Item Agenda Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Council... · Shoeburyness 11/00393/TCA 1 The Pavilions...

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 11/011 Page 1 of 184 13/4/2011

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Report of the Corporate Director ofEnterprise, Tourism & the Environment

ToDevelopment Control Committee

On13th April 2011

WARD APP/REF NO. ADDRESS PAGE

Main Plans Report

Victoria 10/01121/OUTM319 - 321 Sutton Road

Southend-On-Sea3

Victoria 11/00087/FULM257 - 285 Sutton Road

Southend-On-Sea23

Victoria 10/01703/FUL217A North RoadWestcliff-On-Sea

54

Chalkwell 10/02281/FUL77 The RidgewayWestcliff-On-Sea

63

Milton 11/00201/OUT29 - 31 Clifftown Road

Southend-On-Sea73

West Leigh 11/00077/FULOak Lodge

Salisbury RoadLeigh-On-Sea

83

AgendaItem

Report(s) on Planning Applications

A Part 1 Agenda Item


Shoeburyness 11/00085/DOVShoebury Garrison

Ness RoadShoeburyness

91

Milton 11/00114/EXT34 Ditton Court Road

Westcliff-On-Sea106

Blenheim Park 11/00164/FULH

28 Lindisfarne AvenueLeigh-On-Sea

116

Eastwood Park 11/00252/TPO

5 Sunnybank CloseEastwood

122

Shoeburyness 11/00254/ADVLand Adjacent Asda

North Shoebury Road128

Milton 11/00276/FUL68 London Road

Southend-On-Sea134

Leigh 11/00281/FULH15 Station RoadLeigh-On-Sea

139

West Shoebury 11/00347/BC4

Rear Of71 - 81 Delaware Road

Shoeburyness145


Rear Of214 - 224 Caulfield Road

Shoeburyness153


Rear Of12 Bunters Avenue

Shoeburyness162

Shoeburyness 11/00393/TCA1 The PavilionsShoeburyness

170

Belfairs 11/00399/FUL67 Eastwood Road

Leigh-On-Sea175


Reference: SOS/10/01121/OUTM

Ward: Victoria

Proposal:

Demolition of existing building and erect part 3/part 4 storey building incorporating Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services), Class B1 (Office), 27 self contained flats with balconies, roof terrace, car parking, cycle storage and refuse storage at basement level (Outline)

Address: 319 - 321 Sutton Road, Southend-on-Sea, SS2 5PF

Applicant: Mr M. Jacques

Agent: Mr J. Baron, Third Dimension Architectural & Interior Design

Consultation Expiry: 10.03.11

Expiry Date: 18.05.11

Case Officer: Louise Tweedie

Plan Nos: 001, 002, 200C, 201C, 202E, 203C, 204C

Recommendation:Delegate to the Group Manager or Head of Planning & Transport to GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to S.106 Agreement


1 The Proposal

1.1 Outline planning permission is sought to demolish the existing building and erect a part 3/part 4 storey building incorporating Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services)/Class B1 (Office) units, 27 self contained flats with balconies as per the break down below, a roof terrace, car parking, cycle storage and refuse storage at basement level:

6 x 1 bedroom flats 18 x 2 bedroom flats 3 x 3 bedroom flats.

1.2 Approval is being sought for access, layout and scale. However, issues of appearance and landscaping are reserved for further consideration and a separate reserved matters submission would be required to agree these matters should outline permission be granted.

1.3 The application follows a previously refused outline application reference 09/00761/OUTM for a similar development to demolish the existing building and to erect a part 3/part 4/part 5 storey block of 31 flats incorporating B1/A2 units to ground floor and part basement parking. This was refused on 15th July 2009 on the following grounds:

“01 The proposal, by reason of its excessive scale, massing and bulk would result in a form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to Polices C11, H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1), and Government guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3).

02 The proposal is considered to result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties to the detriment of the residential amenities of those occupiers, contrary to Policy to Polices C11, H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

03 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to provide a satisfactory level of highway contribution, is contrary to Policies KP2, KP3 and CP8 of the Core Strategy and Policies H2, T2, T4 and T9 of the East of England Plan.


04 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to provide a satisfactory level and variety of affordable housing, is contrary to Policies KP2, KP3 and CP8 of the Core Strategy and Policy H2 of the East of England Plan.

05 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to provide a satisfactory level of education contribution, is contrary to Policies KP2 and CP8 of the Core Strategy.

06 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to address sustainable construction and design issues and the use of renewable energy resources, is contrary to PPS1 and PPS25, East of England Plan (May 2008) Policies SS1, ENV7, ENG1, WAT1 and WAT4; Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

07 The proposed redevelopment is unacceptable as insufficient evidence has been provided to indicate justification for the loss of the commercial element, in terms of marketing or evidence that a commercial redevelopment has been considered and ruled out, which is considered contrary to the provisions as detailed in Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy.”

1.4 Since the previous application detailed above, the design of the proposed development has been amended, and the number of units and overall scale of the building reduced.

1.5 The details of the proposal are summarised as follows:

Site Area 0.25ha

Financial and Professional Service/Office space (Class A2/B1)

460 sq.m (8 units)

Parking 39 spaces at rear5 spaces in lay-by at front

Cycle Parking 38 spaces in basement

Refuse Store Commercial and residential refuse store in basement

Amenity Space 570 sq.m of communal amenity deck140 sq.m of private balconies

Height (max) 14m (4 storey)

Internal sizes of flats 46 – 118 sq.m


1.6 The applicant has provided a Design and Access Statement, and provisional agreement to provide planning contributions for education, affordable housing and to provide public art on site or a contribution towards public art.

2 Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site lies to the northeast of the town centre and forms part of an area allocated for industry and warehousing (employment) area as designated by the Core Strategy and Borough Local Plan.

