Get documents about "have been considered in the context of the Borough Council s Environmental Charter
Shared by: HC120809042413
-
Stats
- views:
- 0
- posted:
- 8/8/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 80
Document Sample
º
Agenda
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Item
Report of the Corporate Director of
Enterprise, Tourism & the Environment
to
Development Control Committee
On
15th August 2007
Report prepared by : Planning Officers
Report on Planning Applications
A Part 1 Agenda Item
INTRODUCTION
(i) Recommendations in capitals at the end of each report are those of the
Corporate Director of Enterprise, Tourism & the Environment, are not the
decision of the Committee and are subject to Member consideration.
(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
-
DCL Director of Children and Learning
-
DCS Director of Community Services
-
DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-
DTLR Department of Transport Local Government & The Regions
-
EA Environmental Agency
-
ESRSP Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan
-
EPOA Essex Planning Officer’s Association
-
ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
-
PPG Planning Policy Guidance Note
-
SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest. A national designation.
-
SSSIs are the country's very best wildlife and geological sites.
SPA - Special Protection Area. An area designated for special
protection under the terms of the European Community
Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds.
Ramsar Site – Describes sites that meet the criteria for inclusion in the list of
Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar
Convention. (Named after a town in Iran, the Ramsar
Convention is concerned with the protection of wetlands,
especially those important for migratory birds)
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 1 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Thorpe Ward
SOS/07/00736/FULM
DEMOLISH BUILDINGS, ERECT PART TWO/PART THREE/PART
FOUR/PART FIVE STOREY BLOCK OF 24 FLATS WITH BALCONIES,
ROOF TERRACES, REFUSE STORE, LAY OUT 24 CAR PARKING
SPACES, CYCLE STORE, LANDSCAPING AND FORM VEHICULAR
ACCESS ONTO LIFSTAN WAY (AMENDED PROPOSAL)
164-167 Eastern Esplanade, Southend-on-Sea
Churchgate Properties Russ Drage Architects
1 The Proposal
Site Area (net) : 1489m2
No. of units : 24 flats (21 x 2 bed, 3 x 1 bed)
Parking spaces : 24
Cycle Parking : 1 space per dwelling
Motorcycle Parking : 2 spaces
Amenity space : private balconies/terraces
Density : 161 dwellings/ha
1.1. Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing buildings on the site and
erect a block of 24 self contained flats up to five storeys high. The building will
be sited close to the back edge of footpath along Eastern Esplanade and most
of the frontage to Lifstan Way. There is a greater setback in the north eastern
corner of the site to accommodate an existing street tree. Access to the site is
proposed from Liftstan Way to a parking area at the rear of the site which
provides 24 off street parking spaces.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 2 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
1.2. The design of the scheme is contemporary in nature with a large amount of
glazing to the south to maximise water views. Two entrances are proposed,
one within each elevation of the building and the scheme also proposes the use
of renewable energy systems through solar panels.
1.3. No amenity space is proposed at ground floor level, however there are some
balconies and private terraces proposed for a number of flats.
1.4. The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, Transport
Statement, Flood Risk Assessment and supporting statement for loss of the
existing guest house.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The subject site is located on the northern side of Eastern Esplanade on the
western corner of Lifstan Way. The site is presently occupied by four buildings,
one of which has been converted into flats, a guest house and a pair of semi
detached houses.
2.2. The area is mixed in its character with residential development and some
hotels, guest houses and bed and breakfast accommodation. The height of
development in this location varies from two storeys up to four storeys, some of
which is traditional seaside vernacular, while others are purpose built flat
developments. Within Lifstan Way there are traditional Victorian terraces. To
the south of the site benefits from extensive views over the estuary.
3 Development Plan
3.1. PPS 3 (Housing), PPS 25 (Development and Flood Risk)
3.2. ESRSP Policies CC2 - Development at Risk on the Coast, CS1 - Achieving
Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS2 - Protecting the Natural and Built
Environment, CS4 - Sustainable New Development, BE1 - Urban
Intensification, BE5 - Planning Obligations, EG4 - Energy Conservation, H2 -
Housing Development - The Sequential Approach, H3 - Location of Residential
Development, H5 - Affordable Housing, T3 - Promoting Accessibility, T6 -
Walking and Cycling, T11 - Traffic Management, T12 - Vehicle Parking.
3.3. LDF: Development Plan Document 1 (Core Strategy) – KP2 (Development
Principles), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility), CP8 (Dwelling Provision).
Supplementary Planning Document 1 (Design and Townscape Guide). Draft
DPD (Seafront Area Action Plan).
3.4. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees,
Planting and Landscaping), H3 (Retention of Small Family Houses), H5
(Residential Design and Construction), H6 (Protecting Residential Character),
H7 (Formation of Self Contained Flats), L7 (Retention of Hotel and Guest
House Uses), T1 (Priorities), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety),
T11 (Parking Standards), T13 (Cycling and Walking).
3.5. EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 3 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
4 Planning History
159-161 Eastern Esplanade (adjoining site to west)
4.1. Oct 2001 – Planning permission granted to demolish existing buildings; erect
part two/part four storey block of 16 flats with garages and parking at rear and
vehicular access onto Bryant Avenue (SOS/00/01162/FUL). Recommended
for refusal by officers on the grounds of the loss of a hotel in the Visitor
Accommodation Area contrary to Policy L7 of the Borough Local Plan and
referred to full Council by DCC.
165 Eastern Esplanade (part of application site)
4.2. Feb 2001 – Planning permission refused to use guest house (Class C1) as
dwelling house (Class C3) (SOS/01/00024/FUL). Reason for refusal:
Loss of guest house accommodation in the Visitor Accommodation Area
4.3. 2005 – Planning permission granted to use ground floor front part of guest
house as tea-room (SOS/04/01866/FUL).
164–167 Eastern Esplanade
4.4. Application withdrawn to demolish buildings, erect part two/part
three/part four/part five storey block of 24 flats with balconies, roof
terraces, layout parking and landscaping (SOS/07/00216/FULM).
5 External Consultation
5.1. Environment Agency – LPA needs to apply the sequential test and demonstrate
that there are no reasonably available sites in areas of lower probability of
flooding that would be appropriate for the development (PPS 25). Where the
LPA is satisfied that the sequential test has been passed the Exceptions test
must be passed. Residential development is classified as ‘More Vulnerable’
and should only be permitted in Zone 3 if the exception test is passed.
5.2. Essex and Suffolk Water – no comment.
5.3. Police Architectural Liaison Officer – to be reported.
5.4. Essex County Fire and Rescue – consult with water technical officer.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment – Redundant vehicle crossings should be reinstated at the
developers expense. A contribution for the improvement of the bus stops near
the site should sought (£10,000).
6.2. Environmental Health Comment – number of bins proposed is acceptable (4 x
waste, 3 x recycling).
6.3. Leisure Services Comment – All trees removed as part of the development
should be replaced 2 for 1 inline with the Council’s tree policy. From the plans
three trees are highlighted for removal. Trees to be retained should be
protected in line with BS5837.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 4 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
6.4. The area around 164-167 limited recreational space and free facilities in
relationship to the number of residential properties in the area. This
development will have a negative impact on the available facilities. Therefore
we would ask that the developer contributes a sum for improvements to open
space and recreational facilities.
6.5. Within the design, access and sustainability statement it is stated that the use
of rain water for irrigation and flushing of WCs. However I cannot find
reference to this on the plans. Due to the nature of some of the planting we
would wish to see this approach to water use and conservation incorporated in
the final design.
6.6. Housing Comment – Will accept an off site provision for affordable housing of a
four bed house in lieu of two flats on site provided the property is of a lettable
standard and is available and ready for nomination prior to the esplanade
development being completed.
6.7. Education Comment – contribution of £17,814.89 requested for secondary and
post 16 education.
7 Publicity
7.1. Press notice, site notice and neighbour notification. 38 objections received on
the following grounds:
♦ Loss of B&B accommodation
♦ Concern over pedestrian safety, particularly children
♦ Strain on local infrastructure
♦ Only adding to the ‘concrete jungle’ of flats along the seafront
♦ Already enough flats, needs local facilities such as shops, chemist etc
♦ 5 storeys is too high in this location
♦ Consideration needs to be given to flood risk
♦ Will incrementally make traffic congestion worse
♦ Southend is already overcrowded
♦ Need to safeguard good family homes
♦ Ratio of flats to houses is spoiling the seafront
♦ Lack of off street parking
♦ The borough is well ahead of its housing targets
♦ Does not provide affordable housing
♦ Overdevelopment of the site
♦ Poorly sited access
♦ Design does not relate to surrounding development
♦ Will make accessibility to local shopping facilities even more difficult
(particularly for disabled people)
♦ Overshadowing of adjacent properties
♦ Proposed building will extend a lot further back than the existing
buildings which is an overdevelopment of the site
♦ Loss of property value to surrounding homes
♦ 1326 pro forma letters received objecting on the following grounds:
♦ Scale and over dominance of the surrounding properties. Five storey
frontage is overbearing and excessively bulky given its proximity to the
pavement
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 5 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
♦ Flatted development should be limited to 10% of a block. The block in
question has in excess of 50% flatted development. The whole of
Eastern Esplanade from the Kursaal to Warwick Road has total flatted
development of 23%. The development is contrary to Policy H6 and
would have an adverse affect on the environment.
♦ There is insufficient off street parking in an area of parking stress.
♦ There will be an increase in vehicular access to the site with the access
being close to the junction of Eastern Esplanade and Liftstan Way
♦ The cumulative effect of the flat development will erode the character of
the area and lead to a significant loss of family dwellings. If allowed, the
development will damage the character of Southend’s seafront.
♦ Between Victoria Road and Warwick Road, the residential section of
Eastern Esplanade purpose built flats represents 35% of total frontage.
This will increase to 39% which is at odds with Policy H6 of the Local
Plan.
♦ The development does not respect or enhance the character of the area
or local amenities. The overdevelopment of the site is detrimental to the
visual amenities due to its size, design and bulk which is exacerbated on
this corner site.
♦ Residential redevelopment and conversions have helped to achieve the
Council’s objectives (currently exceeded by 34%) in recent years
however the cumulative impact of these schemes should be carefully
considered in terms of character and amenity. Already we have seen
the Borough’s townscape and in particular the seafront being brutalised
by insensitive and inappropriate design and development.
♦ letters advising of no objection provided the building is not greater than 3
storeys.
7.2. Letters of support from 165, 166 and 167 Eastern Esplanade.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The planning issues are flooding implications, character assessment, loss of a
guest house and loss of a single family dwelling house, density, design and
impact within the public realm, impact on neighbours and potential future
occupiers, access and parking implications, flood risk assessment, waste
management and planning obligations.
Flood Risk – Sequential Test
8.2. Flood risk is a material planning consideration and is relevant to this application
as the site lies within flood zone 3, the high risk zone as defined in Table D1 of
Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk and illustrated by
the Flood Zone Maps produced by the Environment Agency. The Council is
required to apply the sequential test which is a risk based approach to
determine the suitability of land for development as outlined in PPS 25. The
aim of the test is to steer new development to areas of the lowest probability of
flooding (Zone 1). Flood Zone 1 is defined as being all the land falling outside
Zones 2 and 3 (ie: land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual
probability of river or sea flooding in any year. These Flood Zones refer to the
probability of sea and river flooding only, ignoring the presence of existing
defences. The essence of PPS 25 is to avoid flood risk where possible rather
than manage and mitigate flood risk in zones with a higher probability of
flooding. The Local Plan shows that the Borough still has ‘reasonably available’
allocated sites within flood zone 1 which have been identified for housing
purposes and therefore it is considered that the current application fails the
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 6 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
sequential test within PPS 25 and therefore the principle of redevelopment of
the site for residential use is unacceptable.
Character of the Area – Policy H6
8.3. With regard to the principle of a flatted development in this location, Policy H6
of the Local Plan refers to protection of the character and amenities of
residential streets to ensure they remain attractive for single family housing
use. The policy thus seeks to limit the number of new build schemes to not
more than 10% of the total residential frontage in the street block. When a
street block is of limited length, as it is in this instance (ie: between Bryant Ave
and Lifstan Way), an assessment of the overall character of the street will be
considered. Although the site has two street frontages, the Eastern Esplanade
frontage is of most relevance in assessing the character of the locality. There
are four buildings within the application site, two which are flat conversions, one
guest house and one house. Of the four buildings to be demolished, the
application of Policy H6 is only relevant to the existing house.
8.4. In extending the scope of assessing the character of the street, the relevant
frontage is considered to be the section of Eastern Esplanade running between
Victoria Road and Warwick Road. This provides a reasonable length of the
esplanade in order to assess the prevailing character. This section of Eastern
Esplanade is approximately 1km in length and contains a mixture of
commercial and residential land uses. The commercial uses consist mainly of
hotels, guest houses, bed and breakfasts, public houses, café/restaurant and
some small retail units. The majority of development is of a residential nature
with flats (both conversions and new build) being the dominant land use. Some
of the traditional Victorian houses remain along this section of Eastern
Esplanade however several have been converted into flats, altered to other
uses such as short stay accommodation or demolished for alternative
developments.
8.5. There have already been a number of purpose built flat schemes within this
section of Eastern Esplanade as well as a number of flat conversions. Such is
the level of flatted development, according to Council records, there are only 17
houses within this 1km section of Eastern Esplanade. As such it is clear that
the 10% has been exceeded. However, it is also contended that Eastern
Esplanade is not purely a residential street given the consistent presence of
commercial activity and therefore the relevance of Policy H6 is of limited weight
in this instance. Notwithstanding that Policy H6 relates only to the loss of the
existing house and although some of the original housing stock remains, the
proportion of flats together with the commercial uses means that any character
of this section of the seafront as an area for single family dwelling use has
largely been eroded. It is therefore considered that the proposal for a new build
flat scheme per se would not materially alter the character of the area and as
such is not contrary to Policy H6 of the Borough Local Plan.
Loss of a Guest House – Policy L7
8.6. With regard to the existing guest house, Policy L7 within the Local Plan seeks
to restrict the loss of hotels and guest houses within the Visitor Accommodation
Area as defined on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The site falls within this
area. A supporting statement has been submitted with the application which
outlines the reasons why the loss of the guest house would be appropriate in
this instance. The property consists of five double rooms and one single room,
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 7 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
three of which have en-suite facilities. Current occupancy rates are reported to
be between 25-30%. The report states that the current owners have owned the
property since 2004 and that turnover for the property declined from 2005 to
2006. It goes on to state that the owners have pursued advertising and
marketing campaigns, however given limited budgets this has been
unsuccessful in improving the business. The owners have requested agents to
dispose of their interests in the property, although no evidence has been
provided to support this. In terms of planning history the property has already
been refused planning permission for conversion to a dwelling house in
February 2001. However the Council (Full Council) did allow the loss of a 22
bedroom hotel on the adjacent site for a new build flat development in October
2001.
