Form a car parking deck over the summerhouse immediately

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: HC120730124515

Tags

Stats

views:: 1
posted:: 7/30/2012
language:
pages:: 72

Public Domain

Document Sample

Agenda
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Item

Report of the Director of Technical &
Environmental Services
to
Development Control Committee
On
26th June 2002
Report prepared by : Planning Officers

Report on Planning Applications
An Open Agenda Item

INTRODUCTION

(i) Recommendations in capitals at the end of each report are those of the Director of Technical
and Environmental Services and are not the decision of the Committee.

(ii) All plans have been considered in the context of the Borough Council's Environmental
Charter. An assessment of the environmental implications of development proposals is
inherent in the development control process and implicit in the reports.

(iii) Reports will not necessarily be dealt with in the order in which they are printed.

(iv) The following abbreviations are used in the reports:-

AW - Anglia Water plc
BLP - Borough Local Plan
CAA - Civil Aviation Authority
DEFRA - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DELL - Director of Education & Lifelong Learning
DLCAS - Director of Leisure Culture & Amenity Services
DSC - Director of Social Care
DTLR - Department of Transport Local Government & The Regions
EA - Environment Agency
EPOA - Essex Planning Officers Association
ESRSP - Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan
PPG - Planning Policy Guidance Note

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 1 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Thorpe Ward

SOS/02/00546 (Application for Full Planning Permission)

ERECT SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS, CONSERVATORY TO REAR,
ROOF EXTENSION TO REAR, DORMER WINDOWS TO FRONT AND SIDE, PORCH TO
FRONT AND REPLACE FLAT ROOF ONE SIDE ADDITION WITH PITCHED ROOF AND
FORM ACCOMMODATION IN ROOF SPACE

141 Marcus Avenue, Southend on Sea, SS1 3LQ

Y P Hinton R V Horton

1 The Proposal

1.1 To erect a single storey side extension measuring 1m x 2.1m to the existing laundry room, a
single storey rear extension measuring 2.6m x 1.7m to the existing dining room, a side
extension creating a study measuring 2.55m x 2.9m, a conservatory to the rear measuring
3.8m (wide) x 3.65m (deep), dormer windows to front and side elevations, a porch to the front
elevation 2m x 1.4m (which requires permission because it is over 3m high) and erect a
pitched roof to the south elevation.

2 Location and Description

2.1 A detached bungalow on the west side of Marcus Avenue amidst a residential area. The
property is brick built with plain roof tiles and the front garden is paved with enough space for
five cars. There are other bungalows to the north, south and east although to the south-east
are two storey detached houses.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policy BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations) and Appendix 4.

4 Planning History

4.1 1958 – Permission granted for bungalow and garage (16121).

4.2 1973 – Permission granted for new vehicular access (D/1104/73).

4.3 1992 – Permission granted to install additional satellite dish to rear (SOS/92/0737).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Highway Comment – No objections.

5.2 Design Comment – Materials to match existing.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour Notification – One reply objecting to the replacement pitched roof, window in the
side elevation and devaluation.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The main issues considered pertinent are impact on visual amenity, impact of the amenities of
adjoining residents and potential car parking requirements.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 2 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.2 The design is felt to be in keeping with the existing character of the of bungalow subject to the
use of materials to match the existing building. The front dormer in particular is small and
neat.

7.3 The conversion of the store into a study, the slight extension to the laundry and the
conservatory are all within BLP Guidelines and would not have a detrimental impact upon the
adjoining residential premises.

7.4 The dormer window to the side elevation would need to be fixed shut and obscured to avoid
overlooking but as it is not the sole source of light, this would be a reasonable condition.

7.5 With regard to the concerns raised by the adjoining property, the pitched roof has been
deleted from the plans and the window would be fixed shut and obscure glazed to negate the
possibility of overlooking of the adjoining kitchen. The final issue raised of devaluation is not a
material planning consideration.

7.6 There is enough space to meet the increased off-street car parking requirement created by
the addition of two bedrooms in the roof space.

8 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following Conditions:
01 start within five years (C001)
02 materials to match existing building (CEDH)
03 obscure glazed and fixed shut

Eastwood Park Ward

SOS/02/00562/RES (Application for Approval of Reserved Matters)

DEMOLISH BUNGALOW AND ERECT PAIR OF CHALET STYLE DWELLINGHOUSES
(Approval of Reserved Matters following grant of Outline Permission SOS/01/00626 dated 22nd
August 2001)

2 Leighfields Avenue, Leigh on Sea SS9 5NN

Mrs L Revell A Cook

1 The Proposal

1.1 This is an application for reserved matters consideration, following the recent grant of outline
permission and proposes to erect two chalet style properties joined to each other with
garages. The outline application was accompanied by illustrative layouts which were not felt
to be acceptable.

1.2 The properties are set evenly on the plot, both having their main wall 6m from the back-edge
of footpath, the garages 7.8m off a joint, 5m wide vehicular access and both are set 1m off the
side boundary, the main rear walls are 10m from the rear boundary.

1.3 Both rear gardens are 108m² and soft landscaping is proposed to the front gardens, together
with a parking space in front of each garage.

1.4 The main aspects of these two bedroomed chalets are front and rear and the largest
bedrooms have both front and rear facing dormer windows.

1.5 The main roofs are half hipped but the dormer windows have pitched roofs, as do the front
porches.

1.6 The proposed materials are painted render to the main walls and dormer windows, a red
facing brick plinth, plan clay roof tiles and a concrete hardsurface.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 3 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
2 Location and Description

2.1 Detached, pitch roofed bungalow, located on the eastern corner of the junction between
Leighfields Avenue and Leighfields Road. The site measures 21.6m x 22.7m.

2.2 The site has vehicular access onto Leighfields Avenue, leading to a parking area at the side of
the bungalow.

2.3 A mature street tree and two young street trees lie in the grass verge outside the site.

2.4 The land slopes down gently from south to north.

2.5 There are bungalows to the south and east of the site and the character of the area is of
mixed dwelling types but mainly modest bungalows and chalets.

2.6 5 Leighfields Road, to the east has no habitable room windows in its flank wall.

2.7 6 Leighfields Ave to the north has a secondary side kitchen window with a main rear light
source.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP policies – CS1 – Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS2 – Protecting the
Natural and Built Environment, BE1 - Urban Intensification.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H1 (Housing Provision), H5
(Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T11 (Parking Standards), Appendix 4 and 8.

3.3 EPOA – vehicle parking standards.

4 Planning History

4.1 August 2001 – outline permission granted (all matters reserved) to demolish the bungalow
and erect two detached chalet style dwellinghouses (SOS/01/00636/OUT).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – no objections in principle however the proposed dormers are too large
and would dominate the front of these properties and they should be reduced by at least one
third. Materials to be submitted for approval.

5.2 Highway Comment – no objections.

6 Publicity

6.1 Site notice and neighbour notification – no representations received to date.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The principle of redevelopment of this site with two properties has been accepted under the
outline permission. It is in line with guidance regarding the best use of urban land and would
represent one of many windfall contributions to meeting housing targets.

7.2 The area contains bungalows and chalets of comparable plot widths and footprints to the
proposal and comparable relationships of the buildings with their front boundaries, so the
proposal would not be out of character, nor would the properties be too small to be viable.

7.3 The adjoining property has no habitable side windows such that there would be no breach of
BLP guidelines in that respect. However, the bedroom rear windows are too close to the rear
boundary, potentially causing overlooking in respect of 5 Leighfields Road and will need to be
partly obscured.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 4 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.4 The design of the proposal is generally acceptable, however the dormer windows would
dominate the front and rear elevations on a site visible from the two adjoining roads. There is
however, almost opposite in Leighfields Avenue, a bungalow with three large "dormers". Also
the rear windows need to be redesigned so that can be fixed and obscure glazed to 1.7m
above internal floor level.

7.5 Two parking spaces/garages are provided per property in a workable arrangement that should
ensure retention of the street tree.

7.6 There are no trees/bushes within the site worthy of protection.

8 Recommendation

Subject to receipt of acceptable amended plans

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 start within specified period
02 parking to be provided
03 parking retained (CAAF)
04 material samples to be submitted (CEAR)
05 landscaping scheme submitted (CJDL)
06 landscaping implemented – 12 calendar months (CJAC)
07 rear facing windows to be fixed and obscure glazed
08 details of boundary walls and fences

Southchurch Ward

SOS/02/00385/FUL (Application for relaxation of condition)

RELAXATION OF CONDITION 05 ON PLANNING PERMISSION 01/00766/FUL DATED 7th
February 2002 THAT RESTRICTED OPENING HOURS TO 0800-1800 MONDAY TO FRIDAY
AND 0900-1900 ON SATURDAYS

709 Southchurch Road, Southend on Sea

Mrs S A Brannan

1 The Proposal

1.1 The permission for change of use to café which was granted in February 2002 contains a
condition inter alia which restricts opening hours to:
8am to 6pm Monday to Friday
9am to 7pm Saturdays
No opening on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
The application proposes the following opening hours:
10am to 5pm Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
10am to 11pm Thursday, Friday and Saturday
10am to 4pm Sunday and Bank Holidays.
2 Location and Description

2.1 Café bar premises in a parade on the north side of Southchurch Road between Lovelace
Gardens and Surbiton Road. The property adjoining to the east is a Chinese take-away with
flat above and to the west is a florists shop with flat above. There is a flat above the
application property which is owned by the applicant and which would be occupied by staff if
the additional opening hours are allowed.

2.2 There is no off-street parking with the unit and directly outside the site is a no parking zone
surrounding the pedestrian crossing which is directly opposite no. 707 Southchurch Road.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 5 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
2.3 On 29th May 2002 the Committee resolved – subject to a Section 106 Agreement – that
planning permission could be granted to convert the former Barclays Bank at 659
Southchurch Road to a public house and restaurant.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies S5 (Non-Retail Uses), S9 (Retention of Secondary Shopping Frontages) and E5
(Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing).

3.2 Secondary Shopping Frontage.

4 Planning History

4.1 1986 - permission granted to erect single storey side extension and self-contain the existing
first floor flat (SOS/86/1139).

4.2 7th February 2002 - planning permission granted to use retail shop (Class A1) as Café (Class
A3) (SOS/01/00766/FUL).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Environmental Health Comment - no objection.

6 Publicity

6.1 Site notice and neighbour notification - no replies.

7 Appraisal

7.1 Planning permission was only granted for the café almost five months ago. The condition
restricting hours of opening was deemed necessary mainly in view of the flat above which was
at that time not under the control of the applicant - although it was stated at the time that he
was in the process of buying the flat.

7.2 The flat is now owned by the applicant and a member of staff from the café would be
occupying it if the proposed hours of use are allowed. In such circumstances it is generally
accepted that staff would expect a lower level of residential amenity than a separate occupant
who had nothing to do with the café.

7.3 A further material consideration is the decision to grant planning permission (subject to a
Section 106 agreement) at 659 Southchurch Road - only 70m from the application site - for a
public house and restaurant. Although a decision notice has not been issued due to the
Section 106 agreement being prepared, the hours of use proposed were 11am 11pm Monday
to Saturday and 12 noon to 10.30pm on Sundays.

7.4 The hours proposed at 709 Southchurch Road are in line with these and, in view of that
permission for what is both a larger scale operation and a public house, it would be
unreasonable to disallow the extended hours at this small café.

8 Recommendation

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 hours restricted to 8am-11pm Monday to Saturdays and 10am to 4pm on
Sundays and Bank Holidays
02 first floor occupation only to be occupied by family of owner or employee

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 6 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Leigh Ward

SOS/02/00369 (Application for Full Planning Permission)
ERECT TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION, INSTALL
SOLAR PANEL TO ROOF, FORM CAR PARKING DECK OVER SUMMERHOUSE AND
FORM NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO GRAND PARADE
100 Undercliff Gardens, Leigh on Sea, SS9 1ED

E Major R S Coombs

1 The Proposal
1.1 A two storey, flat roofed, rear extension, on the north side of the building, enlarging an existing
bedroom and utility room. A single storey, flat roofed, side extension, to provide a new
entrance lobby. Install four solar panels to the southern end of the roof. Form a car parking
deck over the summerhouse immediately south of Grand Parade and form new vehicular
access onto Grand Parade.
2 Location and Description

2.1 A two storey semi-detached property amidst a residential area with Undercliff Gardens to the
south and Grand Parade to the north. The property is rendered with a flat roof and there is
timber decking to the front.

2.2 The extensions will either be clad in timber or rendered. The roof will be metal clad.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C12 (Undercliff Gardens), H5
(Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway
Safety), Appendix 3 and Appendix 4.

4 Planning History

4.1 No planning or building control records.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Leigh Town Council Comment – No objection subject to Undercliff Gardens and highways
guidelines relating to the access.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – No objections.

7 Publicity

7.1 Neighbour Notification – one letter raising no objection but requesting obscure glazing to one
window.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues considered pertinent to this application are the potential impact upon visual
amenity, (particularly in the context of BLP Policy C12) adjoining residential amenity and
highway safety.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 7 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.2 BLP Policy C12 refers to Undercliff Gardens and in order to conserve the quality of the area
will require all development proposals to meet the following: -

(i) The preservation of existing views of the estuary including the foreshore from Grand
Parade and adjoining streets, from Grand Parade and Cliff Gardens

(ii) the preservation of the generally open and undeveloped frontage to Grand Parade

(iii) the preservation of Undercliff Gardens south of the building line as an area free of
vehicular traffic and parking

(iv) the preservation of existing garden areas as planted and landscaped areas providing
views across the estuary

(v) the harmonization of new buildings, extensions and other woks with their
surroundings.

8.3 In order to effectively meet the objectives of BLP Policy C12 the Council will require the
following specific design criteria to be achieved: -

(i) Between 28 and 104 Undercliff Gardens all building developments should

a. conform to the existing line of building

b. extend to no more than 12m to the rear of the line of building

c. be limited in height to 9m above the level of the Undercliff Gardens footpath
for buildings with pitched roofs and to 8m for buildings with flat roofs,
including motor rooms

d. be limited to a maximum of three storeys including those in roofspace

e. be limited in width to 15m

f. provide a minimum separation between adjacent buildings of 3m.

(ii) Hardstandings and carports fronting Grand Parade which retain views of the estuary
will normally be permitted as an alternative to garages, subject to appropriate
landscaping. Garages and sheds etc. will only be permitted if they do not substantially
obstruct views, subject to a maximum height of 1m over the level of the adjacent
footpath in Grand Parade, plus a set back of 6m from the back of footpath.

(iii) Appropriate landscaping, boundaries and enclosures, which respect the open
character of the area and enhance views of the estuary will be required for new
development. Walls and fences to the Grand Parade boundary will be limited to 1m in
height.

8.4 With regard to the two storey rear extension, it would not infringe a 45 degree angle drawn
from the worst affected point of a window situated in the flank elevation, which provides the
sole or main source of light to a habitable room. Nor would it infringe a 45 degree angle
drawn from the nearest corner of the main part if the adjacent property. Neither would it
exceed 3.65m in length.

8.5 With regard to the single storey side extension, it would not infringe a 45 degree angle drawn
either vertically or horizontally from the worst affected point of any side window which provides
the sole or main source of light to a habitable room in an adjoining property.

8.6 An adjoining neighbour has expressed concern regarding an east facing window and the
potential for overlooking of their property. Although the angle would not allow direct
overlooking into the adjoining property, a condition requiring the obscure glazing would
remove the perceived sense of overlooking.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 8 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.7 The solar panel on the roof would not project above the existing chimneys and would not
restrict views from Grand Parade to the detriment of the policy – the maximum height above
Undercliff Gardens is shown as 9m. The rear extensions will not project further back than
existing projections (store and utility room). The rendering and boarding are considered in
keeping with the existing character of the property.

8.8 With regard to the car parking deck over the summerhouse, although the proposed boundary
treatment would be 1.1m high (0.1m more than Appendix 3 guidelines suggest), the existing
fence is between 1.12m and 1.23m in height. The height of 1.1m is required to comply with
the Building Regulations as pedestrians can use the decking. Whilst the summer house and
deck will to a degree reduce views down the Undercliff, the arrangement complies with the
policy. The removal of the Leylandii and the wooden fence would result in a much more open
boundary treatment allowing better views of the estuary and the foreshore and is therefore
considered in accordance with the purpose and spirit of the guidelines.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION as detailed in drawing No's. BJ-00369-01 to BJ-00369-03 and
subject to the following Conditions:
01 start within five years (C001) (D007)
02 material samples to be submitted (CEAM)
03 rendering to match existing render (CEDF) (DEAB)
04 obscure glazing to any windows in specified elevation (CIAC) (DIAB)
05 height limits on building

Thorpe Ward

SOS/02/00330/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

DEMOLISH DWELLINGHOUSE AND ERECT THREE STOREY DWELLINGHOUSE WITH
BASEMENT ACCOMMODATION AND PART COVERED PARKING

127 Thorpe Bay Gardens, Southend on Sea

Mr and Mrs S Hopper Mr J Rawlings

1 The Proposal

1.1 To demolish the existing dwelling and replace it with a three storey, seven bedroom dwelling
with basement, two living rooms, utility rooms, kitchen and playroom plus a basement gym
and swimming pool.

1.2 The existing dwelling is 8.75m in height and that proposed is 9.79m. The original proposal
was higher but amended plans reduced it by 700mm and applicant points out that the ridge is
100mm below that of 131 Thorpe Bay Gardens.

1.3 The main part of the proposed dwelling is 11m in depth - the same as that existing - but with
an additional 2m projection at the front which includes 1.3m deep balconies at first and
second floor and a deck at ground level. It is proposed to be set in by at least 1m at the side
boundaries.

1.4 The dwelling is of modern design with a large amount of glazing to the front and with the first
and second floors overhanging the ground floor to the east side to form an integral 'car port'.
Six parking spaces are provided within the site including use of the existing garage.

2 Location and Description

2.1 A large detached two storey dwelling on Thorpe Bay Gardens facing over the Thorpe
Esplanade car park to the south. The dwelling is part of a row of eight large detached
dwellings of differing styles.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 9 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
2.2 The property has a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension and there is a
large detached garage at the bottom of the garden.

2.3 Properties along Thorpe Bay Gardens are generally large and detached and with a variety of
designs.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations), H4 (Preservation of Residential Uses), T11 (Parking Standards).

4 Planning History

4.1 1965 - permission granted for house and double garage (D/881/65).

4.2 1978 - permission granted for garage and first floor rear extension (SOS/167/78).

4.3 1979 - permission granted for two storey side extension (SOS/966/79).

4.4 1981 - permission granted for single storey rear extension (SOS/481/81).

5 External Consultation

5.1 Environment Agency - advisory comments made.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment - although the proposed scheme has been reduced in height, the design is
still out of character, unbalanced and unresolved.

6.2 Highway Comment - no objections.

7 Publicity

7.1 Site notice and neighbour notification - no replies.

8 Appraisal

8.1 This property is part of a row of large detached properties of various styles. Whilst the
proposal is of modern design with a high element of glazing, it is considered that it could be
satisfactorily absorbed into the street scene. Its ridge would be 1.04m higher than that of the
existing property but again neighbouring properties are of varying heights and this would be
1m lower than 131 Thorpe Bay Gardens.

8.2 The overhanging element does appear somewhat unresolved, and the applicant has been
requested to reconsider this element.

8.3 With regard to guidelines and impact on neighbouring properties, there is a slight breach of
0
the 45 guideline drawn from the front corner of the property to the east 129 Thorpe Bay
Gardens; the first floor balcony is set in by only 1m from the eastern boundary and the
proposed second floor balcony is set in only 1.5m from the western boundary, rather than the
2m normally required. However there is an existing first floor balcony which is also only 1m
from the eastern boundary and the property to the east does have an effective side screen.
The proposed first floor balcony is 3.5m from the western side boundary and with a well-
designed screen will be acceptable. Thus, the first floor balcony is considered acceptable.
However, a second floor level balcony in the position shown would allow a view down onto the
balcony to the west and the applicant has been asked to set this further in and provide a side
screen.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 10 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.4 Although the replacement house will have three storeys the rear garden length –
approximately 25m – is such that there is no overlooking issue.

