Get documents about "_Attachment 2_Report of Director of Technical - Southend-on-Sea
Document Sample
Agenda
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Item
Report of the Director of Technical &
Environmental Services
to
Development Control Committee
On
28th May 2003
Report prepared by : Planning Officers
Report on Planning Applications
An Open Agenda Item
INTRODUCTION
(i) Recommendations in capitals at the end of each report are those of the Director of
Technical and Environmental Services, 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
DEFRA - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DELL - Director of Education & Lifelong Learning
DLCAS - Director of Leisure Culture & Amenity Services
DSC - Director of Social Care
DTLR - Department of Transport Local Government & The Regions
EA - Environment Agency
EPOA - Essex Planning Officers Association
ESRSP - Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan
ODPM - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
PPG - Planning Policy Guidance Note
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 1 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
CONTENTS
SOS/03/00084/FUL Land and buildings rear of 225 Hadleigh Road and adjacent 100 3
Herschell Road, Leigh on Sea
SOS/03/00211/FUL 173 Highlands Boulevard, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 3TJ 5
SOS/03/00252/FUL 8 Withypool, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea, SS3 8BH 6
SOS/03/00329/FUL 17 Merilies Gardens, Westcliff on Sea, SS0 0AB 8
SOS/03/00370/FUL Crowstone St Georges United Reformed Church, Kings Road, 10
Westcliff on Sea
SOS/03/00411/ADV Thorpedene GM Junior and Infant Schools, Delaware Road, 13
Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea, SS3 9NP
SOS/03/00422/FUL 17 The Renown, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea 14
SOS/03/00425/TPO Never Never Land, Western Esplanade, Southend on Sea 17
SOS/03/00453/FUL 37-41 High Street, Southend on Sea 19
SOS/03/00516/FUL 67 Herschell Road, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 2PU 22
SOS/03/00556/BC3 St Helens RC Primary School, North Road, Westcliff on Sea, 23
SS0 7AH
PRE-MEETING SITE VISITS
SOS/02/01564/OUT 37 St Augustines Avenue, Southend-on-Sea SV2
SOS/03/00253/TPO 27 Bolney Drive, Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea SV5
SOS/03/002265/FUL 277 Eastwood Road, North, Leigh-on-Sea SV7
SOS/03/00416/FUL Thorpe Bay Station, Station Road, Southend-on-Sea SV11
SOS/03/00457/FUL Part of Former Keddies Building, High Street & Maitland House, SV14
Chichester Road, Southend-on-Sea
SOS/03/00491/BC3 Bournes Green Infant School, Ladram Road, Southend-on-Sea SV25
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 2 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
West Leigh Ward
SOS/03/00084/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission
DEMOLISH GARAGE BLOCK, ERECT DETACHED BUNGALOW AND LAY OUT PARKING
Land and buildings rear of 225 Hadleigh Road and adjacent 100 Herschell Road, Leigh on Sea
G Sanders Ron Hudson Designs
1 The Proposal
1.1. This is a full application for the removal of garages from the site and the erection of a detached,
one bedroomed bungalow.
1.2. The proposal will have an amenity area of approximately 100m² and vehicular access and
parking space fronting onto Herschell Road. The site has an existing link to Hadleigh Road
which is proposed to be closed should approval be forthcoming.
1.3. The application follows a previous refusal for a two bedroom bungalow and detached garage.
2 Location and Description
2.1. A residual backland plot set in the apex of a triangle formed by the merger of Hadleigh and
Herschell Roads, it is overgrown and approximately 1m lower than nearby property fronting
Hadleigh Road, which at its closest is only 8m away. The east end of the site is occupied by a
block of four garages that appear unused for a significant period of time. Access to the site is by
footpath from Hadleigh Road or vehicle access (overgrown) from Herschell Road.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies – BE1 – Urban Intensification.
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations), H10 (Backland Development), Appendix 4.
3.3. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. 1998 – Permission Refused for construction of a two bedroom bungalow (SOS/98/1050/FUL) for
the following reason:
01 The proposal is contrary to Policy H10 of the Borough Local Plan in respect of backland
development as it would be detrimental to the amenities of the area and of adjoining
residential properties which are located in close proximity to the site, particularly having
regard to the dominance of the proposed bungalow when viewed from adjoining
properties and unacceptable levels of privacy and peace afforded to the bungalow,
creating a poor environment for occupiers.
4.2. 1988 – Refusal and dismissal of appeal to demolish garage and erect one detached bungalow
(SOS/88/0755) on an adjoining site immediately to the south east. The Inspector commented as
follows:
4.2.1. "In respect of privacy, I am satisfied that a single storey building sited on slightly lower ground
need not result in loss of privacy to adjoining gardens. Views from the site upwards towards the
windows of adjoining dwellings would have some adverse effect due to the short distances
involved, but due to the angle of view are unlikely to be unduly intrusive. The site would
however, be significantly overlooked itself.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 3 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
4.2.2. While there is no right of view across other persons land, change to outlook can be a significant
consideration. In my view the screen walls or fences necessary to secure privacy to the
proposed plot, together with the height and bulk of even a shallow pitched bungalow roof, would
have adverse effects upon the relatively open outlook from the adjoining flats. This would be a
significantly harmful feature.
4.2.3. Taking all these matters into consideration, it is my conclusion on the main issue that there
would be undue harm to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of adjoining flats and an unduly
poor environment for occupiers of the proposed dwelling."
5 External Consultation
5.1. Leigh on Sea Town Council – No objection.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Design Comment – The proposed design is unimaginative but will have no public impact.
6.2. Highway Comment – No objections.
7 Publicity
7.1. Site Notice and Neighbour notification – seven objections received from local residents
highlighting grounds of objection to include the potential for overlooking, loss of amenity to
gardens, disruption from vehicles in access road and a general sense of overcrowding were
development to go ahead.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The considerations are design, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking
implications. The application follows from the 1998 refused application with the revision to the
proposal to include a one bedroom bungalow in place of the previously applied for two bedroom
property. In consideration of this application the planning history is relevant, combined with any
material changes in circumstances that have occurred subsequent to the 1998 application.
8.2. As per the 1998 application, it is accepted that the principle of residential development at this
site is not in conflict with the Borough Local Plan in terms of being within a wider residential area.
The site is not dissimilar to other permitted backland developments, a recent approval of a
bungalow at the rear of 5 Briarwood Drive, Leigh-on-Sea (SOS/02/00262/FUL) has been cited as
an example although this was screened by existing trees.
8.3. It is considered that there are potential benefits for the location should this scheme be allowed,
these being; the removal of the four garages would reduce the potential activity of the site in
terms of vehicle movements and the site would be maintained in an appropriate manner. The
site is overgrown and has been allowed to deteriorate in this respect since planning permission
was refused in 1998.
