Ward

Thorpe Ward



SOS/07/01523/FUL (Application for full planning permission)



RAISE ROOF; ERECT DORMERS TO FRONT, SIDE AND REAR; ERECT

SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS TO FRONT AND SIDE; ERECT TWO

STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR INCLUDING FRENCH DOORS AND

BALUSTRADE; AND ASSOCIATED ALTERATIONS (RETROSPECTIVE

REVISED PROPOSAL)



16 St Augustines Avenue, Southend-on-Sea



A Gershlick Bernard Gooding Associates





URGENT ITEM:



Reason for urgency; to enable the Council to express its views on an appeal against

non-determination within the deadline required by the Planning Inspectorate.



1 Background



1.1 The above application was previously considered by the Development Control

Committee on 5th December 2007 and the Committee resolved to delegate

the application to the Director to grant conditional permission subject to two

conditions and subject to “additional consultee responses being satisfactory”.

The reason why an additional consultation period was required was due to

the fact that this application was originally submitted on 29 October 2007 and

thus advertised on the basis that the proposed works related only to retention

of unauthorised works to the rear elevation. However, further works to the

front and side of the property took place during the course of the application

and the applicant therefore sought to retain these additional alterations to the

front and side of the property and amended the application accordingly.



1.2 Since the Committee meeting on 5th December 2007 an additional 430

objection pro-forma letters have been received in response to this application.

This includes two letters on behalf of the Burges Estate Residents

Association.



1.3 In the meantime, an appeal has been lodged against the non-determination of

the application within the eight week period. The application therefore now

falls to be determined by the Secretary of State or, in practice, by an

Inspector.



1.4 Following the submission of the appeal the Borough Council, as local

planning authority, no longer has the power to determine the application. The

Council is, however, entitled to be represented at the Informal Hearing where

the appeal will be considered. The Council is also invited to submit its

comments to the Planning Inspectorate by 4th July 2008.







Page 1 of 8

1.5 At this stage, clarification is sought of what decision the Committee would

have made on the application where it still to have had authority to determine

it. Dependant upon the Committee’s decision, it could be argued at the

appeal that consent should be refused, the consent should be granted or that

it should be granted subject to appropriate conditions.



2 The Proposal



2.1 This retrospective application seeks to retain the extensions to the above

property as built, which deviate from the scheme previously approved on 10th

January 2007 (SOS/06/01572/FUL). The development is near to completion

and the revised description of development is as follows: “Raise roof; erect

dormers to front, side and rear; erect single storey extensions to front and

side; erect two storey extension to rear including French doors and

balustrade; and associated alterations”.



2.2 The revisions to the original application are detailed in Section 9 below.



3 Location and Description



3.1 The property to which this application relates is a detached bungalow located

on the eastern side of St Augustines Avenue. Permission was originally

granted in August 2006 to extend the property at roof level and to the front,

side and rear to create a chalet bungalow. An amendment to this scheme of

works was later approved in January 2007.



3.2 The streetscene consists predominantly of bungalows, some of which have

had dormer extensions added. The neighbouring property to the south at

No.14 has been substantially extended including a large side extension,

dormers to the front, side and rear, and an increase in the roof height. The

neighbouring bungalow to the north at No.18 has a small single storey flat

roofed extension to the rear and an attached garage to the side.



4 Development Plan



4.1 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations)

and H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations).



4.2 Core Strategy (DPD1) Policy KP2 (Development Principles) and CP4 (The

Environment and Urban Renaissance).



4.3 Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.



5 Planning History



5.1 20 June 1955: Permission granted for erection of a bungalow and garage.



5.2 30 August 2006: Conditional permission granted to raise roof, erect dormers

to front, side and rear and erect single storey front, side and rear extension

(SOS/06/00774/FUL).









Page 2 of 8

5.3 10 January 2007: Conditional permission granted for an amended

proposal to raise roof and erect dormers to front, rear and side, erect

single storey rear extension with roof accommodation and French doors

and balustrade, erect single storey front and side extensions and alter

front and rear elevations (SOS/06/01572/FUL).



5.4 12 July 2007: Enforcement case opened in relation to unauthorised works

(addressed by current planning application).



5.5 5 December 2007: Development Control Committee considered the current

application (SOS/07/01523/FUL) and made the following decision:

DELEGATED subject to additional consultee responses being satisfactory.

The Committee had no objection subject to the following conditions:



01 Commence within three years (C003)

02 The colour and texture of any materials used on the external elevations of

the building shall match those of the existing building to the approval of the

Borough Council.

INFORMATIVE:

01 You are reminded of the Borough Council's enforcement powers and we

make take legal action if the development is not built strictly in accordance

with the approved plans.

02 To comply with the requirements of Condition 2, the supporting pillars to

the rear must be rendered to match the adjacent facing wall.



Drawing no(s): As Existing (Under Construction) Plans and Elevations

received 29 October 2007; Proposed Plan and Elevations 0775/2-005 rev.G



6. External Consultation



6.1 None.



6 Internal Consultation



7.1 None.



7 Publicity



Original submission:



8.1 Neighbours notified of application – 6 consulted; 163 replies – objections on

following grounds:

♦ Design – Design, bulk and mass of extended property considered harmful

to character and appearance of building and street scene.