8.5 The site contains sufficient parking space to serve the dwelling.

9 Recommendation

Subject to receipt of amended plans GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the
following conditions:
01 start within five years (C001)
02 details of materials to be submitted before development starts
03 obscure glazed screen to be provided - details to be agreed (CIQS)
04 no additional windows in the west elevation other than those shown
05 specified windows to be obscure glazed
06 provision of garage and parking
07 retention of parking

Leigh Ward

SOS/02/00494/FUL (Application for planning permission)

ERECT SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION, ALTER ELEVATIONS AND USE INDUSTRIAL
UNIT (CLASS B1) AS TWO LIVE/WORK UNITS

Land and buildings to the rear of 145 to 155 Southsea Avenue, Leigh on Sea

Intex Properties Fibbens Fox Ltd

1 The Proposal

1.1 This application is partly retrospective in that the first floors of the two Industrial Units are
currently in use as living accommodation; the application relates to part of the southerly of the
two buildings on the site. It proposes the retention of the living accommodation at first and
second floor and use in connection with the ground floor industrial unit leading to the creation
of two “live/work” units. Access to the ground floor units would be made available internally
from the living accommodation. A single storey extension is proposed to the front of the unit
at ground floor to create an entrance lobby and one ground floor window would be blocked up.

1.2 There is a hardsurfaced are to the front of the units which has been separated from the
remainder of the site. The plans show that this would be used to provide two parking spaces
and an amenity area.

1.3 The applicant has submitted a brief supporting statement, which is summarised below:

1.3.1 Live/work is an evolving popular concept, which provides a highly sustainable form of living
accommodation, enabling the occupier to both live and work from the same premises and
cuts out the need for vehicular journeys to work. Furthermore it enables individuals who might
otherwise not be able to purchase or rent both living and working accommodation.
2 Location and Description
2.1 The site is located to the rear of properties in Southsea Avenue and London Road. It is
accessed via a narrow vehicular access at the northern end of the site. The site is
hardsurfaced, with no allocated parking spaces and contains several substantial industrial
buildings.

2.2 The application property is in use as living accommodation at first floor, two meter boxes are
evident. The ground floor industrial units appear to be unoccupied. There are a number of
windows on the east and west elevations at first floor.

2.3 The application property backs onto residential properties to east and south.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 11 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
3 Development Plan
3.1 BLP Policies H2 (Future Housing Needs), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), E4 (Industry
and Warehousing), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), C11 (New
Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations),
T11 (Parking Standards), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), Interim Policy
Guidance – Providing and Safeguarding Employment Land.

3.2 Structure Plan Policies CS1 – Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS2 – Protecting
the Natural and Built Environment, CS3 – Encouraging Economic Success, CS4 – Sustainable
New Development, BE1 – Urban Intensification, BE2 – Mixed Use Developments, H1 –
Distribution of Housing Provision, H2 – Housing Development – The Sequential Approach,
BIW1 – Employment Land Provision, BIW4 – Safeguarding Employment Land, T1 –
Sustainable Transport Strategy, T3 – Promoting Accessibility, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

2 Planning History

3.3 Lengthy history incorporating several planning permissions granted for the erection and
extension of industrial buildings. Enforcement history regarding unauthorised use of buildings
for car repairs and B2 use.

3.4 1990 – rebuild two single storey industrial units on part of site of those recently demolished
and lay out parking (SOS/90/1418/90) Use restricted to B1 only. 13 car parking spaces
required to be provided and retained.

3 External Consultation

3.5 Leigh Town Council – no objection

4 Internal Consultation

3.6 Design Comment – to be reported.

3.7 Highway Comment – no comment.

3.8 Environmental Health Comment – there is some potential for noise and disturbance to
surrounding residential properties as well as to the proposed residential units. Nevertheless
there is no objection subject to conditions relating to, a scheme of acoustic insulation to be
installed between ground and first floor, specific commercial uses for the work units and
control of operating hours if necessary.

5 Publicity

3.9 Site notice and neighbour notification – four letters of objection received relating to the
following issues:
 Overlooking, therefore windows to east should be obscure glazed and fixed shut
 Noise and disturbance
 Security risk as a result of access along pathway adjacent to residential properties.
 Residential use already taking place
 What restriction would be imposed to prevent us eof units as residences
 Proximity to graveyard, noise levels should be restricted
 Damage to adjacent property during construction
 Queries re proposed use and nature of business, weight limit of construction vehicles,
period of construction and date of construction
8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues to be taken into account are the loss of a industrial use, impact on
neighbours, living conditions of future occupants, implications for parking, and the visual
impact of the alterations.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 12 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.2 The overall context for business and industrial development in the Borough is shaped by the
constraints on land available in the Borough and the Borough’s relatively high unemployment
rate. Borough Local Plan Policies seek generally to expand local employment facilities in order
to both reduce unemployment and redress the balance locally between the size of the
Borough's workforce and the jobs available locally. Housing Policies complement the
employment policies by seeking to make optimum use of the existing housing stock and
available land to meet the Boroughs housing needs, whilst avoiding over provision of housing
which could increase the resident workforce.

8.3 At a strategic level these general aims are reflected in Structure Plan Policies, BIW2 and
BIW4.

8.4 At a local level Policy E4 is relevant. The site lies in an area that is not specifically identified in
the Borough Local Plan for employment use, but being in such a use the second part of Policy
E4 applies. Here the presumption under the policy is against redevelopment for other uses
however alternative uses will be permitted where there would be clear benefits to the town in
terms of jobs created of facilities provided, where the existing use is incompatible with the
surrounding area or where the premises are no longer suitable. Interim Employment Policy is
also relevant.

8.5 The proposed development would result in a net loss of employment within the site and would
set a precedent for the remaining units within the complex. Thus there is a disbenefit to the
town with regard to employment creation. The authorised B1 use of the premises, by its very
nature does not give rise to harm to surrounding residents and no recent complaints have
been received in this respect. It is not considered that there would be any clear benefit to
surrounding occupiers a as result of extinguishment of the industrial use. No evidence has
been submitted by the applicant to suggest that the unit is no longer suitable for industrial
purposes, indeed the building is relatively new and the proposed development includes
retention of the industrial use at ground floor. There is no justification therefore for the loss of
the industrial use in this location.

8.6 With regard to the housing element of the scheme, there is an adequate supply of land for
housing within the built up area of Southend available now and in the future to meet the
requirements of both the Replacement Structure Plan and the provisions of PPG3: Housing.

8.7 The units have main windows facing the east and sited a maximum of 1.7m form the
boundary with residential properties to the east. This conflicts with BLP guidelines and would
result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking of the adjacent residential properties. Whilst
actual overlooking could be prevented by the use of obscure glazing and fixing shut the
windows, perceived overlooking would remain. It is not considered that the proposed use of
the units per se would result in undue noise or disturbance to adjacent occupiers.

8.8 The required use of obscure glazing would result in a poor internal living environment for the
occupiers of the residential units, with external views out only other the adjacent industrial
building. The proposed bedrooms are served only by rooflights, a situation that is generally
found to be unacceptable. The proposed amenity space falls slightly below normal guidelines
in terms of size, it is sited to the front of the property and therefore would have little privacy, it
is sited adjacent to parking spaces and vehicle circulation areas, as well as being adjacent to
other industrial units, and is therefore considered to be unsatisfactory.

8.9 The location of the residential units, proximity to other industrial units and the backland nature
of the site, together with the unsuitable amenity space and need to obscure glazed the east
facing first floor windows, make for a poor residential environment for the occupiers of the
units.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 13 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.10 Conditions attached to the original consent for the development on site required the provision
of 13 parking spaces to be laid out on site. Although the spaces have not been formally
marked out there is spaces available to park 13 cars. The provision of the amenity space for
this proposal would reduce the number of available spaces on site to 11. However bearing in
mind the provisions of PPG13, the location of the site in close proximity to the A127 London
Road which is a major bus route and the fact the occupiers of unit will also work there the
proposed use is likely to result in a small fall in demand for parking on the site. Therefore no
objections are raised on this basis.

8.11 There are no objections to the appearance of the building.

6 Recommendation

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:
01 Loss of employment floorspace contrary to BLP Policy E4 and ESRSP policy.
02 Unneighbourly relationship to adjoining property and unsatisfactory living
conditions for the occupiers contrary to BLP Policy H5 and Policy BE1 of the
ESRSP

AUTHORISE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO REQUIRE CESSATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL
USE

West Shoebury Ward
SOS/02/00549 (Application for Full Planning Permission)

INSTALL FOUR ROLLER SHUTTERS TO FRONT ELEVATION

23-25 Ness Road, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea SS3 9DE

Mr R Hadley Design Associates

1 The Proposal

1.1 Erect four roller shutters to front elevation to provide extra security

2 Location and Description

2.1 The property is located on the north east corner of Ness Road and Maya Close. The
immediate area is a mix of uses with a car garage opposite, a parade of shops to the south
but the surroundings are predominantly residential. The property is two buildings joined to
form the ground floor retail shop with a flat on the first floor. The shop is used as a
newsagents/convenience store with advertising fascias above the shop frontage. The building
is brick built with rendered walls painted white. The roof is constructed of concrete
interlocking tiles. There is a driveway to the rear for off street parking and for deliveries to the
shop.

3 Development Plan

3.1 PPG1 General Policy and Principles.

3.2 ESRSP Policies BE1 (Urban Intensification).

3.3 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), and C7 (Shop and Commercial
Frontages and Fascias), Planning Advice Note 6 (Security Shutters).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 14 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4 Planning History

4.1 1987 – Permission granted to erect part single, part two storey side and rear extensions. Use
ground floor as extension to existing retail shop at 25 Ness Road and form flat roof on
extended first floor.

4.2 1988 – Permission granted to alter front elevation and erect external staircase and balcony at
first floor to rear.

4.3 1988 – Consent granted to install illuminated fascia sign.

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – No objections in principle, however, the impact would be significantly
reduced if the shutter housing were located behind the fascia

5.2 Highway Comment – No objections.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification – No responses.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The main issue to be considered is the impact of the shutters and the housing on the
appearance of the premises and the street scene.

7.2 PPG1 states that design and appearance of new buildings and their curtilages has a
significant effect on the character and quality of an area and they define public spaces, streets
and vistas. They are matters of proper public interest. The appearance of proposed
development and its relationship to its surroundings are therefore material considerations in
determining planning applications and appeals. Such considerations relate to the design of
the buildings and to urban design. Urban design includes the relationship between buildings
and streets, the nature and quality of the public domain itself.

7.3 ESRSP Policy BE1 states that the environmental quality of existing urban areas will be
maintained and improved as attractive places in which live work and visit. New development
in all urban areas, which results in unsympathetic change and loss of amenity, will not be
permitted.

7.4 BLP Policy C7 states that proposals for shop fronts and fascias will be required to respect the
scale and design of the buildings in which they are situated and enhance the appearance of
the area.

7.5 BLP Policy C11 states that alterations to existing buildings should be designed to create a
satisfactory relationship with their surroundings in respect of form, scale, massing, height,
elevation design and materials. Where appropriate they should contribute to and enhance
public pedestrian areas.

7.6 The shutters themselves are a mix of solid and open grilles. The solid grilles would be 0.75m
from the ground level upwards covering some of the tiled shop frontage and the bottom part of
the main window. A smaller area covering 0.38m would also be solid grill at the top of the
shop front. Solid shutters are not normally accepted as they create a ‘dead’ frontage and are
inappropriate, but the proposed shutters have an open grill section of 1.3m in the centre of the
shop front which is considered acceptable. The open grilles, which allow clear visibility into
the shop, are the types recommended in Planning Advice Note 6.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 15 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.7 However, Planning Advice Note 6 states that shutter housing should be located behind the
fascia board and it would be preferable to have the shutters so positioned. In this particular
case, as the shutters would be located under an existing quadrant awning, they will be partly
hidden which is felt to be acceptable.

8 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 Start within specified period (C001) (D007)
02 Retention of quadrant awning on shop frontage to hide roller shutter housing
03 Shutters and housings etc to be coloured as agreed

Informative
01 Licence needed for projection over highway

West Leigh Ward

SOS/02/00496/FUL (Application for planning permission)

ERECT ROOF EXTENSIONS TO SIDE AND REAR AND FORM ACCOMMODATION IN
EXTENDED ROOFSPACE

26 Burnham Road, Leigh on Sea

G & D Richards G B Spencer Plans

1 The Proposal

1.1 To erect dormers to side and rear elevation and create one additional bedroom and en suite
bathroom in roof. Revised plans have been submitted reducing the width of the south facing
dormer

1.2 This would result in the provision of four bedrooms

2 Location and Description

2.1 Detached house on eastern side of Burnham Road, to the south of Western Road. The
dwelling has two off street parking spaces.

2.2 The street is characterised by a mix of housing types, properties of various ages, designs and
size. There are other roof extensions in the street.

3 Development Plan

3.1 Borough Local Plan Policies; H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), C11 (New
Buildings, Extensions and Alterations).

3.2 Structure Plan Policies BE1 (Urban Intensification).

4 Planning History

4.1 1998 – planning permission granted for single storey rear extension and conservatory at rear
SOS/98/0306.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Leigh Town Council – Oppose, obtrusive.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 16 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – (revised plans) the reduction in width of the side dormer makes a
significant improvement. No further objections. Materials to match existing

7 Publicity

7.1 Neighbour notification – one letter raising no objection but raising concerns relating to
reduction in privacy.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues to be taken into account are the impact of the proposed development on the
streetscene, impact on neighbours and any implications for parking.

8.2 The dormers are considered to be of modest size in relation to the main roof of the dwelling
and are not out of keeping with the streetscene. The design of the dormers reflects that of the
original dwelling.

8.3 The existing dwelling contains four bedrooms and therefore this proposal has no implications
for parking.

8.4 The overlooking distance to the rear meets BLP guidelines and both side dormers serve non
habitable space (wardrobe and staircase) and can be obscure glazed and fixed therefore the
dormers will not result in additional overlooking.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 start within five years (C001)
02 matching materials (CEDH)
03 side facing dormers to be obscured and fixed

Leigh Ward

SOS/01/01047 (Application for planning permission)

INSTALL NEW SHOPFRONT AND CARRY OUT ALTERATIONS TO ALLOW INDEPENDENT
ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR FLAT

148 Broadway, Leigh on Sea

The Home Company Frank Smith

st
This application was considered by at Committee 1 May 2002, where it was agreed that the original
shopfront plans should be refused but revised plans could be approved. The decision was delegated
in order to clarify which plans that applicant wished to pursue. The applicant has since confirmed that
he wishes to proceed with the revised scheme, however it is not possible to retain the existing
ornamental glass. Therefore it is recommended that the application be approved subject to an
additional condition requiring detail of new ornamental glazing to be submitted and the approved
glazing installed.

1 The Proposal

1.1 To alter the existing shopfront in order to create separate access to the first floor flat.
Submitted plans as revised show two separate accesses being formed from a single recess in
the shopfront. The applicant has confirmed that the existing stained glass glazing above the
proposed doorways would be lost, as it is too badly damaged to retain. The existing fascia
would be retained. No details of the materials to be used in the shopfront have been
submitted.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 17 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
1.2 Internally a staircase would be installed at the southern side of the unit giving access to the
upper flat.
2 Location and Description
2.1 The shop unit with flat above is located on the eastern side of The Broadway close to the
junction with Leigh Road. The original shopfront has been retained with decorative stained
glass situated below fascia level and decorative mullions. A single access door is located
centrally and is recessed.
3 Development Plan
3.1 Borough Local Plan Policies; C7 (Shop and Commercial Frontages and Fascias).

4 Planning History

4.1 1986 – planning permission granted to use shop as offices (SOS/86/1958).

5 External Consultation

5.1 Leigh Town Council – no objection subject to Borough Council guidelines.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – (original plans) The proposed shopfront would be significantly improved if
the entrance to the flat were set back to the first floor building line, creating an open porch.
This would provide a degree of separation between the shop and the flat. The shopfront itself
would be better balanced and have more structural integrity if another pilaster were introduced
between the door and the display window. Traditional materials should be used throughout,
particularly as the property is adjacent to Leigh Cliff Conservation Area.

7 Publicity

7.1 Neighbour notification – two letters received, raising no objection. One sought retention of
original stained glass.
8 Appraisal
8.1 The main issue to be taken into account is the impact of the proposed development on the
streetscene. Although the property is not within a Conservation Area it is located close to the
edge of Leigh Cliff Conservation Area. There is no objection in principle to the creation of a
separate flat at first floor.

8.2 The existing shopfront is original to the building and is of some merit. Whilst the site is not
within a Conservation Area it is adjacent to one and it is considered advantageous to try and
retain shopfronts of merit. The proposal as submitted would result in the loss of the original
stained glass but the alterations to the shopfront as a whole are considered acceptable. A
condition is therefore proposed, to require details and installation of replacement stained
glass.
9 Recommendation
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 start within five years (C001)
02 details of materials to be submitted
03 details of replacement stained glass to be submitted
04 implementation of replacement stained glass

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 18 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Thorpe Ward

SOS/02/00567/BC3 (Borough Council Application for Full Planning Permission)

ERECT INFILL EXTENSION AT REAR OF SCHOOL

Thorpe School, Greenways, Southend on Sea

Southend on Sea Borough Council Director of Technical & Environmental Services

1 The Proposal

1.1 A single storey infill extension to rear of school to use as a PE storeroom. The storeroom
would be 4.735m depth by 4.73m wide by 3.2m high. The extension would be brick built and
have a flat roof. The area to the south of the proposal is a cloakroom and toilet block. To the
north and west of the proposal are the school kitchens.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The school comprises a single and two storey building on the north side of Greenways in an
area where the surroundings are residential. The main building of the school is Victorian with
two modern extensions to the front. There are playing fields to the south of the main school
and playgrounds to the north and east with a series of single storey buildings immediately to
the east of the main school buildings.

2.2 The proposed extension would be at the rear of the main building infilling an area between the
kitchen to the north/west and a cloakroom/toilet block to the south.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extension and Alterations), U7 (Existing Education
Facilities).

4 Planning History

4.1 A number of applications for extensions, temporary classrooms, etc, the most recent being:

4.2 1999 – Permission granted to retain – re-locatable classroom. (SOS/99/1087)

4.3 2000 – Permission granted to erect single storey extension to provide additional classrooms to
southern elevation. (SOS/00/0802)

4.4 2000 – Permission granted to form play area and erect security fencing to southern elevation

4.5 2002 – Permission granted to install external lift/shaft

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – No objections.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification – No Response.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The main considerations are the visual impact the extension would have upon the traditional
school building and whether the extension would be detrimental to the amenities of the
surrounding properties or have any parking implication.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 19 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.2 The infill extension would not be visible from the public highway as it would at the rear of the
school. The land is currently unused and adjoining the boiler house. The area at present is
tarmac with brick walls on three of the sides; north, west and south. The storeroom would be
visible from the houses along Meadow Drive but these are approximately 110–120m away.
The surrounding kitchen buildings and the main school building would hide the proposed
storeroom.

7.3 The school has had permissions granted for similar extensions. The proposed extension
would be in brick built to match the materials of the current building with a flat roof. The
design of the infill extension is in keeping with the character of the building.

7.4 There does not appear to be a parking implication.

8 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 Start within five years (C001) (D007)
02 Materials to match existing (CEDH) (DEAB)

Thorpe Ward

SOS/02/00551/BC3 (Borough Council Application for Full Planning Permission)

ERECT INFILL EXTENSION TO WEST SIDE OF SCHOOL

Thorpe School, Greenways, Southend on Sea

Thorpe School Director of Technical & Environmental Services

1 The Proposal

1.1 A single storey infill extension to west side of school to an provide additional classroom. The
classroom would be 7.8m depth by 5m wide by 3.1m high. The extension would be brick built
and have a flat roof. An existing door in the classroom to the south would be infilled and
moved to the east elevation. To the north of the proposal is a toilet block.