8.4. However, whilst it is accepted that the applicant has reduced the bedrooms to one, the footprint
of the bungalow remains only marginally altered to allow for accordance with BLP Guidelines,
thus any resultant visual implications are similar to those of the refused scheme. On this basis
the comments raised on the 1998 application are considered to apply, that is the relationship of
the proposed bungalow to adjoining properties would produce an unacceptable outlook for
neighbours, a poor environment for new residents, and a cramped form of development
designed solely to reflect the constraints of the site.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 4 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
8.5. It is accepted that the proposed bungalow meets the adopted policy requirements of the local
plan in terms of separation to dwellings and provision of private amenity space and car parking.
It would also provide the benefit of the closure of the access into Hadleigh Road and its reuse as
car parking in conjunction with existing flats. However, there has been no material change in
circumstances following the previous refusal. Whilst the use of the site for housing would
remove untidy site problems, it is considered that the resultant relationship would be of detriment
to the amenities of existing properties and any subsequent occupants of the proposed dwelling.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following
reason:
01 The proposal is unacceptable backland development as it would be detrimental to
the amenities of the area and of adjoining residential properties which are located
in close proximity to the site, particularly having regard to the dominance of the
proposed bungalow when viewed from adjoining properties and unacceptable
levels of privacy and peace afforded to the bungalow, creating a poor
environment for occupiers, contrary to policies BE1 of the Essex and Southend
Replacement Structure Plan and H5 and H10 of the Borough Local Plan.
West Leigh Ward
SOS/03/00211/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)
ERECT SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION
173 Highlands Boulevard, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 3TJ
Mr & Mrs S J Castle
1 The Proposal
1.1 The proposed development is a single storey side extension to measure 8m deep x 1.9m wide x
3.4m high and would be situated on the boundary with Adalia Crescent. The proposed materials
are clay roof tiles and pebbledash to match the existing property. The extension would project
1.5m beyond the rear building line of the property.
1.2 The proposed side extension has a partly tiled, partly glazed pitched roof and would provide a
ground floor shower room and conservatory.
2 Location and Description
2.1 The property is a semi-detached house situated on the corner of Highlands Boulevard and
Adalia Crescent. It is pebble dashed and has a tiled pitched roof.
2.2 The neighbour to the rear is situated 23m from the application property and the neighbour on the
other corner of Adalia Crescent is 14m away.
3 Development Plan
3.1 ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification.
3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations), Appendix 4.
3.3 EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1 None.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 5 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
5 External Consultation
5.1 Leigh Town Council – Oppose: Overdevelopment. Takes entire width of property to the
boundary of Adalia Crescent.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1 Design Comment – No objection.
7 Publicity
7.1 Neighbour notification – No replies received.
8 Appraisal
8.1 The considerations are design, impact on the street scene and impact on neighbours.
8.2 The extension incorporates a pitched roof which is welcomed, and there is no objection to the
design of the extension itself. Leigh Town Council have objected to the side extension being
built up to the boundary with Adalia Crescent, but this is not considered to be of detriment to the
street scene or visual amenities given the open character of the neighbourhood and generous
isolation spaces involved. There is not considered to be any detrimental impact on the street
scene from the proposal, particularly as the extension is set back significantly from the main
front wall of the house.
8.3 There would not be any significant impact on neighbours from the proposal given the significant
separation to dwellings. The neighbouring property to the rear is 23m away from the application
property and the neighbour on the other side of Adalia Crescent is 14m distant. The extension
would project 1.5m beyond the rear wall of the attached property but this is significantly distant
from the property to the north to not have any impact. As such the extension would not impinge
on the amenities of any adjoining residential neighbours.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following
conditions:
01 Commence within five years (C001)
02 No windows in south east facing side elevation (CIML)
03 Materials to match existing (CEAM)
West Shoebury Ward
SOS/03/00252/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)
ERECT TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION
8 Withypool, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea, SS3 8BH
Mr T Sheda New World Designs
1 The Proposal
1.1. The application proposes the erection of a two storey front extension. At ground floor level it
would form an extended lounge and extended hall entrance to the property. At first floor level a
new bedroom would be formed with an extension to an existing bedroom.
1.2. The front extension would project 2.14m from the front main wall of the bedroom to be extended
and the lounge. The canopy roof and dormer would extend 3m from the front main wall. The
total width of the front extension would be 6.73m and the total height 7m.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 6 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
1.3. The alterations would result in the formation a dormer window in the front elevation and extend
the existing gable end nearer the highway. A canopy would be formed over the front entrance of
the property below the dormer window. The brickwork and concrete roof tiles would match the
existing.
2 Location and Description
2.1. A detached property located in a small cul de sac in a residential area. The property is brick built
with a Tudor style design and has a chimney stack on the northern elevation. The property is
situated amongst houses of similar design and size. The dwelling has a double garage and
enough space for a further two off street parking spaces on the driveway.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification.
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations) and Appendix 4 – Design and Layout Guidelines for Housing.
4 Planning History
4.1. September 2002 – Permission refused to erect two-storey front extension
(SOS/02/00836/FUL). Refused for reasons relating to bulk, unattractiveness and poor
design which would be out of character with the existing building, in the streetscene and
detrimental to visual amenities and its unneighbourly relationship
5 Internal Consultation
5.1. Design Comment – A significant improvement. No further objections. Materials to match
existing.
5.2. Highway Comment – No objections.
6 Publicity
6.1. Neighbour notification – six letters of objection from four different addresses to the proposal on
the grounds of:
Development is unsightly and out of keeping
Loss of frontage
Affect line of sight of vehicles coming and going from the close
Problems involving drainage and water supplies
Increased parking congestion in the area
Narrow road and lack of room to pass
Over development of the site
Development would be too close to the highway
Overlooking
Out of character, poor design
Increased traffic
Concerns over the aesthetic look of the Close
Loss of soft landscaping
Loss of outlook
Extension dominant in streetscene
7 Appraisal
7.1. The main issues to be considered are design and impact on streetscene, effect upon the
amenities of the neighbours and whether the development overcomes previous reasons for
refusal. Other issues are raised in repsentations.
7.2. The amended application for the extension shows a scheme which is more in keeping with the
existing building and has a much improved design. It has been reduced in size and in particular
depth, which has lessened the impact on the streetscene, and is now considered visually
acceptable.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 7 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
7.3. It is not felt that the first floor bedroom at the front of the property would not give rise to
significant overlooking of the property to the west as the window to window distance between the
properties would now be 17m. BLP guidelines do not relate to and are not normally applied to
front window to window distances. The isolation distance between the properties is now
considered acceptable. Therefore the amended plan has addressed the second reason for
refusal on the previous application regarding unneighbourly relationship the neighbours.