8.7. Reports on the economic impact of tourism within Southend were produced in
2002 and 2004. These reports indicate that just over 6 million day visitors
make up the majority of tourists within Southend. With regard to staying
visitors, the trend between 2002 and 2004 was that the number increased by
13.4% or 37,900 visitors. The ‘staying visitor spend’ also increased by 30.2%
or £9.1 million over the same period. However the majority of staying visitors,
stayed with friends and relatives although this did decline from 71% in 2002 to
62% in 2004. In contrast, serviced accommodation showed an increasing trend
from 18% to 26%. While the majority of visitors to Southend are staying with
friends and relatives the trend between 2002 and 2004 indicate an increased in
the use of serviced accommodation. Although these figures point to an
increasing trend in the number of staying visitors and use of serviced
accommodation, it should be noted that no reference is made to occupancy
rates of existing facilities. Thus it does not provide a clear indication as to
whether the supply of existing accommodation catered for the increase in
staying visitors.
8.8. Although the tourism reports do not refer to occupancy rates, there have been
recent developments and planning permissions in relation to additional short
term accommodation within the locality which would suggest there is additional
demand. There has been a hotel built to the rear of the Halfway House
(Premier Inn) and construction is currently underway for the hotel on the former
gas works site (67 beds). Outline planning permission has also been granted
for Marine Plaza which includes a 100 bedroom hotel and the Palace Hotel
(144 beds) is currently being refurbished. Thus there has been a significant
increase in the level of hotel development (both existing and committed) along
the seafront. While it is recognised that not all staying visitors may want to stay
in a hotel and there is a market for alternative forms of accommodation, it is not
considered that the loss of a six bedroom guest house would undermine the
viability of short term accommodation within this location, as such it is not
considered contrary to Policy L7 of the Borough Local Plan.
Loss of a Single Family Dwelling
8.9. With respect to Policy H3 of the Local Plan, this seeks to restrict the loss of
small single family dwelling houses which are defined as having a gross floor
area of less than 125m2 as originally constructed. A calculation has been made
of the gross floor area of the building at no.167 which is approximately 140m 2
and therefore the loss of this building does not conflict with Policy H3 despite
the building being in use as a house.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 8 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Density
8.10. In relation to the density of the scheme, sustainable development principles
seek re-use of previously developed land however this should not be at the
expense of the quality of the environment. PPS 3 (Housing) recognises that
well designed schemes can lead to more efficient use of land without
compromising the local environment. The scheme proposes a density of
approximately 160 dwellings per hectare. The design quality of the scheme is
discussed in the paragraphs below.
Design and Impact within the Public Realm
8.11. In terms of context the Design and Townscape Guide states that the character
of all immediate neighbours and the wider townscape should inform the layout,
scale and design of any new development. A design solution that is
appropriate for one site is not necessarily appropriate in other areas. New
development should build on the positive aspects of local character, not usually
copy it. The general character of the area varies from two to four storeys.
Although there is a variation in the storey heights, all buildings within this
section of Eastern Esplanade are of a similar height due to the various
architectural styles which range between traditional seaside vernacular,
Victorian terraces and purpose built flat blocks. The new build flat block
immediately to the west is four storeys with the top floor set back and to the
east the building is a more traditional 2½ storeys with generous storey heights
(3 storeys at the rear). The draft Seafront Area Action Plan notes that the
character of this section of the seafront is no greater than four storeys.
8.12. Overall the design detail is considered to be of high architectural quality and
this is welcomed. The proposed inclusion of renewable energy sources (solar
panelling) is also a welcome element of this hi-spec residential development.
However previous concerns were raised with regard to the scale of the building,
particularly with respect to the fifth storey. The applicant has amended the
scheme setting the upper floor further back from the fronting building line and
removed the ‘tower’ element of the stairwell from the front elevation. This has
helped reduce the vertical scale of the building. In terms of its impact within the
streetscene, the building will appear as a four storey building, with the top floor
only being visible from long vistas, particularly from the east along the seafront.
The building will therefore be of a similar scale to the adjacent building to the
west. With respect to its relationship with development to the east, there is a
natural break in the built form due to the site being on the corner of a road
junction (Lifstan Way). This break coincides with a change in the vernacular
which reverts to more traditional seaside buildings, with the exception of
Dolphin Court. Although the vertical scale of development reduces to 2½
storeys, on balance the building is now considered to have an acceptable
contextual relationship in the streestcene of Eastern Esplanade. As the
building turns the corner, the four storey element is maintained initially,
however it then steps down to two storeys adjacent to no.7 Lifstan Way. Again,
on balance, this is considered to be acceptable within the context of the existing
development in Lifstan Way.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 9 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Impact on Neighbours
8.13. With regard to the impact on the neighbouring properties, there are no
particular concerns raised with respect to the relationship of the building with
the adjoining flat block to the west. The depth of the proposed building along
the Eastern Esplanade frontage respects the siting of the existing flat block and
the rear of the return frontage along Lifstan Way is 19.5m from the western
boundary. Thus there are no concerns raised with regard to loss of privacy
through overlooking as the rear of the adjacent site is laid out for car parking.
With regard to the rear of the section of building along the Eastern Esplanade
frontage (which includes roof terraces), this has a separation of 30m from the
northern boundary of the site and the internal layout is such that rooms facing
the rear of the site are bedrooms. While the roof terraces will provide an
outlook to the north the water views are to the south and therefore given the
separation and orientation it is not considered that this would cause material
harm to the neighbours to the north in terms of overlooking. There is also a
roof terrace on the Lifstan Road frontage associated with unit no. 24. There
are no windows in the flank wall of the adjacent property to the north and a
separation of 16.5m from the closest point of the terrace to the rear garden.
Furthermore there are existing terraces at the rear of the existing buildings thus
it is not considered that the relationship is materially worse in terms of the
potential for loss of privacy through overlooking. With regard to the neighbour
to the east, there are some windows in the flank elevation at the rear of the site,
however there is a separation of at least 20m and therefore it is not considered
the proposed building will be material harmful in terms of overlooking.
8.14. With regard to loss of daylight, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) set
out guidelines varying in complexity in terms of methods of assessing
daylighting and overshadowing. The BRE Guide identify adequate building
separation to ensure good interior daylighting using the 25 degree method and
to minimise overshadowing using the 43 degree method. The 25 degree
method is more onerous and this has been applied to the proposed
development. To assess the impact of a proposed building, a 25 degree angle
is measured at 2m above ground level from the adjacent properties. The
scheme is considered to satisfy the test with respect to the 25 degree rule. It is
therefore considered that the proposed development will not materially impact
on adequate daylight for the neighbouring properties.
Impact on Potential Future Occupiers
8.15. In relation to the impact on potential future occupiers, the size of the proposed
flats is considered particularly generous and will have the added feature of
private balconies and terraces which are welcomed. However there is no
communal amenity space proposed on site, although this is a similar situation
with the adjacent flat block. The site is within close proximity to Southchurch
Park which is approximately 100m walk. Nevertheless given the increase in the
number of residents proposed on the site and the likelihood of families being
potential future occupiers, a contribution towards the improvement of
recreational facilities in the locality is reasonable. This will be further discussed
further with respect to planning obligations.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 10 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Off Street Parking
8.16. With respect to access and off street parking, it is proposed to provide the
access onto Lifstan Way and this is considered acceptable. The scheme
includes one off street parking space per dwelling. This is considered
acceptable for such a location as the site is well served by buses as there are
stops immediately outside the site on Eastern Esplanade.
Waste Management
8.17. With respect to waste management, the proposed refuse storage area meets
the Council’s waste management guidelines.
Planning Obligations
Affordable Housing
8.18. The Core Strategy indicates that a minimum of two affordable units should be
supplied for a development containing this number of dwellings. Consultation
with Community Housing has indicated that the hi-spec nature of the scheme is
unlikely to make the scheme ‘affordable’ and therefore has agreed to an off site
four bed dwelling in lieu of two on site units. The applicant has agreed this
matter.
Public Transport
8.19. Highways have requested £10,000 for bus stop improvements adjacent to the
site. There is a desire to secure real time information and shelters for all bus
stops within Southend. The applicant has not yet agreed this matter.
Education
8.20. A request for £17,814 has been made for a contribution towards educational
facilities due to the limited availability of places, particularly at secondary level.
The applicant has not yet agreed this matter.
Leisure and Recreation
8.21. Leisure Services have recognised that there is no space for active play on the
site and therefore consider a financial contribution reasonable given the
increase pressure on public facilities in the locality. The site is in close
proximity to Southchurch Park and the beach and therefore the applicant has
offered £10,000 towards play facilities at Jubilee Beach.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 11 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.22. Despite the proposal overcome previous concerns regarding the scale and bulk
of the building, there is a fundamental issue with the principle of development
of the site with respect to flood risk as it does not satisfy the sequential test
within PPS 25.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the
following reason:
01 The Borough Local Plan still has reasonably available allocated
sites within flood zone 1 as identified on the Proposals Map and as
such the proposed development which lies within flood zone 3 fails
to satisfy the sequential test as set out in PPS 25 (Development and
Flood Risk) and therefore the principle of the development is
contrary to Policies CS1, CS2 CS4, H3 and CC2 of the Essex and
Southend Replacement Structure Plan, Policies KP1 and KP2 of
Development Plan Document 1 (Core Strategy) and PPS 25
(Development and Flood Risk).
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 12 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Chalkwell Ward
SOS/07/00820/FULM (Application for full planning permission)
DEMOLISH BUILDINGS; ERECT PART FIVE/PART SIX/PART SEVEN/PART
EIGHT/PART ELEVEN STOREY BLOCK OF 36 FLATS, FORM ENCLOSED
SWIMMING POOL TO REAR, LAY OUT BASEMENT PARKING FOR 53
CARS, FORM GYMNASIUM, CYCLE AND REFUSE STORAGE; LAY OUT
LANDSCAPING AND RESERVOIR POOL TO FRONT ELEVATION (AMENDED
PROPOSAL)
22 The Leas, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 8JB
Messrs M & O Aggarwal The Livemore Partnership
1 The Proposal
1.1. Amended application involving the development as set out below but with the
following amendments:
♦ The swimming pool at the rear has been omitted from the scheme and a
garden wall added on the northern boundary;
♦ Passive stack cooling is not practical and cooling will have to be
mechanical;
♦ Elevational changes to facilitate the structural concrete frame, since the
original building concept could not be followed as stability would be
compromised and could not be adequately justified to meet the Building
Regulations;
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 13 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
1.2. The alterations to the building as a result of the concrete frame are:
♦ Trees removed from the front boundary and extra vent grilles added at
high level to vent the car park (trees were not capable of growing in the
space envisioned);
♦ Car parking layout changed to suit concrete columns;
♦ Store/plant room added and building thus extended at basement level in
its north east corner to accommodate this, and the associated retaining
wall adjusted to suit;
♦ A sunken terrace removed on the eastern part of the basement and the
residents gym made larger, up to the retaining wall;
♦ The bin store layout has been altered (enlarged) and a lift added to the
ground floor refuse loading area;
♦ The front terraces have been moved behind the concrete columns;
♦ Photovoltaics removed (this was not a requirement of the previous
permission);
♦ Pool between this part of the site and the adjoined development at 23
will not now cascade over the edge since this would have put the car
park at risk of flooding;
♦ Windows moved slightly to allow for concrete columns;
♦ Door heads dropped to allow for concrete beam and increased floor
thickness;
♦ Floor levels adjusted to reflect site levels and concrete frame;
♦ Balcony balustrade added to lower flat on east elevation;
♦ ‘V’ column added to front elevation at entrance.
1.3. Site gross area (net) 0.33ha (0.235ha)
Height (storeys) Up to 33.5m on sloping land
(5/6/7/8/9 with basement)
Number of units 1 bed x 0
2 bed x 30
3 bed x 6
total 36
Parking spaces 53 (increase of 3 spaces over
approved scheme) = 147% but also
providing for the adjoining
development (guideline 100-150%)
Cycle parking approx 44 (increase of 8 spaces) in
basement (guideline 1/unit 1 bed,
2/unit 2 bed + 1/8 units visitors). Also
caters for adjoining development.
Amenity space 703m² formal landscape garden
including pool (423m²), courtyard
60m², reservoir pool 306m², terraces
457m². 1616m² total - 45m² per unit.
Without terraces and reservoir 21m²
per unit. (guideline 25m²).
Density 109/hectare gross
Refuse storage area shown in basement, with
collection area above and lift thereto
1.4. Full amended application for redevelopment of this vacant former home as 36
self-contained flats with an ‘L’ shaped building turning the corner of The Leas
and Grosvenor Road.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 14 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
1.5. Vehicular access will be taken from Grosvenor Road via the existing vehicular
access which would be extended, with a ramped entrance to the basement
parking area. The main pedestrian access is from the front.
1.6. The building steps up from the west, with the highest 11 storey element closer
to the front and eastern parts of the site. The buildings have flat and sloping
roofed elements, are ultra contemporary and the main building has terraces on
the front and east side, together with some smaller balconies on the east and
west elevations and at the rear within the site.
1.7. A gym would be located in the basement, at the eastern side of the main
building.
1.8. Landscaped gardens are shown to the front, with most of the flats having either
additional terraces or balconies of between 7m²–12.5m².
1.9. The previous application’s Design and Access statement has been slightly
amended to incorporate the above changes.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is located on the north side of The Leas, on the western junction of the
road with Grosvenor Road. The surrounding area is mixed in character in
terms of landuse and building form, height and age. To the north the
predominant use is residential and the land slopes up to the north, with a block
of flats known as Bellway Court immediately to the north of the site – three
storey and accommodation in the roof. To the west, the former building has
been demolished following an appeal decision and approval for flats. Beyond
that site is Admiral’s Place, a substantial multi-storey block of flats.
2.2. The previous building on the site has been demolished and groundworks have
commenced.
3 Development Plan
3.1. PPS1, PPG3, PPG13.
3.2. ESRSP Policies CS1 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, HC2 -
Conservation Areas, 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, T12 - Vehicle Parking.
3.3. BLP Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations), H1 (Housing Provision), H2 (Future Housing Needs), H5
(Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self-
Contained Flats), L7 (Retention of Hotel and Guest House Uses), EPOA
standards. Visitor Accommodation Area. West of The Leas Conservation
Area.