2 Location and Description

2.2 The proposed extension would be on the west of the building infilling an area between the
main building and a wing containing four classrooms. The four classrooms are from a recent
permission (SOS/00/0802)

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extension and Alterations), U7 (Existing Education
Facilities).

4 Planning History

4.1 A number of applications for extensions, temporary classrooms, etc, the most recent being:

4.2 1999 – Permission granted to retain – re-locatable classroom. (SOS/99/1087)

4.3 2000 – Permission granted to erect single storey extension to provide additional classrooms to
southern elevation. (SOS/00/0802)
58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 20 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4.4 2000 – Permission granted to form play area and erect security fencing to southern elevation

4.5 2002 – Permission granted to install external lift/shaft.

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – No objections.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification – No Response.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The main considerations are the visual impact the extension would have upon the traditional
school building, whether the extension would be detrimental to the amenities of the
surrounding properties and whether there are any parking implications.

7.2 The east elevation of the infill extension would be visible from the public highway although it
lays back approximately 60m from the road. The current use of the land is as a small garden
area at present paved and with small fence approximately 0.5-0.7m high. The extension
would not be visible from any residential properties, as there are other buildings located along
the western boundary of the school that would prevent the buildings from being seen by
neighbouring properties. There is also a corridor that runs along the proposed western
elevation of the infill extension.

7.4 There could be a small parking implication depending on whether or not the extension
involves additional staff or pupils. Clarification is being sought.

8 Recommendation

Subject to clarification of parking implications

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 Start within five years (C001) (D007)
02 Materials to match existing (CEDH) (DEAB)

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 21 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Prittlewell Ward

SOS/02/00193/FUL (Application for planning permission)

DEMOLISH BUILDINGS, ERECT PART SINGLE/PART TWO STOREY BUILDING FOR USE
AS OPHTHALMIC CLINIC, LAY OUT 20 CAR PARKING SPACES AND FORM VEHICULAR
ACCESS ONTO PRITTLEWELL CHASE

15 Fairfax Drive, Westcliff on Sea

Mr R Aggarwal and Dr H Kasby Peter Emptage Associates

This application was deferred at the meeting on 3rd April 2002 and again on 29th May 2002. No
objections were raised in principle to the development but details of staffing levels, parking setting
down and picking up were requested. A Travel Plan dealing with these issues was requested and is
expected for the meeting.

1 The Proposal

1.1 To demolish existing industrial buildings and erect a part single/part two storey building to be
used as an ophthalmology clinic. It would irregular in shape but mainly rectangular, of modern
design and sited towards the highway boundaries of the site. Parking for 20 cars (including
two spaces for disabled persons) would be provided within the area to the rear of the building
and in addition there would be parking space for an ambulance. Vehicular access would be
taken from Prittlewell Chase and Fairfax Drive. The entrance to the building would be located
at the junction of Fairfax drive and Prittlewell Chase it would lie adjacent to a rendered
staircase “tower” feature.

1.2 The building would be part brick, part rendered and would have a metal roof.

1.3 The following accommodation would be provided: three consultants rooms, plant room,
nurses room, admin room, test/laser room, WCs, dispensary, reception area, waiting room,
recovery room, two theatres and associated scrub area, showers and changing area,
equipment store at ground floor and conference/seminar room, WCs/showers, store, doctors
rooms, store, drug store, managers room at first floor.

1.4 The applicant has submitted supporting information which is summarised below:

1.4.1 The site is in a prominent location and currently occupied by a printer who is in the process of
relocation out of town. The site is occupied by sprawling outdated buildings, which no longer
suit the current use. The application proposes an ophthalmic clinic to supplement the
renowned eye unit at Southend Hospital nearby.

1.4.2 Supporting factors: to retain this ophthalmic unit within the area the additional accommodation
must be located close to Southend Hospital. A letter from The Chief Executive of Southend
Hospital supports the development in principle. The clinic would serve both NHS and private
patients and would therefore assist in reducing waiting lists and overcrowding at NHS facilities
generally and in particular at Southend Hospital. Patients who travel out of the area to other
facilities (e.g. in London) may be able to be treated locally thus reducing the demand on
transport infrastructure.

1.4.3 Whilst it is understood the Southend Borough Council wish to retain employment at the site we
believe that it is no longer viable for industrial use for the following reasons: Access and
egress for large articulated vehicles would be difficult. Residential properties close to the site
could be disturbed by some industrial processes. The buildings do not lend themselves to
modern usage/adaptation. The application would provide more employment on site than say
a B8 unit (for which planning permission already exists). These new jobs would range across
the competencies/skills to include cleaners, security and general maintenance in addition to
clerical and clinical assistant

1.4.4 There are good transport links for staff and patients, bus stop outside and other bus routes
nearby. Three of the towns’ stations are only a short taxi/bus ride away. Usage of cycles will
also be encouraged by provision of stands and showers for staff.
58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 22 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
1.4.5 This is an important site within the town. Redevelopment would greatly improve the
streetscape and visual amenity of the area.

1.4.6 The site is under-utilised. It has been on the market for some time and attempts have been to
market the site for B1, B2 and B8 use without success (supporting letter submitted).

2 Location and Description

2.1. The site lies at the junction with Fairfax Drive and Prittlewell Chase. It is currently occupied by
flat roofed, single storey buildings close to the highway frontage, and larger warehouse type
buildings with pitched roofs to the rear. There are two existing vehicular crossovers, one on
Fairfax Drive and one on Prittlewell Chase, which is a dual carriageway. The existing
buildings on site have a run down appearance. A line of conifer trees flank the site to the
north.

2.2. The site to the north of the application site is in use as a driving test centre and that to the east
as offices.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP CS1 – Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS2 – Protecting the Natural and
Built Environment, CS3 – Encouraging Economic Success, BE1 – Urban Intensification, BIW1
– Employment Land Provision, BIW4 – Safeguarding Employment Land, T12 – Vehicle
Parking.

3.2 BLP Policies U6 (Non Residential Health Care Facilities), E4 (Industry and Warehousing), E5
(Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations), T11 (Parking Standards), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety).

3.3 Interim Development Control Guidance on Employment Land.

3.4 EPOA advisory parking standards.

4 Planning History

4.1 1948 – planning permission refused for office building.

4.2 1948 – planning permission granted for office building.

4.3 1951 – planning permission refused for light engineering and assembly work 4015.

4.4 1953 – planning permission granted for builders merchant.

4.5 1953/4 – planning permission granted for open timber storage, shed and office 7684.

4.6 1954 – planning permission granted for store.

4.7 1954 – planning permission granted for showroom and offices.

4.8 1955 – planning permission granted for offices showroom and living accommodation over.

4.9 1955 – planning permission granted for vehicle port and builders workshop.

4.10 1964 – planning permission granted to erect two storey extension to form showroom and
office space 0/199/64.

4.11 1965 – planning permission granted for alterations and extension to form new showroom
D/43075.

4.12 1971 – planning permission granted for vehicular access.

4.13 1977 – planning permission granted for change of use from builders merchants showroom
stores and yard to car showrooms with ancillary office facilities SOS/327/77.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 23 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4.14 1977 – planning permission granted for change of use from builders merchants showrooms,
stores and yard to offices and workshop for printing and publishing and single storey rear
extension to provide toilets SOS/335/77.

4.15 1977 – planning permission granted to form vehicular access SOS/898/77.

4.16 1984 – planning permission granted to erect single storey rear extension (SOS/84/1471).

4.17 1999 – planning permission granted to alter elevations (SOS/99/0068).

5 External Consultation

5.1 Anglian Water – request condition re: drainage details to be submitted

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – no objections.

6.2 Highway Comment – This proposal will attract a significant increase in vehicle and pedestrian
traffic in this busy area. Many patients will be unable to travel alone after attending the clinic
and it is safe to anticipate that many will be dropped off and collected later by car. This will
contribute to the congestion in the area. There will be a greatly increased incidence of
vehicles from Victoria Avenue waiting in Fairfax Drive to turn right into the eastern site
entrance. There is concern regarding the adequacy of the car park and the space available
for picking up patients. This could lead to a considerable amount of short-term kerbside
parking which would be difficult to prevent as no offence could be committed but would greatly
add to the congestion.

6.3 Environmental Health Comment – no objection in principle – request condition re: submission
of ventilation details

7 Publicity

7.1 Site notice and neighbour notification. A letter has been received from BUPA Wellesley
Hospital, concerned about the statement about ophthalmic facilities needing to remain close to
the existing unit at Southend Hospital. Wellesley provides an excellent service from 3 miles
away. Also concerned about the need stated, as the Chief Executive of Southend Hospital
states that he has no objection to the establishment of such a clinic, The document also states
that the Chief Executive of the hospital is not in a position to commit to its use for NHS
patients, which challenges the validity of the statement that the clinic would serve both private
and NHS patients, assisting to reduce overcrowding and waiting lists. They feel the third and
last paragraphs are misleading suggesting that patients who require such a private facility
have to travel out of the area. All facilities are available at the Wellesley, approx. 1mile from
the site. They ask that the Council judge the application on the grounds that it is a business
venture, competing with private provision and unlikely to improve access to NHS patients
without additional funding.
8 Appraisal
8.1 The main issues to be taken into account are the principle of loss of the industrial building, the
provision of a medical facility, impact of the proposed development on the streetscene, impact
on neighbours and implications for parking.

8.2 The authorised use of the building is as a printing works, which is classified as B2 (general
industrial). It is located some distance away from residential properties and is surrounded by
commercial properties of varying types. The existing uses on site currently generate
employment but the buildings appear to be somewhat run down and may need considerable
adaptation to be brought into alternative industrial use. Borough Local Plan Policy E4 and
Interim Employment Policy guidance seeks to safeguard the development or change of use of
all employment land. Changes of use or redevelopment will only be allowed exceptionally.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 24 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.3 On 4th October 2001 the Borough Council adopted interim development control guidance
stating that all employment land will be safeguarded from development or change of use to
other land uses, and such development or change of use will only be permitted in exceptional
circumstances. Such circumstances require that:

 the site has given rise to or has the potential to give rise to complaint, or redevelopment
would have significant townscape benefits and

 evidence is provided to demonstrate that the premises are not suitable for business
purposes due to environmental factors, and

 consideration has been given to redevelopment for other employment purposes that
would be compatible with the locality an the policies of the BLP, and

 consideration has been given to mixed use development and then to other job creating
uses that would be compatible with the local environment, and

 convincing evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the site has been
appropriately marketed for employment purposes in suitable locations and at a realistic
price for the lawful or permitted use, and that long-term vacancy exists, normally of we
months or more.

8.4 Priority BIW4 of the Structure Plan accords generally with this view and Southend is included
as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration and is within Thames Gateway.

8.5 Whilst there is no evidence that the present uses give rise to complaint or are incompatible
with the area, etc they are run down and are proposed to be replaced with premises which
whilst not providing industrial or warehousing jobs will provide some employment and will
provide a facility that will be of benefit to the town. BLP Policy H6 indicates that non-
residential health care facilities will be accepted subject to certain criteria relating to residential
amenities and design and layout which are felt to be met here.

8.6 The site proposed is located well away from residential properties and the use is considered
appropriate in this location, near to and complementing the medical services at Southend
Hospital. The design of the building is attractive and provides a positive architectural
statement in this prominent and busy location. On balance therefore no objection is raised to
the loss of the industrial use in these particular circumstances.

8.7 Although because of its location and architectural features the building will appear prominent
in this corner site, it will not appear obtrusive or unattractive within the streetscene. The
strong modern design of the building is regarded as a positive feature. The area to the front of
the building will be landscaped enhancing its appearance.

8.8 The building is sited some distance away from residential properties and it is sited sufficiently
distant from adjacent commercial properties to ensure no loss of amenity. There may be an
increase in activity associated with the proposed use compared with the existing business on
site, however it is important to recognise the potential for activity associated with a B2 use.
Notwithstanding this, the location of the site means that any increase in activity will not result
in harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 25 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.9 The scheme will have 20 parking spaces. Both BLP and EPOA parking standards are partly
based on staff employed so an accurate parking calculation is not possible at this stage –
details of staffing levels have been requested. The applicants have stated that they will
provide cycle storage and shower facilities to encourage travel to the site by bicycle. In
addition account needs to be taken of the location of the site on several bus routes, adjacent
to bus stops and a limited distance from town centre stations. Discussions are continuing on
these issues.

8.10 Given the previous industrial use of the site it will be necessary to carry out decontamination
measures as part of any permission.

9 Recommendation

Subject to clarification of staffing levels and parking, plus details of setting down and
picking up. Delegate subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring a Travel Plan.

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 start within five years (C001)
02 submission of materials
03 provision of car parking spaces
04 retention of car parking spaces
05 provision and retention of cycle parking spaces
06 landscaping scheme to be submitted
07 landscaping scheme to be implemented
08 submission of boundary details
09 decontamination
10 use limited to clinic and no other in Class D1
11 submission of ventilation details
12 submission of drainage details

West Shoebury Ward

SOS/02/00577/BC3 ( Borough Council Application for Full Planning Permission)

ERECT INFILL EXTENSION AT REAR

Thorpedene GM Junior School, Delaware Road, Shoeburyness SS3 9NP

Thorpedene Junior School Director of Technical & Environmental Services

1 The Proposal

1.1 A single storey infill extension at rear to use as a library. The library would be 7.29m wide by
4.99m deep by 2.764m high. The extension would be brick built and have a flat felt roof. To
the south of the proposal is a PE store, to the north is a corridor, to the west is an existing
footpath, to the east is an existing class room which would have two window openings infilled.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The school comprises a single and two storey building on the south side of Delaware Road in
an area where the surroundings are residential. The school is split into infant and junior with
the infant school located on the north east of the site. The proposed library would be
constructed in the junior school, which is located to the south west of the site. There are
playing fields located to the south of the school, which are separate from the school as the
area is fenced off.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), U7 (Existing Education
Facilities).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 26 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4 Planning History

4.1 A number of applications for extensions, temporary classrooms etc. the most recent being:

4.2 2001 – permission granted to erect single storey infill extension (SOS/01/00784).

4.3 2001 – permission granted under Regulation 3 to erect single storey rear extension
(SOS/01/00367).

4.4 2000 – permission granted to erect single storey infill extension to front elevation
(SOS/00/00761).

4.5 1999 – permission granted to erect infill extension (SOS/99/00649).

4.6 1999 – permission granted to erect infill extension (SOS/99/0408).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – no objections.

5.2 Environmental Health Comment – no objections.

6 Publicity

6.1 Site Notice and neighbour notification – no response.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The main considerations are the visual impact the extension would have upon the school
building and whether the extension would be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding
properties or have any parking implication.

7.2 The infill extension would not be visible from the public highway, as it would be located at the
rear of the school. The land is currently an unused area between a corridor and a PE store.
The library would not be visible from any residential properties surrounding the school as it
would be enclosed with the corridor and PE store hiding the proposed extension.

7.4 There does not appear to be any parking implication.

8 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 start within five years (C001)
02 materials to match existing (CEDH)

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 27 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Milton Ward

SOS/02/00557 (Application for Full Planning Permission)

USE RETAIL UNIT (CLASS A1) AS RESTAURANT (CLASS A3) IN ASSOCIATION WITH
ADJOINING RESTAURANT AND INSTALL NEW SHOPFRONT

7-9 High Street, Southend on Sea, SS1 1JE

Mr P Tomassi & Sons Ltd Architectural Services

1 The Proposal

1.1 Use retail unit (Class A1) as restaurant (Class A3) in association with adjoining restaurant and
install new shopfront.

1.2 The ground floor area would be used as an extension to the existing restaurant/café. The
changes to the retail unit consist of an extended counter and part of the wall on the northern
boundary to be removed and a new opening formed. An existing staircase would be removed
along with a partition and the existing front entrance to the unit. The front elevation would
have the existing windows removed and replaced with new full height windows. A new
opening would also be formed on the north west corner of the unit creating access for the
staff.

1.3 The first floor area would be used as a restaurant extension, new bar area and an
administrative office to the rear with small toilet. The existing staircase would be removed
along with an existing office wall.

1.4 A new shop front would be constructed as part of the proposals with materials matching the
existing shop fronts of the adjoining restaurant. A sliding door entrance would be constructed.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Vacant shop unit, southernmost of terrace of three units. The middle and north end units are
café/restaurant premises. Western side of the High Street south of its junction with Richmond
Avenue opposite The Royals and backing onto Royal Mews and the public car park. At this
point the pedestrian High Street is approximately 14m wide.

2.2 There are shop premises adjoining and almost opposite is on of the principal entrances to The
Royals shopping complex. Further to the west at the rear is the Council owned car park with
access from Alexandra Street and Royal Mews.

2.3 The High Street is completely pedestrianised with Royal Mews and a more recently provided
access road from Alexandra Street providing rear servicing to this south west quadrant of the
town centre.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), E1 (Employment Promotion),
S5 (Non-Retail Uses), S8 (Improvements to Primary Shopping Frontages), T11 (Parking
Standards), Appendix 3 and Appendix 8.

3.3 The site is identified on the BLP Proposals Map as Central Business District, Defined
Shopping Centre, Primary Shopping Frontage.

3.4 Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) revised parking standards – August 2001.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 28 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4 Planning History

4.1 1984 – Permission granted to erect part single/part two storey building comprising two banks
and a restaurant. The permission was granted as a special exception to normal policies to
facilitate the development of The Royals on the opposite side of the High Street. (SOS/84/600)

4.2 1989 – Permission refused to convert the ground floor shop at 7a to a Class A2 use.
(SOS/89/0055).

4.3 1990 – Permission granted to extend the restaurant at 9 with part single/part two storey
extension to the rear and part single/part two storey extension at the side and rear.
(SOS/89/1643)

4.4 1991 – Permission granted to extend the restaurant to the first floor above 7b. (SOS/91/0456)

4.5 1994 – Permission refused to use ground floor shop at 7b as extension to restaurant
adjoining.

4.6 1995 – Permission refused to install illuminated clock sign on the side gable wall and
illuminated fascia sign (SOS/95/0290)

4.7 1997 – Permission granted to form new emergency exit doors to Richmond Avenue elevation.
(SOS/97/1103)

4.8 2001 – Permission granted to use public highway fronting 7-9 High Street as pavement café.
(SOS/01/00413)

5 External Consultation

5.1 Anglian Water – No objections in principle request condition regarding details of foul and
surface water drainage. Also a fat trap is required and a sieve-screen on sink outlets.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – No objections.

6.2 Environmental Health – No objections.

7 Publicity

7.1 Press and Site Notice and Neighbour notification – No response.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The issues to be considered here are the principle of the use, in a Primary Shopping
Frontage, parking facilities, issues of fumes, and the impact on the street scene and adjoining
properties.

8.2 The shop unit is located within a Primary Shopping Frontage. The surrounding properties are
a mix of uses, to the south the other side of the alleyway is a retail outlet and to the north of
the property is the adjoining Tomassi’s restaurant. Opposite is the Royals Shopping Centre
with a mix of retail outlets. Policy S5 seeks to limit the proportion of non-retail frontage in
Primary Shopping Frontages and the centre as a whole to 20%; this has been exceeded.
However, the policy allows for A3 uses breaching this percentage where such uses are likely
to sustain or enhance the attractiveness of the shopping area. On this basis the use is felt to
be appropriate here. Whilst there will be some 'isolation' of the retail property to the south the
loss of this one unit is not felt to greatly worsen the existing situation.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 29 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.3 There are currently three parking spaces within the curtilage of the adjoining restaurant and
one service vehicle space. The Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) revised parking
standards state that for class A3 use restaurants should have one space per 5m² of floor
space. The proposed floor space for the restaurant would be 154m² meaning the restaurant
would need to provide 31 parking spaces. This parking requirement cannot be met but in
town centre locations such as this parking is not normally sought for changes of use, nor have
commuted parking sums been required. There are a number of local car parks near to the
restaurant.