7.4. There have been a number of objections in response to the application. One relates to potential
over-development of the site, but the extended property will be similar in size and character to
those in the cul de sac.
7.5. The properties to the east of the site have a private thoroughfare providing access to the
neighbours‟ driveways, which is not part of the public highway. There is no forward visibility
problem, therefore the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety.
7.6. A neighbour has also commented that the garage is in use as a games/fitness room.
Notwithstanding this development involves an increase from 5-6 bedrooms and additional
parking would not normally be sought. PPG3, PPG13 and Essex Planning Officer Association on
vehicle parking standards indicate that two spaces would normally be considered adequate for a
dwelling of this size. There are in any case forecourt spaces for up to four cars.
8 Recommendation
Members are recommended GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following
conditions:
01 Start within five years (C001)
02 Materials to match existing
03 No additional windows other than those shown
Prittlewell Ward
SOS/03/00329/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)
DEMOLISH GARAGE, ERECT REPLACEMENT GARAGE WITH FRONT DORMER WINDOW,
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND SINGLE
STOREY SIDE EXTENSION (AMENDED PROPOSAL)
17 Merilies Gardens, Westcliff on Sea, SS0 0AB
Mr & Mrs Jarvis Design Associates
1 The Proposal
1.1. The proposal is to extend the property to the east with a new garage with accommodation in the
roofspace to accommodate an en suite, a single storey rear extension to the family room, a first
floor rear extension to a bedroom and a single storey side extension to form a study, utility room
and shower room.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The application property is a detached house located on the inside of the bend in Merilies
Gardens. As such the properties face inwards towards each other slightly at the rear.
2.2. The property to the east is a two storey house on the boundary. The boundary is a 1.6m fence.
There are no habitable room windows in the side elevation.
2.3. The property to the west is a two storey house. The boundary is a 1.5m fence. This changes to
a chain link fence 1m back from the rear wall of the application property. The rear building line
of the application property is 2m further back than the property to the west. The windows in the
side elevation are secondary light sources or do not serve habitable rooms.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 8 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
3 Development Plan
3.1. Structure Plan Policy BE1 – Urban Intensification.
3.2. Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential
Design and Layout Considerations), Appendix 4.
4 Planning History
4.1. 2002 – Erect two storey rear extension, single storey side extension to west elevation and
first floor side extension to east elevation (SOS/02/01447) Refused – Poor roof design of
extensions and obtrusiveness to 7 Merilies Gardens.
5 External Consultation
5.1. None undertaken.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Design Comment – Study and garage should both step back by approximately 1m. The hip over
the garage and first floor would be preferred if continuous.
6.2. Highway Comment – Although the parking arrangement has not been shown, it is unlikely that
an objection would be raised.
7 Publicity
7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice – one letter of objection to the single storey side extension
based on loss of outlook, loss of light and disturbance from construction.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The consideration is whether the proposed extensions overcome the detriment caused by the
previously refused scheme.
8.2. The application 02/01447 for larger extensions was refused because of poor roof design and
unacceptable neighbour impact. The objections to the conflicting roof design from the proposal
have now been overcome and there is no longer any objection to the proposal on design
grounds. The design comment is noted but the extensions in their present form are considered
acceptable and not out of character with the property or the street scene.
8.3. The earlier proposal for a two storey rear extension would have resulted in an unacceptable
impact on the neighbour at 7 Merilies Gardens and as such was refused. This part of the
proposal has now been omitted and the impact on the amenities of both adjoining neighbours is
now considered acceptable. The extensions are within guidelines and do not unreasonably
impinge on residential amenities.
8.4. The enlarged accommodation does not have any implications for parking. It is considered that
two cars can be accommodated on the site, although this is not a material part of the application.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following
conditions:
01 Start within five years (C001)
02 Materials to match existing building (CEDH)
03 No windows in north west side elevation (CIML)
04 Obscure glazing to any windows in south east side elevation (CIAB)
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 9 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
Chalkwell Ward
SOS/03/00370/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)
CONVERT VESTRY AND FORMER CHURCH HALL INTO 12 SELF-CONTAINED FLATS
WITH FIVE PARKING SPACES AT LOWER GROUND FLOOR LEVEL, LAY OUT SEVEN
PARKING SPACES, REFUSE STORE, AMENITY AREAS AND LANDSCAPING
Crowstone St Georges United Reformed Church, Kings Road, Westcliff on Sea
Bridgebuild Ltd ATP Partnership
1 The Proposal
1.1. The proposed development includes the conversion of the former vestry and church hall into 12
self contained flats.
1.2. The application proposes to utilise the existing vestry and church hall with internal conversion to
create 12 self contained flats through a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom units. No significant
external alterations are proposed to the Kings Road elevation, the conversion retaining the
appearance of the original structure. The rear (south) elevation is proposed to be opened at
ground floor level to create under building car parking. Additional and altered windows are
proposed at the front, side and rear and a 1.8m brick wall is proposed for part of the western
boundary, to separate three private patios for three of the lower flats from the adjoining site.
1.3. The application follows a 1999 permission approved for conversion into seven flats, the current
application makes greater use of space available within the existing building, proposing no
demolition, to achieve a higher density of 12 flats. This is possible as the site ownership
boundaries have been revised to the rear and thus the scheme can make use of the area for car
parking.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The church is located at the southern junction of Kings Road and Crowstone Road. It is
substantial in size and was erected between 1910 and 1926. The building is locally listed in the
Borough Local Plan, English Heritage were consulted prior to submission of a previous
application and the building is not considered to be of special architectural or historic interest to
warrant listing. The central front element with bay windows is an addition and the building has
also been extended to the rear. A landscaped area surrounds the main building to the north. To
the south a vehicular access leads to a limited car parking area. The church is surrounded by
residential properties to all sides.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies – BE1 – Urban Intensification, CS2 – Protecting the Natural and Built
Environment, H1 – Distribution of Housing Provision, H2 – Housing Development – The
Sequential Approach, H3 – Location of Residential Development, H4 – Development Form of
New Residential Developments, T12 – Vehicle Parking.
3.2. BLP Policies C2 (Historic Buildings), C3 (Conversion of Historic Buildings), C11 (New Buildings,
Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (The
Formation of Self-Contained Flats), T11 (Parking Standards), Appendix 4.
3.3. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. 1977 – Permission granted for use of ground floor of church premises as pre school play group
(SOS/4/77).