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide.
3.5. Adopted parking standards.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 15 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
4 Planning History (recent)
4.1. March 2007 – permission granted for identical development description to that
currently submitted but with 50 car parking spaces (SOS/06/00045/FUL).
Approved following the signing of a S106 agreement dealing with affordable
housing (off site at Palmerston Road/Station Road site), contribution towards
an improved bus service, work to the planter outside the site, provision of
public art, contribution towards education provision.
4.2. Permission granted at 23 THE LEAS on 29-3-07 for nine storey block of nine
flats linked to and utilising parking facilities beneath the development under
reference SOS/06/00045/FUL at no. 22 The Leas. (SOS/06/00897/FUL).
4.3. Current application at 23 THE LEAS Erect nine storey block of nine flats linked
to and utilising parking facilities beneath the development under reference
SOS/07/00820/FULM at no. 22 The Leas (amended proposal)
(SOS/07/00850/FULM).
5 External Consultation
5.1. Anglian Water – to be reported.
5.2. Southend Airport – to be reported.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment – do not appear to be any new issues from the highway
point of view
6.2. Environmental Health Comment – no adverse comments but request conditions
re: insulation between flats (not requested previously) and noise from amplified
music and speech being inaudible in adjoining properties. Also informative re:
permission not covering statutory nuisance.
6.3. ACS - Housing – no objection – Affordable housing already being developed.
6.4. DCL – £52,475.18 required for secondary and post 16 education places.
(Increased by £2,000 from previous application as the costs per new pupil
place and the regional multiplier have increased).
6.5. Structural engineer – full structural calculations and site investigation, including
slope stability, are needed for submission under the Building Regulations.
6.6. ACS - Leisure – any existing trees should be protected in line with British
standards. Ask for contribution towards improving facilities for public green
open space minimum £30,000(no such contribution was applied to the previous
S106). Need detailed landscaping plan and questions biodiversity re:
landscaping.
7 Publicity
7.1. Press and site notice and neighbour notification – 10 objections on the
following grounds –
♦ Loss of light and privacy
♦ Height and appearance not in keeping and higher than previous building
♦ Large density of flats will cause traffic and parking disruption
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 16 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
♦ Overdevelopment
♦ Will tower over area and is out of proportion
♦ No change to previous concerns.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The principle of redevelopment of this site has already been accepted and a
detailed scheme approved. The amended details are all that the Council can
now consider. These include the visual impact, the impact on residential
amenities and the adjoining Conservation Area and parking and refuse storage
implications.
8.2. Affordable Housing is already agreed under the previous S106 agreement to be
provided off-site – this scheme was tied to the application site and is currently
being developed. The provision at that site adequately caters for the Core
strategy level of affordable housing provision. The continued provision of the
associated site in conjunction with the development the subject of this current
application will need to be tied to a new S106 agreement.
8.3. The previous education provision was approximately £2,000 lower and whilst
there has not been a change in circumstances of the development, the way the
contribution is calculated has changed and the amount is thus increased. It is
considered to be reasonable to apply this new figure, having regard to the
alteration in the calculation, which is reasonable in terms of costs increasing
with the passage of time – this will be controlled by the new S106.
8.4. In terms of residential amenities, the changes now proposed will not impact
detrimentally. Some of what is proposed involves removal of previous features.
The remainder of the changes are in a position or of a nature that they are far
enough away from or are such a small change that residents will not be
impacted.
8.5. Regarding visual amenities, the changes made are insignificant in terms of the
overall quality of the scheme and produce an acceptable building
8.6. The design of this structure is crucial to the success of the scheme. A
satisfactory palette of materials is essential and some detail has been
submitted but no samples (despite claims to the contrary). A condition can
control this.
8.7. The proposal is still considered to preserve and even possibly enhance the
much lower-rise Conservation Area to the east.
8.8. Regarding parking, the increased provision of three spaces is considered to be
acceptable and should not encourage too much extra car-borne traffic. The
contribution towards the bus service is still required to be part of the S106
agreement due to the level of car parking provided and the desire to encourage
modal shift. Cycle parking is increased and the same comments apply as for
car parking.
8.9. In terms of public amenity space provision, this was not required under the
previous application and there are no changes in circumstances that would
warrant it now.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 17 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.10. Refuse storage is shown adjacent to the vehicular entrance. This is within a
reasonable distance of the highway. This has been amended and the
comments of the Waste Management Group are outstanding so the
acceptability of this arrangement has yet to be determined.
8.11. The area in the south eastern corner of the site was previously identified as
being the location for a piece of public art. This is unaltered and its provision
will form part of the new S106 agreement. This is also the case for the planter
to the south of the site.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended that subject to no adverse comments
regarding the refuse storage and collection arrangements to delegate for
S106 for education contribution, Affordable Housing at associated site,
bus service enhancement contribution, improvement to the planter
outside the site and provision of public art
and to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following
conditions:
01 commencement time limit
02 Materials details to be submitted
03 restriction on windows in west elevation,
04 provision of parking spaces
05 retention of parking,
06 provision and retention of cycle parking
07 refuse storage provision and retention,
08 landscaping details submitted
09 landscaping implemented,
10 levels details submitted,
11 restriction on gym and pool to residents only
12 inaudible amplified speech or music in gym,
13 air conditioning plant details to be submitted for gym,
14 details of retaining wall adjacent highway
15 full ramp details, including heating and gradient, to be submitted
and installed
16 redundant crossings to be reinstated at applicant’s expense
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 18 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Victoria Ward
SOS/07/00752/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
ERECT THREE STOREY BLOCK OF SIX SELF-CONTAINED FLATS, LAY
OUT AMENITY AREA, REFUSE STORAGE, SIX CAR PARKING SPACES
AND FORM VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO SOUTH AVENUE (AMENDED
PROPOSAL)
Land and Buildings Adjacent to 9 South Avenue, Southend-on-Sea
Colecar Holdings Ltd. ACS Design Associates Ltd
1 The Proposal
1.1. To erect a three storey block of six self-contained flats with six car parking
spaces with associated access to South Avenue, cycle parking, amenity area
and waste storage.
Site Area (Net) 0.0576 ha (576sqm)
Height 9.2 m (3 storey)
Number of Units x 1 bed
x 2 bed
Total 6 units
Parking 6 spaces (100%)
Cycle Parking Number not specified but shown on
plans
Amenity Space 125 sqm (20.8 sqm per unit)
Density 104 dwellings/ha (net)
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 19 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is a vacant industrial site located on the north side of South Avenue
close to the junction with Sutton Road.
2.2. To the east of the site is a residential property that is owned by the same
freeholder as the application site and has been divided into two flats.
2.3. To the west are the rears of residential and commercial properties that face
Sutton Road.
2.4. Opposite the site is a three storey block of flats.
2.5. The street is generally characterised by semi-detached and terraced two storey
dwellings.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies CS1 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, BE1 -
Urban Intensification, 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.
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), E4 (Industry and
Warehousing), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6
(Protecting Residential Character), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats),
T11 (Parking Standards), U5 (Access and Safety in the Built Environment).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2.
3.4. Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.
3.5. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards
4 Planning History
4.1. 2003 (SOS/03/00019/FUL) Permission was refused to demolish workshops,
erect three storey block of six flats, lay out parking and form vehicular access
onto South Avenue. The application was refused on grounds of loss of
employment land, design and massing, and loss of residential amenity.
4.2. 2004 (SOS/04/00075/FUL) Permission was refused to demolish workshops,
erect three storey block of six flats, lay out parking and form vehicular access
onto South Avenue (Amended Proposal). The application was refused on
grounds of loss of employment land, design and loss of residential amenity.
The decision was appealed and the Inspector dismissed the appeal but did not
support the Council on the reason for refusal relating to loss of employment
land, but supported reasons for refusal relating to the scale, appearance and
design and impact on the neighbouring dwelling.
5 External Consultation
5.1. Anglian Water – no response.
5.2. Environment Agency – no response.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 20 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment – no perceived adverse impact; parking, waste storage and
cycle parking all comply
6.2. Environmental Health Comment - there is potential for contamination at the site
given the previous uses, two conditions requested regarding decontamination
and waste storage.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified of application and site notice displayed – two letters
received; one in support of the application and one stating no objection but
raising concerns of security at the rear of the site
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations are the principle of redevelopment, design, impact on the
street scene, impact on neighbours, waste storage, land contamination and
parking implications, and whether the application addresses the issues raised
in the previous appeal decision.
8.2. The principle of redeveloping the site was examined at the time of the previous
applications in 2003 and 2004. The Council refused the applications due to the
loss of employment generating land, however at the appeal of the 2004
decision this reason was not supported by the Planning Inspectorate. As there
has been no change in the adopted development plans or other material
change in circumstance, it is considered that it would not be reasonable to
refuse the scheme on the ground of loss of employment land.
8.3. The Inspector objected to the scale, appearance and design of the 2004
scheme. The proposed block has been designed to fit within the street scene
taking reference from the houses in the immediate vicinity. The appearance is
in keeping with those surrounding and is a modern interpretation of the
traditional form of the nearby buildings. It is considered that the design
approach is appropriate to the location and that overall the appearance of the
scheme is acceptable. The design also includes the location of the building
and this is still close to the property at 9 South Avenue and any potential impact
on the residents will need to be considered.
8.4. It is considered that the impact on the street scene would not be detrimental;
currently the site is vacant and adds little to the appearance of the area. The
design proposed is of a similar height and bulk to the surrounding properties
and would not appear overscaled within the street. The massing is materially
less than the scheme that was considered at appeal.
8.5. The previous scheme was considered unacceptable in relation to 9 South
Avenue to the east due to overshadowing of the flank window and the fact the
building would be dominant and overbearing.
8.6. The impacts on the neighbours to the west to be considered are twofold; the
impact on light and the visual impact of the building. The proposal will result in
some loss of direct sunlight, between one hour and one hour and forty-five
minutes daily depending on the time of year. However, the ground floors of
these units are in commercial use and the area to the south of those properties
is not proposed for developing and as such the level of ambient daylight should
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 21 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
not be significantly reduced. The side wall of the proposed building would be
located 14m from the rear walls of the properties to the west and this combined
with reduction in mass of the scheme means that the impact on occupiers is
acceptable.
8.7. The impact on the property to the east is considered to be acceptable.
Following representation from the agent the status of windows in the west flank
elevation has been checked and there are no protected windows facing the
proposed development, this situation has changed since the previous appeal.
The development cannot therefore be refused on the grounds of loss of light or
outlook to the residential property. It should however also be noted that the
building has been sited further away from 9 South Avenue and the bulk
reduced.
8.8. The waste storage at the site is within four metres of the adjoining residential
property, this is not normally considered to be acceptable however no objection
was raised to the location of the waste store at the time of the previous
application due to the then use of the site and it would not be reasonable to
refuse it on these grounds. The type of development requires one wheeled
container to be provided for the storage of waste, the waste store is within 40m
of the highway as is required.
8.9. The information held by Southend Borough Council relating to the historical
uses of the site indicate that the land may be contaminated, any permission
should include the requirement for investigative work to be carried out and a
scheme of remediation agreed by the Council prior to any development taking
place.
8.10. The parking provision and layout are in accordance with the adopted EPOA
Vehicle Parking Standards and have sufficient room for turning and room to
wait and pass at the entrance to the site and so will not result in increased
hazard to vehicular and pedestrian safety.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to
the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Materials to be agreed
03 Parking to be set out in accordance with plans
04 Parking to be retained
05 Waste storage to comply with Waste Management Guide
06 Cycle storage to be retained
07 All windows in west elevation to be glazed in obscured glass at first
floor level and above
08 Redundant vehicle crossover to be reinstated to footpath at
applicant’s expense
09 Scheme of landscaping to be implemented prior to the occupation
of any of the units in accordance with details agreed in writing
10 Landscaping to be retained
11 Investigation of land for contaminants and remediate as necessary
and to the approval of the Local Planning Authority
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 22 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
St Laurence Ward
SOS/07/00774/FULM (Application for full planning permission)
DEMOLISH BUILDINGS, ERECT PART TWO/PART THREE STOREY BLOCK
COMPRISING 14 FLATS AND TWO COMMERCIAL UNITS TO GROUND
FLOOR, LAY OUT 14 PARKING SPACES, AMENITY AREAS AND REFUSE
STORE (amended proposal)
97-99 Rochford Road, Southend-on-Sea
Tower Radio Third Dimension Architectural Ltd
1 The Proposal
1.1. This application is an amended scheme for a block of flats with ground floor
commercial units, following previous refusals.
1.2. The details are as follows:
Site Area Gross (Net) 0.15ha (0.12ha)
Height up to 11.1m
No. of units 12 x 2 bed
2 x 1 bed
14 units
Parking 14 spaces (100%) for residential element (guideline
100-150%)
No commercial parking/servicing
Cycle parking none shown
Refuse storage Two locations for residential/commercial storage, at
sides of building
Amenity space 225m2 (16m2 per unit)
Density Gross (Net) 93.3dph (116.7dph) (guideline > 30dph)
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 23 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
1.3. The accompanying statement covers issues such as design and overlooking,
and asserts that the design would be sympathetic and in keeping with its
surroundings.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is located on the west side of Rochford Road. It is currently home to an
electrical/white goods store and a removals/storage business which has closed
down. It is within a secondary shopping frontage as delineated on the Borough
Local Plan proposals map, however the area is residential in character. The
site is bordered by housing development to the south and west. To the north is
a hardware store and beyond that on the corner of Feeches Road is a former
warehouse building that has been converted to a retail unit and five dwellings.
2.2. The site at No.97, the former removals/storage business, is not identified in the
local plan for future business, industry or warehousing use.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 - Urban Intensification, CS3 - Encouraging Economic
Success, H3 - Location of Residential Development, T12 - Vehicle Parking.
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential
Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (Formation of Self-Contained Flats), T8
(Traffic Management and Highway Safety).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD (submitted August 2006) EiP concluded.
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide (adopted June 2006).
3.5. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History (recent)
4.1. 97 Rochford Road: August 2005 – outline application deemed refused to
demolish existing buildings and erect two storey block comprising six flats, lay
out additional four parking spaces and amenity area (05/00834/OUT).
4.2. 97 Rochford Road: September 2005 – outline application refused to demolish
existing buildings and erect two storey block comprising six flats, lay out
additional four parking spaces and amenity area (resubmission)
(05/01128/OUT).
Reason: Overlooking of adjacent property at 93 Rochford Road.
4.3. 97 Rochford Road: July 2006 – outline application deemed refused to demolish
building, erect two storey block comprising of six flats, lay out four additional
parking spaces and amenity area (05/01561/OUT).