8.4 The proposed restaurant extension would also create another three jobs at the premises
taking staffing numbers on the premises to 28.

8.5 On the issue of fume nuisance and extract ductwork externally there are no new kitchen
facilities in the proposed unit as the site would be used for tables and seating. The site would
also be used as an office on the first floor along with a new bar/counter. Therefore ventilation
equipment for fume extraction will not be required.

8.6 The premises would be used between 9am and 10pm, the same as the existing restaurants
and the adjoining properties are all retail use at ground floor level, those at first floor or higher
have no residential uses and hours of use are not normally limited in the High Street.

8.7 The proposed shop front would see a minor alteration with the front entrance demolished and
replaced with a double sliding door similar to that of adjoining restaurant/café to the north.
The sliding doors would be located in the centre of the shop front. New glazed windows would
be installed along with a new fascia sign, which would be approximately 2.9m above the
footpath. The shop front proposal is considered to be an improvement to the existing and to
be acceptable.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 Start within five years (C001) (D007)
02 Details of foul and sewage water to be submitted
03 No extract ventilation equipment to be installed without consent

Informative

01 Anglian Water requirements

Prittlewell Ward

SOS/02/00396/FUL (Application for planning permission)

DEMOLISH BUNGALOW AND ERECT PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSES
WITH INTEGRAL GARAGES AND FORM NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO PRITTLEWELL
CHASE (AMENDED PROPOSAL)

223 Prittlewell Chase, Westcliff on Sea

Mr K Davis and J Nicholls P A Scott Associates

1 The Proposal

1.1 To demolish the existing bungalow and erect a pair of semi detached houses, each with an
integral single garage. The proposed dwellings would have a steep hipped roof with gable
details to the front, and central access doors. The garage would be set back some 500mm
from the main front of the dwelling.

1.2 Each dwelling would contain three bedrooms, kitchen, dining room and lounge. A rear garden
of approximately 140m² would be provided.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 30 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
2 Location and Description

2.1 The site is located on the northern side of Prittlewell Chase to the west of the junction with
Cardigan Avenue. The existing bungalow is small scale and part rendered with a pantiled,
pyramid roof. It is part rendered and part brick. There is parking on site for 2-3 cars at
present. The side boundary with No 221 is currently open between driveways with a 1.8m
close-boarded fence along the side boundary of the rear garden.

2.2 The adjacent dwelling to the west, No 225 is a semi detached, two storey house. A garage
has been erected to the side with car port to the rear. There are no main habitable room
windows along the side boundary with 223. To the rear the windows closest to the boundary
appear to be to a kitchen and bathroom at first floor. At present the rear of the bungalow at
223 projects approximately 0.8m beyond the rear of 225.

2.3 The adjacent dwelling to the east, No 221 is a chalet bungalow with roof accommodation
formed by dormers to the sides. The side windows are secondary bedroom windows, which
are also lit from the front and rear.

2.4 The area is one of parking stress due to parking associated with the nearby Southend
Hospital and the nearby Lancaster School.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), C11 (New Buildings,
Extensions and Alterations), H1 (Housing Provision), T11 (Parking Standards).

3.2 Structure Plan Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, H1 – Distribution of Housing Provision, H2
– Housing Development – The Sequential Approach, H3 – Location of Residential
Development, H4 – Development Form of New Residential Developments, T8 –
Improvements to the Primary Route Network

4 Planning History

4.1 December 2000 – planning permission was refused to demolish the bungalow and erect a pair
of semi detached dwellinghouses with integral garages. The application was refused due to
an unacceptable design, the development being out of keeping with the streetscene, impact
on neighbouring property and inadequate parking (SOS/00/00888/FUL).

4.2 February 2001 – planning permission refused to demolish bungalow and erect pair of semi
detached dwellinghouses with integral garages and form new vehicular accesses onto
Prittlewell Chase (SOS/01/00173/FUL). Application refused for reasons relating to
highway safety and impact on the street scene. A subsequent appeal was dismissed.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Environment Agency – no objection in principle, comments regarding impact on any water
course, capacity of sewers, surface water discharge.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – No further objections materials to be agreed.

6.2 Highway Comment – no objections.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 31 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7 Publicity

7.1 Site notice and neighbour notification – period for comment on additional plans expires after
the meeting: two letters of objection relating to the following issues:
 Loss of light to house and garden, side windows are important sources of light due to rear
of houses facing rear.
 Inaccurate plans (now revised).
 Will front garden be paved?
 Increased parking problems in area since appeal due to developments at the hospital.
 Application will lead to more traffic reversing onto busy road
 Design out of character
8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues to be taken into account are whether the reasons that the previous appeal
was dismissed have been overcome and whether the proposal in itself is acceptable. When
considering the previous appeal the Inspector considered the main issues to be: The effect
on the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and impact on the amenities of
adjoining occupiers.

8.2 Character and appearance of the area: The Inspector considered that the streetscene at this
point has a regular form, type and layout with mature vegetation. The important features of
the uniformity were summarised as being; the siting of the dwellings back from the highway,
side entrances to the units, limited depth of bay projections, and proportion of the dwellings
taken up by garage doors. These items, along with limited plots widths, although minor in
themselves were cumulatively considered to harm the character and design of the area.

8.3 The applicant has attempted to overcome these objections by setting the dwellings back 7.4m
from the highway, in line with other properties in the street. Entrances to the dwellings have
been moved to the front elevation. The gable projection is much more pronounced and the
bay a more prominent feature. The garages have been made non integral and moved to the
sides of the dwellings, to reflect those nearby. These factors result in a design which is much
more in keeping with the streetblock. Although a projecting two storey element has been
introduced to the side, this would be set sufficiently distant from the front of the dwelling to
ensure that it would not appear out of keeping in the streetscene. There is sufficient space
within the forecourt of the dwellings to provide some landscaping thus it is concluded that the
impact of the proposals in the streetscene is now acceptable.

8.4 Highway safety: The proposed development does not show sufficient space to turn a vehicle
and thus vehicles would be likely to reverse onto the highway. However when considering the
previous appeal the Inspector concluded that because Prittlewell Chase is not a classified
road further access to it could be provided as permitted development. Accordingly and
because the scope for further development within the streetblock is very limited he concluded
that the highway objection was not determinative of the proposal.

8.5 Amenities of adjoining neighbours: The Inspector was satisfied that subject to the use of
suitable fencing and obscure glazing, no mutual overlooking or loss of privacy would result
from the proposed dwellings. This proposal shifts the main part of the dwelling further way
from the side boundaries of the site. There are substantial side windows proposed to the
lounge and dining room, however the amenities of neighbours could, as the Inspector
concluded be protected by fencing and the use of obscure glazing.

8.6 When considering the previous appeal, the Inspector concluded that windows in the side of
221 were secondary in nature. However those side windows serving 225, four upper level
side windows providing a secondary source to the lounge and dining room and side windows
within a first floor dormer provided useful additional light, and that the relationship with that
dwelling is more sensitive. He concluded that reduction of light to the side dormer combined
with the overbearing impact of the proposed dwelling due to its size bulk and proximity to the
side boundary resulted in harm to the amenities of the occupiers of 225.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 32 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.7 The previous proposal showed that main two storey element of the proposed dwellings having
1m isolation from the side boundaries. This revised scheme shows the nearest two storey
element with 1.5m isolation from the boundary with the main two storey element of the
dwelling with 2.8m isolation from the boundary. Although the dwelling is set further back into
the site, because of the isolation from the boundary together with the irregular shape of the
dwellings it is considered that the proposal overcomes the concerns raised by the Inspector
with regard to the impact on 225.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 Start within five years (C001)
02 Submission of materials (CEAR)
03 Parking to be provided (CADC)
04 Parking to be retained (CAAF)
05 Boundary treatment to be installed (CHGU)O
06 Obscure glazing (CIJL)
07 No additional windows (CIME)
08 Landscaping scheme (CJDL)
09 Landscaping to be carried out (CJAC)
10 Permitted development restriction (CQAQ) (A,B,C,D)

Chalkwell Ward

SOS/02/00667/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

RETAIN USE OF PROPERTY AS HOME FOR PERSONS RECOVERING FROM MENTAL
ILLNESS, WITH COUNSELLING AND SUPPORT SERVICES AND ERECT ROOF
EXTENSIONS TO SIDE ELEVATION

4 Cobham Road, Westcliff on Sea

Aran Homes Ltd S Ives

1 The Proposal

1.1 Retention of the use of these premises as a property with assured shorthold tenancies for ten
people who are recovering from mental ill health. Nine bedrooms are shown on the plan,
together with an amenity room, communal kitchen, another kitchen, staff facilities and a
smoking room.

1.2 Counselling and support services are provided by a manager plus three support staff with one
support and one other member of staff on call over night.

1.3 The proposal also includes the erection of two flat roofed, tile hung roof extensions towards
the rear, on the side facing roof slope. These will form staff accommodation.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Large two storey semi-detached property with accommodation in the roof space, served by
roof extensions. A conservatory exists at the rear.

2.2 The site is located on the east side of Cobham Road, just north of the junction with The Leas
and Western Esplanade further south.

2.3 The area is characterised by large detached and semi-detached properties, may of which
have been converted to flats, multiple occupancy or hotel accommodation. 38% of the
properties in this street block have been converted away from single family dwellinghouse
use, the site included.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 33 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H3 (Retention of Small Family
Houses), H4 (Preservation of Residential Uses), H5 (Residential Design and Layout
Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H8 (Residential Institutions), H9 (Non
Self Contained Residential Accommodation), T11 (Parking Standards).

3.3 Visitor Accommodation Area.

3.4 EPOA vehicle parking standards.

4 Planning History

4.1 1981 – approval of change of use to ground floor flat to form annex to adjoining hotel at 2
(SOS/1216/80).

4.2 1982 – approval of formation of link between existing building at first floor level at 2 and 4
(SOS/989/82).

4.3 1983 – approval of change of use of flats to hotel annex (SOS/249/83).

4.4 1999 – approval of use of hotel annex as self-contained hotel (variation of condition 02 on
planning permission SOS/249/83 and erect conservatory at rear) (SOS/99/0350). As yet
unimplemented.

4.5 2001 – undetermined application for Certificate of Lawful Use for use of hotel and hostel
(SOS/01/01053/CLP).

4.6 The lawful use of the property is unclear – it could be either a hostel or a hotel.

5 External Consultation

5.1 National Care Standards Commission – reply to be reported.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – dormers are bulky and unattractive, however they have no public impact.

6.2 Highways Comment – reply to be reported.

6.3 Environmental Health Comment – reply to be reported.

7 Publicity

7.1 Site notice and neighbour notification – No representations received to date.

8 Appraisal

8.1 Care homes such as this fall to be assessed in accordance with Policy H8. This property has
not been a house for some time so loss of single family dwelling house accommodation is not
a consideration. Because of the previous uses, the impact within the street block is the same
as for the proposed use, i.e. there will not be a detrimental change in the character of the
street block if a hotel/hostel use is compared to the proposed care home use.

8.2 Whilst this change of use may involve the loss of an hotel within a Visitor Accommodation
Area and the rates history states the most recent use as an hotel, the planning lawful use is
unclear, hence the lack of a decision on the Certificate of Lawful Use application. A refusal of
the current proposal for reasons of a loss of hotel accommodation is therefore considered to
be problematic.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 34 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.3 The rear roof extensions are large but are out of public view. However, these rooms contain
habitable accommodation and are only 3.2m from the side boundary producing elevated
overlooking of no 6, detrimental to residential amenities.

8.4 There does not appear to be a parking implication – it may be a positive one.

9 Recommendation

REFUSE permission for the following reason:
01 dormers detrimental to residential amenities due to overlooking, contrary to
Policy H5.

West Leigh Ward

SOS/02/00539/FUL

ERECT TWO DORMER WINDOWS TO SIDE ELEVATION

22 Lime Avenue, Leigh on Sea, SS9 3PA

Mr M Bullock A M Playfair

1 The Proposal

1.1 To install two dormer windows to the side (south) elevation of this house. The proposed
dormers would measure 2.3m wide. The dormer windows would enlarge a bedroom and
bathroom.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The property is a detached chalet-style house on the east side of Lime Avenue. The street is
quite leafy in character and there are many street trees which have considerable amenity
value. The street has quite an open character around the junction of Fairview Gardens,
almost opposite the property, and there is a large amount of amenity space. The southern
boundary of No. 22 Lime Avenue (with No.20) consists of many shrubs and small trees.
No.20 Lime Avenue is also a chalet-style house and has dormers on the north elevation at first
floor level.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations) and appendix 4.

3.2 ESRSP Policy BE1 – Urban Intensification.

4 Planning History

4.1 1954 – Conservatory – PD (8954).

4.2 1968 – Three bedrooms in roof space. Approved (D/797/68).

4.3 1968 – Demolish house and erect block of four flats. Deferred (0/130/68)

4.4 1969 – Alterations and extensions. Approved (D/876/69).

4.5 1970 – Rear and side extension. Approved (D/398/70).

4.6 1970 – Amended plan of alterations to kitchen. Approved (D/569/70).

4.7 1970 – Amended plan rear extension. Approved (D/708/70).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 35 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4.8 1976 – Dormers to form room in roof. Approved (SOS/477/76).

4.9 1987 – Erect single storey front and side extension. Approved conds (SOS/87/1402).

5 External Consultation

5.1 Leigh Town Council (Original Plans) – Oppose: “Dormer windows overlooking and invasive to
neighbours’ privacy. A site visit by the Development Control Committee is recommended.”

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment (Original Plans) – The proposed dormers would dominate the front of this
property. They should be set below the ridge line (level with the master bedroom ridge) and
the dormer nearest the front, in particular, should be reduced in size. Materials to match
existing.

7 Publicity

7.1 Neighbour notification – one letter of objection regarding the impact on the amenities of No.20
Lime Avenue. The main points are as follows:
 The two dormers are excessively bulky.
 The two windows are intrusive and would constitute an invasion of privacy.
 No reference is made in the application to obscure glazing.
8 Appraisal

8.1 The main considerations are the impact on the street scene, character, design, impact on
neighbours and parking implications.

8.2 The originally submitted plans have been amended, reducing the size and therefore the
impact of the proposed dormers.

8.3 The dormers in their previous form had an unacceptable impact on the street scene due to
their height, above the main ridge line of the building, and their creation of a very asymmetrical
appearance to the house from the front elevation. This problem is considered to have been
overcome by the reduction in height of the dormers to bring them in line with the main ridge of
the house.

8.4 The design of the dormers is now considered acceptable, tile hanging is proposed on the
sides of the dormers.

8.5 The proposed dormers are considered acceptable in principle on this chalet-style house.
There are other dormers in the road so the proposal is considered in keeping with the
character of the area. There are dormers on the north elevation of No.20 Lime Avenue.

8.6 On the issue of the impact of the dormers on the amenities of No.20 Lime Avenue, both Leigh
Town Council and the occupiers of No.20 Lime Avenue expressed concern about overlooking
and resulting loss of privacy. This problem is considered to have been overcome following the
submission of the amended plans, altering the design of the windows. The windows are now
obscure glazed and fixed shut with top-hung openings 1.7m from the floor. Concern was also
raised regarding the bulk and size of the dormers. Their size has now been reduced and they
are not considered to be dominant over No.20 Lime Avenue.

8.7 The proposal does not have any parking implications.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions.
01 Commence within five years (C001)
02 Materials to match existing (CEDH) (DEAA)
03 No additional windows (CIME)

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 36 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Kursaal Ward

SOS/02/00519 (Application for Full Planning Permission)

USE RETAIL SHOP (CLASS A1) AS HOT FOOD TAKE -AWAY (CLASS A3)

458a Southchurch Road, Southend on Sea, SS1 2QA

Mr K Miah

1 The Proposal

1.1 To use the shop (Class A1) as a hot food take-away (Class A3) and erect an extract flue to
the rear. The proposed opening hours are 11am-2pm and 5pm-midnight. It is proposed that
the first floor be used solely by the proprietor as an office and bed-sitting area. The ground
floor of the premises would consist of a customer area at the front, kitchen/back of house
area, and staff toilet.

2 Location and Description

2.1 A two storey property on the south side of Southchurch Road just to the east of Chase Road,
in a commercial parade which is a mixture of Class A1, A2 and A3 uses. The premises are
currently vacant but, were previously used as cellular phone shop. The adjoining property to
the west is a retail shop and to the east a Chinese take-away. There is no on-site parking.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), S5 (Non-Retail Uses), S6
(Fringe Commercial Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations) – relating to
ducting, T11 (Parking Standards), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety)

3.2 The site is designated on the BLP Proposals Map as Fringe Commercial Area

4 Planning History

4.1 1965 – Permission granted for alterations to form licensed betting office. (D/1031/65)

4.2 1968 – Permission granted to continue use of premises as a licensed betting office.
(U/139/68)

4.3 1974 – Permission granted to continue use of premises as a licensed betting office.
(U/238/73)

4.4 1976 – Permission granted for erection of external staircase and alterations. (SOS/716/76)

4.5 1976 – Permission granted to continue use of premises as a licensed betting office.
(SOS/1058/76)

4.6 1980 – Permission granted for erection of external staircase to first floor flat. (SOS/485/80)

5 External Consultation

5.1 Environment Agency – recommend good practice to protect the water environment.

5.2 Anglian Water – request a condition - details of foul and surface water drainage to be
submitted and approved. A fat trap is required and a sieve-screen on sink outlets.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Highway Comment – No objections.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 37 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
6.2 Design Comment – No comments.

6.3 Environmental Health Comment – The flat roofed construction precludes a full length ridge
level ventilation discharge. Nevertheless, provided that it can be assured that the first floor is
occupied as staff quarters, there would be no objection. If this is the case, request conditions:
- A3 use restricted to that applied for.
- Scheme of deodorisation and ventilation to be submitted for approval.
- Hours of operation not to exceed 12 midnight Mon-Sat and 11.30pm Sundays.
- First floor use to be ancillary to ground floor use.
7 Publicity

7.1 Site Notice and Neighbour Notification – One reply objecting on the following grounds:

 Too many Class A3 uses in the area

8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues considered relevant to this application are the potential impact upon parking
and servicing, viability of the shopping parade and impact upon neighbours.

8.2 The are no objections with regard to servicing and the requirement for parking for a takeaway
would be the same as for a shop, three spaces. This requirement cannot be met on the site,
however, the site is located on a major public transport corridor, therefore the need for parking
is minimal.

8.3 The site is within a parade of shops designated on the BLP Proposals Map as a Fringe
Commercial Area. The Council does not seek to protect Class A1 uses within this frontage
and the majority of the frontage within this parade is in non-retail use, no objection in principle
is raised to the loss of the A1 use. A commercial frontage such as this is an appropriate
location for an A3 use.

8.4 With regard to the potential impact on neighbours, the main issues of concern are noise,
smells and fumes, general disturbance. Whilst there are residential properties immediately to
the south they are unlikely to be directly affected by this proposal and subject to the
restrictions suggested, the impact on any occupiers of upper floors should be reasonable.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions.
01 Start within five years (C001)
02 Extraction, deodorisation and ventilation equipment
03 Refuse store arrangements to be approved (CKAE)
04 Use for permitted purpose as hot food takeaway only (CNA1)
05 Opening hours to be restricted 11am-12midnight Mon-Sat and 11am-11.30pm
Sundays and Bank Holidays (CPAE)
06 First floor ancillary to ground floor, not separate living accommodation

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 38 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Shoeburyness Ward

SOS/02/00440/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

CONTINUE USE OF LAND FOR CAR BOOT FAIRS ON SATURDAYS, BANK HOLIDAYS
AND THURSDAYS

Vacant land adjacent Asda, North Shoebury Road, Shoeburyness

Mr O Struebel

1 The Proposal

1.1 The proposal is to continue using the land for car boot sales on Thursdays, Saturdays and
st
Bank Holidays for a further three years. The current permission expired on 1 May 2002 and
details are set out in the 'planning history' section below.

2 Location and Description

2.1 5.5 hectare open space site immediately south of the Asda development/Shoebury District
Centre and fronting North Shoebury Road.