♦ Amenity – Extending property to side and rear considered to result in a

loss of amenity to neighbouring properties to side and rear particularly in

terms of overlooking/loss of privacy. Suggested that all windows to side

and rear should be frosted glass if extension allowed.









Page 3 of 8

♦ Overdevelopment – property originally a one bedroom bungalow, now

being converted into a four bedroom property harmful to neighbourhood.

♦ Other – Concerns about retrospective nature of application and impractical

nature of original proposal (e.g. inadequate head heights at first floor

level).



A large proportion of the objection letters received were based on a pro-

forma stating the following:



 The overbearing nature of the proposal in relation to the mass and bulk of

the roof elevations to the rear of the property.

 The design of the development does not sit comfortably with the

surrounding properties and is in total contrast to the street scene.

 The overall impact is monstrous, being that it is overly large and obtrusive

and with the top floor of the building now extending further from the rear of

the property and into the garden will result in a loss of privacy to

neighbouring properties.

 This is a prime example of properties being so enlarged that they lose

their character.

 This was originally a one bedroom bungalow. The developer originally

proposed and was granted planning permission to alter the property into a

chalet bungalow with three bedrooms. Greed has overtaken wisdom and

the developer is now trying to accommodate four bedrooms into the roof

space, hence the proposed increase in the rear elevation. This type of

overdevelopment has to be stopped, before it ruins an entire

neighbourhood.



8.2 Two Ward Councillors have objected to the application on the same grounds

as detailed above.



Revised application:



8.3 Neighbours notified of the amendments to the application (as detailed in

Section 9.1 below) – 113 consulted; 430 additional objections received

including two letters on behalf of the Burges Estate Residents Association. All

representations received were based upon the pro-forma detailed in Section

8.1 above.



8.4 The objections from Ward Councillors remain as detailed in Section 8.2

above.



9 Appraisal



9.1 The changes to the scheme approved in January 2007 (SOS/06/01572/FUL)

are as follows:

i) A further increase in the height and width of the rear dormer window (0.6m

higher and 0.1m wider) and rear extension (0.6m higher and 1.4m wider),

which is supported by two pillars at ground floor level

ii) New rooflight to front roof slope

iii) Reduction in main ridge height by 0.4m





Page 4 of 8

iv) Reduction in side extension ridge height by 0.5m

v) Increase in height of front dormer window by 0.5m

vi) Increase in width of front dormer window by 0.1m

vii) Reduction in width of front bay window 0.6m

viii)Reduction in width of garage opening by 0.4m

ix) Reduction in width of side dormer window by 0.1m

x) Increase in height of side dormer window by 0.2m

9.2 Main ridge height 7352mm [approved 7500mm]

Front dormer window 3224mm (h) x 2600mm (w) [approved 2450(h) x

2450(w)]

Width of front bay window 3350mm [approved 3900mm]

Width of garage opening 2402mm [approved 3650mm]

Side extension ridge height 6600mm [approved 6500mm]

Side dormer window 2790mm (h) x 2900mm (w) [approved 1800mm (h) x

2900mm (w)]

Rear extension 6812mm (h) x 7400mm (w) [approved 6050mm (h) x 5900mm

(w)]

Rear dormer window 3150mm (h) x 2800mm (w) [approved 2450mm (h) x

2500mm (w)]

The alterations to the rear (as detailed in point 9.1i above) formed part of the

original application received on 29 October 2007. The other variations to the

approved scheme as detailed in points 9.1(ii) to 9.1(x) above were

subsequent amendments to the application. When considered collectively,

the variations to the approved scheme require planning permission.

However, if considered in isolation a number of the alterations could be

classed as either non-material alterations or permitted development. In

determining the current application, each of the points detailed in Section 9.1

above must be considered in turn.



9.3 Points 9.1 iii (reduction in main ridge height), iv (reduction in height of side

extension, viii (reduction in width of garage opening to 2.2m) and ix (reduction

in width of side dormer) are considered to be non-material alterations to the

scheme approved 10 January 2007 (SOS/06/01572/FUL). Therefore,

permission could not reasonably be refused for on the basis of those

revisions. Indeed, it is noted that these alterations lessen the impact of the

development.



9.4 If considered in isolation, the new rooflight in the front roof slope (Point 9.1(ii)

would benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2 Part 1

Class C of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development

Order) 1995 and not require planning permission. Therefore, it is difficult to

object to this alteration.



9.5 The remaining alterations, i.e. points 9.1 (i), (v), (vi), (vii) and (x), detailed

below are material alterations to the approved scheme requiring planning

permission:

 A further increase in the height and width of the rear dormer window

(0.6m higher and 0.1m wider) and rear extension (0.6m higher and

1.4m wider), which is supported by two pillars at ground floor level





Page 5 of 8

 Increase in height of front dormer window by 0.5m

 Increase in width of front dormer window by 0.1m

 Reduction in width of front bay window 0.6m

 Increase in height of side dormer window by 0.2m

Each of these alterations will now be considered in the context of Council’s

policies relating to land use, impact on neighbouring properties, and design

and impact on the streetscene.