4.4. 97-99 Rochford Road: September 2006 – Full application refused to demolish
buildings, erect part two/part three storey block comprising 14 flats and two
commercial units to ground floor, lay out 14 parking spaces, amenity areas and
refuse store (06/00862/FUL).
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 24 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Reasons: Design, overlooking of properties to north of site (on Feeches Road),
insufficient manoeuvring space in car park, insufficient provision for storage of
refuse materials and lack of contribution towards improvement of education
facilities.
4.5. 97-99 Rochford Road: May 2007 – application withdrawn to demolish buildings,
erect part two/part three storey block comprising 14 flats and two commercial
units to ground floor, layout 14 parking spaces, amenity areas and refuse store
(07/00335/FULM).
4.6. However, refusal would have been recommended on the grounds of
overlooking properties to the north, insufficient refuse storage and a lack of
contributions towards education and affordable housing provision.
5 External Consultation
5.1. Airport Director – No safeguarding objections.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment – The highway layout drawings are still misleading (the
layby exists, so no improvements are actually being proposed). The refuse
stores appear minimal with no space for recycling – this could lead to refuse
being stored on pathways which would not be acceptable.
6.2. Director of Children and Learning – contribution of £10,179.94 required for
secondary and post-16 education.
6.3. EH Comment – to be reported
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice – three objections on the following
grounds:
♦ loss of privacy to nearby property
♦ loss of security to surrounding properties
♦ lack of off-street parking – would lead to more on-street parking
♦ current buildings on site may contain asbestos
♦ a two storey building would be more appropriate
♦ disturbance to adjacent property from car parking
♦ light pollution to nearby dwellings
7.2. A Ward Councillor has commented that the traffic density of this section of the
road is too great, the number of flats (high quality that they may be) are too
many for the site and the neighbour would be overlooked.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations with this application are whether it overcomes the previous
reasons for refusal, together with any new issues raised.
Design
8.2. The Council previously had concern over the bland design of this proposal and
its integration into the streetscene. Following discussions, negotiations have
taken place which overcome the Council’s concerns in this respect. The style
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 25 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
has been altered to appear more modern, whilst still retaining a link to the
domestic context of nearby properties, which will help the building blend into
the streetscene to a degree that it would have a harmonious relationship with
its surroundings. Resultantly there are no objections on design grounds.
Impact on nearby residents
8.3. The previous application was refused on the grounds that it would overlook the
properties to the north of the application site. A new window design has been
introduced on this application, whereby angled bays would be utilised to reduce
overlooking (the part of the bay facing the residential properties would be
obscure glazed). The footprint of the building is broadly the same as the
previous application, save for a slight projection further towards the driveway.
Overall, there are no objections on neighbour impact grounds.
Parking and traffic
8.4. The previous scheme had an unworkable parking layout. The parking has
been rearranged to overcome this. It would now allow cars to enter and exit the
car park in forward gear. There is therefore no objection on highway safety
grounds.
Refuse
8.5. Previously there was not sufficient storage for residential and commercial
refuse. On the latest set of plans the amount of storage for refuse has been
increased. There are four residential bins in two locations which means two
can be for waste as per the waste management guide, with two for recycling.
8.6. Each commercial unit now has a compartment in which to store a bin. There
are no guidelines for commercial refuse storage.
Other matters
8.7. It is recommended that the developer make a contribution towards the
improvement of local schools to cater for the increased demand that will be
placed on them from the construction of this development. The exact figure
required to offset the impact of this development is £10,179.94.
8.8. Since the refusal of the previous application, the Council’s Core Strategy has
reached an advanced stage in its progression towards adoption as a
Development Plan Document. It has been the subject of an Examination in
Public and therefore carries more weight than when the previous applications
were submitted. Policy CP8 requires all residential proposals of 10-24
dwellings to make an affordable/key worker provision of not less than two
dwelling units. As with the education contribution, the applicant should be
required to enter into an agreement to provide two (or ideally more) units
through a registered social landlord, to meet an identified need.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 26 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.9. The concerns regarding there being too many units for the site were not a
reason the scheme has been refused previously at the same density.
8.10. There are no other new issues raised by the application.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to DELEGATE to the Director to GRANT
PLANNING PERMISSION, subject to
♦ completion of a Section 106 Agreement for a minimum of two
affordable housing units and education contribution,
♦ and a contribution of £10,179.94 towards secondary and post-16
education,
the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Parking to be provided/retained
03 Cycle storage to be provided/retained
04 Refuse storage to be provided/retained
05 North facing windows only to be glazed as shown on plans
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 27 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Eastwood Park Ward
SOS/07/00919/FULM (Application for full planning permission)
DEMOLISH BUILDING, ERECT PART THREE/PART FOUR STOREY BLOCK
OF 18 FLATS WITH BASEMENT PARKING AND AMENITY AREA AND
CREATE NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSES ONTO THE RODINGS (AMENDED
PROPOSAL)
382 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 5PT
Ryga Properties Ltd Brian Davison Associates
1 The Proposal
1.1. Permission is sought for a block of 18 apartments following previous refusals.
1.2. The details are as follows:
Site Area Gross (Net) 0.16ha
Height up to 4 storey
No. of units 18
Parking 18 basement spaces + 4 visitor = 122% (guideline
100-150%)
Cycle parking not shown
Refuse storage not shown
Amenity space 838m2
Density Gross (Net) 113dpha
1.3. The accompanying statement covers issues including design, concept,
consultation, layout, form, materials and landscaping.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 28 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
2 Location and Description
2.1. A semi-derelict building with a road frontage to The Rodings, last used as a
snooker club. It is located to the north of commercial properties on Rayleigh
Road. To the west is a church, and to the north of the site is modern housing
development.
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), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway
Safety).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD (submitted August 2006) EiP concluded.
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006).
3.5. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. April 2005 – permission refused to Demolish premises, erect part two
storey/part two storey with roof accommodation block of 22 flats with basement
parking, lay out parking spaces, amenity area and alter existing vehicular
access onto The Rodings (Outline) (05/00094/OUT) - on the grounds that the
proposal would constitute overdevelopment, evidenced by the likely position of
windows and resultant overlooking.
4.2. January 2006 – permission refused to demolish premises, erect part two
storey/part three storey block of 17 flats, lay out parking spaces, amenity area
and alter existing vehicular access onto The Rodings (05/01518/OUT) – on
grounds of design, unsatisfactory parking and servicing and obtrusiveness/loss
of outlook of houses to north.
4.3. July 2006 – permission refused to demolish building, erect part two/part three
storey block of 16 flats with balustrades, lay out parking spaces, cycle storage,
amenity area and bin store and alter existing vehicular access onto The
Rodings (amended proposal) (06/00603/FUL) – on the grounds of design,
impact on properties to the south through unneighbourliness and perceived loss
of privacy.
5 External Consultation
5.1. Airport Director – to be reported.
5.2. Environment Agency – No comment.
5.3. Anglian Water – The existing sewer in The Rodings can deal with foul sewage
flows from the site. Soakaways and alternative Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SUDs) should be investigated for surface water disposal. If approved,
recommend condition that surface water drainage details be submitted to and
approved by local planning authority before development starts.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 29 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. EH Comment – to be reported.
6.2. Highway Comment – The ramp gradient should accord with SPD1 (4% for first
5m, the 8% for the rest) which it does not. The drawings do not appear to
include refuse/waste/recycling facilities nor do they appear to show any bicycle
stores. Sustainable travel contributions of £29,000 towards bus and cycle
improvements should be sought.
6.3. Children And Learning – This development falls within Edwards Hall Primary
and Eastwood Secondary catchment areas. There are sufficient primary places
within a reachable distance. All secondary schools are full and under pressure
due to high numbers throughout the Borough, additional pupil product from new
builds will put pressure on this system, either in the need for new places or to
upgrade the condition of current buildings that are oversubscribed and thus
used to a level they were not originally designed for. A contribution of
£6,786.62 is requested.
6.4. Adult and Community Services – to be reported.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification, press and site notice – representations received to date
from eight properties:
♦ overlooking of residential properties from roof garden
♦ overlooking from north facing kitchen windows
♦ no objection, but concern over noise and dirt during demolition
♦ out of keeping with the existing housing development
♦ would cause additional on-street parking in The Rodings
♦ concern over access to properties on Rayleigh Road
♦ detrimental impact to immediate community
♦ increased waste
♦ underground car park would cause noise and inconvenience
♦ possible ground movement from excavating basement
7.2. A Councillor for St Laurence Ward (the adjoining ward) has commented that
access onto The Rodings/Rayleigh Road is near a busy crossing and access to
the church and petrol station which would be dangerous. The Rodings is
congested at this point at all times of day and this will be opposite the church
car park access.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The main issues with this application are whether it overcomes the Council’s
previous concerns in relation to design and impact on nearby properties,
together with any new issues raised.
Design
8.2. This site represents a transition between the commercial thoroughfare of
Rayleigh Road and the cul-de-sac housing development to the north. The
height has increased to four storeys, although the footprint has become
shallower as it would not now extend so deep into the site (the previous was
27m deep, this is 16m deep). It is also set further back from The Rodings.
Nevertheless, it is judged that the scale and bulk of the building would appear
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 30 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
too grand and imposing on the cul-de-sac entrance, failing to recognise the
need to respect the scale and context of the housing development to the north.
The fact that the land rises from Rayleigh Road reinforces this.
8.3. The latest design, as with the earlier schemes, is of a contemporary nature.
Whilst this is not objectionable in principle, it is considered that on this site it
does not make for a satisfactory transition between Rayleigh Road and the
housing development. The contrast between the design of the proposed block
and the houses would be too stark, resulting in poor townscape. It is noted that
the existing buildings on the site are unattractive however this argument cannot
be used to sanction an otherwise unsuitable development. The proposal is
therefore unacceptable on design grounds.
Impact on nearby properties
8.4. There have been concerns with earlier proposals for this site relating to the
impact on properties to the north and south, for reasons including
obtrusiveness and (perception of) overlooking. The current proposal is largely
designed so that the flank walls contain only secondary windows, which could
be obscure glazed or high level if required to protect neighbouring resident’s
privacy, without compromising living conditions within the building. The use of
the roof as a sitting out area or garden could potentially compromise the privacy
of nearby residents, however in this case, the roof gardens have been set away
from the edges of the roof, thereby preventing direct ‘downward’ overlooking of
adjoining gardens.
8.5. Taking into account the reduction in depth of the building compared to earlier
schemes, and notwithstanding the previous comments, it is nevertheless
considered that the proposed three/four storey building would appear an
overpowering and dominant feature when viewed from nearby residential
properties north of the application site exacerbated by the angled nature of
those adjoining residences. The differences in size and height between the
buildings would be too great and the nearby residents’ enjoyment of their
properties and gardens would be compromised. A smaller development, more
in scale with its surroundings may be more acceptable.
Parking and traffic
8.6. The amount of parking proposed is numerically acceptable to serve the needs
of occupiers. However, the ramp serving the basement has a gradient of 13%
and would cause vehicles to emerge onto the highway too fast, causing a
danger to pedestrians and traffic. The gradient should not exceed 8%, with a
5m transitional zone not exceeding 4%. There is also a risk of grounding if the
ramp entrance is too steep.
8.7. In terms of the wider traffic situation, concern has been raised over the impact
of the proposal on traffic safety at the junction of Rayleigh Road/The Rodings,
although as with previous cases it is not judged that the safety of this junction
would be compromised.
Other matters
8.8. The outside areas of the development are considered ample to serve as an
amenity for residents, for the purposes of sitting out, in addition to being of
visual amenity value. It is considered that the development would provide
acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 31 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.9. No refuse and cycle storage facilities are shown but these could be provided
near the entrance to the basement.
8.10. The development, if permitted, would place additional pressure on the local
secondary schools, therefore a developer contribution would be needed to
cater for this. The figure calculated to offset the impact of this proposal is
£6,786.62 which would need to be incorporated into a Section 106 agreement.
8.11. The Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document has been the
subject of an examination in public and now carries more weight than when
previous applications on this site were submitted. All residential proposals of
10-24 units are required by Core Strategy Policy CP8 to make provision for no
fewer than two affordable housing units. Were permission to be granted, a
Section 106 agreement should first be completed to ensure that at least two
affordable units are provided on the site. The Director of Adult and Community
Services’ comments on the application will be reported in due course.
8.12. No other new issues are raised.
9 Recommendation
Subject to the comments of the airport, Members are recommended to
DELEGATE to the Director to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the
following reasons:
01 The proposed building, due to its design and scale, would not have
a satisfactory relationship with the existing development to the
north of the site, fails to recognise the importance of creating a
transition between the commercial development to the south of the
site and the residential properties to the north and would be
detrimental to the streetscene and wider visual amenity. It would
therefore be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend
Replacement Structure Plan and Policies C11 and H5 of the
Borough Local Plan.
02 The proposed building, due to its height, would be obtrusive
towards the residential properties to the north of the application
site, causing loss of amenity and loss of enjoyment of nearby
residential gardens. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
Policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan
and Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan.
03 The proposed vehicle access ramp serving the basement parking
has a gradient that is too steep and would cause vehicles to
emerge onto the highway too quickly, endangering the safety of
pedestrians and drivers. It would therefore be contrary to Policy T8
of the Borough Local Plan.
Informative: Education and sustainable travel contributions and on-site
provision of affordable housing will be sought on any revised application.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 32 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
St Laurence Ward
SOS/07/00680/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
DEMOLISH GARAGES AND ERECT 2 TWO STOREY BLOCKS TOTALLING
EIGHT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, FORM REFUSE AND CYCLE
STORE, LAY OUT AMENITY AREAS AND PARKING
Garage court adjacent 109 Alton Gardens, Southend-on-Sea
Swan Housing Group Matthews Serjeant Architects
1 The Proposal
1.1. Erection of two blocks of flats for affordable housing.
1.2. The details are as follows:
Site Area (Net) 0.0942ha
Height 8.3m, 2 storey
No. of units 8
Parking 10 spaces (125%) guideline 100-150%
Cycle parking adjacent to driveway
Refuse storage adjacent to driveway
Amenity space Approx 250m2
Density (Net) 85dpha
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is a garage court and is on the north western side of Alton Gardens.
Housing development surrounds it on three sides, with the road forming the
front boundary.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 33 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
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), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway
Safety).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD (submitted August 2006) EiP concluded.
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006).
3.5. Adopted EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. None.
5 External Consultation
5.1. Airport Director – to be reported.
5.2. Anglian Water Services – not received.
5.3. Environment Agency – unable to provide full response due to their workload -
suggest sustainable techniques used.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment – unable to provide comments at present.