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 10 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
4.2. 1999 – Permission granted for partial demolition of existing building, change of use of
part of building to seven residential units, provision of associated parking to rear
(SOS/99/0175).
4.3. 1999 – Permission granted for partial demolition of existing hall, single storey extension to front
and side, alterations to elevations (SOS/99/0174).
4.4. May 2001 – Permission granted to convert vestry into mews cottage and convert church hall into
dwelling house, parking and garage to rear (SOS/00/00226/FUL).
5 External Consultation
5.1. Southend Airport – No safeguarding objections.
5.2. AW – No objection in principle subject to conditions.
5.3. Environment Agency – No objection.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Design Comment – No objection subject to an amended design for the main hall window to
Kings Road frontage and agreement of other windows and external materials.
6.2. Highways Comment – The car parking appears to comply with standards. Low level of parking
provision will lead to on-street parking which is generally available.
6.3. Environmental Health – No objection in principle subject to details of acoustic insulation between
residential and non-residential areas.
7 Publicity
7.1. Press and Site Notices and neighbour notification – three objections received from local
residents objecting to the number of flats proposed, the need for sufficient parking in the location
for the proposed flats and existing community building, identifying existing parking problems
when events are staged at the existing building.
8 Appraisal
8.1. The main issues are considered to be the acceptability of the increased use of the site,
compliance with Borough Local Plan, impact on the street scene and neighbours and
traffic/parking implications. The principle of conversion into flats was accepted under the 1999
application referred to above.
8.2. In terms of density, the increased number of flats is considered to be an acceptable and efficient
use of this site, in an urban location, an approach encouraged by PPG3 'Housing'.
8.3. Adopted local plan policies C2 and C3 seek to protect historic buildings and those proposed for
conversion, the policies identify that conversion works are possible where it is demonstrated that
the site has outgrown its original use, this is the case with the application site proposed for flat
conversion. Furthermore, the Borough Local Plan makes provision for the loss of community
facilities on the basis that there will not be a resulting shortfall, the existing church facility (east
portion of building) will continue to operate. This approach was accepted by previous
permissions.
8.4. Amenity space provision is limited on site, three ground floor flats have the benefit of private
patio areas, approximately 23m² each, in addition the front area to Kings Road is proposed to
be landscaped though is arguably not private space. No amenity space provision is made for
the remaining nine flats. The Borough Local Plan requirement for new build flats is 25m² per
unit. The mews cottage in the 2001 permission had little amenity space and the seven flats only
had some balcony space for one unit. PPG3 encouraged efficient use of such sites and amenity
space deficiency is not considered significant.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 11 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
8.5. Parking provision is made within the proposal for 12 car parking spaces to the rear of the site,
six being located in a space underneath the rear building elevation which is proposed to be
opened up as car ports. The location is identified as one of good public transport links with on
street parking available, in this situation a ratio of one space per unit for off street parking is
applicable, the application is therefore considered to comply with parking requirements.
8.6. Turning to the impact on neighbours, the site has previously operated as a community use with
no restrictions upon hours of operation. It is not anticipated that the use of the building as flats
will result in an additional level of activity which would be detrimental to adjacent residential
properties. The residential element could be considered to act as a „buffer‟ for the existing
community use located to the east portion of the building, thereby protecting the residential
properties.
8.7. With regard to overlooking, there will be in excess of 30m between the rear of the proposed flats
and those in Galton Road which exceeds recommendations in the Borough Local Plan, which
requires a minimum distance of 21.4m at second floor.
8.8. Relationship to 12 Kings Road is crucial in such a position and location. Development within the
hall will be formed utilising a mezzanine floor to split the hall and create a first and second floor,
the second floor units are proposed with bedroom and lounge windows overlooking the flat roof
to the west elevation. The proximity of the flat roof in this location creates the potential for
residents to use the roof as a casual balcony. Whilst this may be desirable to provide quality
amenity areas, if utilised as balcony on a casual basis it would create a potential for overlooking
to the adjoining property 12 Kings Road. Conditions are proposed to control windows and use of
this area should approval be forthcoming. There are no further implications for neighbours in
respect of loss of amenity.
8.9. Overall the development is considered to respect the existing fenestration of the church
buildings, of particular relevance will be the appearance of the mezzanine floor within the large
picture window, the visibility of the floor across openings can often create an uneasy visual
relationship. The development if permitted will maintain the buildings appearance to Kings Road
though on this matter specific conditions controlling window materials and appearance are
proposed.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following
conditions:
01 Commence within five years (C001)
02 Parking spaces to be provided as shown with no enclosure of car ports (CADF –
amended)
03 Parking spaces to be retained (CAAF)
04 Materials to match existing (CEDH)
05 Details of surface treatment to be submitted (CEJ4)
06 Details of boundary treatment to be submitted (CEJ5 – amended)
07 Details of landscaping to be submitted (CJDL)
08 Landscaping to be carried out (CJAC)
09 Refuse storage details to be submitted (CKAE)
10 Building to be constructed with noise insulation (CLAJ)
11 Window details to be submitted (CF2P)
12 No use of flat roof to west elevation as balcony (CIQP)
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 12 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
West Shoebury Ward
SOS/03/00411/ADV (Application for Advertisement Consent)
ERECT TWO INFORMATION SIGNS, 1.5M X 1M TO FRONT BOUNDARY
Thorpedene GM Junior and Infant Schools, Delaware Road, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea,
SS3 9NP
Thorpedene Junior School
1 The Proposal
1.1. Advertisement Consent is sought to erect two information signs, 1.5m wide by 1m high, to the
front boundary. One of the signs would face in a north west direction and the other in a north
east direction. The children of Thorpedene School have designed the two signs which would be
constructed of powder coated aluminium. The top of the signs would be 3m above ground level.
The signs would be installed on metal posts 1m from northern boundary with a 1m isolation
distance between them. The signs are designed to promote road safety. They would be visible
from Delaware Road to the north of the site, and would be sited in the junior school part of the
premises.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The school comprises of a single and two storey building on the south side of Delaware Road in
an area where the surroundings are residential. The school is split into infant and junior with the
infant school located on the north east of the site. There are playing fields located to the south
of the school, which are separate from the school as the area is fenced off.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies – BE1 - Urban Intensification.
3.2. BLP Policies C8 (Advertisements), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), U7
(Existing Education Facilities).
4 Planning History
4.1. A number of applications for extensions, temporary classrooms, etc, the most recent being:
4.2. 2003 – Permission granted to erect cycle store (SOS/03/00239/BC3).
4.3. 2002 – Permission granted to erect infill extension at rear (SOS/02/00577).
4.4. 2001 – Permission granted to erect single storey infill extension (SOS/01/00784).