Land use



9.6 In the context of Policy H4 of the Borough Local Plan, which seeks to protect

and increase the existing housing stock, increases in existing residential

accommodation are generally considered acceptable. In comparison to the

previously approved scheme the increase in floorspace is negligible.



Impact on neighbouring properties



9.7 The development is considered in the context of Policy H5 of the Borough

Local Plan, which requires all development within residential streets to be

appropriate in its setting by respecting neighbouring development, existing

residential amenities and the overall character of the locality.



9.8 The scheme approved in January 2007 (SOS/06/01572/FUL) included a rear

extension with Juliet balcony and French doors. The approved extension had

a similar depth as that now built and the increase in the depth of the property

at No.16 has resulted in a reduced level of overlooking to the rear patio area

of the neighbouring property to the north (No.18). The proposal also included

a dormer window at rear first floor level and a dormer window to the side

elevation. Taking into consideration the distance between properties to the

side and rear, it was concluded in January 2007 that the proposed extensions

would not result in an unreasonable level of overlooking and the situation

remains the same in relation to the revised proposal. No conditions were

imposed in relation to obscure glazing in relation to the previous application

and it would therefore be unreasonable to impose a condition requiring such

an installation in connection with the scheme as built. As no additional

windows have been inserted in the revised scheme it would be unreasonable

to refuse permission on the basis of the objections received regarding loss of

privacy.



9.9 In relation to the impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of any

increased sense of enclosure, it is considered that the revised scheme does

not have a material effect. The rear extensions are closest to No.18 but this

property has no windows in the side elevation that would be adversely

affected by the proposed works, and any effect as a result of the increase in

height and width of the rear extension on the rear windows and patio area of

No.18 is unlikely to be noticeable. The overall bulk of the building as now

constructed has been reduced slightly from the scheme approved in January

2007, which is considered to be beneficial in terms of amenity. The slight

increase in the size of the front dormer (0.5m increase in height and 0.1m

increase in width) and side dormer (0.2m increase in height) windows is also





Page 6 of 8

considered acceptable in terms of amenity as the impact is not significantly

different to that previously approved.



9.10 On the basis of the above, the revised scheme is acceptable in terms of

amenity and it is considered that permission could not reasonably be refused.



Design and Impact on the Streetscene



9.11 The development must be considered in the context of the Council policies

relating to design and conservation including Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2,

Borough Local Plan Policy C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations),

and the Design and Townscape Guide. These policies require that alterations

and extensions to properties respect the existing character and appearance

of the building and the townscape.



9.12 The objections received from two local ward councillors and a large number

of neighbouring residents include concerns relating to overdevelopment, the

retrospective nature of application, impractical nature of original proposal (e.g.

inadequate head heights at first floor level) and the fact that the design, bulk

and mass of the extended property is considered harmful to the character and

appearance of the building and the street scene.



9.13 The property was originally a one bedroom bungalow. The previously

approved scheme allowed for an extension to create a three bedroom

dwelling, such the principle of the development has already been accepted.

Considering the size of the plot of land, the character and appearance of

nearby properties and previously approved schemes, the extended property

is considered to respect the townscape in terms of its proportions. It would

therefore be unreasonable to refuse permission on grounds of

overdevelopment. It is, of course, not an offence to carry out works to an

unlisted building without first obtaining planning permission. Indeed, Section

73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 specifically allows for the

submission of retrospective applications. The application cannot, therefore,

be refused on grounds relating to its retrospective nature.



9.14 Viewed in the context of the Council’s design policies the alterations to the

rear of the property are considered to respect the scale, character and

appearance of the parent building and adjoining properties. Although the

dormer windows and rear extension are slightly larger than the previously

approved extensions as detailed in Points 9.1 (i), (v), (vi), and (x), the

extensions remain subservient to the parent building and the amended

proposal is not considered harmful to the character and appearance of this

building or the wider townscape.

9.15 The revised scheme, if granted consent and implemented, would result in the

overall bulk of the building being reduced slightly from the scheme approved

in January 2007. This is considered to be beneficial in terms of design. The

slight increase in the size of the front and side dormer windows is also

considered acceptable in terms of design with the impact not being

significantly different to that previously approved.









Page 7 of 8

9.16 On the basis of the above, the revised scheme is acceptable in terms of

design and it is considered that permission could not reasonably be refused.



10 Conclusion



10.1 Having regard to the issues outlined and in the light of the previous history of

the site, the policy context and the previous resolution of the Committee, it is

concluded that, were the Council still to have the power to determine the

application, it should be approved subject to appropriate conditions. Given

that the application will now be determined at appeal, however, the following

recommendation is made.

11 Recommendation



Members are recommended to advise the Planning Inspectorate that the

Borough Council as local planning authority has no objection to the

proposed development subject to the imposition of the following

condition or a similar condition addressing the same issue:

01. The colour and texture of any materials used on the external

elevations of the building shall match those of the existing

building to the approval of the Borough Council.









Page 8 of 8