6.2. EH comment – no adverse observations. Waste storage should be in
accordance with waste management guide.
6.3. Education Comment– As the application is for affordable housing, an education
contribution is not requested.
6.4. Adult and Community Services – Housing welcomes the application and is
pleased to see the site being developed by Swan.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice – representations received to date, from
four properties:
♦ design will not blend in with surrounding area
♦ loss of rear access to existing properties
♦ parking/traffic problems
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations with this application are the principle of an affordable
housing development, the design, the impact on nearby residents’ living
conditions and any parking implications.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 34 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Principle
8.2. The garages that previously stood on the site were rented out to residents in
the area. However they have been unused for some time. There is currently a
need for affordable housing due to a shortfall in the Borough. Whilst the loss of
the potential to use the garages for parking for nearby residents is an issue, it is
judged that the benefit from providing affordable housing outweighs any
negative impact from the loss of the garages.
8.3. It must be considered what may happen were the site to become available to a
developer of open market housing. The Council are prepared to accept the
loss of these garages as parking for nearby residents, but on the basis that the
site is used for affordable housing. Therefore a legal agreement under Section
106 is necessary to ensure that the site is developed for affordable housing
purposes.
Design
8.4. The proposal is for a two-storey block, which would have a good visual
relationship with the nearby two storey housing development. The original
plans showed a valley roof, however following a community consultation
exercise by the applicants, the view emerged that this roof design would be out
of context with the area. Amended plans have been submitted to show a
traditional pitched roof. There are consequently no objections on design
grounds.
Impact on nearby residents’ living conditions
8.5. The proposed building is positioned in such a way that it would not cause any
undue light loss or privacy loss to nearby properties. There would be sufficient
distance between the proposed building and existing buildings that existing
residential amenities would be preserved.
Parking, traffic and highway
8.6. The proposal would provide one space per dwelling with some spare capacity.
It is considered that this would be an adequate amount of car parking for the
development. It is unlikely that there would be any noticeable change in
highway conditions or levels of on-street parking. Cycle storage and refuse
storage have been provided at a suitable distance from the dwellings and the
highway.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 35 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Other matters
8.7. The amenity areas and landscaping around the development are considered
adequate to serve the needs of the occupiers, as well as being a visual
amenity. There is a play area at the junction of Manners Way/Alton Gardens
that would be available for children to use in addition to the space on-site.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION, subject
to the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Materials to be submitted
03 Parking to be provided and retained
04 Cycle parking to be provided and retained
05 Refuse storage to be provided and retained in accordance with
waste management guide
06 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a
scheme for the implementation and occupancy of affordable
housing within the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include:
(a) provision for at least 100% of the dwellings in the
development to be affordable housing, available to people who
cannot afford to buy or rent a house generally available on the open
market, of which 100% would take on a shared ownership form of
tenure;
(b) the timing and conditions for any transfer of land to a
registered social landlord (whether by Section 106 or otherwise);
(c) the means to be used to ensure that the affordable housing is
affordable for both initial and subsequent occupiers of it and that it
benefits those in housing need;
(d) the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity
of prospective and successive occupiers of the affordable housing
and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 36 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
St Laurence Ward
SOS/07/00681/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
DEMOLISH GARAGES AND ERECT TWO STOREY BLOCK OF SIX
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, FORM REFUSE AND CYCLE STORE, LAY
OUT AMENITY AREAS AND PARKING, RE-INSTATE PUBLIC FOOTPATH
AND FORM NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO DEREK GARDENS
Former garage court adjacent 71 Derek Gardens, Southend-on-Sea
Swan Housing Group Matthews Serjeant Architects
1 The Proposal
1.1. Erection of two storey block of six flats for affordable housing.
1.2. The details are as follows:
Site Area (Net) 0.0831ha
Height 8.3m, 2 storey
No. of units 6
Parking 8 spaces (133%) guideline 100-150%
Cycle parking at rear
Refuse storage at rear
Amenity space Approx 100m2
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site was previously a garage court and is on the western side of Derek
Gardens. Housing development surrounds it to the north, west and south.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 37 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
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), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway
Safety).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD (submitted August 2006) EiP concluded.
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006).
3.5. Adopted EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. None.
5 External Consultation
5.1. Airport Director – No safeguarding objections (re-consulted on amended plans).
5.2. Anglian Water Services – not received
5.3. Environment Agency – unable to provide full response.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment (on original plans) – waste storage should be further from
dwelling, currently only 2m from a window. No cycle store shown. Parking
generally acceptable but difficult to manoeuvre in and out of space 8.
6.2. EH comment – not received.
6.3. Education Comment– not received.
6.4. Adult and Community Services – Housing welcomes the application and is
pleased to see the site being developed by Swan.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice (re-notified of amended plans) – two
letters of objection received:
♦ parking/traffic problems
♦ loss of privacy to nearby properties
♦ too much development for the site
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations with this application are the principle of an affordable
housing development, the design, the impact on nearby residents’ living
conditions and any parking implications.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 38 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Principle
8.2. The garages that previously stood on the site were rented out to residents in
the area. However they have been unused for some time. There is currently a
need for affordable housing due to a shortfall in the Borough. Whilst the loss of
the potential to use the garages for parking for nearby residents is an issue, it is
judged that the benefit from providing affordable housing outweighs any
negative impact from the loss of the garages.
8.3. It must be considered what may happen were the site to become available to a
developer of open market housing. The Council are prepared to accept the
loss of these garages as parking for nearby residents, but on the basis that the
site is used for affordable housing. Therefore a legal agreement under Section
106 is necessary to ensure that the site is developed for affordable housing
purposes.
Design
8.4. The proposal is for a two-storey block, which would have a good visual
relationship with the nearby two storey housing development. The original
plans showed a valley roof, however following a community consultation
exercise by the applicants, the view emerged that this roof design would be out
of context with the area. Amended plans have been submitted to show a
traditional pitched roof. There are consequently no objections on design
grounds.
Impact on nearby residents’ living conditions
8.5. The proposed building is positioned in such a way that it would not cause any
undue light loss or privacy loss to nearby properties. There would be sufficient
distance between the proposed building and existing buildings that existing
residential amenities would be preserved.
Parking, traffic and highway
8.6. The proposal would provide one space per dwelling with some spare capacity.
It is considered that this would be an adequate amount of car parking for the
development. It is unlikely that there would be any noticeable change in
highway conditions or levels of on-street parking. Cycle storage and refuse
storage have now been provided at a suitable distance from the dwellings.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 39 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Other matters
8.7. The amenity areas and landscaping around the development are considered
adequate to serve the needs of the occupiers, as well as being a visual
amenity. There is a play area at the junction of Manners Way/Alton Gardens
that would be available for children to use in addition to the space on-site.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION, subject
to the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Materials to be submitted
03 Parking to be provided and retained
04 Cycle parking to be provided and retained
05 Refuse storage to be provided and retained in accordance with
waste management guide
06 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a
scheme for the implementation and occupancy of affordable
housing within the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include:
(a) provision for at least 100% of the dwellings in the
development to be affordable housing, available to people who
cannot afford to buy or rent a house generally available on the open
market, of which 100% would take on a shared ownership form of
tenure;
(b) the timing and conditions for any transfer of land to a
registered social landlord (whether by Section 106 or otherwise);
(c) the means to be used to ensure that the affordable housing
is affordable for both initial and subsequent occupiers of it and that
it benefits those in housing need;
(d) the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the
identity of prospective and successive occupiers of the affordable
housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be
enforced.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 40 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
St Laurence Ward
SOS/07/00678/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
DEMOLISH GARAGES AND ERECT 5 TWO STOREY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS, FORM REFUSE AND CYCLE STORES AND LAY OUT
AMENITY AREAS AND PARKING
Garage court adjacent 63 Alton Gardens, Southend-on-Sea
Swan Housing Group Matthews Serjeant Architects
1 The Proposal
1.1. Erection of five houses for affordable housing.
1.2. The details are as follows:
Site Area (Net) 0.0778ha
Height 7.8m, 2 storey
No. of units 5
Parking 7 spaces (140%) guideline 100-150%
Cycle parking n/a
Refuse storage n/a
Amenity space Approx 50m2 per dwelling
Density (Net) 64dpha
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is a garage court and is on the north western side of Alton Gardens.
Housing development surrounds it on three sides, with the road forming the
front boundary. Flats are to the north east.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 41 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
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), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway
Safety).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD (submitted August 2006) EiP concluded.
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006).
3.5. Adopted EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. None.
5 External Consultation
5.1. Airport Director – No safeguarding objections.
5.2. Anglian Water Services – not received.
5.3. Environment Agency – unable to provide full response due to workload -
suggest sustainable construction techniques used.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment – not received.
6.2. EH comment – not received.
6.3. Education Comment– not received
6.4. Adult and Community Services – Housing welcomes the application and is
pleased to see the site being developed by Swan.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice – representations received from two
properties:
♦ design will not blend in with surrounding area
♦ overlooking nearby properties
♦ loss of light to nearby properties
♦ pleased to see houses being built on the plot, but concern over boundary
treatment with neighbouring properties
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations with this application are the principle of an affordable
housing development, the design, the impact on nearby residents’ living
conditions and parking implications.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 42 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Principle
8.2. The garages that previously stood on the site were rented out to residents in
the area. However they have been unused for some time. There is currently a
need for affordable housing due to a shortfall in the Borough. Whilst the loss of
the potential to use the garages for parking for nearby residents is an issue, it is
judged that the benefit from providing affordable housing outweighs any
negative impact from the loss of the garages.
8.3. It must be considered what may happen were the site to become available to a
developer of open market housing. The Council are prepared to accept the
loss of these garages as parking for nearby residents, but on the basis that the
site is used for affordable housing. Therefore a legal agreement under Section
106 is necessary to ensure that the site is developed for affordable housing
purposes.
Design
8.4. The proposal is for two-storey houses, which would have a good visual
relationship with the nearby two storey housing development. There are
consequently no objections on design grounds.
Impact on nearby residents’ living conditions
8.5. The proposed building is positioned in such a way that it would not cause any
undue light loss or privacy loss to nearby properties. There would be sufficient
distance between the proposed building and existing buildings that existing
residential amenities would be preserved. There is a side window in 196
Rochford Road that faces the development. It has not been possible to
establish what this window serves. However, the removal of the garages and
their replacement with houses further away from no.196 would improve the
amenity of that dwelling, therefore no objections on neighbour impact grounds.
Parking, traffic and highway
8.6. The proposal would provide one space per dwelling with some spare capacity.
It is considered that this would be an adequate amount of car parking for the
development. It is unlikely that there would be any noticeable change in
highway conditions or levels of on-street parking.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 43 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Other matters
8.7. The amenity areas and landscaping around the development are considered
adequate to serve the needs of the occupiers, as well as being a visual
amenity. There is a play area at the junction of Manners Way/Alton Gardens
that would be available for children to use in addition to the space on-site.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION, subject
to the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Materials to be submitted
03 Parking to be provided and retained
04 Cycle parking to be provided and retained
05 Refuse storage to be provided and retained in accordance with
waste management guide
06 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a
scheme for the implementation and occupancy of affordable
housing within the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include:
(a) provision for at least 100% of the dwellings in the
development to be affordable housing, available to people who
cannot afford to buy or rent a house generally available on the open
market, of which 100% would take on a shared ownership form of
tenure;
(b) the timing and conditions for any transfer of land to a
registered social landlord (whether by Section 106 or otherwise);
(c) the means to be used to ensure that the affordable housing is
affordable for both initial and subsequent occupiers of it and that it
benefits those in housing need;
(d) the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity
of prospective and successive occupiers of the affordable housing
and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 44 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Leigh Ward
SOS/07/00695/FUL (Application for planning permission)
USE PART OF RETAIL SHOP (CLASS A1) AS CAFÉ (CLASS A3) ERECT
SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION, ALTER SIDE ELEVATIONS AND INSTALL
DECK TO SIDE AND LAY OUT TABLE AND CHAIRS
42 Broadway, Leigh-on-Sea SS9 1AS
Lizard Bars Ltd Graham Jolley
1 The Proposal
1.1. The amended application is for full planning permission for a change of use for
the rear part (only) of the ground floor into a ‘Café Lounge’ (Class A3) in
addition to a single storey rear extension incorporating an external staircase
with brick wall to the southern boundary. Also proposed is an alteration to the
side (Victoria Ave) elevation to incorporate alfresco dining. The proposal will
also see the formation of an upper floor single bedroom staff flat and office to
the rear (a flat and workshop exist)
1.2. The proposal no longer includes the ground and first floor restaurant and bar
previously envisaged in SOS/06/00548/FUL and accordingly, the applicant
considers that the intensity is now reduced to an acceptable level.
1.3. Specifically, the proposal retains the ground floor A1 shop area fronting the
Broadway with the café to the rear with access and alfresco dining on Victoria
Road. In total, the applicant claims that the Café will cater for no more than 40
patrons, 10 of which will be outdoors. To the rear of the Cafe is a kitchen,
storage and toilet facility and bin store.
1.4. No off street parking is proposed. The applicant feels that parking provision is
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 45 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
not required given the sustainable location of the site in an established town
centre.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The application property is a part single/part two storey corner property located
on the south side of Broadway at the junction with Victoria Road. The wider
locality along Broadway is an established shopping area consisting of a mix of
A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 commercial uses on the ground floor with residential
and/or offices above.
2.2. The site is currently used as an upholstery shop comprising of retail fronting the
Broadway with storage and workshop to the rear fronting Victoria Road and
ancillary first floor accommodation.
2.3. Victoria Road is a predominantly residential street made up of Victorian styled
two storey semi-detached homes all of which contribute to an established street
scene/character. Despite this, the application property fronting Victoria Road is
somewhat dilapidated and does not contribute to the character of the locality.
2.4. The site lies within Leigh Cliff Conservation Area.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Plan Policies BE1 - Urban Intensification, HC2 - Conservation Areas,
TCR3 - Town Centres.
3.2. BLP Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), S5 (Non-
Retail Uses) and T11 (Parking Standards).