2.2 The site is adjoined to the east by residential properties in The Drakes and Herongate
development and to the south by two pairs of semi-detached cottages and Shoebury Park.

2.3 There is a single-width vehicular access situated in the south-west corner of the site, onto
North Shoebury Road.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies BE3 – Retention of Open Space, BE4 – Sports Grounds and Playing Fields,
T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2 BLP Policies S4 (Retail Markets), R1 (Outdoor Sports Facilities), C15 (Retention of Open
Spaces), C18 (Open Sites used for Commercial Purposes).

3.3 The site is allocated as Proposal P7a on the Proposals Map and the following is stated:

3.3.1 This represents the last major area of new development in the Borough. In 1979, the Borough
Council adopted proposals to guide its proper development. Included within these proposals
were two areas of additional public open space, allocated primarily to serve the needs of the
new housing areas in North Thorpe Bay and North Shoebury and reflecting the proposals of
the Approved Review Development Plan. One of those areas, a 5.5 hectare extension to
Shoeburyness Park recreation ground to serve active recreational pursuits and contribute to
the playing fields needs of the Borough, remains to be implemented and is confirmed in this
Local Plan.

4 Planning History

4.1 February 1989 - appeal against Council's refusal of permission for retail warehouse park
dismissed on the grounds that no case was made for an overriding need for such
development which would persuade the Inspector to depart from the allocation of the public
open space (SOS/87/2150).

4.2 October 1989 - retrospective permission refused for the use of the land as an open air market
on Saturdays on the grounds that the use would be harmful to local amenities as a result of its
visual intrusion and disturbance and also because approval for an alternative use of the land
together with the necessary works to implement that use could, in the long-term, prejudice its
use in accordance with local plan proposals (SOS/89/1330).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 39 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4.3 April 1990 - permission refused to erect indoor sports hall with associated car parking, extend
2
Shoebury Park, lay out four floodlit tennis courts, erect non-food retail warehouse (5577m
2
gross) and garden centre (930m gross) and lay out parking and accesses (SOS/90/0079).
Appeal lodged against non-determination of duplicate application but subsequently withdrawn
(SOS/90/0078).

4.4 January 1991 - permission refused for a temporary use of the land for Sunday car boot sales
(SOS/90/1255). A subsequent appeal was allowed in September 1991, permission being
granted for one year.

4.5 February 1997 - permission refused for the use of the land for car boot fairs and occasional
specialist shows on Saturdays and Bank Holidays and formation of additional vehicle access
on to North Shoebury Road, for the following reasons:

01 the proposal constitutes inappropriate development on land allocated as public open
space in Policy P7a of the Borough Local Plan

02 the proposal involves loss of long-standing public open space and playing field
commitment which would materially and adversely affect the provision of public open
space within the Borough and is contrary to Policy R5 of the Borough Local Plan,
which seeks to prevent loss of public open space facilities

03 the proposal would be detrimental to the character and amenities of the adjoining
residential area in that it would involve the visual intrusion of commercial activity into
an otherwise open area and such activity would be to the detriment of local amenity
by reason of noise and general disturbance, particularly having regard to the size of
the site

04 the proposal is contrary to Policy T11 of the Borough Local Plan because no
indication is given that satisfactory parking facilities can be provided within the
curtilage of the site in accordance with the council's normal standards or that
satisfactory access can be provided to North Shoebury Road (SOS/96/1030)

4.6 September 1997 - planning committee authorised that enforcement action be taken to require
the cessation of the use of the land for boot fairs and markets on the grounds that the use is in
conflict with the Borough Local Plan Policies and is detrimental to the character and amenities
of the adjoining residential area by reason of noise, disturbance and increased activity.

4.7 November 1997 - The subsequent appeal re SOS/96/1030 resulted in a split decision as
follows:
 dismissed in respect of the holding of specialist fairs and markets
 allowed for the use of the vacant land for car boot sales on Saturdays and Bank
Holidays and to form an additional access onto North Shoebury Road subject to the
following conditions:
01 the use hereby permitted shall cease on or before a date two years before the
th
date of this letter (19 November 1997) or two years from the date of any
approval by the following conditions, whichever is the latter

02 this permission relates to the use of the land for car boot sales for the sale of
second hand goods and not for any other market activity

03 the land shall only be used for the purpose hereby permitted between 0800hrs
and 1600hrs on Saturdays and between 0900hrs and 1300hrs on Bank Holidays

04 prior to the hereby permitted use commencing details of the areas to be used for
car boot trading and for car parking shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing
by, the local planning authority. The operation of these uses shall be restricted to
the areas shown in the agreed details

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 40 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
05 the hereby permitted use shall not commence until means of access has been
constructed in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. If required in accordance with
the agreed details existing access to the land shall be closed off prior to the use
commencing

06 the land shall be returned to a clean and tidy state following each car boot sale
event

07 there shall be no amplified music or speech at any car boot sale event

4.8 April 2000 - application to continue use of land for car boot fairs on Saturday and bank
holidays and relax condition 03 on permission SOS/96/1030 to include a boot fair on Thursday
- a split decision was made as follows:

 permission was granted to continue use of the land for car boot fairs on Saturdays
and Bank Holidays and to relax condition on permission SOS/96/1030 to include a
boot fair on Thursdays. Conditions required that the use of the land for car boot fairs on
st
Thursdays shall cease on or before 1 September 2000 and that the use for car boot fairs
st
on Saturdays and Bank Holidays shall cease on or before 1 May 2002. Condition 03
states that the permission is solely for car boot sales for the sale of second hand goods
and not for any other market activity.

 Permission was refused for the sale of new goods and use of the land for
occasional specialist shows for the following reasons: the proposed use of the land for
general retail purposes, particularly for the sale of new goods, for specialist shows and
markets would be detrimental to the character and amenities of the adjoining residential
area in that it would involve increased commercial and other activity in an otherwise open
area and by reason of increased noise and general disturbance (SOS/96/1030).

4.9 December 2000 - appeal allowed to use the land as a boot fair on Thursdays, Saturdays
and Bank Holidays and to include 25% new goods. There was some confusion over what
was actually included in the proposal. The Inspector concluded that it does not cover
specialist shows or a market use and does include Thursday boot fairs and the sale of 25% of
new goods.
st
4.10 Condition 01 requires the use to cease on or before 1 May 2002 and condition 06 states that
the maximum number of traders selling new goods shall be limited to 25% of the total number
of traders.

4.11 The Inspector was of the view that the one main issue in the case was the effect of the
proposal on the living conditions of residents in relation to noise and disturbance.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Ramblers Association - to be reported.

5.2 Shoebury Residents Association - to be reported.

5.3 Shoebury Traders Association - to be reported.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Highway Comment - no objections.

6.2 Environmental Health Comment – no objections to renewal, subject to existing conditions.

6.3 DLCAS - to be reported.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 41 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7 Publicity

7.1 Press and Site Notices and Neighbour notification - two objections from local traders on the
following grounds: a large amount of new products (including carpets, flowers, electrical
goods, garden ornaments, pet food, household goods etc) are for sale rather than second
hand which is more like a market than a boot fair; detrimental impact on local shops. One
letter stating no objection.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The site is allocated as public open space (Proposal P7a) in the Local Plan. A boot fair has
now been operating on the site for over 10 years. The application now before members is to
allow the boot fairs to continue for a further three years on Thursdays, Saturdays and Bank
st
Holidays as the last permission, allowed on appeal, expired on 1 May of this year.

8.2 In allowing the appeal the Inspector cited one main issue - the effect of the proposal on the
living conditions of residents in relation to noise and disturbance, and concluded that there
would be no harm. In relation to the current application no objections from local residents
have been received and it is considered that a continuation of the use would not harm
amenities of residents subject to a swathe of land within the eastern part of the site being
cordoned off as previously required.

8.3 In response to concerns raised over the boot fairs harming the viability of existing retailers in
the area, the Inspector made it clear that it is not the function of the planning system to
preserve existing commercial interests or to inhibit competition. There are concerns that a
high proportion of sales are of new goods. The permission which expired in May included a
condition limiting the maximum number of traders selling new goods to 25% of the total
number of traders, and it is suggested that this should be attached to any further permission.
This is necessary in order to limit the amount of activity at the site.

8.4 Whilst in the early part of 1999 the Council renewed its commitment to see the land laid out as
open space in accordance with Proposal P7a of the Local Plan, no positive action appears to
have been taken since, and the applicant owns the whole site. It would appear unreasonable
to disallow a further temporary permission in view of this. This would not prevent the land
being laid out as open space in the future as there are no permanent structures associated
with the fair.

9 Recommendation

DELEGATE TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to consultation replies and the
following conditions:
01 use to be discontinued and land reinstated by June 2005
02 restricted hours of operation
03 no amplified music or speech
04 80m wide strip of land to east to be cordoned off
05 plan showing area for car boot trading and car parking to be submitted
06 maximum number of traders selling new goods shall be limited to 25% of the
total number of traders

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 42 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Various Wards

SOS/02/00715/ADV (Application for Advertisement Consent)

INSTALL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ADVERTISEMENT PANELS TO PROPOSED BUS
PASSENGER SHELTERS

Highway Outside 124, 177 and 366 and Nazareth House, London Road and Outside Car Park
Junction at Hamlet Court Road and London Road

Southend on Sea Borough Council W S Atkins Consultants Ltd

1 The Proposal

1.1 Advertisement applications on five sites in Southend and Westcliff. Bus shelters are proposed
to be erected or renewed on the public footpath outside 124, 177 and 366 London Road,
Nazareth House and on the junction outside the car park on London Road/Hamlet Court
Road.

1.2 On each of these sites, there will be one or two panels of the shelter that will contain internally
illuminated advertisement panels capable of accepting poster signs.

1.3 Bus shelters can be erected as 'permitted development' and do not need planning permission
from the Council. This application is for consent under the Advertisement Regulations.

2 Location and Description

2.1 These five sites are all on London Road, on both sides of the road, outside commercial sites,
a public car park, an electricity sub-station and a pub.

2.2 Some of the sites contain bus shelters with advertising panels, one is having additional bus
shelters and some currently have no bus shelter.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policy CS2 – Protecting the Natural and Built Environment.

3.2 BLP Policies C8 (Advertisements), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations) and
Appendix 3.

3.3 Local Transport Plan – Major Scheme (A13 Passenger Transport Corridor).

4 Planning History

4.1 1999 – consent granted for advertisement panels – internally illuminated at bus shelters at
various locations in Leigh on Sea and Southend on Sea (SOS/97/0626).

4.2 2001 – consent granted for internally illuminated advertisement panels to the proposed bus
shelter opposite St Thomas More School (SOS/01/00376/ADV).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Highway Comment – reply to be reported.

5.2 Design Comment – reply to be reported.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification – No reply. The period for responses expires after the meeting.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 43 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7 Appraisal

7.1 These type of advertisements are a common feature on bus shelters. Those proposed are
felt to be acceptable in terms of appearance and acceptable in the street scene, particularly
since they are attractively designed bus shelters.

7.2 Highway safety is not jeopardised by the proposals. The bus shelters are an integral part of
the A13 Passenger Transport Corridor proposals.

7.3 Most of the proposed advertisements are to be sited in front of commercial properties, at least
at ground floor level, there will therefore be little or no impact upon residential amenity from
these advertisements. They are discreetly illuminated, by strip lighting within the panels.

8 Recommendation

GRANT CONSENT subject to the following Conditions:
01 five years consent
02 standard maintenance condition
03 luminance restriction (600/1200 candelas/m²)

Southchurch Ward

SOS/01/01307 (Application for Consent for Proposed Works to Trees)

VARIOUS WORKS TO TREES COVERED BY TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (TPO 9/90)

Thorpe Hall School, Wakering Road, Southend on Sea, SS1 3RD

Thorpe Hall School John H Breley Design

1 The Proposal

1.1 Fifty six trees are included in the application although not all require work to them. Three
trees individually specified in the TPO are to be felled and several trees within Groups of trees
to the east, west and south boundaries. Most trees are to have moderate works such as
removing dead ivy and crown reduction by 10%.

2 Location and Description

2.1 A series of two storey school buildings on the east side of Wakering Road within the Green
Belt. There are playing fields to the south which are bordered to three sides by mature trees.

2.2 TPO 9/90 – which was confirmed in June 1991 – includes 13 individual trees within the school
grounds plus three Groups, one on each of the west, south and east boundaries.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policy C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping).

3.2 ESRSP Policy NR9 – Woodland and Tree Cover.

3.3 PPG2: Green Belts

4 Planning History

4.1 1989 – Permission granted to remove existing temporary classrooms and erect single storey
detached building to side to form classrooms. (SOS/88/1991)

4.2 1990 – Permission granted to erect two detached single storey temporary classroom buildings
(SOS/90/0740).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 44 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4.3 1991 – Permission granted to erect detached two storey classroom block at rear
(SOS/91/0667).

4.4 1996 – Permission granted to retain three post mounted board signs fronting Wakering Road
(SOS/96/0038).

4.5 1999 – Permission granted to demolish temporary classrooms, erect two storey building
incorporating a multi-purpose hall, erect single storey extension at southern end to include
garage; reposition tennis courts and lay out 36 additional parking spaces with new access
onto northern boundary (SOS/99/0016).

4.6 2001 – Permission granted to amend internal layout and elevations to two storey extension in
course of construction (amended scheme) (SOS/01/00056).

4.7 2002 – Permission granted to demolish temporary classrooms, erect two storey building
incorporating multi purpose hall, erect single storey extension to include garage, reposition
tennis courts, layout 38 parking spaces and new access onto northern boundary (amended)
(SOS/01/01264).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – Replacement scheme to west boundary is very formal and conflicts with
existing informal hedgerow quality and would totally change the character of the frontage.

5.2 DLCAS Comment – Smooth-leafed Elm susceptible to Dutch Elm disease. Suggest
alternative.

6 Publicity

6.1 Site Notice – No response.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The main issue considered pertinent to this application is the potential impact upon visual
amenity.

7.2 BLP Policy C14 broadly aims to retain existing and encourage provision of new trees planted
areas and landscaping. Policy C14 stipulates that all buildings, open spaces, trees, gardens
etc which contribute to the character of conservation areas will be protected and enhanced.

7.3 The trees in the school grounds are generally in need of maintenance so in principle suitable
works are to be welcomed. It is not considered that the loss and replanting of those trees to
be felled would result in detriment to the character and appearance of the area subject to the
receipt of an amended plan regarding a less formal layout for the replacement planting to the
Wakering Road frontage.

7.4 Some unauthorised works were carried out in November 2000 to trees in Group G3 along the
Wakering Road frontage. The replacement planting in parts makes good the losses in that
Group.

7.5 No objection is therefore seen to the various works to the trees including limited felling. It
should also be drawn to the attention of the applicant that the works should be carried out to
BS3998 standard and during the dormant season.

8 Recommendation

Subject to receipt of amended plan GRANT CONSENT subject to the following
condition:

01 works to start within two years (C021) (D014)

Informative
01 Council accepts no responsibility for damage after tree work
02 Works to be carried out during the dormant season & to BS3998 standard
58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 45 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
St Laurence Ward

SOS/02/00253/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

USE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SHOP (CLASS A1) AS MOTOR SCOOTER AND
ACCESSORIES SHOWROOM (SUI GENERIS) AND INSTALL NEW SHOPFRONT ((REVISED
APPLICATION) (RETROSPECTIVE)

93 Prince Avenue, Southend on Sea

Mr G Best

1 The Proposal

1.1 To change the use of a ground floor shop from A1 (previously newsagent/tobacconist/
confectioners) to a motor scooter and accessories showroom as an extension to the existing
business in the adjoining shop at 91 Prince Avenue.

1.2 The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the application:

1.2.1 Comments on the significant decline in the number of small parade/corner shops over 20
years trading from the premises and the increase in convenience sales from garages
(including opposite the site) and the building of the Tesco superstore a short distance away.
In the parade, a greengrocers, bakers, mini-supermarket and the confectioners in the
application premises have all ceased trading in recent years, from which it seems clear that
the local community does not need another amenities shop. In addition, the shops at Cuckoo
corner are not far distant and the off-licence on the end of the parade sells tobacco, sweets
and ice-creams.

1.2.2 The former owner of the shop has also written that operating the premises as a sweet shop
lost money between 1993 and 1996 (when he left the premises) due to competition from local
garages and the new Tesco store and it had deteriorated since until taken over by the present
applicant.

1.2.3 A letter from the landlord’s agent of 12 years standing also accompanied the application
stating that the new tenant left the premises in May 1997 with bills being unpaid and the
property was put on the market. A lease was granted but in August 1999, the tenant wrote
saying that he was having difficulty paying the rent and requesting change to a sandwich bar.
This did not materialise and the shop subsequently closed with the freehold then being
purchased by the current applicant. There have therefore been difficulties with retail business
in the premises since 1995.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The site is on the north side of Prince Avenue a short distance east of the Bell Hotel traffic
signal controlled junction, access being from a parallel service road to the front.

2.2 The premises form one of a block of seven shop units, the others being occupied, apart from
the existing scooter shop, by an off-licence, KFC fast food outlet (two units), a computer shop
and a hairdressers. Two further shops separated from this block by an accessway are
occupied by a launderette and a cycle shop. There are further commercial premises to the
east of these, including a car sales showroom.

3 Development Plan

3.1 The site is within an area shown as Secondary Shopping Frontage on the BLP Proposals
Map.

3.2 BLP Policies; S5 (Non-Retail Uses); S7 (Car Sales and Showrooms); S9 (Retention of
Secondary Shopping Frontages), T11 (Parking Standards); T12 (Servicing Facilities).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 46 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4 Planning History

4.1 October 1997 – Use shop (Class A1) for the sale of motor scooters in conjunction with No. 91
and form new ground floor rear entrance to first floor flat. Refused for reasons relating to
conflict with Policy S5, interruption of retail frontage and undue concentration of motor vehicle
showrooms (SOS/97/0750).

4.2 March 2001 – Use ground floor retail shop (Class A1) as motor scooter and accessories
showroom (sui generis). Refused for similar reasons, plus inadequate parking
(SOS/01/00023).

5 External Consultation

5.1 Environment Agency – Advisory comments for applicant concerning drainage matters.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Environmental Health – No objection in principle but request following conditions:

01 No repairs or spraying activities.

02 No storage of petroleum spirit other than in sealed tanks purpose built within the
motorcycle frames.

6.2 Highway Comment – No objections.

7 Publicity

7.1 Press and site notice and neighbour notification – Letter of no objection from resident of flat
above application site (93a).

8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues to be taken into account are the impact of the proposed development on the
viability of the shopping parade, effect on the street scene, impact on neighbours and any
implications for parking.

8.2 This change of use has been refused on two previous occasions on the grounds of conflict
with shopping policy and inadequate parking, but on the last occasion in March 2001, the
applicant was advised to submit marketing and vacancy information for the unit. Some of this
information has been submitted (see paragraph 1.2) and it was suggested that a more
appropriate use would primarily involve ancillary sales, rather than scooter sales.

8.3 As far as the current use of the new floorspace is concerned, approximately 50% is devoted to
clothing and helmet sales and a similar proportion of the existing unit is used for sales and
counter area. Approximately 50-60% of the combined units is therefore used for the display of
scooters. In addition, parking space for about 20 scooters is available in the yard behind the
new unit, with access through the shop or a right-of-way at the rear, and the applicant also
rents five lock-up garages for storage nearby. There is a workshop behind the existing unit at
No. 91 and storage on the first floor.

8.4 There have been problems with scooters being parked in the service road and on the footpath
in front of the premises and these still persist to some extent. However, although a
consideration, the solution to these problems lies outside the planning process. No objection
has been lodged to this current application from the highway point of view and the provision of
parking behind the application site should alleviate the need for parking on the highway.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 47 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.5 In all the circumstances therefore, it would appear difficult to resist the change of use
proposed which has already been established as an extension of a longstanding and
successful local business. Policy S5 does not preclude such uses from Secondary Shopping
Frontages – it indicates that 'other uses will be considered on their individual merits'.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 No mechanical or body repairs (CNGC)
02 No storage of petroleum spirit
03 Scooter parking shown on plan to be retained
04 At least 50% of frontage to be given over to retail display of ancillary clothing,
helmets, etc.