4.5. 2001 – Permission granted under Regulation 3 to erect single storey rear extension
(SOS/01/00367).
4.6. 2000 – Permission granted to erect single storey infill extension to front elevation
(SOS/00/00761).
4.7. 1999 – Permission granted to erect infill extension (SOS/99/00649).
4.8. 1999 – Permission granted to erect infill extension (SOS/99/0408).
5 Internal Consultation
5.1. Design Comment – No objections.
5.2. Highway Comment – No objections from the highway point of view.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 13 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
6 Publicity
6.1. No publicity undertaken.
7 Appraisal
7.1. There is no objection to the proposal on highway/public safety grounds. Therefore the
only issue pertinent is that of amenity.
7.2. PPG19 states that the appearance of a good building can easily be spoiled by a poorly designed
or insensitively placed sign or advertisement, or by a choice of advertisement materials, colour,
proportion or illumination. Often outdoor advertisements seem to have been added to a building
as an afterthought, so that they appear brash, over-dominant or incongruous.
7.3. Policy U7 of the BLP states that the Borough Council will normally support the improvement or
extension of existing public and private education establishments.
7.4. The proposed signs are relatively small in size and are non-illuminated so they would not have
any significant impact on nearby residential dwellings, the nearest of which are approximately
15-17m to the north of the site.
7.5. The signs are set back one metre from the boundary and would be screened by the powder
coated metal blue fencing along the boundary. Therefore the visual impact of the signs is very
limited and is considered appropriate within this primarily residential area.
8 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT subject to the
following condition:
01 Consent granted for five years (C033)
Shoeburyness Ward
SOS/03/00422/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)
USE RETAIL SHOP (CLASS A1) AS HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY AND INSTALL EXTRACT
DUCT
17 The Renown, Shoeburyness, Southend on Sea
Burgess Estates Dedman Planning Services
1 The Proposal
1.1 To change the use of a vacant shop to a pizza takeaway and install extract duct at the rear.
Opening hours of 0800–2300 Sunday–Thursday and 0800–0000 Friday and Saturday are
proposed.
1.2 The applicants have submitted a supporting statement which sets out the Policy background and
states that:
1.3 “Marketing has taken place since April 2001, with no interest shown in the unit as a shop…it is
considered that demand has now been thoroughly tested and due to the continued lack of
interest in use of the property for A1 purposes its seems reasonable to allow it to be used as a
takeaway rather than continue to remain vacant and boarded up with a detrimental effect on the
appearance of the are and its attractiveness to the public”
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 14 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
2 Location and Description
2.1 A vacant former hairdressing salon (Class A1) in a small parade of six units which, together with
a community centre and library and pupil referral unit comprise a Secondary Shopping Frontage
providing a local shopping centre for the residents in the surrounding extensive housing area.
2.2 There are flats above the parade of shops.
2.3 Centurion Close adjoining to the east provides vehicular access to the rear of the centre where
there is a large car park. There is a further car park to the west.
3 Development Plan
3.1 ESRSP - no policies of specific relevance to this proposal.
3.2 BLP Policies S5 (Non-Retail Uses), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), T11
(Parking Standards).
4 Planning History
4.1 1972 - permission granted to develop site to include five shop units, three flats and garages, one
large shop unit and service area (D/196/72).
4.2 1972 - permission granted for community hall and branch library (D/350/72).
4.3 1986 - permission granted to demolish three lock-up garages and erect three single storey lock-
up shop units (SOS/85/0269).
4.4 1989 - permission granted to erect first floor extension to supermarket and convert first floor
storage area to form a total of six self-contained flats and erect porch on south elevation
(SOS/86/2212).
4.5 1989 - permission granted to convert part of ground floor retail shop into five self-contained flats
(SOS/87/1443).
4.6 2001 - planning permission granted to use public house (class A3) as pupil referral unit for
children (Class D1) (SOS/01/00875/BC3).
4.7 1990 – No. 19 The Renown – permission granted to use retail shop (Class A1) as hot food take-
away and erect brick enclosed extract duct at rear. Hours of opening limited to 0700-2330
Sunday-Thursday and 0700-midnight Friday and Saturday.
4.8 1998 – No 15 The Renown – permission granted to use vacant shop (Class A2) as hot food
take-away (Class A3) and install external ventilation duct. Hours of opening limited to 0800-
2000 Monday-Saturday and no time on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays (SOS/98/0147).
4.9 1998 – No 15 The Renown – permission granted for relaxation of hours condition. Amended to
0800-2300 Sunday-Saturday and no time on Bank/Public Holidays (SOS/98/0572).
4.10 2000 – No 11 The Renown – permission granted to use retail unit (Class A2) as café/coffee bar
and sandwich bar (Class A3), install new shopfront and extract duct at rear. Opening hours
limited to 0800-2200 Sunday-Saturday (SOS/00/00069/FUL).
4.11 November 2001 – No 17 The Reknown – permission refused to use retail shop (class A1)
as Hot Food takeaway (Class A3) (SOS/01/00650/FUL). The reason of refusal stated: “The
unit is located in a small local parade within a Secondary Shopping Frontage. The
proposal would result in the loss of the retail unit, the demand for which has not been
adequately tested, and would result in 4 of the 6 units in the parade being in use as
hotfood takeaway outlets, some of which regularly close during the day and present a
dead frontage. This would harm the retail frontage of the parade, its character and
vitality, and its future viability, and would severely limit the range of facilities available, all
of which would be detrimental to local residents and increase their need to travel
contrary to policies S5 and S9 of the Borough Local Plan and PPG6 para 3.18”
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 15 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
5 External Consultation
5.1 Environment Agency - advisory comments are made relating to protection from water pollution.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1 Design Comment – no objection
6.2 Environmental Health Comment - no objection in principle. The ventilation system will require
careful design. Request conditions relating to hours of use (as specified in the application), A3
use to be café/restaurant/takeaway only, scheme of ventilation.
6.3 Highway Comment - no objections.
7 Publicity
7.1 Site notice and neighbour notification – three letters of objection (two are circulars and although
from different addresses have the same signature) relating to the following issues:
There are sufficient takeaways in the parade and it would badly affect their business.
Impact of additional extract ducting
8 Appraisal
8.1 A certain amount of Class A2 and Class A3 (Food and Drink) uses are normally acceptable in
Secondary Shopping Frontages except where they would be likely to "…isolate other shops from
the bulk of the shopping frontage or from the main pedestrian flows, would adversely affect
residential amenities by way of noise, disturbance of the emission of smells and fumes, or in
cases of small local parades or individual units performing an essential retail function for the
local community"
8.2 At present two of the six units are in retail use these being a mini-market and a post office with
shop, and three are in A3 take-away use, with the application premises being a vacant
hairdressers. If this application were approved there would be four A3 uses in a row with an A1
use at either end. It could be argued that the continued viability of this parade is in doubt and,
largely due to the proximity of Asda, it now has a more localised retail function.