3.3. Southend-on-sea Design and Townscape Guide (SOSD&TG).
3.4. Adopted EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.
3.5. Primary Shopping Frontage.
4 Planning History
4.1. July 2006 SOS/06/00548/FUL – Use retail shop (Class A1) and workshop as
restaurant/bar (class A3), erect side and rear extension, alter side and front
elevations, erect infill extension to front and install deck to side and layout
tables and chairs and install extract flue to rear. Refused at Committee 26th
July 2006. Reasons for refusal related to the undesirable proportion of frontage
in non-retail use, detrimental to the variety, vitality and viability of the primary
shopping centre; increased parking demand; and external seating detrimental
to residential amenity.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 46 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
5 External Consultation
5.1. Leigh Town Council – Oppose on grounds of:
♦ Noise issues arising from the decked area,
♦ Inappropriate design in the Conservation Area,
♦ Traffic and parking,
♦ Proximity of the refuse store to neighbouring residents
♦ Already too many A3 or similar uses within the Broadway.
5.2. Leigh Society – Object on grounds of:
♦ A3 uses encroaching into A1 uses
♦ Overdevelopment
♦ Noise and disturbance from outdoor seating
♦ Exacerbate traffic and parking
♦ Unsympathetic design in conservation area.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Environmental Health – No response received.
6.2. Traffic and Transport – No objection.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified of application – 27 objections received on grounds of:
♦ Noise issues arising from the decked area,
♦ Inappropriate design in the Conservation Area,
♦ Traffic and parking,
♦ Proximity of the refuse store to neighbouring residents
♦ Already too many A3 or similar uses within the Broadway.
♦ Overbearing nature of the single storey extensions
♦ Enforcing the restrictive conditions relating to noise and operating times
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations are whether the amended application overcomes the
previous reasons for refusal.
Loss of retail frontage along the Broadway
8.2. In keeping with Planning Policy S5 of the BLP the amended proposal maintains
the retail use fronting the Broadway. Moreover, the works will also revitalise the
existing A1 premises making the site more economically viable. Accordingly,
the proposal is considered in keeping with the aims of the policy an d this
aspect of the refusal is considered to be overcome.
8.3. The proposal site is located entirely within the Primary Shopping Frontage
including the Victoria Road Frontage.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 47 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Parking and Traffic intensification
8.4. The adopted vehicle Parking Standards states that for an A3 use, a maximum
of one space per 5m² is required however a lower provision may be appropriate
in town centres where there is good access to alternative forms of transport and
existing parking facilities. The requirements for each use on site are as follows:
♦ A3 use of approx 130m²* @ one per 5m² = 26 spaces required;
♦ C3 ‘flat’ @ one per dwelling = one space required;
♦ B1 Office use of 14m²* @ one per 30m² = one space required.
In total 28 spaces are theoretically required.
8.5. The previously refused application for only A3 use @ 281m²* required 56
spaces.
8.6. The proposal is in a location where parking is a major issue for surrounding
resident’s evident in the level of response to public notification and site visits.
On the other hand, the location of the proposal is also in a well established
town centre and forms part of a primary shopping frontage with good access to
public bus stops (well within 100m however the nearest train stations
(Chalkwell) is over 1km walk).
8.7. With the above in mind, the applicant states that the restaurant would not serve
alcohol which members of the public have taken to suggest that the proposal
would in theory facilitate, if not promote, patrons driving to and from the location
therefore having a negative affect on local parking provision. Contrary however
is the argument that if the locality has already reached saturation point in terms
of parking then by virtue of the fact that there is no remaining parking
opportunities in the locality, no additional impact will result from the proposal
along Victoria Road. Moreover, were the site capable of accommodating the
required number of car parks outlined in the Parking Standards, this would
simply promote private car use which in turn would place additional stress on
the surrounding transport infrastructure. Accordingly, as the northern section of
the Victoria Road is captured within the Primary Shopping Frontage, the
proposal is considered acceptable considering it would not exacerbate the
existing parking problems within the locality.
Impact on neighbours
8.8. With regard to the previous application, members concluded that the outdoor
seating area would have a detrimental impact on surrounding residents by
virtue of the noise generated by patrons on site as well as leaving the site.
Moreover, it was felt that the proximity of the outdoor dining was positioned too
close to adjoining residents.
8.9. The amended scheme shows that the outdoor dining area will be obscured by
the kitchen/store area and any further noise will be further alleviated by the 9m
side boundary isolation gap. The distance from the outdoor dining area to the
nearest residential property over the street is in excess of 15m. The applicant
also states that no alcohol will be served on the premises, which can be
controlled through licensing and secondly, that the outdoor area could be
closed at 8pm outdoors for any use and 9pm internally. Accordingly, the
combined affect of these conditions and licence restrictions are considered
adequate to alleviate any foreseeable issues arising from the use of the
property as a cafe. A further condition can also be imposed restricting the use
of amplified music or speech.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 48 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.10. In response to issues raised by residents, these conditions are enforceable
considering that future food and hygiene licences can be removed through
enforcement at a later date should the applicant not adhere to the conditions.
The removal of these licences would in turn result in the cessation of the cafe
use.
8.11. The proposal does not contain specific information on the proposed mechanical
ventilation and filtration associated with the kitchen. Accordingly, any approval
will be subject to the condition that ventilation and filtration systems are in
accordance with councils requirements negating any foreseeable impacts
arising from the cafe use.
8.12. In view of the above the proposal in conjunction with reasonable and relevant
conditions would have a minimal impact on the amenity of surrounding
neighbours. Moreover, the proposal is not considered to encroach into the
residential section of Victoria Road as the entire property, including the Victoria
Road frontage forms part of the primary shopping frontage.
Other matters
8.13. Concerns have been raised in relation to the impact of the proposed use
encouraging anti-social behaviour. It is considered that the approval of a café
would not result in anti-social behaviour. Restricting the hours of use along with
the restriction on the use of the outdoor dining area will minimise any possibility
of adverse impacts from anti-social behaviour on surrounding residents. The
proposal will also not be serving/selling alcohol on the property negating the
possibility of alcohol induced anti-social behaviour. As stated above, the
combined affect of the conditions imposed will largely negate all the issues
raised in the objection letters from surrounding residents.
8.14. The proposed alterations to the building façade and the opening up of the use
onto Victoria Road are also considered to result in a more attractive and
congruent building in relation to the aims of the Conservation Area than that of
the existing building. The proposal will enhance the Conservation Area and will
activate a currently underutilised site with an unsympathetic façade, to an
active and attractive café which would provide greater passive surveillance for
surrounding residents and add to the vitality and viability of the area.
8.15. However, it is considered necessary to have the existing face brick of the rear
of the property to be rendered white to be more in keeping with the rendered
Victorian properties of Victoria Road.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 49 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.16. The proposed side and rear extensions, due to their small scale will have no
impact on the street scene or surrounding residents in terms of overshadowing
or overbearing.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to
the following conditions:
01 Start within three years
02 Material samples to be submitted before development starts
03 Refuse storage arrangements to be approved
04 No activities involving amplified speech/music
05 Details of ventilation equipment to be submitted prior to installation
06 Opening hours to be restricted to between 11am and 9pm
07 Outdoor dinning area not to be used as smoking shelter at any time
and restricted to between 11am and 8pm
08 Unloading hours restricted to between 0700 and 2300 hrs Sunday to
Saturday
09 No alcohol to be consumed on site anytime.
10 Use not to begin prior to cycle storage being provided.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 50 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Milton Ward
SOS/07/00739/FUL (APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION)
ERECT PART SINGLE/PART TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION FORM
BALCONIES AT FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS AND FORM ADDITIONAL
TWO SELF-CONTAINED FLATS AND LAY OUT PARKING ON FORECOURT
10 Preston Road, Westcliff-on-Sea
Central Builders Merchants Ltd Stone Me Designs Consultants
1 The Proposal
1.1. The proposal is to erect part single part two storey extensions at the rear of the
property and form balconies at first and second floors replacing what was a fire
escape. Balconies would be formed on proposed flat roof areas. Two
additional flats are also proposed in addition to the three existing flats with two
parking spaces on the forecourt.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The application site is a two storey detached property with rooms in the roof
purpose built as flats in 1923.
2.2. The character of the area is mainly residential with many flat conversions which
form the dominant housing type in the street.
2.3. The street suffers from parking stress due to the number of flats and location
near the train station however the application property does not currently have
any off street parking spaces.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 51 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 - Urban Intensification, CS4 – Sustainable New
Development, H2 – Housing Development – The Sequential Approach, H3 –
Location of Residential Development, H4 – Development Form of New
Residential Development, T6 – Cycling and Walking, T12 – Vehicle Parking
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extension and Alterations), H1 (Housing
Provision), H2 (Future Housing Needs), 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), T13 (Cycling and Walking), U2 (Pollution Control), U5
(Access and Safety in the Built Environment).
3.3. EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001).
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide (2006).
3.5. Waste Management Guide (2006).
4 Planning History
4.1. 2006 - 39 Preston Road Application to convert a dwelling house into four self-
contained flats was refused. This application was dismissed at appeal due to
the visual impact of hardsurfacing the whole front garden combined with loss of
street trees and consequent impact on the character of the area. The Inspector
was not convinced of a proven need for additional flats (SOS/06/00592/FUL).
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Traffic Comment – No provision has been shown for waste storage at the site
and due to the number of flats container collection is required for the site and
also a recycling bag storage area. No cycle storage has been proposed.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified and site notice posted, eight responses received objecting
to the proposal on the following grounds:
♦ There is an excessive number of these type of properties in the area with
any additional flats put more pressure on local resources
♦ The street suffers from parking stress and this will only make the
situation worse as a total of 10 parking spaces should be required for the
five flats
♦ The extension will detract from the character of the building
♦ The extra refuse will mean more rubbish on the street
♦ Loss of light
♦ Loss of security
♦ Loss of larger sized flats for families
♦ Loss of forecourt garden area to parking
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 52 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
♦ The fire escape to the rear is used as a means of accessing the garden
and because it is metal this makes a lot of noise which disturbs the
neighbours
7.2. A Ward Councillor has vetoed the application on the grounds that two more
flats in an already overpopulated road will cause additional parking stress
contributed by commuter parking.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The main considerations with the application is the principle of the
development, impacts upon the neighbours, design and impact on the
streetscene, parking implications, private amenity space, standard of internal
living accommodation and refuse collection.
8.2. The property is already purpose built flats and therefore the principle of
additional flats on the site is acceptable.
8.3. The design of the proposed extensions are considered to be on balance,
acceptable.
8.4. Although the neighbours may experience a slight increase in activity this is not
considered to materially harm the amenities of neighbouring residential
properties.
8.5. The room sizes for the flats are considered to be acceptable and the amenity in
terms of outlook and light is appropriate. The bedroom of the first floor one
bedroom flat is located directly below the kitchen of the second floor flat which
may result in some disturbance between units. However, this is not considered
in itself to warrant refusal.
8.6. Turning to the impact on neighbours. In relation to 12 Preston Road it is
proposed to extend at ground floor level an additional 1.7m top the rear which
in total will be 5.2m beyond the main rear wall of the neighbour set in 1m from
the boundary. It is proposed to have a balcony on top of this which will mean
that the extension will increase the impact of the extension. It is considered on
balance that the depth and height of the extension is excessive in relation to 12
Preston Road which is further exacerbated by the location of the property to the
north of the application site causing loss of light.
8.7. In relation to 8 Preston Road the extension will project 3.2m at first floor and
4.7m at ground floor in relation to the main rear wall of this neighbour directly
on the boundary. The depth of both the ground and first floor extensions are
considered to be excessive in relation to the neighbour and will be an obtrusive
and overpowering feature.
8.8. The proposed balconies at first and second floor are set in 1m from the
boundary and with obscure glazing it is considered that an unacceptable
degree of overlooking would result. Whilst this could be addressed by the use
of screens, the screens would increase the physical impact of the extension so
this is not an acceptable solution.
8.9. The new windows at first and second floor facing the rear will be a minimum of
16m from the boundary which is considered sufficient to prevent overlooking.
No new windows are proposed to the side elevations.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 53 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.10. Preston Road does suffer from severe parking stress due to the number of flats
in the street and the location near to Hamlet Court Road shops and Chalkwell
Station. Two parking spaces have been proposed on the forecourt for the two
additional flats. An application at 39 Preston Road for flats was refused and
supported at appeal. That proposal was to use the whole of the forecourt as
hard standing which was in streetscene terms unacceptable. This proposal is
to convert a portion of the forecourt to hardstanding and with some additional
soft landscaping it is not considered that this will detract from the street. The
existing property has no provision for off street parking and therefore the two
parking spaces proposed to serve the additional two flats is considered
acceptable.
8.11. Cycle parking should be provided for all new development (regardless of type
or size) that is safe, secure, weatherproof and convenient. There is no cycle
parking provision for the proposed flats however with the accessibility to the
area at the rear of the property it is considered that this could be conditioned.
8.12. No refuse storage area has been shown however there is sufficient room in the
amenity area at the rear for this that is within 30m of the highway and 5m from
the dwelling in accordance with the Waste Management Strategy.
8.13. The rear garden area will only be directly accessible from the ground floor flats
however the other flats can access this area by the side of the property, and
there are also roof terraces. The rear garden area measures 200m2 which is
considered sufficient to meet the need of the flats.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the
following reasons:
01 The proposed extensions by reason of their height, rearward
projection and proximity to the boundary would result in an
unacceptable loss of light and appear dominant and obtrusive in
relation to neighbouring dwellings to the detriment of residential
amenity. Furthermore the wealth of balconies would lead to an
unacceptable degree of overlooking. The proposals are therefore
contrary to Policies C11 and H5 of the BLP and BE1 of the ESRSP.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 54 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Westborough Ward
SOS/07/00841/FUL (Application for planning permission)
DEMOLISH BUNGALOW AND ERECT PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED CHALET
BUNGALOWS, LAY OUT HARDSTANDING AND FORM VEHICULAR
ACCESSES ONTO GLENWOOD AVENUE
83 Glenwood Avenue Westcliff-on-Sea
R Malanga D K Building Design
1 The Proposal
1.1. The proposal is to demolish the existing two bedroom bungalow to be replaced
with a pair of semi-detached bungalows with accommodation in the roof served
by a dormer window to the front and box dormer to the rear. Onsite parking is
proposed and a turning facility to front for a car each.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The property is a dilapidated bungalow which suffers from significant neglect
both internally and externally and currently detrimental to the street scene for
this reason. The rear of the property is completely overgrown and inaccessible.
2.2. The property is located on Glenwood Avenue which is a Grade II classified
road.
2.3. The wider locality is predominantly residential made up of varying housing
designs and sizes.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 55 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
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), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway
Safety) T11 (Parking Standards).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD (submitted August 2006) EiP concluded
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006)
3.5. Adopted EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards
4 Planning History
4.1. None
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highway Comment – concern that parking limited to two spaces. Cars need to
park in positions shown. Needs to be barrier to ensure footpath is not driven
over.