2.2 The site is located on the western side of Sutton Road centrally between the two junctions of Redstock Road and Vale Avenue. The site is adjacent to a row of retail units from 295 – 307 Sutton Road and industrial units at 401 Sutton Road. To the east, south and west of the site are residential dwellinghouses.

3 Planning Considerations

3.1 The main considerations in the determination of this application are the principle of development, design, impact on the street scene, residential amenity, parking implications, sustainability and planning contributions.

3.2 The application is in outline form and seeks approval for access, layout and scale.

4 Appraisal

Principle of the Development

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP1, KP2, CP1, CP2, CP4, CP8; Borough Local Plan Policies E1, E3, E4, C11, H5, H7, T8 and T11, and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.1 The site is located within a priority urban area and forms part of the industrial and warehousing (employment) area as designated by Policy KP1 of the Core Strategy.

4.2 PPS3 advises that the best and most efficient use of land should be sought, and advises local authorities to consider whether housing is appropriate on commercial and industrial sites.

4.3 Policy E4 of the Borough Local Plan states that permission will not be granted for proposals involving the loss of business uses. Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy states that permission will not normally be granted for development proposals that involve the loss of existing employment land and premises unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposal will contribute to the objective of regeneration of the local economy in other ways, including significant enhancement of the environment, amenity and condition of the local area.


4.4 It should be noted that Sutton Road is an area of Southend which has not had significant regeneration and this site has the potential to contribute significantly to its regeneration.

4.5 The previous application was refused on the basis that insufficient evidence had been provided to justify the loss of commercial floor space which was considered contrary to Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy.

4.6 Since the previous application was refused an employment review of the Borough has been undertaken which is considered to be a material change in planning circumstances. Paragraph 3.35 of the Employment Land Review suggests how the area should be developed in the future and states;

“Sutton Road is located north of the town centre, several units are vacant and the premises are of mixed condition. Part of the area already has permission for residential use and one further site has been promoted for residential for the SHLAA. It is recommended that the site is considered for redevelopment and regeneration with residential led schemes with supporting commercial uses consolidated on the ground floor to serve the community.”

4.7 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development is in line with the requirements of the Employment Land Review.

4.8 The current application proposes the same amount of commercial floor space (460 sq.m) as the previously refused application. This will result in the loss of 1135 sq.m of floor space as the existing single storey building on site has a floor space of 1595 sq.m. However, the applicant has now submitted an employment history of the site (of both 319 and 320 Sutton Road) dating back to 1987. The highest numbers of employment on the site was in 1994, when the site employed 104 people. This dramatically decreased in 1998 to 20, and numbers have continued to decline further since. The latest figures for 2010 show that a total of 8 full time and 3 part time staff are employed across the site as a whole. Therefore, it can be concluded that the site currently provides, and has done so for a significant period, low levels of employment.

4.9 In light of the above evidence, it is considered that the proposed 8 units and level of commercial floor space would have little impact on the levels of staff employed on the site and it is not considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy E4 of the Local Plan or Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy.


4.10 Additionally, the proposed scheme incorporates an efficient use of land which will enhance the local environment and provide additional housing within the Town Centre and Central Area, therefore contributing to the Borough’s additional housing targets outlined in Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy. The Strategic Housing Local Authority Assessment (SHLAA) states that the site falls within a part of Sutton Road where there is ability to repair the townscape as many buildings are coming to the end of their natural life and re-instate residential uses in order for the area to better relate to the buildings opposite. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the SHLAA.

4.11 Therefore, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable and the overall acceptability of the development will depend on detailed matters.

Design and Impact on Street Scene

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan Policies C7, C11, C14, H5, H7 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.12 Whilst the appearance of the development is a reserved matter, the proposal consists of a part two, part three and part four storey building with the ground floor occupied by commercial units and a basement parking area. The external materials to be used are predominantly facing brickwork, aluminium windows and doors with glazed balconies. The fourth floor will be predominantly glazed and clad with fibre cement panels and it has also been stepped back from the front of the building in order to reduce its impact in the street scene.

4.13 Concern is raised with respect to the use of cladding on the fourth floor as the material will not be used elsewhere on the development and could appear out of character. However, details of materials would be agreed by condition.

4.14 Whilst there is a strong horizontal emphasis to the building, no objection is raised given that the street scene is mixed and does not have a uniform character. The proposed development will have a contemporary design, although quite different from traditional buildings in the local area, there is no objection in principle to a contemporary scheme as it will be read as an individual, standalone scheme.

4.15 Approval is being sought for the scale of the building. It is considered that this has been satisfactory reduced in comparison to the previously refused scheme which was predominantly four storeys in height. The proposed development is now predominantly three storeys in height, with a fourth floor on the north-eastern corner of the site. On the far southern end of the building, the amenity deck area has been removed from the roof of this section of the building which results in the front of the building only being just under two metres higher than the two storey shopping parade that it is immediately adjacent to. This ensures that the proposed development is not unduly prominent or out of scale with the neighbouring shopping parade which is separated by a distance of one metre.


4.16 It is not considered that the proposal would be unduly prominent in relation to the existing commercial buildings to the north of the site which are one storey (5.5m high) due to the separation distance between these buildings and the proposed development of over 9.5m.

4.17 The development is considered to be detrimental to the street scene, marking an improvement on the appearance of the existing buildings on site which are considered to have little positive contribution to the street scene.

4.18 An intensification of the site is considered will help to regenerate the local area and is therefore welcomed, subject to the considerations outlined below being satisfactorily addressed.

4.19 Therefore, in light of the above, no objections are raised to the design of the building and it is not considered to be detrimental to the character or appearance of the street scene.