8.3 A3 units do provide important facilities for the local population and it could be said that this
parade has had to find a new role to survive. Following refusal of the previous application for A3
use, the unit has been marketed with no interest shown (evidence to that effect has been
submitted). It has now been vacant for over 21 months. It appears that further marketing would
be unlikely to result in interest in re-using it for A1 purposes. Whilst use of the unit for A3
purposes with proposed operating hours of 0800–2300 hours would be unlikely to attract as
many customers to the parade during the day time, as a retail premises, it would do in the
evenings. If the unit is open during all the hours stated it should help maintain the attractiveness
of the parade. Even if the unit is not open during the day, it is likely the presence of an occupied
unit will make the parade more attractive to shoppers than a vacant boarded up unit as exists at
present.
8.4 On balance, it is considered that the potential for retail use of the unit has now been properly
tested and that it is preferable to have the unit in A3 use offering a facility to the local community
rather than it continuing to lie empty. It should also be noted at this point that planning
permission would not be required should any of the A3 units revert to A1 use.
8.5 The impact on residential amenities will be little different than at present with the three A3 uses
in operation and, subject to details which can be dealt with by condition, officers are satisfied that
the ducting can be provided in such a way that is acceptable. As to hours of use, the other A3
units have various limitations as set out in full in the planning history section. It is considered
that hours of opening for this unit as requested are reasonable.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 16 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
8.6 There are two large car parks nearby which customers, staff and service vehicles can use and
the unit is very well located for customers to reach on foot.
9 Recommendation
GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following Conditions:
01 start within five years (C001)
02 ventilation equipment to be installed - details to be approved
03 hours of opening restricted as set out in the report
Milton Ward
SOS/03/00425/TPO (Application for Works to Trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order)
VARIOUS WORKS TO TREES SUBJECT TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS (TPO 2/99)
Never Never Land, Western Esplanade, Southend on Sea
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Leisure Culture and Amenity Services
1 The Proposal
1.1. The application is for works to 20 trees covered by tree preservation order. Details are as follows
Tree Type Tree Number Works to be carried out Reasons for felling
Leyland 1A Fell to Ground Inappropriate for site
Cypress
Leyland 2A Fell to Ground Inappropriate for site
Cypress
Holly 3A–19A Fell and Poison Bird sown trees which are
smothering other trees and plants
Elm 20A Fell to Ground Dead
1.2. The site is to be subject to restoration work with the replanting of suitable trees although no
further details have been submitted with this application.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The trees are located within the Clifftown Conservation Area on a hillside, which slopes south
towards the seafront. The trees cover an area-grassed hillside, which forms Never Never Land,
a tourist/visitor attraction along the seafront. The site appears not in use at present.
2.2. The surrounding properties consist of a public house to the west, a parade of shopping units to
the east, under the Pier Bridge. To the south of the site across Western Esplanade are the
Peter Pans adventure island theme park attraction, a café and the beach. To the north of the
site, along the cliff top is Royal Terrace which has a number of buildings which are in use as
residential flats, guest houses, or offices.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies HC2 – Conservation Areas, NR1 – Landscape Conservation.
3.2. BLP Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping).
3.3. PPG9: Nature Conservation.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 17 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
3.4. The site has been identified on the BLP Proposals Map as part of the Clifftown Conservation
Area, an area of Public Open Space/Sport Facility (C15, R1, R4 and R5) and as the defined
Central Seafront Area (L2, L4, L6, L7, L8, L10 and H4).
4 Planning History
4.1. Many TPO applications, the most recent of which consists of:
4.2. April 1999 – Tree Preservation Order made on one pine tree following application
(SOS/99/00253).
4.3. June 1999 – Consent granted to fell one pine tree (works to tree covered by TPO)
(SOS/99/00466).
4.4. May 2000 – Part Consent granted Part Consent refused to fell 48 trees and carry out various
works to 15 trees of various species (SOS/00/00303/TCA).
4.5. September 2000 – Consent granted to fell 45 trees and prune five trees (works to trees by a
TPO) (SOS/00/00737/TPO).
5 External Consultation
5.1. The Southend Society – No response.
6 Internal Consultation
6.1. Design comment – No objection.
6.2. Leisure Comments – The proposed operations are appropriate for the maintenance and
development of this site. The work can be carried out at any time of year.
7 Publicity
7.1. Site Notice and Neighbour notification – one letter of objection relating to:
Why are the trees inappropriate?
Council should be planting more trees
Concern that poison will harm wildlife
8 Appraisal
8.1. The Borough Council seeks to preserve and enhance the character, appearance and
relationship of trees to buildings within conservation areas.
8.2. A total of 20 trees of four different species would be felled in an area where there are a large
numbers of trees, which make the Conservation Area and this part of the seafront very attractive
and provide good visual amenity. The applicant has detailed why loss of the trees is justified. It
is considered that the felling of a relatively small number of trees will not have any significant
visual impacts on the Conservation Area as a large number of trees will remain, retaining the
amenity value of the hillside and the character of the Conservation Area.
8.3. The applicants have confirmed that a proposed replanting scheme would take place as part of
the site‟s restoration although they have not as yet submitted detailed information.
8.4. The loss of the trees would have no direct impact on neighbouring properties.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to RAISE NO OBJECTION to proposed works subject to the
following condition:
01 Works to trees to be carried out within two years
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 18 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
Milton Ward
SOS/03/00453/FUL (Application for planning permission)
CONVERT SECOND FLOOR OFFICES INTO FOUR SELF-CONTAINED FLATS AND ALTER
NORTH ELEVATION (AMENDED PROPOSAL)
37-41 High Street, Southend on Sea
Kaykem Fast Foods Butler Associates
1 The Proposal
1.1. The application proposes to convert the existing second floor offices into four flats: 2 x 1
bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom.
1.2. The applicant has submitted supporting evidence in the form of a letter, which is summarised
below: “The property was constructed to a specification that is well below today’s standards for
offices. The property has been marketed by Prudential at an economic rent for a period of 12
years up until the original planning application was made, and local agents were instructed. “To
Let” boards were displayed at the property for all 12 years. No interest has been shown and
since the disability discrimination act charitable and social organisations have bot been able to
consider the premises because of design problems (external steel fire escape stair). The office
market in Southend has been monitored and several hundred thousand sq. ft of vacant offices
remain available to let. Thus the development would not result in a shortage of offices or
damage opportunities in the town centre.”