Informative
01 Environment Agency drainage comments.

Chalkwell Ward

SOS/02/00452/FUL (application for full planning permission)

ERECT SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, ERECT DORMER WINDOWS TO FRONT
AND ROOF EXTENSION TO REAR, CONVERT DWELLINGHOUSE INTO THREE SELF-
CONTAINED FLATS WITH PARKING SPACES TO FRONT AND REAR ACCESSED OFF
GROSVENOR MEWS AND WHITEFRIARS CRESCENT

9 Whitefriars Crescent, Westcliff on Sea SS0 8EX

Mr B Wallace

1 The Proposal

1.1 Erection of a single storey lean-to roofed rear extension to form an extension to a bedroom
with a rear facing window. Materials to match existing.

1.2 Two pitch roofed front dormer windows are proposed, together with a cat-slide roofed rear roof
extension. These will provide roof accommodation comprising a two bedroomed self-
contained flat.

1.3 The remainder of the property will be two other self-contained flats, both two bedroomed.

1.4 Parking spaces are shown, three at the front and one at the rear, with access from Whitefriars
Crescent and Grosvenor Mews respectively.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Two storey semi-detached property (original gross floorspace 176m²) located on the south
side of Whitefriars Crescent and with rear access to Grosvenor Mews. There is a double
width vehicular access to Whitefriars Crescent and parking space for approximately two
vehicles together with a garden area.

2.2 The locality is mixed in character. Flats lie either side of the site and the street block is 48%
non-single family dwellinghouse use, with a hostel and two HMOs, together with 17 sets of
flats.

2.3 The adjoining property has two small flat roofed front dormer windows and the property to the
west has a pitch roofed rear dormer window.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 48 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H3 (Retention of Small Family
Houses), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential
Character), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats), T11 (Parking Standards),
Appendices 4 and 8.

3.3 EPOA vehicle parking standards.

4 Planning History

4.1 None.

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Environmental Health Comment – no objection.

5.2 Highways Comment – no objection.

5.3 Design Comment – roof alterations are unacceptable. Right hand front dormer conflicts with
existing bay and is very close to flank wall. Should be omitted or replaced with rooflight. Left
front dormer should be reduced in width to give more vertical emphasis and centrally aligned
over the first floor window. The rear dormer will also have public impact and is very large. It
should be set in from both sides. Materials should match existing.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification – three objections on the following grounds:
 10% exceeded already – almost 55%
 overdevelopment in Whitefriars Crescent
 parking problem and rear access is narrow with no pavements and many other
premises served by Mews – an accident waiting to happen as highway safety
compromised
 insufficient parking
 property could still be a house.
7 Appraisal

7.1 Policy H3 states that properties of below 125m² will be prevented from being converted from
single family dwellinghouse use in order to retain a stock of small single family houses. In
dealing with conversions, where properties are large, (over 160m²) it has been accepted that
they will no longer be viable to retain as single family dwellinghouses and exceptions to the
normal 10% policy have been accepted. In the current housing market however, more
research on this would be necessary as it may well be that single family dwellinghouse use is
viable in this 176m² property. The property is currently vacant but does not outwardly appear
to be in a bad condition, sufficient to justify its loss for single family house use.

7.2 The most recent planning permissions for flats in Whitefriars Crescent were given in 1990 and
two in 1991. The Local Plan has since been adopted and so conditions have altered
materially since those permissions. It is not considered that further erosion (to over 50%) of
the single family dwellinghouse character of this street block is justified.

7.3 Because of the situation of two flat roofed dormer windows at the adjoining semi-detached
property, the suggested alterations to the front dormers are not considered to be essential.
However, the rear roof extension is large and conflicts with guidelines. No amendment has
been sought due to the recommendation of refusal.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 49 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.4 Parking standards are more than met by the proposal. If the scheme was to be approved and
due to the restricted access of Grosvenor Mews, amended plans would have been sought to
omit the fourth space at the rear and just have parking, on an attractive hard surfaced area, at
the front. Again, because of the refusal recommendation, no such amendment has been
sought.

8 Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reasons:
01 loss of dwellinghouse detrimental to character of street contrary to Policy H6
02 rear roof extension of excessive size, contrary to Policies C11 and H5

Chalkwell Ward

SOS/02/00457/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

ERECT SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, PROVIDE REFUSE AREA AT REAR, ALTER
FRONT ELEVATION TO PROVIDE NEW ENTRANCE AND USE FIRST AND SECOND
FLOOR (CLASS B1) AS FOUR SELF-CONTAINED FLATS (CLASS C3) WITH FOUR
PARKING SPACES BEHIND 502-504 LONDON ROAD

512-514 London Road, Westcliff on Sea SS0 9LE

Mr D Turner New World Designers

1 The Proposal

1.1 Alteration of the ground floor front entrance, to give a new set of double entry doors, to the
western end of the frontage and removal of one single entrance door from the eastern end.

1.2 Within the property, on the ground floor an office will become a staff room and the first and
second floors will be converted from offices to four flats – 2 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed.

1.3 A single storey, flat roofed rendered rear extension will be erected to provide a shower and
toilet (no windows) and a storage area will be formed to the rear of that.

1.4 Four parking spaces are shown approximately 20m from the rear of the site, accessed off a
service road between 484 and 488 London Road.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Three storey mid terraced property comprising two joined units utilised as an estate agent on
the ground floor, with offices above.

2.2 The site is located on the south side of London Road, just east of the junction with Crowstone
Road.

2.3 The property reaches far to the rear of the site, with a flat roofed three storey rear roof
extension to the rear and fencing on the rear boundary a short distance behind.

2.4 A detached garage lies to the rear of the site, accessed via the alleyway that runs to the rear
of these properties and exits onto London Road between 488 and 484.

2.5 An open, hard surfaced area bounded on three sides by fencing and the side wall of a garage
lies behind 502-504.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 50 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
3 Development Plan

3.1 PPG3 (Housing) and PPG13 (Transportation).

3.2 ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, CS2 – Protecting the Natural and Built
Environment, H1 – Distribution of Housing Provision, H2 – Housing Development – The
Sequential Approach, H3 – Location of Residential Development, H4 – Development Form of
New Residential Developments, BIW4 – Safeguarding Employment Land, T12 – Vehicle
Parking.

3.3 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats), T11 (Parking
Standards).

3.4 EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.

3.5 Interim Employment Policy.

4 Planning History

4.1 1964 – approval of use as offices (U/77/64).

4.2 1965 – approval of new shopfront (D/1504/64).

4.3 1966 – approval of alterations and additions (D/1442/65).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – reply to be reported.

5.2 Environmental Health Comment – no objection.

5.3 Highway Comment – with only approximately 3.25m in front of each parking bay it will not be
possible for cars to manoeuvre in/out of the parking spaces.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification – no representations received.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The issues raised by this proposal are its impact on visual amenity, the loss of the offices
above this Secondary Shopping Frontage and the parking implications and off-site parking
proposals.

7.2 The proposed front alterations are acceptable in terms of appearance and the rear extension
is not publicly visible, nor does it have any impact on residential amenity.

7.3 The applicant has not supplied any information to indicate that the upper floor offices are
redundant and whilst flat accommodation may be in demand, no evidence has been submitted
to this effect and the Interim Employment Land Policy plus ESRSP Policy BIW4 are therefore
breached. It could be argued however that it is making best use of these upper floors by
putting them into residential use and loss of small offices above shops have not so far been
opposed under the Interim Employment Land Policy.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 51 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.4 The flats require one parking space per unit (four spaces) compared to 11 spaces for the
offices (EPOA standards). Whilst residential properties should ideally have parking facilities,
the difference between the standards is a large positive one and the proposed spaces are off
site and do not appear to be owned by the applicant and are and unworkable so would be
unlikely to be used in practice. This aspect of the scheme is not felt to render the proposal
unacceptable in itself, in the context of PPG3 and 13.

8 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following condition:
01 start within five years (C001)

St Lukes Ward

SOS/02/00580/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

DEMOLISH HOUSE AND GARAGES AND ERECT THREE STOREY BLOCK OF 12 FLATS
WITH PARKING AT REAR AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO SOUTH AVENUE

187 South Avenue and Land and Buildings to the Side and Rear of 187 South Avenue,
Southend on Sea

Piper Construction M G Napper

1 The Proposal

1.1. To demolish all the buildings on the site between numbers 181 and 193 (both of which are
built abutting the side boundaries of the application site) and the entire block of single and two
storey garage/work shop buildings at the rear and to redevelop the site with a two storey
pitched roof building with accommodation in the roofspace and comprising a total of 12 one
and two bedroom flats.

1.2. Parking provision for 16 cars is proposed at the rear with drive way running close to the
western side boundary of the site with a new vehicular access onto South Avenue. It is
proposed to close existing accesses and reinstatement the footway to South Avenue.

1.3. Perimeter planting and landscaped communal amenity areas are indicated at the rear of the
building and it is proposed to enclose and landscape the forecourt to the building. In addition
to the communal facility some flats at upper floor level would have private balcony areas.

1.4. The submitted plans indicate a building clad externally in fairfaced brickwork with contrasting
brick detail tiled cladding to roof areas and vertical tile hanging to traditional dormer windows
on front and rear elevations. The roof is pitched north south with gables at the east and west
ends. Rendered panels are shown beneath two of the dormers plus a rendered, elongated
gable feature over the main front entrance.

1.5. Windows to galley kitchens are indicated in both side elevations to the building.

1.6. A summary of the scheme:
Site Area 0.12 hectare (0.3 acre) gross 0.10 hectare (0.25 acre) net
Height three storey, 6m to eaves, 9.2m to ridge (previous scheme 5.2m to eaves
9.9m height to ridge)
No of Units 8 two bed 3 person flats and 4 one bedroom 1 or 2 person flats (12 in total)
Parking Communal parking for 16 cars ie 133%
Amenity Space 165m² ie 14m² per flat plus enclosed front garden areas and private
balconies to flats at upper floor levels
Density 100 dwellings per hectare gross 40 dwellings per acre gross, 120 dwellings
per hectare net (48 dwellings per acre) net

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 52 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
1.7. The principle differences between this and the scheme refused in April 2002 are that the
overall height of the building has been reduced by 0.7m overall and the eaves height
increased by 0.8m, thus reducing the bulk of the roof. Changes have also been made to the
front elevation

2 Location and Description

2.1. 0.1 hectare site situated on the northern side of South Avenue east of the junction with The
Grove and almost opposite the junction with Lyme Avenue. The site is currently occupied by
two detached two storey pitched roofed houses and at the rear there is a large complex of
lock up garages with vehicular access onto South Avenue between the houses. These have
been used for various commercial/industrial purposes but it is not clear that their lawful use is
still for these purposes.

2.2. There is a detached house to both sides and to the rear are the back gardens of properties in
South Avenue. Opposite is the flank of a house in Lyme Road.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Core Strategy Policy – CS1 – Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS2 –
Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, CS3 – Encouraging Economic Success, CS4 –
Sustainable New Development, Policy BE1 (Urban Intensification), H2 – Housing
Development – The Sequential Approach, H3 – Location of Residential Development, H4 –
Development Form of New Residential Developments, H5 – Affordable Housing, T3 –
Promoting Accessibility, T12 – Vehicle Parking, BIW4 – Safeguarding Employment Land.

3.2. BLP Policy – C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H1 (Distribution of Housing
Provision), H2 (Future Housing Needs), H4 (Preservation of Residential Uses), H5
(Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self Contained Flats),
E4 (Industry and Warehousing), E5 (Non Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), U5
(Access and Safety in the Building) and T11 (Parking Standards).

3.3. EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.

4 Planning History

4.1. The use of the combined premises 189-191 South Avenue as a builders merchants and
general ironmongery business was given planning permission in November 1950.

4.2. August 1964 – permission for the erection of a flat above shop premises

4.3. July 1986 – an outline proposal to demolish the existing buildings, erect two storey block with
accommodation in roofspace dormers front and rear to provide 16 flats, 18 parking spaces at
rear and form vehicular access on South Avenue was refused mainly on the grounds of
overdevelopment of the site (SOS/86/0874).

4.4. December 1987 – an application for full planning permission to redevelop the site with a two
storey block with accommodation in the roofspace and dormers front and rear to provide 10
flats, lay out 12 parking spaces at the rear and form vehicular access onto South Avenue was
approved (SOS/87/1040).

4.5. November 1989 – permission refused for the demolition of garages and erection of two semi-
detached houses on grounds mainly of overdevelopment and undesirable backland
development (SOS/89/1141).

4.6. April 2002 – permission to redevelop the site with a three storey block of 12 flats was refused
on the grounds that its design and bulk would be out of character in the street scene
(SOS/02/00014).

5 External Consultation

5.1. AW – no objection in principle – request condition concerning drainage details.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 53 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
6 Internal Consultation

6.1. Design Comment – concerns about lack of articulation, dormers cut into roof.

6.2. Highway Comment – part of car park accessway still too narrow, layout not acceptable.

6.3. Environmental Health Comment – to be reported.

7 Publicity

7.1. Press and Site notice and neighbour notification – 21 letters of objection in total including a
petition with 206 signatures on the following grounds:
 Overlooking/loss of privacy
 Noise and disturbance from new residents
 Increased traffic
 Lack of car parking
 Risk to highway safety/property and persons
 Inappropriate development
 Loss of old character family house
 Loss of trees and shrubs
 Inadequate sewers/drains
 Increased waste and risk of vermin
 Reduction in property values
 Inadequacy of proposed communal areas
 Too high a density
 They would attract undesirables
 Area already overdeveloped
 Impact on services
 Existing parking problem worsened/congestion
 Flats out of character
 Building too dominant
 Pollution/health risks
 Little difference to original scheme
 Loss of view
 Loss of light/light pollution
 Out of character
 Disturbance during construction
 Disturbance from increased traffic
 Lack of information on the submitted drawings
 Overdevelopment
8 Appraisal

8.1. Regional Planning Guidance includes extension of the Thames Gateway to parts of South
Essex including Southend on Sea. The Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan
core policies require the Council to achieve a sustainable balance between local jobs and
workers in order to promote sustainable urban regeneration, encourage economic success
and realise sustainable new development.

8.2. Despite the priority for economic regeneration and particularly the stated need to safeguard
existing employment sites currently used from redevelopment to other land uses, Members
have approved the redevelopment of several commercial sites for residential purposes
particularly in cases where, as in this case, these have been smaller, which have been
recognised as incompatible because of their close proximity to residential property. The
application site is located within a predominantly residential area with no notation on the
Proposals Map of the Borough Local Plan and the premises are currently used for limited
business activity. They have little potential for significant employment generation and are not
ideally located for more intensive commercial use due to its backland nature, close proximity
to residential property and the poor approach to the site through adjoining predominantly
residential streets with limited capacity to accommodate other than small vehicles. In addition
it is not clear that the lawful use is for commercial or industrial purposes.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 54 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.3. The principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes and with a block of flats
was accepted in the past on the basis that it was then in line with current structure and district
local plan policy and would strengthen the residential character of this area. No objection in
principle was raised to the scheme refused in April this year.

8.4. Based on a net site area (see above) of 0.10 hectare (0.25 acre) previously approved
proposal for a block of 10 flats would have resulted in a residential density of 100 dwellings
per hectare (40 dwellings per acre) net, considered acceptable at that time. The increase in
density and content now proposed is considered in line with current structure plan policy for
the more intensive use of previously developed land within the urban area and in line with
national planning policy thinking. In order to ensure that the character and amenity value of
the area is not detrimentally affected by over intensive development, proposals comprising
purpose built self contained flats are normally required by BLP guidelines not to normally
exceed 75 to 100 dwellings per hectare (30-40 dwellings per acre) for three storey
development and for the purposes of calculating density gross site area is utilised and the
proposal satisfies the guideline.

8.5. The design of the proposed building is not particularly inspired. Whilst a full three storey
building would not be considered in keeping the proposed two storey pitched roof building with
accommodation in the roofspace would seem compatible with neighbouring development.
The overall height of the building has been reduced as has the depth of the roof. Adequate
gaps will be maintained between the proposed building and neighbouring two storey pitched
roof properties and a satisfactory appearance in the street scene could be achieved. The
detailed design criticisms can be taken up with the applicant but would not justify refusal.

8.6. Forecourt planting and enclosure would further enhance the appearance of the site in the
street scene.

8.7. Parking provision is considered acceptable in the context of current standards. Whilst a 4.8m
driveway through would be desirable the proposal is considered acceptable on the basis that it
is an improvement over the existing access serving a greater number of vehicles than the
previously approved layout, the short distance involved and a 5m wide section is at least
provided over part. The remaining width problem has been taken up with the applicant.

8.8. It is inevitable that the further development of the site for housing purposes will result in
increased overlooking and loss of privacy to immediately adjoining residential properties but
normal guidelines with respect to building to building, window to window, window to boundary
distances would be met and the relationship between the proposed block and immediately
adjoining properties in terms of rear and forward projection and distances apart are
satisfactory.

8.9. The applicant has endeavoured to meet the Committee's previous criticism of the scheme i.e.
the design and bulkiness of the building and subject to the detailed issues mentioned, the
scheme is now felt to be acceptable.

9 Recommendation

Subject to detailed design and car park layout changes

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 start within five years (C001)
02 parking to be provided as shown (CAAK)
03 parking space to be retained for parking (CAAF)
04 material samples to be submitted before development starts (CEAM)
05 details of surface treatment to be submitted (CEJ4)
06 boundary treatment to be installed concurrently (CHGU)
07 obscure glazing to any windows in side elevations (CIAY)
08 landscaping scheme to be agreed before development commences (CJDL)
09 screened refuse stores to be provided details to be approved (CKAF)
10 decontamination to be investigated (CZYL)

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 55 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Belfairs Ward

SOS/02/00456/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

ERECT DORMER WINDOW TO REAR ELEVATION, HIPPED ROOFS OVER FRONT AND
SIDE DORMER WINDOWS AND ERECT FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION WITH DORMER
WINDOWS FRONT AND REAR

47 Woodside, Leigh on Sea SS9 4QX

Mr and Mrs Baylis

1 The Proposal

1.1 A first floor extension over the side car port, incorporating a roof containing accommodation
served by dormer windows to the front and rear. This forms an en-suite and extension to a
bedroom.

1.2 The existing roof over a front roof extension will be removed and two hip roofed bonnets will
be erected in its place. The same will happen with the side roof extension.

1.3 A rear dormer window will be removed and be replaced with a smaller dormer window
together with a first floor element part cantilevered out over the ground floor, on columns, with
two gabled roofs over. A new bedroom and landing will be formed, with rear facing windows.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Detached chalet style dwelling with side parking and a driveway, located on the north side of
Woodside, a residential street of mixed styles and design of property.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations), Appendix 4.

4 Planning History

4.1 1949 – bungalow approved (1680).

4.2 1950 and 1959 – permitted development garage (3314 and 17989).

4.3 1966 – approval of extension to garage (D/1429/65).

4.4 1969 – approval of WC, bathroom and additions to first floor (D/258/69).

4.5 1972 – approval of extension at side (D/890/72).

4.6 1982 – approval of car port at side (SOS/1214/81).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – materials to match existing.

5.2 Highway Comment – no objections.

6 Publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification – one letter of objection – concerned that first floor extension will
reduce light to dining room – sole source of light and extension will block light.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 56 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7 Appraisal

7.1 The proposal is considered in terms of its visual impact and impact on residential amenity.

7.2 In the street scene, the proposals are considered to be acceptable, blending in well with the
existing property. The extension to the side is to be set 1m off the side boundary, with a
further 0.8m to the side of the dormer window, thus complying with BLP guidelines for first
floor and two storey side extensions.