Residential Amenity

Planning Policy Statement 1; Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP4; Borough Local Plan Policies E5, H5 and H7.

4.20 Residential dwellinghouses adjoin the site at the rear in Redstock Road and Gayton Road. These properties generally have medium sized rear gardens.

4.21 The proposed building at its closest is sited 15.2m from the rear boundary of the site and there is a further 30m from the rear of these dwellinghouses in Gayton Road to the rear boundary of the site. Therefore, there is a minimum separation distance of 45m from the rear of the building to the rear of these properties which is considered to be a sufficient distance to mitigate overlooking. It is also considered that this significant distance will prevent the proposed building from being overbearing.

4.22 The neighbouring properties in Redstock Road which back onto the rear of the site have rear gardens of 20m in depth. The building has a height of three storeys towards this side of the boundary. Given the drop in ground level towards the rear of the site there is a raised amenity deck proposed at the rear of the building which extends from the ground floor level of the building. The amenity deck is raised above the ground level by some 2.9m. In order to prevent overlooking of neighbouring occupiers in Redstock Road, a privacy screen condition can be imposed where it is considered necessary, i.e. along part of the southern and western boundaries of the raised deck closest to these occupiers to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to their gardens.


4.23 To the north of the site are commercial buildings and there are no issues in respect of overlooking. It is not considered that these windows would prejudice the future development of the adjacent commercial site to the north as there is no development brief or planning permission for redevelopment of this site. In light of the above, it is not considered that the proposed development would give rise to overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers.

4.24 Concern has been expressed in respect of impact of the proposed car park located to the rear of the site by neighbours located in Gayton Road. However, it should be noted that there will be a minimum distance of 31m from the rear of these properties to the rear boundary of the application site which is considered to be sufficient to mitigate issues of noise or disturbance from the car park. The added landscaping along the rear boundary will also help to mitigate the perceived impact on neighbouring occupiers. Additionally, it should be noted that there is an existing car park in a similar position to the rear of commercial buildings to north of the site accessed off Vale Road which is located in closer proximity to rear gardens than the proposed car parking area.

4.25 The proposed development incorporates an appropriate level of dwelling mix and a range of bedroom sizes. There are 3no. 3 bedroom units proposed which will provide suitable family accommodation. The units range from a minimum of 47sq.m (one bedroom unit) to a maximum of 118sq.m (3 bedroom unit) in size. The size and layout of the units are considered to be acceptable and will provide suitable usable spaces.

4.26 The proposed amenity space is located at the rear of the proposed development. Due to the drop in ground levels toward the rear of the site the amenity space will be located on a raised deck. This space is 372sq.m. Additionally, a patio amenity deck will be provided on the third floor of the building which is 197sq.m. Flat no’s 25 and 27 will also have access to their own private balconies which are each approximately 13sq.m.

4.27 It is considered that the proposed amenity spaces are an acceptable size for the number of proposed dwellings and no objections are raised. These areas will be exclusive to residents only as access will be via secure entrances from communal hallways within the building.

4.28 It is not considered that the proposal would be detrimental to other nearby residential occupiers given the distance from the application site.

Parking and Highways Considerations

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP3; Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11, Essex Planning Officer Association (EPOA) Vehicle Parking Standards.


4.29 The application incorporates 39 car parking spaces which will be located either within the basement of the building, which is accessed by a ramp and vehicular access located off Sutton Road towards the north-eastern corner of the site, or at the rear of the site. However, the allocation of these car parking spaces has not been provided. Additionally, a lay-by is proposed to the front of the site which will form an extension to the existing lay-by to the south of the site and provide 5 parking spaces. This will be dealt with by condition. Secure cycle parking for up to 38 spaces has also been provided within the basement of the proposed development along with separate commercial and residential refuse stores. Full details of a Waste Management Plan to be first agreed by the Council are subject to a condition.

4.30 The application site is located within an urban area where there is good access to public transport. Bus routes run along Sutton Road and the site is within walking distance of the Town Centre. The EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards state that a maximum of one space per dwelling in urban areas is appropriate where access to public transport is good.

4.31 The EPOA standards recommend a maximum parking standard of 1 space per 20 sq.m for A2 uses and 1 space per 30 sq.m for B1 uses. Whilst this would equate to a total of 23 or 18 spaces respectively, it should be reiterated that the site is within an urban area and therefore sustainable in terms of access to public transport. Five spaces will also be available for callers to the site in the extended lay-by proposed. Given that the site is sustainable in terms of access to public transport, the level of parking provision is considered to be satisfactory and therefore no objections are raised.

4.32 The application is accompanied by a transport assessment which concludes that over the course of an average weekday the proposed development is likely to generate an increase of 10 bus trips in comparison to the existing use of the site, and the impact of this level of increase on the existing bus network is very low. Given this, and the evident spare capacity on existing buses at peak times, it is not considered necessary to request a contribution towards additional transport provision.

4.33 Subject to the above and the conditions imposed below, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant highways policies.

Planning Obligations

DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP3, CP4 and CP8; SPD2 (Planning Obligations)

4.34 Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy requires 20% affordable housing to be provided within the development. The provision should consist of 2 x 1 bedroom units, 1 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units (a total of 5 units).


4.35 An education contribution of £20,830.77 towards primary education will also be provided.

4.36 The applicant has informally agreed to carry out a scheme of public art with a value of £22,000 which equates to 1% of the development costs. Full details of the scheme will be dealt with by condition and by virtue of the S.106 condition.

4.37 A fee for monitoring and administration of the Section 106 is also sought to ensure any costs in relation to the above obligations do not fall on the Council. The applicant has agreed to this fee.