2 Location and Description
2.1. The building is located at the junction of High Street and Clarence Street. The ground floor unit
is occupied by Superdrug, with Waterstones opposite. There is no parking or amenity area
available for the site. A fire escape stair runs to the rear of the building.
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, TCR3 – Town Centres, H3 – Location of
Residential Development, BIW1 – Employment Land Provision, BIW2 – Ensuring Land
Availability, BIW4 – Safeguarding Employment Land.
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats), T11 (Parking Standards),
E3 (Secondary Offices), E4 (Industry and Warehousing), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located
Close to Housing), Interim Employment Land Policy. The property has both Primary and
Secondary Shopping Frontages and lies within the Prime Shopping Area.
4 Planning History
4.1. 1968 – planning permission granted for shops, showrooms and office.
4.2. 1969 - planning permission granted for shops, showrooms and office.
4.3. 2002 – planning permission refused to convert second floor offices to flats and alter
elevation SOS/02/01149/FUL. The application was refused for reasons relating to loss of
the employment use, unsatisfactory living conditions for occupiers as a result of layout,
limited light and lack of amenity space resulting in overintensive development
5 Internal Consultation
5.1. Design Comment – No objections to internal alterations of change of use, however there is no
provision for amenity space of refuse storage.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 19 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
5.2. Highway Comment – The creation of four self contained flats will generate additional car parking
in the area. The applicant should be aware that the development is situated within the Southend
Central Pay and Display parking zone. However there are various public car parks nearby to
accommodate any extra parking resulting from this proposal
5.3. Environmental Health –no objection.
6 Publicity
6.1. Neighbour notification – no comments.
7 Appraisal
7.1. The main considerations are the loss of existing office accommodation, the principle of use of
the building for housing, implications for parking and living standards for future occupiers and
whether the application has overcome the previous reason for refusal.
7.2. The applicant has submitted very limited supporting statement suggesting that the property has
been vacant and marketed over a period of 12 years without success. No actual evidence has
been produced to back up this statement, however additional supporting evidence is expected
before the meeting.
7.3. The overall context for business and industrial development in the Borough is shaped by the
constraints on land available in the Borough and the Borough‟s relatively high unemployment
rate. Borough Local Plan Policies seek generally to expand local employment facilities in order
to both reduce unemployment and redress the balance locally between the size of the Borough's
workforce and the jobs available locally. Housing Policies compliment the employment policies
by seeking to make optimum use of the existing housing stock and available land to meet the
Borough's housing needs, whilst avoiding over provision of housing which could increase the
resident workforce.
7.4. With particular regard to Town Centres, PPG6 seeks to encourage mixed use development in
town centres and states in para 2.15 “Where vacant office premises seem unlikely to be reused
for that purpose, local planning authorities should encourage conversion to other service, leisure
or residential uses. Such buildings, especially older office buildings and upper floors above
shops, may be particularly suitable to conversion to flats”.
7.5. Thus it is considered that if the applicant were to put forward a compelling case as to why an
employment generating use is no longer feasible within the unit, there would be no objection in
principle to a change of use as a residential use could add to the vitality of the Town Centre.
7.6. At a strategic level these general aims are reflected in Structure Plan Policies, BIW2, BIW4, and
TCR3 .
7.7. At a local level Policy E4 is relevant. The site lies in an area that is not specifically identified in
the Borough Local Plan for employment use, but being in such a use the second part of Policy
E4 applies. Here the presumption under the policy is against redevelopment for other uses,
however, alternative uses will be permitted where there would be clear benefits to the town in
terms of jobs created or facilities provided, where the existing use is incompatible with the
surrounding area or where the premises are no longer suitable. These criteria are considered
below:
Benefit to the town – jobs. The proposal would not be beneficial to the town in terms of
employment and would lead to loss of employment
Benefit to the town – facilities. There will be no clear benefit to the town in terms of the
facilities provided. The Borough does not have a housing requirement that cannot be met.
Benefit to the surrounding area – The site is in an established area of mixed commercial and
retail uses, with some residential uses in Clarence Road. There is no history of complaints
or other evidence that the office use has resulted in significant disturbance to nearby
occupiers.
Suitability of Premises for Employment: No compelling evidence has been submitted to
suggest that the premises are no longer suitable for office use.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 20 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
7.8. In view of recent appeal decisions, revised Structure Plan Policy and pending preparation of the
Replacement Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, Interim Policy Guidance has been adopted
with regard to providing and Safeguarding Employment Land. This updates current Borough
Local Plan Policy and compliments Policy E4. This Interim Policy seeks to examine amongst
other issues, the site's wider potential for employment use. The Interim Employment Policy
Guidance states that all employment land will be safeguarded from development or changes of
use to other land uses; and that changes of use to, or development with other uses, will only be
permitted exceptionally. The proposed change of use does not accord with any of the
exceptions set out in the Interim Guidance, those already covered by policy E4 are addressed as
follows:
the site has not given rise to complaints relating to noise or general nuisance or has the
potential to give rise to noise or general nuisance;
redevelopment would not bring significant townscape benefits in a sensitive area. No
evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the premises are not suitable for business
purposes due to environmental factors.
No evidence has been submitted to show that consideration has been given to use for
“other employment purposes” that would be compatible with the locality and the policies of
the Borough Local Plan
No evidence has been submitted to show that consideration has been given to mixed use
development and then to other “job creating” uses that would be compatible with the
character, appearance and amenity of the local environment.
7.9. Thus it is considered that on the basis of the evidence submitted with the application there is no
justification for allowing the loss of the existing office use.
7.10. The policy goes on to state that where an exception is made and a residential development is
proposed, that development must contribute to local housing needs including the provision of
affordable housing. In this instance the provision of one and two bedroom flats would is
considered appropriate as there is currently a need for this type of accommodation.
7.11. The site is located within the town centre where public transport links and facilities are good.
There is no parking available for the existing office use, which applying Borough Local Plan
parking standards has a requirement for a minimum of 10 parking spaces and using the EPOA
standards has a requirement of a maximum of eight spaces. Taking these factors into account,
no objections are raised to the lack of parking provision for the flats.
7.12. With regard to the standard of living accommodation that is proposed, the layout of the
development has been amended and improved, from that refused. No objections are now
raised to the detail of the accommodation provided.
7.13. The proposal does however lack any amenity space. PPG3 sets out the Government‟s policies
with regard to Housing. It emphasises the need to adopt positive policies giving priority to
converting existing buildings and taking a more flexible approach with regard to amenity space.
In this instance no amenity space is being proposed. Neither are there any balconies provided.