7.3 In terms of the impact on adjoining properties, the rear garden is long and rear windows
comply with window to boundary distance guidelines. There are no side facing windows
proposed. The physical impact on no 51 Woodside is acceptable and complies with
guidelines. In terms of no 45a, that property has a sole source side dining room window which
has a 45º line clear of obstruction vertically over 47's existing garage but not horizontally from
the windows worst affected point. If drawn vertically or horizontally, this angle will be
breached by the current side extension and a loss of amenity would undoubtedly occur. No
loss of sunlight would occur however, due to the extension being to the north of the affected
property.

7.4 Whilst there is a breach of guidelines it is not clear whether the actual harm that will be
caused justifies refusal of permission. The site will be re-inspected prior to the meeting.

8 Recommendation

Subject to the results of site visit

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 start within five years (C001)
02 submit materials
03 no side windows (as specified)

Prittlewell Ward

SOS/02/00592 (Application for Full Planning Permission)

ERECT REPLACEMENT PURPOSE BUILT BOWLING PAVILION

Priory Park, Victoria Avenue, Southend on Sea, SS2 6NB

Southend Borough Council DTES

1 The Proposal

1.1 To erect a single storey building to the western boundary of Priory Park to provide a purpose
built bowling pavilion comprising of male and female changing rooms with lockers, a green
keepers room, a meeting room, a kitchen, a plant room and a main hall for small functions as
well as two rinks for short mat bowls. The building would measure approximately 30.3
(length) x 11.0 (width) x 4.7 (maximum height) metres. The building would be facing
brickwork to the north, west and south elevations and horizontal timber cladding, full height
glazing with aluminum and steel columns to the east elevation. The design is specifically to
protect against vandalism.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Site of the former pavilion destroyed by fire in May 2001. West side of Priory Park, to the rear
of 418-422 Victoria Avenue. The former pavilion hosted six clubs and accommodated visiting
clubs for tournaments etc.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located
Close to Housing) and R1 (Outdoor Sports Facilities).
58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 57 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
3.2 The site is designated on the BLP Proposals Map as Public Open Space/Sports Facilities
(C15, R1, R4 and R5).

4 Planning History

4.1 The building had a vital feature of this award-winning park and provided a home to bowlers
since the creation of the first Prittlewell Bowls Club in 1928.

4.2 1960 – Permission granted for new toilets. (20622)

4.3 1987 – Permission granted to erect storage shed. (SOS/87/0290)

4.4 May 2001 – The previous pavilion destroyed by fire.

4.5 June 2001, the loss adjuster granted permission for the remains of the building to be cleared
and the site secured.

5 External Consultation

5.1 English Heritage – Does not affect the SAM & therefore no comment to make

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – No objection to design. Archaeological conditions and watching brief.

6.2 DLACS Comment – Reply to be reported.

7 Publicity

7.1 Site Notice and Neighbour Notification – One reply objecting on the following grounds:
 Bad design; a continuous 14 foot high, bland brick wall to adjoining residential premises. It
is taller than the previous pavilion. The previous pavilion had windows to the rear to break
the wall.
 The design is not in keeping with the environment and essence of Priory Park. The
previous pavilion was in keeping with the monastic nature of the park. The proposal looks
like a public convenience or a factory.
 Graffiti artists will target the brick wall.
 The proposal has not been given as much thought as the new gentlemen’s toilets.
8 Appraisal

8.1 The proposed design offers a modern building with facilities for the clubs and their members
as well as casual bowlers. The new building would enhance the park and provide a high
quality facility capable of meeting present expectations as well as being flexible enough to
meet future requirements.

8.2 The proposal would not impact upon the Ancient Monument, would not impact upon the Listed
Buildings in Priory Park, there are no English Heritage objections and the relationship with
properties to the west is considered acceptable. These properties have rear gardens in
excess of 25m long and the rear wall of the pavilion is only 3.3m high nearest the western
boundary of the Park although its lean-to roof rises to the east. It will be sited approximately
4m off the boundary and will be only approximately 3m wider than the former pavilion.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following Condition:

01 start within five years (C001)

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 58 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
St Lukes Ward

SOS/02/00435/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

DEMOLISH BUILDING AT REAR AND ERECT CAR WASH, ALTER FRONT AND REAR
ELEVATIONS AND USE VEHICLES REPAIR WORKSHOP/CAR SHOWROOM (CLASS B2/SUI
GENERIS) FOR VEHICLE RENTAL (SUI GENERIS)

Unit 1, 329 Southchurch Road, Southend on Sea

ANC Rental Corporation Roger Oakley Associates

1 The Proposal

1.1 To use the premises for car rental and erect a pvc coated screen for hand car washing at the
rear. The building at the rear is shown to be demolished to allow for the car wash to be
erected and cars stored. The plans show 33 parking spaces in total with 15 spaces within the
building, 15 spaces at the rear and four for returned cars at the front of the building. The
building at the rear has recently been demolished. The only access would be through the
building.

1.2 The applicants currently operate from a site in Rayleigh in a site which they consider is not
particularly customer friendly and they wish to expand and trade from Southend where they
anticipate increasing staff numbers. Ten staff would be employed.

1.3 Hours of use are proposed as: 8am-7pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays.

1.4 A new shopfront is proposed with roller shutter door to provide vehicular access and new
doorway entrance. A roller shutter door is also proposed in the rear elevation to access the
rear parking and car wash areas and new windows are shown to the west side.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The unit is on the northern side of Southchurch Road west of the junction with Bournemouth
2
Park Road. The eastern part (535m ) of the building is in use as a motorist centre including
MOT testing. The part currently proposed for vehicle rental is vacant at present. There is a
forecourt parking area. The attached building at the rear has recently been demolished.
There is a very old wall at the rear boundary and the land rises, with light industrial units atop.

2.2 Adjoining the site to the east is a two storey block with roofspace accommodation used as
flats. Adjoining to the west is a vehicular access to industrial and warehouse buildings on
backland. To the east of the combined building at the rear is the servicing area to the petrol
filling station which itself is east of the flats and a builders yard.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies BIW4 – Safeguarding Employment Land, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2 BLP Policies E4 (Industry and Warehousing), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to
Housing), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), T11 (Parking Standards), T12
(Servicing Facilities).

3.3 The site together with the industrial and warehousing buildings to the north-west is allocated
for industry and warehousing on the BLP Proposals Map.

4 Planning History

4.1 The premises were used by the post office as a vehicle repair garage since at least 1950 to
the late 1990s.

4.2 July 1993 - permission granted to demolish petrol island, close existing vehicular access and
form new vehicular access onto Southchurch Road (SOS/93/0356).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 59 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4.3 1996 - planning permission granted to demolish building at rear and lay out parking spaces,
use part of vehicle repair workshop for the display and sale of vehicles, alter elevations and
erect 2.4m high fencing to the rear and side boundaries (SOS/96/0813). Minor amendments
were subsequently agreed and the demolition work at the rear was not carried out, but
otherwise the permission was implemented.

4.4 July 2001 - permission granted to alter front elevation and use part of vehicle repair
workshop/car showroom for storage and distribution with ancillary retail and parking inside the
building to the front (SOS/01/00246/FUL).

5 External Consultation

5.1 Environment Agency - advisory comments made.

5.2 Anglian Water - requests a condition relating to surface water run-off.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment - no objections.

6.2 Highway Comment - no objections.

6.3 Environmental Health Comment - no objections but request conditions as follows: car wash to
be screened to sufficient height to prevent over-spray beyond site boundary; hours of
operation to be as specified by the applicant; no vehicle paint spraying without prior approval;
no compressors or similar plant without prior approval.

7 Publicity

7.1 Site notice and neighbour notification - no replies.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The site has an extant permission for vehicle repair workshop/car showroom with ancillary
retail, but has been for at least a year. The adjoining unit is in use as a motorist centre.

8.2 The site is within an area designated for industry and warehousing. Whilst a car hire use does
not fall within that category it would employ ten people and could be satisfactorily
accommodated within the site by using the building itself and the area at the rear for parking,
following demolition of the building at the rear. The extant permission for this unit includes a
condition that requires part of the forecourt of this unit and that adjoining to be used jointly as
access and servicing area. The proposals for the car wash use show that this could still be
achieved.

8.3 The use will have very limited, if any, impact on residential properties as the closest property is
38m to the east of the parking area at the rear. The rear area which also contains the hand
car wash is also very well enclosed by an old, sound wall and the adjoining uses are all
commercial. The pvc screen is shown between 3-3.5m in height above the slab level and
further Environmental Health comment has been sought on whether this will prevent over-
spraying.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 60 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
8.4 There is no parking standard for vehicle hire places in either the Borough Local Plan or the
EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards. 33 spaces are shown on the plans but none are
specifically marked for staff cars. It would appear reasonable to apply the EPOA standard for
2
B8 (storage and distribution) uses which is one space per 150m and results in four spaces
being required. The Agent has been asked to amend the plans accordingly.

8.5 The alterations to the elevations are considered acceptable and in keeping with the adjoining
unit.

9 Recommendation
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to receipt of amended parking plans and to
comments on the car wash screen and the following conditions:

01 start within five years (C001)
02 parking and servicing areas to be provided with adjoining site
03 parking and servicing areas to be retained
04 staff parking areas to be provided, identified and retained
05 details of boundary treatment to west be submitted
06 surface water run-off to pass through petrol/oil interception facility

Milton Ward

SOS/02/00556 (Application for Full Planning Permission)
ND
USE PART OF HIGH STREET FOR THE SITING OF MARKET STALLS BETWEEN 22
RD
NOVEMBER TO 23 DECEMBER EVERY YEAR

Pedestrian Highway between Victoria Circus & Warrior Square, High Street, Southend on Sea,

Southend on Sea Borough Council Chief Executive & Town Clerk

1 The Proposal

1.1 To use part of the High Street between Victoria Circus to the north and Warrior Square to the
south as a Bavarian Christmas Market selling traditional German Christmas goods with
approximately 10/14 stalls or huts situated in this area, each measuring 4m x 3m and a little
over 2m high.

1.2 The following information was submitted with the application:

1.2.1 'Initial discussions have taken place with a German operator, Merlin Event Company, to look
at the operational and commercial viability of holding an authentic Bavarian Christmas market
in Southend on Sea. This particular company has run these markets in other towns
throughout Europe and for the first time last year held a very successful market in Bromley,
Kent. The Town Centre Manager visited Bromley whilst the market was operational and
invited the market operator to visit Southend on Sea to discuss the possibilities of bringing this
market to the town.

1.2.2 It is proposed to site the market on the first phase of Sshape (between Victoria Circus and
Warrior Square), consisting of a minimum of ten stalls to a maximum of 14 stalls. The stalls
are self-assembled wooden sheds, dimensions 4m x 3m each, to be erected on the
pedestrianised highway over a period of 2/3 nights prior to the first trading day. These stalls
could be imported from Germany, but it is intended to use a local company to construct and
assemble on site. The market will trade from Friday 22nd November to Saturday 23rd
December, seven days a week and will trade according to High Street trading times. The
stalls will sell authentic traditional German Christmas goods including wood and glass
decorations, wooden carvings and other unusual gift ideas, stollen, gingerbread, fresh roasted
almonds, mulled wine, souvenir mugs and bratwurst.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 61 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
1.2.3 Members of the Southend Business Group support this initiative and feel strongly that this
event will highlight Southend on Sea town centre at a crucial trading time in the year and will
increase footfall.

1.2.4 This market will generate income for the Town Centre Manager which will be used to market
and promote future events for the town centre.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The pedestriansed High Street between Victoria Circus to the north and Warrior Square to the
south is characterized by predominantly three storey terraced properties with a mixture of
uses.

2.2 This area forms the first phase of Southend Seafront High Street and Pier Enhancement
(Sshape) for refurbishing the High Street, to provide a high quality environment, attractive to
visitors.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies S4 (Retail Markets) and T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T12
(Servicing Facilities).

3.2 This section of the High Street is designated on the BLP Proposals Map as Central Business
District (H12 and S2), Defined Shopping Centre (S1), Existing Pedestrian Area (S8).

3.3 Southend on Sea Gateway Town Centre Strategy 2002-2012 (December 2001)

4 External Consultation

4.1 Essex Fire Authority – No objection provided the recognized Emergency Fire Path and access
to it and all Fire Hydrants and their marker plates within the vicinity of the High Street remain
free of obstruction at all times.

4.2 Southend Retail Association – Reply to be reported.

4.3 Southend on Sea Access Group – Reply to be reported.

4.4 Victoria Circus Tenants Association – Reply to be reported.

4.5 Essex Chambers of Commerce – Reply to be reported.

4.6 Police Community Safety Officer – Reply to be reported.

5 Internal Consultation

5.1 Design Comment – No objections in principle. However, the proposed huts appear
unattractive and of a poor quality – a more imaginative, higher quality design should be
sought.

5.2 Highway Comment – insufficient information regarding location of buildings, servicing,
cleaning operations, adequacy of remaining highway to cope with the reduction in width.

5.3 Environmental Health – Reply to be reported.

6 Publicity

6.1 Site Notice and Neighbour Notification – No response

7 Appraisal

7.1 The main issues considered pertinent to this application are the principle of a Christmas
market (particularly in the context of the Sshape proposals for upgrading the High Street),
potential appearance of the market stalls, the potential impact upon highway safety and the
opportunity for servicing and cleansing.
58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 62 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.2 Retail markets have long been a popular form of secondary shopping and were traditionally
held at the centre of towns, providing a lively meeting place for residents and shoppers.
Therefore the Policy S4 of the BLP states that the Council will promote the establishment of a
permanently based retail market within the Central Business District. This proposal could
provide a lively, interesting opportunity to increase the attractiveness of the High Street to
shoppers.

7.3 The Southend on Sea Gateway Town Centre Strategy 2002-2012 and Sshape projects aim to
establish high quality public spaces using high quality materials. In this context the proposed
stalls/huts are felt to be unimaginative, but with decoration could be acceptable for the short
period each year that they will be in place. If the market is to be a continuing event
consideration could be given to an improved design.

7.4 The potential issues of whether the remaining width of the High Street would be sufficient to
deal with the pedestrian flow and servicing/cleansing cannot be dealt with until layout plans
have been received. These are expected before the meeting.

8 Recommendation

Subject to the receipt of satisfactory layout plans

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following Conditions:
01 start within five years
02 stalls limited to 14
03 structures allowed between specified dates in the year
04 refuse storage arrangements to be agreed

Leigh Ward

SOS/02/00251

ALTER BOUNDARY WALL AND GATES TO HADLEIGH ROAD FRONTAGE CONSISTING
OF BRICKING UP ONE PEDESTRIAN GATE, REPLACING RAILINGS AND DOUBLE METAL
GATES AND DOUBLE TIMBER GATES WITH OAK GATES AND PROVIDING TWO NEW
PEDESTRIAN GATES

41 Hadleigh Road, Leigh-on-Sea

Mr & Mrs Mintern The Livemore Partnership

1 The Proposal

1.1 To replace double metal gates and railings with wooden gates and two new pedestrian gates;
block up existing pedestrian gate with brickwork to match existing wall and replace existing
double timber gates.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The site is located near the north end of Hadleigh Road a short distance south of the junction
with Rectory Grove. There is a small group of shops adjoining the site to the north-west
(Belton Corner) separated from the site by Billet Lane. Opposite the site is the rear of shops
in Rectory Grove whilst to the south at a lower level are two detached houses. The land to the
west is open cliff area.

2.2 The site is occupied by a large detached residential building currently undergoing conversion
back to a single house from three flats, planning permission having recently been granted for
the works involved. There are two garages within the site, but it is proposed to demolish the
newer one in a prominent position to the south of the house (because of its size, Conservation
Area Consent to demolish this garage is not necessary).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 63 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
3 Development Plan

3.1 Borough Local Plan Policies C4 (Conservation Areas); C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations), H5 ( Residential Design and Layout Considerations).

3.2 ESRSP Policies – HC2 – Conservation Areas; BE1 – Urban Intensification.

4 Planning History

4.1 11060 – Conversion to flats and external staircase – Approved 12.9.55.

4.2 D/61/68 – Convert ground floor flat into two self-contained flats – Approved 29.2.68.

4.3 SOS/00/00145/FUL – Erect detached double garage, form vehicular access onto Hadleigh
Road, erect 1.8m. wall and railings – Approved 10.4.2000.

4.4 SOS/02/00065/FUL – Replace and enlarge rear balcony, erect porch to front and alter
elevations in connection with returning the use of the flats to a single family dwellinghouse.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Leigh Town Council – Oppose – proposed gates are out of character in a conservation area.

5.2 The Leigh Society – No response.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – No objection subject to a reduced height and agreeing colour scheme for
gates.

6.2 Highway Comment – No objections.

7 Publicity

7.1 Press and site notice and neighbour notification – Letter stating no objection received from
occupiers of ‘Creek Cottage’ to the south of the site.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues to be taken into account are the impact of the proposed development on the
street scene and implications for highway safety.

8.2 The existing double metal gates and railings and new garage have been in existence less than
two years, and when approved, a condition was imposed requiring the closure of the existing
vehicular access in the north east corner of the site. The dropped kerb has accordingly been
removed, but gates remain which it is intended to replace as part of this application.

8.3 In order to improve pedestrian safety, the proposed new double gates have been moved back
into the site to give a 1.5m visibility splay since the proposed timber gates cannot be seen
through in the same way as the existing metal gates.

8.4 In addition, in order to improve the visual appearance in accordance with the Design
comments, the new double gates have been reduced in height.

8.5 As a result of these changes the proposals are felt to be satisfactory in terms of their impact
on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area. Indeed, it may now be that they
are permitted development.

9 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions
01 start within five years (C001)
02 gates to be painted in approved colour

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 64 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
Prittlewell Ward

SOS/02/00596/FUL (Application for temporary planning permission)

RETAIN TEMPORARY BUILDING FOR USE AS MEDICAL ASSESSMENT UNIT FOR A
FURTHER TWO YEAR PERIOD

Southend Hospital, Prittlewell Chase, Westcliff on Sea

Southend Hospital NHS Trust

1 The Proposal

1.1. To retain a temporary single storey building which is located within the “U“ shaped former
main entrance of the hospital. The building is large, measuring some 41.5m in length and
11.8m in width. It is single storey in height and of the standard design for temporary buildings
of this nature.

1.2. The building contains a waiting area, office, four consulting rooms/offices, staff
accommodation and offices, a kitchen, utility areas and a ward including a day room facility.
The building is connected to the main hospital building by a covered walkway. New access
ramps were included as part of the proposals.

1.3. A temporary, raised, ambulance only, entrance has been created off Prittlewell Chase and
temporary pedestrian crossings installed.

1.4. The scheme results in the net loss of six parking spaces and the gain of one motor cycle
parking space.

1.5. The application was originally proposed for a temporary period of 20 months which expired on
9th October 2001. A subsequent application which proposed a two year extension to that
permission to allow for completion of new beds for the hospital and for strategic planning of a
new permanent location for the MAU ward was refused due to the continued loss of parking
and the unacceptable appearance of the building.

1.6. The applicant submitted supporting information, which is summarised below.

1.6.1. 'The MAU building had a temporary planning permission for the purpose of providing space to
decant A&E patients during refurbishment of the A&E facility. It was then in use as a joint role
as a departure lounge and MAU, a function that still remains. The Trust considers that the
prime reason for refusal of SOS/01/00598/FUL was related to the loss of car parking spaces
and whilst the continued use for the building results in the net loss of six car parking bays one
motorcycle bay has been gained. The actual factual parking implications are now clearly
marked on the plans. The original planning permission in Feb 2000 identified a loss of parking
space, which related to the road closure to the Old Main Entrance. This was for the
development work at the A&E facility and these spaces have now been fully reinstated.

1.6.2. Since that application the rear garden of a house in Cardigan Avenue has been purchased
and converted into additional parking. Three of these 15 spaces were identified as relating to
the leukaemia extension. The others were not linked to any other application. Furthermore
the Trust Board has approved the lease of office and warehouse space off site at Britannia
Business Park. This will involve the relocation away from Southend Hospital of the medical
Records department and 150 office staff. The move into the new building is expected to occur
in January 2003.