6.2. Environmental Health – No comment.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice – representations received from two
properties:
♦ Glenwood Avenue is a classified road and there should be the ability to
turn the vehicle around within the confines of the property.
♦ Only one vehicle per site proposed which is below the standard
requirement of 1.5 cars per dwelling (EPOA Standard).
♦ If the application is approved this would set a precedent for other
properties to be purchased and left empty and be allowed to fall into
disrepair in the hope of getting planning permission to build more homes
on the site.
♦ A Councillor is concerned about Glenwood Avenue being a classified
road, a bus route or a blue light route - parking arrangements must not
be ambiguous and there should not be reversing - welcomes the
development otherwise.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations with this application are the principle, the design and impact
on street scene, the impact on neighbours, and any parking implications.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 56 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Principle, Design and impact on street scene
8.2. The proposal is to replace the existing bungalow with a pair of semidetached
dormer bungalows. The footprint of the pair appears to be largely similar to the
existing structure with a frontage of 10m and as such is considered acceptable
in comparison to surrounding housing size.
8.3. The proposed façade incorporates bay windows with recessed doors which is a
common design feature within the locality. Moreover, the upper floor dormers
are modest in scale, set in from the side walls, above the eaves and below the
roof hip with matching window design to that of the ground floor. The rear box
dormers are also of modest size and relate to features of the ground floor. As
such and by virtue of the fact that the proposal replicates some of the design
features of the existing bungalow, the proposal is considered to be in keeping
with the design of the locality and of a size conducive to the urban grain of the
residential street.
8.4. The proposed rear amenity space of 64m² per dwelling is relatively small in
comparison to surrounding properties however the amenity areas and
landscaping around the development are considered adequate to serve the
needs of the occupiers of a two bedroomed house.
Impact on neighbours
8.5. The proposed building is positioned in such a way that it would not cause any
undue light loss or privacy loss to nearby properties. There would be sufficient
distance between the proposed building and neighbouring ones that existing
residential amenities would be preserved. There are no side windows
proposed.
8.6. In order to incorporate the amended forecourt parking and turning area the
proposal extends beyond neighbouring properties by approximately 0.8m.
Considering the size of neighbouring properties and the small proportion of the
rear projection, the proposal will not have a significant detrimental effect of
neighbouring properties.
8.7. There are side facing windows within number 85 however the proposal will not
result in any net loss of light or outlook over the existing situation.
Parking, traffic and highway
8.8. The original scheme did not incorporate a vehicle manoeuvring area which is
required as Glenwood Avenue is a classified road. An amended scheme was
subsequently submitted with manoeuvring area which is accepted by Highways.
8.9. The proposal provides one space per dwelling. It is considered that this would
be an adequate amount of car parking for the development of a two bedroomed
dwellings. As the existing property has no off street parking provision there
would be no theoretical change in highway conditions or levels of on-street
parking as a result of this development.
8.10. It is recommended that boundary treatment to the front of the property be
conditioned in order to reflect the concerns raised by Highways. Moreover, the
future boundary treatment would also assist in hiding some of the forecourt
parking area to the benefit of the street scene.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 57 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Other matters
8.11. The accusation that this development would set precedent for other developers
to deliberately allow similar properties to become dilapidated in order to
facilitate development, or that the application has been recommended for
approval simply because it is an improvement over the existing situation are
unfounded. The fact that the property is in a state of disrepair is not a material
consideration and the application has been assessed on its own merits against
the relevant planning policies outlined above.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to DELEGATE to the Director to GRANT
PLANNING PERMISSION, subject to the expiry of neighbour re-notification
and the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Materials to be submitted
03 Boundary treatment details to be submitted. Agreed details
implemented and retained.
04 Parking to be provided and retained
05 Refuse storage to be provided and retained in accordance with
waste management guide
06 Permitted Development restrictions
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 58 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Milton Ward
SOS/06/00992/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)
CHANGE USE OF GROUND FLOOR SHOP (CLASS A1) TO SELF-
CONTAINED FLAT (CLASS C3) USE FIRST FLOOR AS SELF-CONTAINED
FLAT AND ALTER ELEVATIONS
49 Queens Road, Southend on Sea
Mr Mohammed G MCCarthy
1 The Proposal
1.1. Planning permission is sought to change the use of the ground floor shop
(Class A1) into one 2 bedroom self-contained flat (Class C3) and use the first
floor as one 2 bedroom self-contained flat. This application varies from that
approved in April 2006 (SOS/06/00270/FUL) in that it is no longer proposed to
erect a single storey rear extension.
1.2. A new entrance door would be formed on the front elevation of the building with
a lobby area and two separate internal entrance doors, one to the ground floor
flat and one to the first floor flat.
1.3. Alterations to the front elevation would comprise of the removal of the shopfront
and formation of a new bay window to match to the first floor level.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The application site comprises a two storey mid-terraced property located along
the south side of Queens Road within a mixed use area. The building forms
one planning unit and was formerly used as a shop/residential on the ground
floor and residential at first floor - the unit is currently vacant. The building has
a bay window at first floor level and a two storey outrigger projecting from the
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 59 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
rear elevation. This part of Queens Road had double yellow lines prohibiting on
street parking and the site has no off street parking provision.
2.2. A vacant site is opposite the application site and was formerly used as one of
the South East Essex College buildings but the buildings have since been
demolished, the site used as an unmade car park. To the east and west of the
site forms the adjoining terrace which is mainly residential in use apart from one
unit at the western end of the terrace which is commercial. To the south of the
site are residential properties.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies CS1 – Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, BE1 –
Urban Intensification, H4 – Development Form of New Residential
Development, T11 – Traffic Management, T12 – Vehicle Parking.
3.2. BLP Policies C7 (Shop and Commercial Frontages and Fascias), C11 (New
Buildings, Extension and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout
Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H7 (Formation of Self-
Contained Flats), H13 (Queens Road Area), S4 (Retail Markets), T8 (Traffic
Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), U5 (Access and
Safety in the Built Environment).
3.3. Design and Townscape Guide.
3.4. EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001).
4 Planning History
4.1. 2006 – Planning permission approved to change the use of the ground floor
shop to a self contained flat and use the first floor as a self contained flat with
alterations to the front elevation and a single storey rear extension
(SOS/06/00270/FUL).
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Traffic Comment – No comment.
6.2. Environmental Health Comment – No comment.
7 Publicity
7.1. A Councillor has raised concerns regarding the need to ensure decent living
accommodation is provided, together with off street parking or provision of a
parking permit for street or car park parking.
7.2. Site Notice and Neighbourhood Notification – No responses received at the
time of writing. Any responses will be reported.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 60 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8 Appraisal
8.1. The principle of the conversion to flats and loss of the commercial use, design
implications and impact upon the streetscene, access and parking constraints,
amenity space provision, and refuse storage were accepted as part of the 2006
application (SOS/06/00270/FUL), and therefore the main issues to be
considered are the quality of the revised living accommodation and impacts on
the neighbouring properties.
8.2. The loss of the extension results principally in the loss of an internal courtyard
and the standard of internal living accommodation remains satisfactory and
raises no objections.
8.3. The site has no off street parking but is located to close to the town centre
where there are sustainable transport links. The additional unit of
accommodation is not considered to give rise to a significant increase in
parking demand and in fact a residential use would result in less parking
demand than the existing commercial use. It was for this reason that no
objections are raised to the application in terms of access and parking. In
terms of a condition to require the occupants to have a parking pass, in view of
the scale and type of development it is not considered reasonable to require
such a condition.
8.4. For the reasons above it is considered that the proposed changes are
acceptable subject to imposition of the same conditions as the previous
permission.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to
the following conditions:
01 Start within three years
02 Materials to match existing
03 No meter boxes to be installed on front elevation
04 Refuse storage arrangements to be approved
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 61 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
West Leigh Ward
SOS/07/00875/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
ERECT TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION
4 Canvey Road, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 2NN
Mr & Mrs D Redman Mr D Booth
1 The Proposal
1.1. Two storey extension to the rear to enlarge the kitchen and first floor bedrooms.
1.2. The accompanying design statement mentions that the approach chosen is to
replicate the existing form and that the existing rooms are too small to allow
them to be adequately utilised.
2 Location and Description
2.1. A semi-detached property located in Chapmanslord Conservation Area. The
adjacent property, no.6, has only secondary light source windows in its flank
wall.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policy BE1 - Urban Intensification.
3.2. BLP Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD (submitted August 2006) EiP concluded.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 62 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
3.4. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006).
3.5. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. 1968 – permission for garage
5 External Consultation
5.1. Leigh Society – Object: Detriment to amenity of neighbouring property, daylight
and sunlight. Occupiers may wish to use front garden for parking following
removal of garage.
5.2. Leigh Town Council – Oppose: Damages symmetry of buildings,
5.3. Chapmanslord Residents Association – not received.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. None.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification – two objections received:
♦ contrary to Conservation Area appraisal
♦ detrimental impact on the architectural and historical layout and area as
a whole
♦ loss of parking given over to the enlargement of a current four bedroom
property
7.2. A Ward Councillor has commented that this will have an impact on the
streetscene, be out of character with the Garden City concept, be seen from
the street and be overdevelopment.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The main issues with this application are the design, impact on the character of
the Chapmanslord Conservation Area and the impact on residents’ living
conditions.
8.2. The Character Appraisal for Chapmanslord Conservation Area identifies the
importance of maintaining and improving the appearance of the front aspect of
properties and the gaps between houses that are important to the streetscene.
It does not imply any preclusion of rear extensions to properties. The extension
of this property rearward, using the same roof design and increasing in terms of
design and scale, would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of
this property or the character of the wider Conservation Area. The plan shows
materials to match the existing building. As such, there are no design
objections to this proposal.
8.3. Turning to the impact on neighbours’ living conditions, the extension of this
property would be sited sufficiently distant from neighbouring properties that it
would not unduly restrict light to or outlook from those properties. There are no
objections to this proposal on neighbour impact grounds.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 63 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.4. On the issue of parking that objectors mention, it is not considered that the
modest enlargement of the dwelling would materially alter the demand for
parking in the area.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to
the following condition:
01 Commence within three years
Thorpe Ward
SOS/07/00976/FUL (APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION)
ERECT PART SINGLE/PART TWO STOREY/PART FIRST FLOOR SIDE AND
REAR EXTENSION WITH BALCONY AT REAR (AMENDED PROPOSAL)
26 Parkanaur Avenue, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 3HY
Mr and Mrs G Plant Architecture BDA
1 The Proposal
1.1. This is an amended application to erect a part single/part two storey/part first
floor side and rear extension with a balcony at the rear. The previous
application was for a two storey side extension and was refused on the grounds
of design and impact on the neighbouring property number 28 Parkanaur
Avenue.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 64 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
2 Location and Description
2.1. The application property is a two storey detached property on the eastern side
of Parkanaur Avenue.
2.2. The neighbouring property adjacent to the extension does not have any
protected windows in the flanking wall.
2.3. The street is not characterised by two storey extensions directly on the
boundary however there is one example of this which is at number 17 which is
at the end of the road adjacent to the rear yard of 87 Burges Road and
therefore terracing will not occur. The other properties in the street have
generous gaps.
2.4. There is only one other example within the streetscene of a two storey side
extension which sits directly on the boundary, that being no. 17. However it is
adjacent to the rear garden of no 87 Burges Road and so terracing has not
occurred.
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), Design and Townscape Guide.
4 Planning History
4.1. 16th November 2006 plans sent in with a two storey side extension without a
separation to the boundary and it was suggested in a letter dated the 2nd
January 2007 that this was unacceptable in principle given that this was not a
character of the street.
4.2. March 2007 application to erect a two storey side extension subject of this
amendment was refused on the grounds of design and the impact on number
28 Parkanaur in terms of being obtrusiveness and overbearing.
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. None undertaken.
7 Publicity
7.1. A Ward Councillor has concerns about whether this is overdevelopment.
7.2. No response received at the time of writing. Any additional responses will be
reported.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations are design and impact on street scene and impact on the
neighbours.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 65 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.2. Parkanaur Avenue is typified by large detached properties with generous gaps
between the dwellings. In terms of the impact in the streetscene the proposed
extensions will not be excessive in size in relation to the other properties and at
first floor level the building has been set in one metre from the boundary. From
the front the design is considered appropriate drawing reference from existing
features and is subservient to the original property. From the rear a more
contemporary approach has been taken which is considered to integrate
effectively with the property.
8.3. The proposed extension will project directly on the boundary at ground floor
level from the front of the property and extends 2m beyond the main rear wall
of number 28 Parkanaur. At first floor level this will project 5.5m beyond the
neighbour set in 1m from the boundary. The neighbouring property 28
Parkanaur does not have any habitable windows in the wall flanking the
proposed extension however there are protected windows at ground and first
floor levels at the rear. The proposed extension will compromise the 45º angle
and therefore the depth and proximity to the boundary of the extension is
considered to be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbour. Furthermore,
the application property is located to the south of the neighbour and therefore in
addition to the obtrusiveness of the extension there will also be considerable
loss of light.
8.4. The applicant has been requested to reduce the depth of the first floor
extension by 2m to resolve these concerns and if this is done prior to
committee then there would be no reason to object to the scheme.
8.5. The proposed balcony is sited to the side of the two storey projection and would
be located 6m from the side boundary of number 24 Parkanaur Avenue,
obscured by the proposed extensions from number 28 Parkanaur Avenue and
sited 27m from the rear boundary. Provided a screen is erected on the
southern side of the balcony this is considered to be sufficient to prevent
against overlooking of the neighbouring properties.
8.6. The glass bricks in the side elevation located directly on the boundary would
not allow overlooking. The windows at first floor are set in 1m from the
boundary and can be obscure glazed.
9 Recommendation
Subject to receipt of revised plans reducing the depth of the extension by
2m at first floor level Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING
PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
01 Start within three years
02 Submission of materials
03 Erection of obscure glazed screen on south side of balcony
04 No additional window sin side elevations.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 66 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Thorpe Ward
SOS/07/00994/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
ERECT PART FIRST FLOOR/PART TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION
31 Colbert Avenue, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 3BH
Dr V K George Welton Bremner Partnership
1 The Proposal
1.1. To erect a two storey extension and first floor extension above an existing
single storey projection.
1.2. The two storey extension is 4.4m in depth but only projects 0.6m beyond the
existing rear building line.
1.3. The proposed extensions have hipped roof at a pitch to match the original
dwellinghouse.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The application site is a detached dwellinghouse that has previously been
extended. The house has a large rear garden to the north and the front
elevation faces south to Colbert Avenue.