4.38 On 6th April 2010 the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 came into force. The planning obligations contained in the S106 Agreement, prepared and completed on 30th April 2010, have been fully considered in the context of the relevant tests as set out in Part 11 Section 122 (2) of the Regulations namely that planning obligations are:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development,

The conclusion is that the proposed planning obligations meet all of these tests.

Highways Works

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP3; Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11, Essex Planning Officer Association (EPOA) Vehicle Parking Standards.

4.39 An extension is proposed to the existing lay-by to the south of the site which will extend in front of the proposed development to provide an additional 5 parking spaces. The developer will fund these works and separate highways consent will be required which will be dealt with separately.

4.40 The proposed lay-by will be dealt with by condition. No objections have been raised to these works by the Highways Officer and the works are considered necessary to provide additional parking provision for callers to the premises and short term parking. Therefore, no objections are raised to this part of the proposal.

Other Issues

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3 and Planning Policy Statement 23; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, KP3 and CP4; Borough Local Plan Policies H5, H7, C14 and U2.


4.41 Landscaping is a reserved matter, and full details would be required at the reserved matters stage. Whilst the amenity space is on a deck, it is considered that a satisfactory scheme can be achieved.

4.42 Policy KP2 requires 10% of the development’s energy needs to be provided from renewable energy sources. Given that the application is an outline application a condition is recommended to ensure this requirement is met, and such measures must be built into any future reserved matters application. A sustainability statement has been submitted stating that roof mounted solar thermal flat panels will be installed on the flat roof area to provide hot water heating for each of the residential units which will have their boilers connected to this. This is envisaged will provide a minimum of 10% of the development’s energy needs.

4.43 It is not considered that a SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) condition is necessary in this instance given that the whole site currently consists of hardstanding and levels of planting proposed will reduce levels of surface water run-off.

Summary

4.44 The principle of development of the site for office and/or business together with residential use is considered to be acceptable. The proposed scale and amount of development proposed is considered to be reasonable, and full details of the appearance and landscaping proposed would be required at the reserved matters stage. It is considered that the scheme has satisfactorily overcome the previous reasons for refusal, subject to the satisfactory completion of the S.106 agreement.

5 Planning Policy Summary

5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Planning and Transport), Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy), Planning Policy Statement 23 (Pollution Control), Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise).

5.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), KP3 (Implementation and Resources), CP2 (Town Centre and Retail Development), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility), CP4 (The Environment & Urban Renaissance), CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

5.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C7 (Shop and Commercial Frontages and Fascias), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), C18 (Commercial Floorspace), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats), E1 (Employment Promotion), E3 (Secondary Offices), E4 (Industry and Warehousing), E5 (Non Residential Uses Close to Housing), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities), T13 (Cycling and Walking), U2 (Pollution Control).


5.4 Supplementary Planning Document 1: Design & Townscape Guide, 2009.

5.5 Supplementary Planning Document 2: Planning Obligations, 2010.

5.6 EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001).

5.7 Waste Management Guide.

5.8 Development Management DPD.

6 Representation Summary

Traffic and Highways

6.1 Extension of lay-by and the associated traffic regulation orders to be subject to a S106 and S278 agreement. An estimate for the anticipated cost can be prepared when required. The two redundant vehicle crossings should be reinstated at the developer’s expense and secured by means of the S106 or a condition.

6.2 It is not clear how the waste bins will be collected since they are at the bottom of the vehicle ramp. It will not be acceptable for them to be left on the highway for collection, so a waste collection strategy may be necessary to demonstrate that this will not happen. [Officer comment: This is conditioned below.]

Design and Regeneration

6.3 The commercial buildings on the application site and the adjacent site have been set at a lower ground which helps to minimise their impact in the street.

6.4 The amended scheme has reduced the area of the top floor accommodation and the extent of the roof terrace in an attempt to reduce the impact on the neighbouring terrace of 2 storey shops and flats. This has created a better step change between the terrace but this also needs to be combined with a significant set back of both the terrace and the living accommodation from the front building line in order to have a noticeable impact on the street scene.

6.5 Some concerns have been raised in respect of the design of the living accommodation on the fourth floor to the front of the building which leads out to a balcony area to the front of the building as this part of the building uses a large expanse of glass. It has been recommended that there should be a better relationship between the top floor glazed area and the rest of the elevation and a more comprehensive corner feature should be introduced. [Officer comment: It is not considered that a revised corner feature is necessary given that this site is not on a bend in the road or corner position.]


6.6 The size of amenity area is considered adequate for the number of units. Its location on a raised deck and roof terrace is acceptable in principle provided it is well landscaped with significant soft landscaping and planting.

Director of Children and Learning

6.7 The application site falls within the catchment areas of Bournemouth Park Primary School and Cecil Jones High School. Due to Government cuts in funding any additional pupils in the area will put extra pressure on local primary schools and therefore an education contribution requested in the amount of £20,830.77 towards primary provision.

Environmental Health

6.8 To be reported.

Housing

6.9 20% of the units should be affordable: 2 x 1 bedroom units, 1 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units (a total of 5 units).

Parks and Open Spaces

6.10 To be reported.

Public Consultation

6.11 A site notice has been displayed and 31 neighbouring addresses notified by letter. The application has also been advertised in the press. Four letters of representation have been received which object to the proposal on the following grounds:

Due to the sharp drop in land levels towards the rear, the flats will be overly intrusive, result in loss of daylight, overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers at the rear.

Noise created by residents parking at the rear of the site. There are enough flats in the local area. Questions impact on school provision in local area which are already

oversubscribed. The area already suffers from inadequate parking. Detrimental impact on local area. The new units may attract no business, whilst the current businesses on

the site are thriving. Increased impact on parking which is already at a strain in the local area. The current use of the site is compatible with neighbouring occupiers,

however the proposed use will not be. Lower values of existing neighbouring properties. [Officer Comment: This

is not a material planning consideration.]


