and to the east there is hard standing which was previously used by the Coneybeare Engineering Company.

The site has the potential to provide better green space, much-needed affordable homes and community facilities. It is also well placed to make use of the cycle lanes into town and those which also encourage further exploration of Ashford and the surrounding areas.

As the image shows, the Council are hoping to develop the site into distinct but linked areas:

1. A park and enhanced green space as shown towards the bottom of the image.
2. A community area for the Community Sheds Project, also referred to as ‘Shedders’ and ‘Men in Sheds’. This project aims to tackle isolation and loneliness in older people, providing them a space to connect, converse and create. We are committed to delivering this project as part of our site< and have been liaising with the local ward member about this.
3. A commercial area, with sensitively clad shipping containers offering a place for small business start-ups to trade. We are keen to understand your views on this and there is a specific question in the consultation document relating to this part of the proposal.
4. Affordable housing, as shown at the top of the image. This is proposed to be a mixture of both houses and flats (note that the drawing above shows the requisite number of storeys on the apartment block to deliver 29 homes in total). We are committed to delivering much-needed homes but are keen to understand your views on the proposals.

Site access

There are a number of access routes onto the site, but vehicular access is potentially limited. As the image below shows, routes onto the site are currently as follows:

• Two footpaths from Torrington Road. One is under a public space protection order (PSPO) and is gated. The other is there so that residents can access their rear gardens. PSPOs are designed to deal with issues in a particular area, which is affecting the local community’s quality of life.
• One footpath from Eastmead Avenue, which forms the current public access under the PSPO. This is passable and currently gives access to rear gardens.
• There is potentially vehicular access from Eastmead Avenue, although overgrown shrubbery would need to be cleared to assess this.

Nb. The two PSPOs that cover these areas can be found at https://www.ashford.gov.uk/media/ qvplkmfm/coney-bear-pspo.pdf

Planning feedback

The housing services team have taken this vision through the pre application process with the planning department.

This stage provides detailed feedback on the application to help progress it and develop it into something that is worthwhile that will benefit the community.

The feedback received suggested that housing try to link the housing, parking and the community aspects together more, rather than them being individual elements within the one site. Planners felt that they could make more of the cycle paths in the area and encourage their use more. Therefore, they also questioned whether our initial ideas to create additional parking to help with the congestion on the surrounding roads of terraced properties was actually required. If they did proceed with the parking they were asked to consider if it would be allocated and managed. What are your views?

Finally, they were asked to consider if there would be enough footfall for the viability of the proposed commercial section of the site. Management of the commercial element is not straightforward for the council and this would require some thought from us. However, are there any alternative uses for this section of the site that would lend itself to this location that we have not yet thought of?

Would you like to see some small-scale business use in this area? Alternatively, what would you like to see there?

Your feedback

Your views will help the Council to determine how they proceed.

• What do you think of the number of homes?
• What do you think about the parking?
• What do you think about the proposed commercial use?

They would really welcome your feedback on the initial vision for the site.

You can respond to the consultation questionnaire on the hard-copy provided and post it back to the council or you can visit our consultation portal and respond online. If you leave your details any questions you raise can be answered.

Take part in the survey

Thank you.

Consideration of responses for consultation

The Council have given responses to some of the feedback received to date.

Thank you so much to those who have taken the time to respond to the first stage of our consultation on possible proposals for the site between Eastmead Avenue and Torrington Road. We genuinely appreciate you taking the time to respond as it is only by understanding the thoughts and concerns of the community that we can adapt the plans and deliver something meaningful on the site. At the end of the consultation we will take away the responses submitted so far and look at the plans again. We will then consult the community for a second time in the coming months. This will be done ahead of any planning application being submitted. There will then be a third opportunity for residents to comment more formally through the planning application process.

There have been lots of points raised during the consultation and we wanted to address them all and let everyone who responded see the points that had been made and our initial reaction to them, ahead of us revisiting the proposals ahead of the second stage of consultation. Please note that we will not be able to change everything but when we put forward the proposals a second time we will be able to say why we have changed things or why we are unable to change them.

We are really pleased that so many of you who responded said that it would be good to see the patch of land put to good use. We are also pleased to see the support expressed for the Shedders project, which is something that we will be delivering on the site. We also are pleased that the parkland area received much praise from those who have responded as we seek to create a really lovely place for those who already live nearby as well as those whom we are hoping could also be housed in the area.

Parking – inadequate on surrounding roads and site

We knew that parking would be a contentious matter and as we stated in the original documentation, we had originally looked to over-provide parking spaces to alleviate congestion on surrounding roads but had been encouraged by planners to look at potentially not doing this and instead looking at making better use of the cycle lanes that exist in the area, offering access into the town. We note that many of you have raised parking concerns and will look at this aspect of the proposals again and see what balance can be struck.

Access – one road in

Access is another important aspect. We note comments made about the fact that only one road leads onto the site under our proposals and also that the access itself onto the site is reasonably tight towards the end of Eastmead Avenue. It is worth pointing out that this would meet planning demands but will again reconsider this aspect of the design. There may be alternative options which we need to pursue and we will feed back on these, but we appreciate the concern and the points raised on this matter, particularly from those who live towards the end of Eastmead Avenue where the proposed access currently is.