2.2. To the east is number 29 Colbert Avenue, this is a detached dwellinghouse that
projects approximately 3m beyond the rear building line of number 31.
2.3. To the west number 33 projects in excess of 3m beyond the existing rear
building line of number 31, there are windows in the flank wall but they do not
serve habitable rooms and are not protected.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 67 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
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).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2.
3.4. Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.
3.5. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. 1983 - planning permission granted to erect two storey rear extension and
single storey side extension.
5 External Consultation
5.1. Environment Agency – property is in Flood Zone 3 and the Agency’s standing
advice applies, a simple flood risk assessment should be submitted as part of
the application
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. None undertaken.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified of application, no responses at the time of writing. Any
response will be reported to Members.
7.2. A Ward Councillor has expressed concerns about possible overdevelopment at
the site.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The main issues to be considered are design and impact on neighbours.
8.2. The scale of the proposed extensions is such that they will not project beyond
the rear building lines of either of the adjoining properties and so will not be
dominant or intrusive. The use of matching materials and roof pitches ensures
that visually the extensions will complement the original house. The extensions
will not be visible from the street and due to the mature boundary planting at
the rear will also not be clearly visible from the golf course. It is considered that
the design and visual impact of the extensions are acceptable. The adjacent
property, no 33, has a side window at first floor, however, this is not a
secondary and habitable window.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 68 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.3. With regard to overdevelopment the extensions would provide an additional
bedroom at first floor and additional living area at ground floor, this would not
result in a significant increase in the level of activity at the site. The amount of
land being used for the extension in comparison to the amount of land available
at the site is negligible and the modest increase in the footprint of the building is
not considered to be overdevelopment.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to DELEGATE TO GRANT PLANNING
PERMISSION subject to the receipt of an acceptable flood risk
assessment and the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Materials to match existing
Southchurch Ward
SOS/07/00903/LBC (Application for Listed Building Consent)
REPLACE WOODEN SHINGLE WITH CLAY TILES (LISTED BUILDING
CONSENT)
3 and 4 Fox Hall Cottages, Fox Hall, Lane, Southend-on-Sea
The Garon Trust Mr P Richards IHBC
This application should be read in conjunction with SOS/07/00901/FUL
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 69 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
1 The Proposal
1.1. To replace the existing cedar shingles with pain clay tiles.
1.2. The applicant has also submitted an application for full planning permission.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is a Grade II listed timber framed building dating from C14 with
alterations and additions carried out throughout the C15 and C16. The
property was previously two houses but has been converted back into one
residential unit.
2.2. The site is located in close proximity for the Essex Golf Complex headquarters
and clubhouse, the property is surrounded by the golf course.
3 Development Plan
3.1. Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic environment
3.2. ESRSP Policies HC3 - Protection of Listed Buildings, BE1 - Urban
Intensification.
3.3. BLP Policies C2 (Historic Buildings), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations).
3.4. Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The
Environment and Urban Renaissance).
3.5. Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.
4 Planning History
4.1. There is a full planning application being considered in conjunction with this
application.
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. None undertaken.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified of application, site notice displayed and press notice
published. At the time of writing no responses have been received but the
publicity period has not expired, any responses will be reported to Members.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The consideration is the impact on the character and appearance of the Listed
Building.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 70 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.2. PPG15 advises that all Listed Building Consent applications should be
considered in terms of the importance of the building, the features that justified
the building’s inclusion on the list, the building’s setting and whether any
community value would accrue from the works.
8.3. The building is one of three original timber framed buildings within the Borough
and while not of national importance is of significant local importance as so few
of the original buildings in this area remain. This is the reason for the inclusion
on the list as well as there being some very specific medieval features within
the building such as vaulted ceilings and circular bracing, the roof while
mentioned within the listing documents is not of specific importance, although
the beams supporting it have been dated to C14. The application does not
interfere with any of the internal timber structures and will not alter the specific
character of the building.
8.4. The building’s setting is not one that bears much consideration, the grounds
and buildings that would have been associated with a dwelling of high status
are no longer in evidence and the construction of the clubhouse for the Essex
Golf Complex means that there is no specific historic setting to preserve. As
the development is in private use no community benefits would accrue.
8.5. The suitability of the materials proposed has been questioned in terms of their
historic context and the loss of the only shingle roof in the Borough. The
character of this building is not defined by its roof and the use of tiles would not
detract from the overall appearance or historical and architectural significance
of the structure. Clay tiles can be manufactured in a number of shades and
should it be considered that a muted or darker shade of tile would be more
suitable to this structure then this can be achieved through the use of
conditions. The age of the building and the architectural history of buildings in
this area makes it unlikely that wooden shingle would have been the traditional
material to be used as these were generally confined to specific ecclesiastical
buildings and were not used on domestic dwellings, even high status ones. It is
considered that the proposed materials will not detract from the character and
appearance of this Grade II Listed Building and will reinstate materials that are
more contextually correct to the age and style of the building.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
subject to the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Material samples to be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 71 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Southchurch Ward
SOS/07/00901/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
REPLACE WOODEN SHINGLE WITH CLAY TILES
3 and 4 Fox Hall Cottages, Fox Hall Lane, Southend-on-Sea
The Garon Trust Mr P Richards IHBC
This application should be read in conjunction with SOS/07/00903/LBC
1 The Proposal
1.1. To replace the existing cedar shingles with pain clay tiles.
1.2. The applicant has stated that the roof is in a poor state of repair and that this is
contributing to water damage at the premises.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is a Grade II listed timber framed building dating from C14 with
alterations and additions carried out throughout the C15 and C16. The
property was previously two houses but has been combined back into one
residential unit.
2.2. The site is located in close proximity for the Essex Golf Complex headquarters
and clubhouse, the property is surrounded by the golf course.
3 Development Plan
3.1. Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic environment
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 72 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
3.2. ESRSP Policies HC3 (Protection of Listed Buildings), BE1 (Urban
Intensification).
3.3. BLP Policies C2 (Historic Buildings), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and
Alterations).
3.4. Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The
Environment and Urban Renaissance).
3.5. Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.
4 Planning History
4.1. There is a Listed Building Consent application that is being considered in
parallel with this full application.
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. None undertaken
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified of application and site notice displayed, at the time of
writing the publicity period had not expired, Members will be informed of any
responses.
7.2. A Ward Councillor expresses concerns regarding loss of the only example of
wooden shingle roofing in the Borough and requests that the application be
determined at development Control Committee.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations are the suitability of the materials, impact on the listed
building and consideration of protected species.
8.2. The suitability of the materials proposed is a matter of some debate. The
original listing in the 1970s and the revised description of 1992 both refer to
plain clay tiles. An application in 1996 refers to cedar shingles on the roof but it
is uncertain when they were installed. It is unclear whether the listing
description is inaccurate or whether the property has been re-roofed without
consent having been granted. The roof is currently cedar shingle but there is
no evidence that this would have been the case historically, originally the roof
would possibly have been constructed of thatch and this would have replaced
by clay tiles being as they are the dominant roofing material historically found in
this area of the country. The agent has submitted a detailed statement that
supports the view that the use of cedar shingles is not historically accurate to
the style or age of the building. Given this it is considered that the proposed
material is appropriate to the building.
8.3. The loss of the only cedar shingle roof in the Borough has been raised as a
concern; however there is evidence that this type of roofing was used only for
churches past the C14 and so retention of cedar shingles on a large domestic
dwelling would not be historically accurate.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 73 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.4. The proposed tiles would be significantly heavier than the existing shingles.
This has been raised with the agent who carried out a survey of the property
prior to submitting the application and is confident that there are no structural
issues arising from the change in materials. Due to the change in the roof
weighting it is likely that Building Regulations approval will be necessary for the
work and an informative to this effect should be attached to any permission in
order to further protect the property.
8.5. A survey has been submitted as part of the planning application that confirms
that there is no presence of bats at the property and so no issue of impact on
protected species.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to
the following conditions:
01 Commence within three years
02 Material samples to be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority
Informative – Works may require Building Regulations consent
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 74 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
Milton Ward
SOS/07/00969/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
DEMOLISH REAR EXTENSION, ERECT SINGLE STOREY REAR
EXTENSION CONVERT PREMISES INTO TWO SELF-CONTAINED FLATS
AND ALTER ELEVATIONS
70 Park Street, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 7PA
L G Building Contractors Ltd. G Horrigan
1 The Proposal
1.1. To convert a vacant retail unit and its associated first floor to form two self-
contained flats.
1.2. The proposal includes one parking space at the rear accessed from Queens
Road. There is waste storage proposed adjacent to the highway.
1.3. Each of the flats would have separate accesses, the ground floor flat being
accessed from Queens Road and the first floor flat from Park Street.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site comprises a vacant retail unit with associated office and workshop at
first floor, there is a parking area at the rear. There are two entrances to the
site, on the corner of Park Street and Queens Road is the main entrance to the
retail unit and there is a separate entrance on Queens Road. The site is within
the Queens Road Policy Area.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 75 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
2.2. At the rear (east) of the site is an electricity substation. Beyond this are
residential properties.
2.3. To the south of the site is a converted shop for which permission was granted
in 1986.
2.4. To the north of the site is Queens Road; on the northern corner of Queens
Road and Park Street are two other conversions from retail to residential.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies CS1 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, BE1 -
Urban Intensification, H2 - Housing Development - The Sequential Approach,
H3 - Location of Residential Development, T12 - Vehicle Parking.
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential
Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H7
(Formation of Self-Contained Flats), H13 (Queens Road Area, Southend-on-
Sea), T11 (Parking Standards).
3.3. Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2.
3.4. Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide
3.5. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. In 1987 permission was granted to form a vehicular access to Queens Road.
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Highways Comment – parking area not sufficient to accommodate two cars.
6.2. Environmental Health Comment – no comment.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified of application, at the time of writing the publicity period had
not expired, any responses will be reported to Members.
7.2. A Ward Councillor has expressed concerns regarding the parking provision and
the number of property conversions within the area. Another Councillor has
expressed concerns over parking and waste storage.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations are the principle of the conversion, amenity space, design,
impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking implications.
8.2. The proposed conversion complies with Policy H13 that deals solely with this
area of Southend; it states that “Proposals to provide residential
accommodation either by redevelopment or conversion of existing commercial
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 76 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
properties will normally be supported by the Borough Council...” The proposal
does not conflict with Policy H6 as the property was not previously a
dwellinghouse but in commercial use. It is therefore considered that there are
no policy objections to the principle of conversion of the commercial property to
a residential use.
8.3. There is no amenity space provided as part of the application despite there
being an area 36m2 at the rear of the site. When the area of the single parking
space is deducted from that there is 19m 2 remaining but the inclusion of an
extension at ground floor has resulted in no useable amenity space being
provided at the site. The lack of amenity space is considered to be
unacceptable especially when viewed in conjunction with limited access to
public open space from this location.
8.4. The only external alterations to the property are the construction of a single
storey rear extension to house the bathroom of the ground floor unit and the
alteration to the shop front to form solid construction walls with domestic style
windows to match the first floor. The new frontage to Park Street has been
designed to continue with the pitched roof from the adjoining property and to
use the same style windows as the first floor. It is considered that the proposal
will be visually acceptable and will complement development immediately
adjacent. The single storey rear extension although minimal in size results in a
loss of amenity space and its inclusion as part of the scheme is indicative of
overdevelopment as the proposal cannot be contained within the existing
building envelope.
8.5. The impact on the street scene will be minimal, the site is currently vacant and
is the only remaining retail unit on the junction of Queens Road and Park
Street. The proposal includes the installation of a low boundary fence to the
front of the property that will strengthen the residential look of the property and
link it visually with the residential properties within the street. It is considered
that the site as it is adds little to the street scene and the proposal respects the
style and character of the building and will not detract from the overall street
scene if approved.
8.6. It is not proposed for there to be any windows in the south facing flank wall and
so no overlooking to the adjoining property will be created. There is a single
storey rear extension but this is of a small scale and is set away from the
boundary, it is considered that this will not have a detrimental effect on the
amenity of the adjoining property to the south. The windows in the rear wall at
first floor level will be obscure glazed as it serves a bathroom and so there will
be no overlooking created to the east. It is considered that the impact on
neighbours will acceptable.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 77 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
8.7. The parking area at the rear is only sufficient in size for one car to be parked;
this does however mean that there is sufficient space for bicycles to be stored
here. The parking at 50% is not ideal as there is a high level of parking stress
within the area, however the site is also in walking distance of bus and train
services as it is approximately 0.75 km (0.46 miles) from Southend Central
Station and significantly closer to bus services along London Road. It is
considered that the site is a sustainable location and that the parking provision
of 50% can be justified.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the
following reason:
01 The proposed development, due to its cramped nature and lack of
amenity space, would result in an unacceptable standard of
environment for future occupants and is contrary to Policy BE1 of
the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan and Policies
H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan.
Southchurch Ward
SOS/07/00965/FUL (Application for full planning permission)
INSTALL WINDOW TO EAST ELEVATION AT FIRST FLOOR LEVEL
158 Southchurch Boulevard, Southend-on-Sea, SS2 4UY
The Abbeyfield Southend Society Ltd Sorrell Chartered Surveyors
1 The Proposal
1.1. To install a window measuring 1.2m in width and 1.2m in height in the east
elevation of the building facing Fortescue Chase.
1.2. The proposed window is a secondary window to a bedroom, the original
window faces south.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The site is a residential care facility for elderly people located on the corner of
Fortescue Chase and Southchurch Boulevard.
2.2. The area is predominantly residential comprising detached dwellings of varying
sizes.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policy BE1 - Urban Intensification.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 78 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential
Design and Layout Considerations)
3.3. Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2.
3.4. Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide
4 Planning History
4.1. Various applications at the site, none directly relevant.
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. None undertaken.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbours notified of application, no responses had been received at the time
of writing. Any responses will be reported to Members.
7.2. A Ward Councillor has vetoed the application as the window is not obscure
glazed.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations are design and impact on neighbours.
8.2. The size and design of the window are in keeping with the overall character and
appearance of the property and its installation would not be detrimental to the
building.
8.3. The window looks out over Fortescue Chase, it is normally the case that
windows in the front elevations of properties do not have the same level of
privacy and protection as windows at the rear as they are already within the
public realm. In this case the proposed window will be 21m from the nearest
wall of the closest residential property. It is considered that there is no loss of
privacy to neighbours or any overlooking created by the window and that it
would therefore be unreasonable and unnecessary to require it to be obscure
glazed.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to
the following condition:
01 Commence within three years
º
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 79 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
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.
9a253f70-d146-415d-8575-051a56e534b9.doc Page 80 of 80 Report No: DETE07/085 - FINAL