7 Relevant Planning History

7.1 09/00761/OUTM: Demolish existing building, erect part 3/part 4/part 5 storey block of 31 flats incorporating B1/A2 units to ground floor and part basement parking (Outline) – Refused permission on the following grounds:

01 The proposal, by reason of its excessive scale, massing and bulk would result in a form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to Polices C11, H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1), and Government guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3).

02 The proposal is considered to result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties to the detriment of the residential amenities of those occupiers, contrary to Policy to Polices C11, H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

03 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to provide a satisfactory level of highway contribution, is contrary to Policies KP2, KP3 and CP8 of the Core Strategy and Policies H2, T2, T4 and T9 of the East of England Plan.

04 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to provide a satisfactory level and variety of affordable housing, is contrary to Policies KP2, KP3 and CP8 of the Core Strategy and Policy H2 of the East of England Plan.

05 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to provide a satisfactory level of education contribution, is contrary to Policies KP2 and CP8 of the Core Strategy.

06 The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to address sustainable construction and design issues and the use of renewable energy resources, is contrary to PPS1 and PPS25, East of England Plan (May 2008) Policies SS1, ENV7, ENG1, WAT1 and WAT4; Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).


07 The proposed redevelopment is unacceptable as insufficient evidence has been provided to indicate justification for the loss of the commercial element, in terms of marketing or evidence that a commercial redevelopment has been considered and ruled out, which is considered contrary to the provisions as detailed in Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy.

8 Recommendation

Members are recommended to:

(a) DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control to GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to completion of a PLANNING AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation to seek the following:

1. 20% affordable housing units (2 x 1 bedroom flats, 1 x 2 bedroom flat and 2 x 3 bedroom flats - a total of 5 units. 70% of these dwellings will be rental dwellings and 30% shall comprise of shared ownership dwellings).

2. Education contribution of £20,830.77

3. Public art on site to the value of £22,000 (or a contribution).

4. S106 Monitoring fee of £2,333.23.

(b) The Head of Planning or Head of Planning and Transportation or the Group Manager (Development Control & Building Control) be authorised to determine the application upon completion of the above obligation, so long as planning permission when granted and the obligation when executed, accords with the details set out in the report submitted and the conditions listed below:

01. Application for approval of the appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than 3 (three) years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 2 (two) years from the date of approval of the last reserved matter to be approved.


Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and because the application is for outline planning permission only and the particulars submitted are insufficient for consideration of the details mentioned.

02. The commercial space shall be limited to A2 and/or B1(a) uses as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005, or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: In order to provide a satisfactory provision of employment uses on site and in the interest to protect residential amenity, in accordance with Policies CP1, CP4 and KP2 of the Core Strategy and Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan.

03. No development shall take place until details including samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations; boundary treatments and hard surfaces have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, Policies KP2 and CP4 of DPD1 (Core Strategy) and Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

04. Details of a 1.8m high privacy screen to be erected on the decked amenity area incorporating details of its design, appearance and siting shall be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the residential units. The privacy screen shall be erected and permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

05. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed site levels shall be submitted to and first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in and permanently retained in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and the character and appearance of the street scene in order to comply with Policies KP2 and CP4 of DPD1 (Core Strategy), Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.


06. Prior to first occupation of the development a Waste Management Plan for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall detail how the development will provide for the collection of general refuse and re-usable and recyclable waste and what strategies will be in place to reduce the amount of general refuse over time. Waste management at the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the environment and ensure adequate and appropriate storage, recycling and collection of waste resulting from the development in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 Policy SS1 and Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4.

07. All redundant vehicular crossovers shall be reinstated to footpaths prior to the first occupation of the building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out and permanently retained in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interest of amenity and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan, Policies KP2, CP3 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

08. All planting in the approved landscaping scheme, submitted as part of the Reserved Matters, shall be carried out within the first planting season following first occupation of the development. Any trees or shrubs dying, removed, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of landscaping, pursuant to Policy C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

09. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of energy efficiency and other sustainability measures, including the provision of at least 10% of the development’s energy needs being provided from on-site renewable sources, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and permanently retained in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To contribute towards sustainable development, in accordance with Policy KP2 of the Southend on Sea Borough Core Strategy and PPS1 guidance.


10. The hours of use of the commercial units shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of these units. The office units shall only be open in accordance with the agreed hours unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of residential occupiers, in accordance with Policy E5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

11. No dwellings or commercial units hereby approved shall be occupied until separate commercial and residential refuse storage has been provided in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse storage hereby approved shall be retained in perpetuity for the storage of refuse unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide satisfactory refuse storage provision on site, in accordance with Policies H5 and H7 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan and the adopted Waste Management Guide.

12. No development hereby permitted shall take place until Southend Borough Council (as local planning authority and highway authority) has approved in writing a full scheme of works (including detailed designs and contract details), and the relevant highways approvals are in place, in relation to:

i) the formation of the new lay-by to the front of the site, and ii) the reinstatement of all redundant vehicular crossovers.

The development and the associated highway works shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be permanently retained in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability, accessibility, highways management, efficiency, amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policies KP2, KP3, CP3 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and Policy T8 of the Borough Local Plan.

13. The amenity deck shall be completed in full in accordance with the approved reserved matters prior to the first occupation of the residential units, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and permanently retained in accordance with the agreed details.


Reason: To provide a suitable level of amenity space for future occupiers, in accordance with Policies H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1).

