Council rejects £120m Gravesend regeneration plan
Gravesham Borough Council has rejected a planning application for the £120m development of the Heritage Quarter in Gravesend town centre in Kent.
At a meeting of the council’s regulatory board last night, cabinet members turned down the planning application by Edinburgh House to develop around 140,000 sq ft of retail and office space, a 51-room hotel, 400 new homes and car parking spaces.
This is the latest in a series of planning blows for the scheme, which is seen as key to the regeneration of Gravesend.
Earlier this year, elected members suggested the developer, which has so far spent around £4m preparing the application, should reduce the size of some of the scheme’s buildings and invited Edinburgh House to resubmit the plans.
Council leader Mike Snelling said: “The democratic and impartial planning process has produced a decision on this important application which was one of the cornerstones of the regeneration of Gravesham. It remains to be seen now whether the developer appeals this decision and what the outcome of that appeal will be.
“Until we know that decision I believe a shadow of uncertainty remains over the regeneration of the town.”
The special meeting was held in the Woodville Halls and around 350 people attended.
- Council defers £120m Gravesend scheme
- Wandsworth local plan gets Inspector’s go-ahead
- Plans submitted for historic Towcester regeneration
- Supreme Court rejects Wolverhampton decision over Tesco CPO
- Healey admits Labour’s planning system too centralised
Fill out our Vacant Properties survey for a chance to win £100
Don't miss the Public Property Summit - 1-2 November 2010
A wise decision by the regulatory board. The development was not in keeping with the town and the Riverside. Tall buildings would have dwarfed the Church and block the views of the river.
This is an historic town and any future development needs to be in keeping wth that.
In fact, this development had been scaled back signifcantly and there was no prospect of either the church views or the river views being obstructed – facts that have been independently supported by both English Heritage and CABE. This decision will serve only to support the leakage of shoppers to Bluewater for years to come. What will become of Garvesend’s ailing town centre in the meantime?
We have managed very well before thanks and I am sure will ’survive’ without the development, this towns been here a while now!
I don’t mean to be inflamatory Mark, but if you have lived in the town since Bluewater opened (and you may have done for all I know), you can’t deny there has been a steady decline in the town centre ever since. The town will obviously ’survive’ but my point is, will it be somewhere that outsiders want to visit (or even, live)or that new retailers will want to set up shop, or that businesses can thrive in? You may beg to differ, but I have my doubts.
Whatever you may think about Edinburgh House’s proposals, you cannot deny that this town is in urgent need of regeneration/investment. My fear is that the developers will walk away now and it may be 10 years before we have another real offer on the table and what damage will be done in the meantime? Why can’t we just work with these guys to get to a solution rather than treating them like the enemy? I suppose what I’m saying, is let’s not squander an opportunity without at least exploring the possibility of a happy medium.
I quite agree. However, the developers are not really willing to listen to the ‘little’ people. I have emailed in the past with concerns,as I do live directly on the proposed development. I have yet to receive a reply.
The area in question has indeed had money spent on it ( The old High street ) several years ago. Shops were reopened.But, it has not really worked.Many new flats around the Canal basin area.Many new residents, but the pub situated right on this development is doing LESS trade than before!
Also it is Edinburgh House itself that has said how well Gravesend is doing at the moment( on their own site).A mass of contradictions.As for visitors,they come to see the historical parts of the town, not a new build development.
I agree, but it leaves us with a conundrum. In EH’s defence they can only be guided by the Council’s development brief and the land which they have available. Clearly, it’s in no-one’s best interests to decimate the historic parts of town or blight the river views of the river of St George’s. But if we are agreed development is needed then we have to accept an element of change and compromise. Clearly, we can’t and shouldn’t compromise on matters such as preserving views of St George’s and the river. But we can’t eschew contemporary design altogether and neither should we aspire to some Dickensian market town pastiche.
I’m disappointed – I don’t see a downside to this development unless of course you live next to it. Yet in the end, even local residents will benefit from shops and restaurants and improved space. I don’t see a concrete jungle. I’ve seen the plans and don’t have a problem with the modern urban architecture its quite sympathetic. I heard that the plans have been rejected on pretty shaky grounds and it could cost the council in appeal. So this duck ain’t dead yet.
Leave your response!
Public Property Summit
Send us your people moves
We want to hear from you
Most read
Most commented
Who or what is in the news...
Birmingham Boris Johnson BSF civil service CLG coalition communities and local government conservatives council councils cuts david cameron Defence Estates Development election government Green HCA homes Housing infrastructure labour Liberal Democrats liverpool local authorities localism london manchester NHS OGC pickles planners Planning Procurement property Property news public property public sector RDA RDAs Regeneration RTPI scotland total place Treasury
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.