1.6.3. Further Outpatient Clinic space has been created at the Tyrells Centre, Thundersley. The
Centre opened to patients on Monday 13th May and will reduce patient visits to the Hospital.
It is planned to relocate parking spaces at the Hospital to increase the number of patient and
visitor spaces by nearly 75% to 596, at the same time reducing staff car parking areas to
reflect these moves.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 65 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
1.6.4. The issue of the size and design implication at the old historic entrance to the hospital is
noted. The Trust understands the Council's view that the temporary buildings detract from the
character of the entrance and causes loss of an open grassed area and mindful of the colour
chosen for the MAU was untended to minimise the visual mass of the building.

1.6.5. The Trust is keen to reinstate the area to its former appearance but this does take time and
will require a suitable location for this service to be found. However it should be appreciated
that the clinical needs for the space are paramount, particularly in the winter months. The
Trust's ten year plan includes plans to provide additional ward space and specifically relocate
the MAU.

1.7. The applicants have orally confirmed that the Trust has a strategic development plan. A
strategic outline case will be presented to the Health Authority together with an application for
funding for a replacement MAU unit this month, the results of which will be reported at the
meeting. It is expected that the provisions will be made to replace the temporary MAU
building within the two year application time frame.

2 Location and Description

2.1. The Hospital is located on the northern side of Prittlewell Chase. The large site mainly
comprises buildings of various scales used for treatment of patients and other hospital
services, and areas of parking. The site currently suffers from a degree of parking stress.

3 Development Plan

3.1. Borough Local Plan Policies U4 (Southend Hospital), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations), C17 (Trees Landscaping and Planting) and T11 (Parking Standards).

3.2. No ESRSP Policies are directly relevant to consideration of this application.

4 Planning History

4.1. Pre 1992 – a number of applications for minor developments on the site

4.2. 1992 – permission granted for a new free-standing building to accommodate a consolidated
service including those services previously provided by Rochford Hospital

4.3. Since this time planning permission has been granted for a number of small buildings and
extensions

4.4. 1995 - permission granted to lay out 145 parking spaces

4.5. July 1998 – temporary permission granted to retain a portable building on eight parking
spaces for one year (SOS/98/0569).

4.6. November 1998 – permission granted for the erection of a single storey extension to the
Renal Unit (SOS/98/0860).

4.7. May 1999 – permission granted for extension to A&E department (SOS/99/0239).

4.8. February 1999 – permission granted for a conservatory at first floor level (SOS/99/412).

4.9. September 1999 – permission granted for reduction in height of front wall (SOS/99/0540).

4.10. September 1999 - erection of a temporary building as an extension to Ophthalmology building
delegated for approval subject to receipt of revised plans (SOS/99/829).

4.11. September 1999 - planning permission granted for the erection of an extension to the A&E
department (SOS/99/0735).

4.12. October 1999 – planning permission granted for the installation of a temporary building to
serve outpatients department (SOS/99/0632).

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 66 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
4.13. November 1999 – planning permission refused to erect single storey building to provide
ambulance staff facilities, lay out ambulance waiting area and barrier and form new vehicular
access onto Cardigan Avenue (SOS/99/0883/FUL).

4.14. February 2000 – planning permission granted to erect temporary building to relocate
MAU, provide covered link to main building and ramped accesses to temporary
building and form additional access to Prittlewell Chase for ambulances only
(SOS/99/01261/FUL).

4.15. October 2000 – planning permission granted to demolish temporary building and erect two
storey extension, use garden for parking area and lay out 14 parking spaces
(SOS/00/00417/FUL).

4.16. August 2001 – planning permission refused to retain temporary /building for use as
medical assessment unit for a further two years period (renewal of planning permission
SOS/99/01261/FUL).

4.17. 2001 – planning permission granted to erect two storey building to form women’s clinic at
ground floor and breast unit at first floor, close to existing vehicular access
(SOS/01/01081/FUL).

4.18. 2001 - planning permission granted to erect single storey extension to pharmacy department
(SOS/01/01211/FUL).

4.19. 2001 – planning permission granted to erect new vacuum insulated evaporator storage
vessel, enlarge oxygen storage compound, erect chain link fence (SOS/01/01211/FUL).

4.20. December 2001 - planning permission granted to erect conservatory to staff restroom
(SOS/01/01709/FUL).

4.21. May 2002 – planning permission granted to erect two storey building to form women’s clinic at
ground floor and breast unit at first floor, close to existing vehicular access
SOS/02/00558/FUL (amended proposal).

5 Internal Consultation

5.1. Design Comment – no objection to temporary permissions.

5.2. Highway Comment – The parking deficiencies associated with this MAU have been accepted
for a two year period for the construction of a new and permanent and improved MAU. No
justification as to why this further extension of time is necessary consequently the knock on
effects on street suffered by residents would continue. There is also a concern that the
temporary and permanent MAUs are both being used.

6 Publicity

6.1. Site notice and neighbour notification – No comments received.

7 Appraisal

7.1. Policy U4 states that the Council will support the improvement, expansion or consolidation of
patient services within the Southend Hospital site provided that this secures improved parking
arrangements to overcomes existing meets additional requirements.

7.2. The main considerations are therefore considered to be the impact that retention of the
building for a further two years would have on the visual amenities of the site, and on parking.
The building is located a sufficient distance from neighbouring residents to prevent any direct
adverse impact on residents.

7.3. Although the building is of substantial size it has been designed and installed in such a way
that its visual impact is not detrimental on a temporary basis. However it would not be
acceptable on a permanent basis as it masks the original historic entrance to the hospital.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 67 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
7.4. When the temporary consent for the MAU was granted the impact on parking (the loss of 22
spaces) for the temporary period was accepted during the period of construction of the new
A&E unit due to the overall advantages gained by the A&E development. When retention of
the MAU for a further period was considered Members were concerned about the continuing
loss of spaces. The scheme as submitted would (now that A&E works are complete and the
other temporary building on the eastern side of the historic entrance has been removed) result
in the continuing loss of only six parking spaces (and gain of one motor cycle parking space).
This together with the fact that additional parking spaces have been provided elsewhere on
the site in the interim, that Tyrells clinic has opened and in January 2003 it is anticipated that
further 150 staff will be relocated off site lead to the conclusion that retention of the MAU unit
for this further temporary period will not result in a detrimental impact overall within the
Hospital site.
8 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following Conditions:
01 limited period permission (two years) (CRGB)
02 temporary structure to be removed (CRAH)

West Leigh Ward

SOS/02/00298 (Application for Full Planning Permission)

ERECT TWO SHELTERS, ONE BASKETBALL/FOOTBALL GOAL WITH HARDSURFACED
AREA, CYCLE RACK, 1.2M HIGH STEEL PALISADE FENCE TO NORTH AND WEST
ELEVATION AND LAY OUT FOOTPATHS

Land to the South of Two Tree Island Road and Opposite Civic Amenity Waste Disposal Site,
Leigh Marshes, Two Tree Island, Leigh on Sea

Leigh on Sea Town Council

1 The Proposal
2
1.1 Erect two Trojan youth shelters (2m x 3.7m high), one basketball/football goal (3.8m high x
3m) with hardsurfaced area, two 5m high lamp columns, cycle rack, 1.2m high steel palisade
fence to north and west elevation and layout footpaths on a membrane to minimise migration
of sub-soil and act as a weed barrier. On top would be 150mm MOT type 1 material (crushed
stone) and 35mm of 10mm open textured porous macadam and a further 30mm of 6mm
dense wearing coarse macadam. The macadam will be line marked for sports use.

1.2 As the site lies in the Green Belt the applicant was requested to submit a statement in support
of the application and deal with concerns regarding the fencing, the hardsurfacing materials,
the extent of the hardsurfacing and the location of the youth shelters and the rather formal,
regimented layout. The response is as follows:

1.2.1 Policy G1 of the BLP states that ‘permission may, however, be given to development
proposals for the following purposes…small scale facilities for outdoors participatory sport and
recreation.’ We believe that the application meets these criteria exactly.

1.2.2 There is a dearth of outdoor recreational and sporting facilities in Leigh, particularly those
which are free and available for all. A report by Thames Valley Police emphasises the
importance of these facilities and this sort of design. The ‘Streetwise’ survey conducted jointly
by SBC and LTC recommends the establishment of a youth friendly area in Leigh. Among the
findings are that young people hang out in the streets of Leigh because there was nothing to
do, they could not afford the activities and to meet friends. This project meets all these
problems. 97.5% of young people support this type of facility. A quote from a letter (copy not
included) from Southend Police ‘I think the proposal for such a site is most welcome and much
needed for our local community. The construction of a youth facility of this type has been a
project within the Southend Community Safety Strategy for at least two years.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 68 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
1.2.3 The fence is to prevent balls from going into the road and prevent people chasing them onto
the road. The hardsurfaced area is fairly standard for this type of facility. The extent of hard
surfacing is to meet the following needs: basketball and football require a reasonable area to
play on, the shelters are built on a hard surface for stability of construction and a dry area, the
paths allow users to easily from one part to another in a low lying area where the grass is
frequently wet.

1.2.4 It is not accepted that it is a formal, regimented layout. There needs to be some form of
structured layout and the various elements are laid out in an attractive way.

1.2.5 Three other sites were considered, Leigh Library Gardens was rejected due to lack of
approval from local residents and the landowners (i.e. the Borough Council), Leigh Allotment
site was rejected due to inability to justify taking the allotments out of use and the Secretary of
State would not have agreed, Blenheim Park was rejected due to objections from residents
and Leisure Services did not want to let an area of the park for this use. This left Leigh
Marshes.

1.2.6 88% of young people consulted favoured it as a location, there are no nearby residents, it is
an area where a number of young people congregate naturally, it is close to the skateboard
park and it has an open aspect which makes it suitable for Police to observe and safe for the
children.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Two Tree Island is located partly within Southend Borough but with the majority of it in Castle
Point, but owned by this Council, as is the application site.

2.2 The proposal site is currently incidental open space immediately to the south of Two Tree
Island Road. Adjoining the site to the west is a car park, to the north is the Civic Amenity Site
and to the north-west Rampage Skateboard Park. Immediately to the south is a footpath atop
the sea wall and further to the south are Leigh Marshes and Two Tree Island.

3 Development Plan

3.1 BLP Policies G1 (Development Within the Green Belt), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations), C15 (Retention of Open Spaces), R1 (Outdoor Sports Facilities).

3.2 The site is identified on BLP Proposals Map as Green Belt (G1), Public Open Space/Sports
Facility (C15, R1, R4 & R5), Special Landscape Area (G5), Coastal Protection Area (G7).

3.3 It is also adjacent to Southend and Benfleet Marshes SSSI and Special Protection Area
(SPA).

3.4 ESRSP Policies CS2 – Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, C1 – General Extent of
the Green Belt, C2 – Development Within the Metropolitan Green Belt, NR1 – Landscape
Conservation, CC1 – The Undeveloped Coast – Coastal Protection Belt, BE3 – Retention of
Open Space, BE4 – Sports Grounds and Playing Fields, LRT1 – Sports/Leisure Centres and
Major Sports Stadia.

3.4.1 PPG2: Green Belts, PPG9: Nature Conservation, PPG17: Sport and Recreation.

4 Planning History

4.1 No previous history on the site although a long history for the surrounding land

5 External Consultation

5.1 Railtrack Property – No comments in relation to the proposed work.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 69 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
5.2 English Nature – point out that the development is not directly connected to or necessary for
the management of the SPA and it cannot discount the possibility that the proposal is likely to
have a significant effect on the European and international site. Further information will be
required from the applicant to assess whether this project is likely to have a significant effect.
English Nature's concerns are: lighting, construction works and pollution. Conditions may
mitigate against the potentially damaging effects. LTC’s response to these concerns has
been sent to English Nature for comment.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment – No objections to the principle. However, the fence would not keep people
out and is visually intrusive, the form of the hard areas is unattractive and will be dominant –
less hardsurfacing and in a freer form. A landscaping scheme should be a condition

6.2 DCLAS – Proposal seems acceptable.

7 Publicity

7.1 Site Notice – No response. No neighbours of the adjoining railway station have been notified.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The issues raised by this proposal are Green Belt policy, nature conservation interests,
appearance and activity levels/parking.

8.2 It is the intentions of PPG2 and a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban
sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belt is their
openness.

8.3 In the Green Belt there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Inappropriate
development is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why
permission should be granted.

8.4 The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for specified
purposes, which include essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, which
preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of
including land in it.

8.5 Essential facilities should be genuinely required for uses of land, which preserve the openness
of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Possible
examples of such facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator
accommodation for outdoor sport, or small stables for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation.

8.6 The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development
within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the
purposes of including land in Green Belt, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting,
materials or design.

8.7 Policy G1 of the Borough Local Plan (BLP) states that permission will not be given, except in
very special circumstances for the construction of new buildings. However, permission may
be given to proposals such as: small scale facilities for outdoor participatory sport and
recreation, provided that all buildings contained within such developments are such a scale,
design and siting that the appearance of the countryside and the character of the Green Belt is
not impaired.

8.8 There are a number of other Development Plan policies to discourage built development in
this area:

 BLP Policy G5 - location, siting, design and materials and landscaping should accord with
the character of the area in which they are proposed.

 Policy G3 states that proposals likely to cause permanent loss or damage to the natural
beauty and traditional qualities of the landscape will normally be refused. Development
proposals should incorporate new tree planting.
58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 70 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
 Policy G7 states that there shall be the most stringent restrictions on development in
those coastal areas of Belton Hills, Leigh Marshes and Two Tree Island. Proposals for
recreation development will be permitted within these areas only if they open and informal
in nature and do not adversely affect its rural character and wildlife or important local
views.

 Policy C15 states that the Council will normally refuse planning permission for proposals
involving the complete or partial loss of key open spaces including informal amenity space
and incidental open space.

 ESRSP Policy CS2 seeks to protect and enhance areas designated as having intrinsic
environmental quality

 ESRSP Policy NR1 states that the natural beauty, amenity and traditional character of the
landscape will be protected, conserved and enhanced.

8.9 In this context it is not felt that the proposed development is appropriate Green Belt
development in terms of PPG2 or the Development Plan. PPG2 states that exceptional
circumstances can justify inappropriate development but exceptional cases should be referred
to the Secretary of State.

8.10 The case put forward by Leigh Town Council could be accepted as exceptional circumstances
but it is not an overwhelming case. In addition the style, layout and appearance of the
scheme, the proposed fencing in particular, does not conform to the policy requirements
summarised above. Furthermore, dependant on the advice of English Nature an Assessment
under the Habitat Regulations may be necessary, plus consideration of protection or
enhancement of the SSSI.

8.11 No assessment of activity levels or parking has been provided. However, this is a relatively
isolated area away from residential property and with public car parking nearby. Whilst not
very accessible it appears suitable or the use, subject to the policy, nature conservation and
appearance issues raised above.

8.12 In the absence of a conclusion on the need for an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat
Regulations it would not be suitable to recommend that planning permission be granted – the
assessment has to take place before a planning recommendation is considered.

8.13 It is anticipated that a response will be received from English Nature before the meeting.

9 Recommendation

Await the views of English Nature

Background Papers

(i) Planning applications and supporting documents and plans
(ii) Application worksheets and supporting papers
(iii) Non-exempt contents of property files
(iv) Consultation and publicity responses
(v) Borough Local Plan
(vi) Relevant PPGs, DCPNs and Circulars

NB Other letters and papers not taken into account in preparing this report but received
subsequently will be reported to the Committee either orally or in a supplementary
report.

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 71 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT
INDEX

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

26th June 2002
21, Avro Road, Southend on Sea, ....................................................................................................... ENF10
22, Britannia Gardens, Westcliff on Sea, .............................................................................................. SV15
148, Broadway, Leigh on Sea, ............................................................................................................. 17, 32
Sewage Pumping Station, Burnaby Road, Southend on Sea, ................................................................ SV2
26, Burnham Road, Leigh on Sea, ............................................................................................................. 16
Flat 2, 81, Cavendish Gardens, Westcliff on Sea, ..................................................................................... 66
38-40, Ceylon Road, Westcliff on Sea, ................................................................................................ 45, 49
25-27, Chalkwell Esplanade, Westcliff on Sea, ..................................................................................... SV31
4, Cobham Road, Westcliff on Sea , .......................................................................................................... 33
11, Cockle Sheds, High Street, Leigh on Sea, ...................................................................................... ENF7
2, Coptfold Close, Southend on Sea, ...................................................................................................... SV9
54, Dawlish Drive, Leigh on Sea, ............................................................................................................... 65
Thorpedene GM Jnr School, Delaware Road, Shoeburyness, .................................................................. 26
15, Fairfax Drive, Westcliff on Sea, ............................................................................................................ 22
285-325, Fairfax Drive, Westcliff on Sea, ............................................................................................. SV14
158-160, Fleetwood Avenue, Leigh on Sea, ......................................................................................... ENF3
Thorpe School, Greenways, Southend on Sea, ................................................................................... 19, 20
41, Hadleigh Road, Leigh on Sea, ............................................................................................................. 63
7-9, High Street, Southend on Sea, ........................................................................................................... 28
2, Leighfields Avenue, Leigh on Sea, ........................................................................................................... 3
22, Lime Avenue, Leigh on Sea, ................................................................................................................ 35
6 & 8, Lodwick, Shoeburyness, ............................................................................................................. ENF5
Highway outside 124, 177 & 366 & Nazareth House,, London Road and Outside Car Park Jct at
Hamlet Court Road, Westcliff on Sea, .......................................................................................... 43
512-514, London Road, Westcliff on Sea, ................................................................................................. 50
141, Marcus Avenue, Southend on Sea, ...................................................................................................... 2
113, Marguerite Drive, Leigh on Sea, .................................................................................................... SV28
23-25, Ness Road, Shoeburyness, ............................................................................................................ 14
North East Corner of, Newington Road and Hamstel Road, Southend on Sea , .................................. SV12
Vacant Land Adj Asda, North Shoebury Road, Shoeburyness, ................................................................. 39
93, Prince Avenue, Southend on Sea, ....................................................................................................... 46
Priory Park, Victoria Avenue, Southend on Sea, ........................................................................................ 57
223, Prittlewell Chase, Westcliff on Sea , .................................................................................................. 30
Southend Hospital, Prittlewell Chase, Westcliff on Sea , ............................................................................ 65
187, South Avenue, Southend on Sea, ...................................................................................................... 52
458a, Southchurch Road, Southend on Sea, ............................................................................................. 37
709, Southchurch Road, Southend on Sea, ................................................................................................. 5
Unit 1, 329, Southchurch Road, Southend on Sea, .................................................................................... 59
R/o 145-155, Southsea Avenue, Leigh on Sea, ......................................................................................... 11
117, St Augustines Avenue, Southend on Sea, .................................................................................... ENF9
127, Thorpe Bay Gardens, Southend on Sea, ............................................................................................. 9
100, Undercliff Gardens, Leigh on Sea, ....................................................................................................... 7
5, Vanguard Way, Shoeburyness, ........................................................................................................... SV5
Pedestrian Highway between, Victoria Circus & Warrior Square, High Street, Southend on Sea, ............ 61
15, Victoria Road, Leigh on Sea, ........................................................................................................... ENF1
Thorpe Hall School, Wakering Road, Southend on Sea, ........................................................................... 44
9, Whitefriars Crescent, Westcliff on Sea, ................................................................................................ 48,
Public Highway Approx 55m South from Jct with, Whitehouse Road and on west side of Rayleigh
Road, Leigh on Sea, ................................................................................................................. SV25
31, Woodfield Park Drive, Leigh on Sea, .............................................................................................. SV29
47, Woodside, Leigh on Sea, .................................................................................................................... 56,

KEY
ENF = Enforcement Report
SV = Pre-Meeting Site Visits

58a5b98e-7ac6-4682-b667-68c8ca2cc360.doc Page 72 of 72 Report No: DTES02/126 DRAFT