14. 39 car parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with plan no. 201C prior to the first occupation of the building hereby approved and shall thereafter be permanently retained for the parking of vehicles for the benefit of the occupants of the dwellings or for the parking of vehicles working in the building or calling there for business purposes, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off-street car parking provision is provided for occupants of the new dwellings and people using the development, in the interests of residential amenity and highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 Policy T8, Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy, Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11, and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

15. No dwellings or commercial unit shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with plan no. 201C for 38 bicycles to be securely parked unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory secure off-street bicycle parking is provided in the interests of sustainability, amenity and highways efficiency and safety, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 Policy T8, Core Strategy Policy KP2, Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11, and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

(c) In the event that the planning obligation referred to in part (a) above has not been completed by 18th May 2011, the Group Manager (Development Control & Building Control) or Head of Planning & Transport be authorised to refuse planning permission for the application on the grounds of failure to comply with Policies CP6 and CP8 of the Southend on Sea Core Strategy 2007.


INFORMATIVES1. This permission is governed by a legal agreement between the applicant and Southend Borough Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The agreement relates to: 1. Affordable housing, 2. Education, 3. Public Art, 4.S106 Monitoring costs.

2. This grant of planning permission does not give permission for the encroachment of any part of this development, including eaves, guttering, rainwater goods etc, onto land outside the application site or outside the control of the applicant. Any such encroachment may require an agreement under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 and it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure any such agreement is made.

3. In relation to Condition 12 you are advised to contact Highways Engineer Martin Warren (Tel: 01702 215003) to discuss the requisite Highways Licence/Agreements under the Highways Act 1980. You are advised that a Highways Licence/Agreement needs to be in place before any works are carried out to the public highway, and any works to public transport infrastructure (e.g. bus stops) will need to be carried out by a Council approved contractor.

4. The applicant is advised that the use of cladding on the fourth floor of the building is considered to be out of character with the rest of the building and shall be revised.

5. Separate advertisement consent will be required for any advertisements to be installed on the building which require consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007.


Reference: 11/00087/FULM

Ward: Victoria

Proposal:

Demolish existing buildings, erect two four and five storey blocks comprising 97 self-contained flats with basement parking, lay out communal amenity space, refuse store and landscaping, basement car parking for 99 cars, bicycle/motorcycle parking and form vehicular access onto Sutton Road

Address: 257 - 285 Sutton Road, Southend-On-Sea, Essex

Applicant: Sutton Road Properties Limited And Maywald Properties Ltd

Agent: Mr C. Wickham, Christopher Wickham Associates

Consultation Expiry: 19th April 2011

Expiry Date: 4th May 2011

Case Officer: Charlotte Galforg

Plan Nos: 021 D,021 D, 022 D, 023D, 024D

Recommendation:Delegate to the Group Manager or Head of Planning & Transport to GRANT PERMISSION subject to expiry of consultation period and completion of a S.106 Agreement


1 The Proposal

1.1 Site Area 0.42 hectares

Height Maximum 5 storeys

No of Units 97 = 50 x 1 bed; 43 x 2 bed; 2 x 3 bed,

2 x 4 bed

Car Parking 99

Cycle Parking 149

Motor Cycle Parking 13

Amenity Space 1,239 sqm excluding balconies (12.5

sqm per unit)

1.2 The proposal is to demolish existing workshops and industrial buildings and erect a four storey block of 97 self-contained flats. Parking would be provided within the basement, accessed via a new ramp from the main Sutton Road Frontage. Provision for internal refuse storage will be made at ground floor level adjacent to the three pedestrian entrances to the blocks. The basement car park will be accessible by light goods vehicles, and refuse collection will take place from the front of the building using a lay-by which will be constructed on the highway frontage. A dedicated right- turn lane will be provided for southbound vehicles entering the site from Sutton Road. It should be noted that during the course of the application the number and breakdown of unit sizes has changed to incorporate 3 and 4 bedroom flats as affordable housing units.

1.3 The building is of contemporary design and is mainly four storeys in height across the development, with a fifth storey at the eastern end of the development. The development is separated into two blocks. The front and rear of the building includes provision of balconies. The building is layered horizontally and broken up with projecting frames enclosing a contrasting material which provides an articulation to the façade. The main part of the building has been set back from the pavement line to provide a private space and therefore separation. Each of the entrances is clearly defined with projecting canopies. The façade materials proposed for the scheme enforce this layered approach to the design. The blocks are clad in different materials that provide each element with their own individuality and identity. The application shows pink and lilac render used on part of the elevations.

1.4 Amenity space is provided to the rear of the building in the form of communal space. There is also a landscaped area to the front of the proposed building.


1.5 The applicants have stated that they intend to implement the proposed development in partnership with Estuary Housing Association. Since submission the applicant has revised the scheme in relation to the amount of affordable housing that is proposed and is now proposing to provide 30% (29 units) in accordance with policy.

1.6 The applicants have stated that they intend to enter into a S.106 Agreement to ensure the delivery of 30% affordable housing at the application site, together with:

o an education contribution of £39,767.84; o a public art contribution equivalent to 1% of development costs o highways works o a requirement to either remove or replace the incinerator on the

adjacent site so that it would not cause nuisance and o S106 administration and monitoring fee

1.7 In support of their application the applicants have submitted the following documents: Planning Statement; Energy Statement; Transport Statement; Design and Access Statement, Environmental Noise Assessment, interim viability statement, Sutton road and Marine Plaza viability appraisals, and associated correspondence.

2.0 Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site is located on the southern side of Sutton Road on the ‘S’ bend between Sycamore Grove and Redstock Road and has a frontage of some 116m. There are presently a number of buildings occupying the site, a frontage building of two storeys (although it appears to be single storey when viewed from outside the site) and single storey workshops and warehouses to the rear. Several of the workshops remain in use; however the majority of the buildings are vacant.