However elsewhere in the town centre the conversion of upper floors to residential has been
accepted without amenity space provision, indeed, in certain circumstances this can be classed
as permitted development. Whilst this situation is not ideal, where a residential use is
considered acceptable in principle this situation has been accepted as a means of bringing
vacant upper floors into use.
8 Recommendation
Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following
reason:
01 The proposed development would result in the loss of land which is in use for
employment purposes, insufficient evidence has been submitted to establish that
the property is no longer viable for employment purposes and thus it should be
retained in employment use, particularly having regard to the limited supply of
employment land within the Borough. The proposed change of use would
therefore be contrary to Policy E4 of the Borough Local Plan, Interim Employment
Land Policy and Policy BIW4 of the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure
Plan
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 21 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
West Leigh Ward
SOS/03/00516/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)
ERECT SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, DORMER WINDOWS TO FRONT AND REAR
ELEVATIONS AND FORM ACCOMMODATION IN EXTENDED ROOFSPACE (AMENDED
PROPOSAL)
67 Herschell Road, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 2PU
Mr W Lee Frank Smith
1 The Proposal
1.1 The proposed development, described above, involved front and rear dormer windows and a
single storey flat-roofed rear extension. The proposed materials are described on the
application form as „to match existing‟.
1.2 The extension would measure 8.6m wide x 3.0m deep x 3.1m high.
1.3 The front dormers are 1.5m wide x 2.1m high and the rear dormers are 2.2m wide x 1.6m high.
2 Location and Description
2.1 The property is a semi-detached bungalow on the west side of Herschell Road. The attached
neighbour is to the north, the rear building line of this property is the same as that of the
application property. The attached neighbour to the north has a conservatory on the boundary.
2.2 To the south is a detached bungalow, then the rear aspects of properties on the north side of
Western Road. The rear building line of 67 Herschell Road is 2m further back than the rear
elevation of the neighbouring property. There are no main habitable room windows in the side
elevation of the adjoining property.
3 Development Plan
3.1 ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification.
3.2 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and
Layout Considerations), Appendix 4.
3.3 EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.
4 Planning History
4.1. 1956 – Permission granted for double garage.
4.2 2002 – Permission refused to erect single storey rear extension, dormer windows to front
elevation and form accommodation in roofspace (02/01499) – The dormers were of
excessive size and height and out of character with the property.
5 External Consultation
5.1 Leigh Town Council – Oppose: loss of bungalow and out of character with adjoining properties
6 Internal Consultation
6.1 Design Comment – A significant improvement. No further objections. Materials to match
existing.
7 Publicity
7.1 Neighbour notification – no replies received.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 22 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
8 Appraisal
8.1 The considerations are design, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking
implications and whether the proposed extensions overcome the detriment caused by the
previously refused scheme.
8.2 Application 02/01499/FUL for front dormers and a rear extension was refused because the
dormer windows were too large, of excessive height and out of character with the property. The
amended proposal involves smaller front dormers, which are now in keeping with the scale of
the property. The proposal is not considered to be of detriment to the street scene.
8.3 Leigh Town Council have objected to the loss of a bungalow; this argument is not accepted as
the extension of an existing property, subject to an acceptable impact, is in accordance with
Policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan and PPG3 and does not
involve “loss of a bungalow”, rather an extension to it.
8.4 The proposal now involved rear dormers, which were not included with the previous application.
These are acceptable in design terms and regarding their impact on the neighbouring property.
8.5 The proposed additional accommodation does not have any implications for parking. It is
considered that two cars could be accommodated on the site, although this is not a material part
of the application.
9 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following
conditions:
01 Commence within five years (C001)
02 Materials to match existing (CEAB)
03 Obscure glazing to any side windows (CIAB)
Victoria Ward
SOS/03/00556/BC3 (Application for Full Planning Permission – Borough Council Application)
ERECT CYCLE STORE TO WESTERN BOUNDARY
St Helens RC Primary School, North Road, Westcliff on Sea, SS0 7AH
Southend on Sea Borough Council
1 The Proposal
1.1. The application proposes the erection of a cycle store to western boundary of the school. The
cycle store would be positioned to the south west of the main school buildings with the school
playing fields located to the south and east of the site. To the west of the site is a brick
constructed boundary wall approximately 2.5m high with a green painted galvanised metal fence
to the north, also approximately 2.5m in height. There is a tree located to the southwest corner
of the main school buildings with a footpath between.
1.2. The proposed cycle store would be 8m long and 6m wide and 2.1m high. A concrete base
would be laid. The cycle store would have a metal frame and would be a curved shaped
structure. It would house approximately 40 cycles. The cycle racks would have galvanised
cladding. A concrete path would be laid leading to the entrance of the cycle store.
2 Location and Description
2.1. The school comprises a number of single and two storey buildings on the east side of North
Road in an area of mixed uses. A high rise block of flats and a playing field is positioned on the
west side of the North Road, opposite the building. To the north of the site is a cemetery with a
chapel sited in the centre of the site. Nazareth House is located to the south of the site and to
the east is an electrical sub station.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 23 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
3 Development Plan
3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, T1 – Sustainable Transport Strategy, T6 - Walking
and Cycling.
3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), U7 (Existing Education
Facilities).
4 Planning History
4.1. A number of applications, the most recent being:
4.2. 1997 – Permission approved to erect 2.4m high metal fences with gates.
4.3. 2001 – Permission approved erect single storey extension to four classrooms to side and erect
portacabin to rear.
5 Internal Consultation
5.1. Design Comment – No objections.
5.2. Education Comment – No comment.
6 Publicity
6.1. Site Notice and Neighbour notification – No replies.
7 Appraisal
7.1. The main considerations are the visual impact the cycle storage areas and whether they would
be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding properties.
7.2. Policy U7 of the BLP states that the Borough Council will normally support the improvement or
extension of existing public and private education establishments. The proposed cycle store
would encourage more sustainable forms of transport to and from school. The Borough Council
would support the use of non-car transport and therefore the principle of the cycle store is
supported.
7.3. The cycle store would be sited on an existing grassed area, which would be covered with a
concrete base, which would be laid to form the foundations of the store. The store would be
positioned to the south west of the school buildings and north west of the corner of the playing
fields. As the cycle store would be 6m by 8m it would only cover a small area that would not
interfere with the main area of the school playing field.
7.4. The unit would be 3m from the highway and therefore visible from the streetscene although the
boundary wall would act as a screen the cycle store. Its appearance is acceptable. The store is
to be sited too distant from neighbouring residential properties to have any significant impact.
8 Recommendation
Members are recommended to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following condition:
01 Start within five years (C001)
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.
63e567a5-97b2-4f3c-8c91-4cbf7fc02240.doc Page 24 of 24 Report No: DTES03/94 - FINAL