The thinking behind the access shown relates to the traffic control bollard in place on Beaver Road and not wanting to create a way to bypass this resulting in a busy through route.  

Flats not in keeping with area, concerned about height, overlooking established gardens

We will look at this aspect of the design again. The length of the gardens had indicated in planning terms that the height of the flatted development could be higher than would ordinarily be expected. It would not be dictated by the existing street scene. We note the comments about flats not being in-keeping but of course given the limitations as to which parts of the site can accommodate housing due to the flood zones that exist on the site, this means that to make the affordable housing element viable we might need to introduce some flatted development to increase the number of homes that can be built as it is the rental income from the affordable housing that will ultimately determine the viability of the scheme. And of course with around 1,500 households on the waiting list we need to deliver as many homes as we can and build what we can to try and alleviate the demand.

There also central government drives to make efficient use of land, but this aspect must be design-led.

No vehicular access to units/men in sheds

We appreciate that at the moment there is limited access, but will look to enhance this as part of the wider plans for the site.

Poor cycling infrastructure

We believe that there is a good cycle lane route into the town centre from close to the site and we have been asked to explore this as a means of perhaps having fewer parking spaces on the site itself.

Privacy issues

We understand that people may be concerned about being overlooked when they have not been previously. We will look again at the storey heights of particularly the flatted development within the constraints we have as set out above.  Overlooking is a material planning consideration that our architects will fully consider.

Noise

There will be additional noise during the construction phase. If plans are approved and contractors are appointed, then we will ensure that any contractor we work with will sign up to the considerate contractor scheme – as part of their work they seek to minimise disruption to the local community and, for example, keep noise and dust to a minimum.  They cannot eliminate all disruption but will make sure this is kept to a minimum.

Light

We know that our architects carefully consider the tracking of the sun when designing any scheme to make sure that there is no major impact of light deprivation as a result of anything that we build.

Flooding

The flood zones that cut across the site are of course a determining factor in what we have proposed to build and where. The housing can only be delivered on the left-hand end of the site which means that we cannot address some of the points that have been made by residents in this first consultation. We are constrained by the flood zones and so that is why we need to look at some flatted development.& In the assessing of flood risk, commercial development is not as sensitive as residential development, which is why this has been included in the location shown. The design would provide natural active surveillance across as much of the site as possible to help address ASB. We will take another look at the options in light of some ideas that have been shared.

Vandalism in area

Some respondents raised concerns about potential vandalism in the area. Of course, it is our intention here to create a space that people will have great civic pride in, will look after, much more so than the existing space which attracts flytipping etc, and will be much enjoyed by everyone. Indeed, the existing piece of land has attracted antisocial behaviour and flytipping so this is very much intended to bring back some community pride in the space.

Long term viability of commercial units

We are interested in the comments on the commercial units – this requires greater thought from us. The spread of responses reflects the fact that it is an innovative idea but needs careful thought around footfall, viability and what happens if the scheme does not take off as intended. We will consider this further ahead of our second stage proposal.

Public footpath off Lower Denmark Road between 2 Rose Villas and Denmark Terrace should be reinstated

We will look into this suggestion further.

Wildlife

We will undertake all necessary ecological assessments to ensure that we are not displacing wildlife. Many of you have noted that the proposed parkland area to the right end of the site will be a beautiful place to visit and we would hope this will attract wildlife in a more sustainable way.  Be assured the final proposals will protect existing ecology and increase net biodiversity.

Lack of GPs, hospital being overburdened

Of course, with any new housing comes with the concerns over stretching existing medical services. The council does liaise with healthcare partners and they have a say in responding to planning about proposals.

Why not building bungalows when there is a lack in Ashford.

We understand that bungalows are in high demand and indeed the Council is one of the only developers in the borough who is actually delivering them. The issue with bungalows is that they do require a lot of land, whereas houses take up a smaller space of course being on two or three levels. Flats are advantageous as they can work for older people too as they are level access.  We have delivered a number of high quality spacious apartments with balconies or private outdoor space recently that have been well received.

We must stress that these are the initial proposals and that this is the first part of the community consultation and we will go away and consider all the views that have been expressed by residents who have been kind enough to engage with this part of the process. We will then consider these points before our second stage of consultation.

A planning application has been submitted on behalf of Ashford Borough Council for the redevelopment of Oaklieigh House.

The development was initially publicised through an online consultation in July 2020. South Ashford Community Forum organised an online meeting to discuss the development during the following month.

As was the case at consultation stage proposals include the demolition and redevelopment of Oakleigh House sheltered housing in Beaver Lane and the adjacent block of flats and development of the grass area between Watercress Lane and Cross Stile.

The planning application varies from the consultation proposals as a result of comments made by residents and by a Design South East Panel. This has led to a two fewer dwellings for adults with learning disabilities.

Schedule of accommodation
Independent dwellings for older people
1 bed apartments	41
2 bed apartments	10
1 bed mews cottages	3
Total	54
Independent apartments for adults with learning disabilities
1 bed – planning application (consultation)	12 (14)
2 bed	1
Total	13 (15)

The application can be viewed and comments submitted via the Ashford Borough Council website
planning.ashford.gov.uk/Planning/details.aspx?systemkey=119156

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•