2.2 The ground level at the front of the site is level with Sutton Road however the land then falls away steeply from Sutton Road to the rear of the site which abuts the Greyhound Retail Park. The site is readily visible across the retail park.

2.3 Immediately to the north of the site are two storey houses and the beginning of a commercial parade of shops running in a southerly direction along Sutton Road while behind this are more residential premises. To the south is the Greyhound Retail Park and to the west is an operational industrial use, with further commercial premises along Sutton Road and residential development beyond these.

2.4 To the east of the site lies a small single storey industrial unit which currently appears to be occupied.


3.0 Planning Considerations

3.1 The main issues to be considered are: the principle of residential use on this site, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, traffic generation, parking and servicing, impact on surrounding development and the standard of accommodation and the impact on future occupiers, provision of affordable housing, and other S106 contributions.

4.0 Appraisal

Background to the application

4.1 Permission has previously been granted for separate residential development of both 257-283 and 285 Sutton Road, resulting in extant permissions for 98 flats on the current application site. (It should be noted that the permission for 257 – 283 Sutton Road expires on 14th April 2011 unless it can be considered that development has already commenced on site.) As part of those applications the applicants entered into S106 agreements relating to: (257-285) provision of affordable housing; financial contributions of £150,000 for public transport improvements and/or cycle infrastructure and/or education and/or leisure and recreations improvements and/or public art. 285 – 20% affordable housing provision; education contribution of £24,218,18; public art equivalent to 1% of development costs; traffic regulation order; and not to commence development until such time as the incinerator at 27-28 Redstock Road as either been removed or replaced.

5.0 Principle and loss of employment land

Planning Policy Statements: PPS1, PPS 3; East of England Plan Policies: SS1; SS3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies: KP1, KP2, KP3: CP1, CP3, CP4, CP8: Borough Local Plan Policy E4.

5.1 With regard to the principle of a residential development and particularly the loss of a designated industrial site, the site should be considered as being “previously developed land”. Permission has previously been granted for residential development on this site. Section 4.28 of the Borough Local Plan identifies a number of existing industrial sites which were suitable for industrial purposes but which the Council no longer wishes to remain subject to the consideration of Policy E4. The industrial premises at 257 – 283 and 285 Sutton Road are included in these sites. Also of relevance to this issue is that other sites identified in this section of the Local Plan; Barham Timber in Fairfax Drive, and 27-28 Redstock Road have all been approved for residential redevelopment. It is therefore considered that an objection cannot be raised on policy grounds to the loss of the site as an employment site.


Design and Impact on the Character of the Area

Planning Policy Statements: PPS1, PPS 3: East of England Plan Policies -ENV7 DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1, KP2, KP3, CP4, CP7; BLP policies; C11, C14, C15, H5, H7, Design and Townscape Guide.

Density

5.2 The scheme proposes 97 flats which equates to a density of approx 230 dwellings per hectare. PPS 3 (Housing) encourages local authorities to think imaginatively about designs and layouts which make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment. The Council’s Design and Townscape Guide recognises development sites in town centres and along public transport corridors generally lend themselves to higher densities, however high density schemes with large footprints can easily become overbearing and dominant in the street scene. The proposed building is 4/5 storeys high and therefore the scale, height and massing are key considerations in assessing its context within the surrounding development.

Design and Public Realm Impact

5.3 The section of Sutton Road between East Street and Guildford Road is characterised by two storey buildings and although the uses are mixed, the heights of buildings along this section are remarkably consistent. Indeed the most visually prominent building in this section of Sutton Road is the 3 storey building on the application site (this is partially demolished). The land to the south of the site is set lower than the application site. This includes the Greyhound Retail Park, Grainger Road Industrial Estate and surrounding residential streets. Again the majority of development in this area is a maximum two storeys in height with a fine grain of residential terraced development as well as the larger retail warehouses and industrial estates which create a coarser grain, albeit with a low rise built form. To the north and east the land is at a similar level to the application site and the majority of development is two storey residential housing again with a fine grain. Planning permission was granted in 2008 and 2010 for the erection of part 3, part 4, part 5 storey blocks of flats the application site. The proposed scheme would take some reference from the design of that approved development.

5.4 The proposed scheme is a contemporary design in an area which is recognised as currently lacking buildings of any distinct architectural quality. Since submission of the application, the proposals have been revised to reduce the height of the development at the boundaries of the site to three storeys, and to relocate the accommodation within a fifth storey towards the eastern end of the site. This is similar to the previously approved scheme has the benefit of breaking up the uniformity of development across the site, reducing the visual mass of the development and reducing the disparity in scale between the proposed development and the adjoining sites, which contain significantly lower, smaller scale buildings.


5.5 It is recognised that the building will have a strong visual presence and it is considered that, it will create a suitable visual “stop” to this part of Sutton Road when viewed from the north and the strong contemporary design is generally considered to be acceptable.

5.6 The rear elevation of the building will have a strong public presence when viewed across the adjacent retail estate. Officers are satisfied that, the rear of the building will have a satisfactory visual impact, as the mass of the building has been broken up visually and there is sufficient fenestration and detailing to ensure that, notwithstanding the size of the building, it will not appear unduly dominant.

5.7 There are a number of detailed design issues as set out in the Design and Regeneration comments at para 10.7 It is now considered that the applicants have addressed these issues.

Traffic and Transport Issues

Planning Policy Statements: PPS1, PPG 13: Transport; East of England Plan Policies T4, T9, T14. DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies: SO9, SO13, SO14, SO15, SO17, KP2, KP3, CP3; BLP Policies; T1, T8, T10, T11, T12, T13.

Traffic Generation

5.8 A traffic assessment has been submitted with the application. Although this was originally submitted in support of the earlier application on the site it indicates that the car trip generation for the proposed development can be readily accommodated on to the existing highway network. The site will no longer generate heavy goods vehicle trips, (apart from servicing requirements such as refuse collection), which will be an improvement. No objections have been raised by the Highways department in relation to the conclusions of the transport assessment.

Access

5.9 It is proposed that vehicles would enter the application site via a central access which would lead to the basement car park. The proposed access includes provision of a right hand turn lane within the existing carriageway for vehicles accessing the site from the north. The works to the highway can be controlled by use of a Grampian condition and the S106 Agreement.

Car Parking

5.10 Car parking to serve the development is proposed at a level of 100%. The site is reasonably accessible by public transport during the day and early evening, and the level of parking is considered acceptable to meet the needs of residents, provided that adequate public transport provision is in place and that occupiers are encouraged to walk and cycle to the site. There are two spaces shown within the car park which would be available either for service vehicles.


It is considered that the 100% parking would be sufficient to serve the development.

Bicycle/motorcycle parking

5.11 149 bicycle parking spaces and 13 motorcycle spaces are proposed within secure covered storage areas. Although EPOA standards suggest that 156 cycle parking spaces should be provided (based on a standard of 2 per dwellings of two bed or more, 1 per one bed dwelling plus 1 per 8 units for visitors) it is considered that the provisions proposed is adequate to serve the development.

Servicing

5.12 Two parking spaces for service vehicles are included within the basement area. However the basement car park would not be accessible by larger service vehicles. The applicants propose to provide a service bay to the front of the site to serve some of the units. However this service bay is too distant from the refuse store in the western part of the building to provide satisfactory accommodation for refuse vehicles to serve that part of the site. It is therefore proposed to undertake refuse collection from Redstock Road. This will make use of the existing drop kerb and given the low level of traffic within Redstock Road should mean that refuse collection from this point will not have undue impact on other highway users.

5.13 There is a wide area of pavement to the front of the site. Officers are concerned that because of the distance of on street parking bays from some parts of the development, visitors to the development may be tempted to use this area for short stay parking. There has previously been discussion regarding the siting of public art on this part of the site. A suitable condition will be required in order to ensure that this pavement area is made unattractive to drivers.

Impact on Residential Amenity

Planning Policy Statements: PPS1- Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS 3 - Housing; PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control; PPG 24: Planning and Noise; East of England Plan Policies ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies; CP4; CP6, CP7; CP8; BLP policies C11, C14, C15, H5, H7, E5, T8

Outlook and Sunlight and Daylight

5.14 In relation to the application site the closest residential property is a flat which is located above 295 Sutton Road; this has a secondary window on the northern side elevation which faces the site. The westernmost end of the proposed development would face this window. Other nearby residential properties are located on the northern and western sides of Sutton Road and on the northern and southern sides of Redstock Road.


5.15 Consideration should be given to the visual impact of the building and whether it is intrusive and overbearing or would result in the loss of daylight or overlooking. It is recognised that there is an increase in the height and bulk of the buildings on the site which will have a greater visual impact on the dwellings opposite. The westernmost part of the development is essentially four storeys in height (although the applicant has been requested to reduce it to three storeys). Given the separation between the proposed development and the adjacent flat, at 295 Sutton Road and given that the window that is most affected is a first floor secondary window, it is not considered that the building will be visually intrusive or overbearing or would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight.

5.16 Committee has also resolved to grant planning permission, subject to completion of a S106 agreement, for residential development at 27-28 Redstock Road, the adjacent site to the west. This would be a three storey development, with vehicular access alongside the proposed development at 285 Sutton Road. The Redstock Road development would have kitchen windows along the side elevation of the building. These would undoubtedly be affected by the application property, and would experience a loss of outlook and some loss of light. However, these are side windows and are secondary in nature. Such windows would not normally be expected to benefit from the same open outlook and level of light as would main windows to the front or rear of a dwelling. It should also be noted that the residential proposal at 27-28 Redstock Road has not yet actually gained planning permission as the S106 agreement remains outstanding, and the applicant does not appear to be actively pursuing completion of the agreement. No objection is therefore raised in relation to the impact of the development on the outlook of occupiers of the future development at 27-28 Redstock Road, or to potential loss of light thereto.

5.17 Previously concerns have been raised by residents immediately opposite the site to the north in Sutton Road. In particular, the visual impact of the building and whether it is intrusive and overbearing, or would result in loss of daylight was of concern to neighbours. It is recognised that there is an increase in the height and bulk of the building which will have a greater visual impact on neighbouring dwellings opposite the site. However the overall scale, massing and height of the building is similar to that which has been previously approved and on balance it is not considered that the building will be visually intrusive or overbearing.

5.18 With regard to loss of daylight, the proposed development is if similar height to that which was previously granted permission on the eastern part of the site. That development met Building Research Establishment (BRE) in terms of daylighting and overshadowing. It is therefore, considered that the proposed development will not materially impact on access to adequate daylight for the properties opposite the site.


Overlooking

5.19 In relation to the potential for loss of privacy through overlooking, the main concern relates to the premises immediately opposite the site in Sutton Road, properties at the southern end of Sycamore Grove and those in Redstock Road. The separation between the building line of the existing houses opposite and the proposed building is approximately 21 metres at the closest point. There will be a number of openings within this elevation which include balconies that are directly orientated towards these dwellings, however the main private outdoor gardens to the rear of the dwellings will not be overlooked. With regard to the properties fronting Sycamore Grove there is the potential for overlooking of the rear gardens of these properties, however there is a separation of approximately 25 metres from the edge of the building to the boundary of the nearest property. By comparison, the rear building line of the houses within Sycamore Grove to the boundary with the houses fronting Sutton Road is 18 metres. On balance it is considered there is sufficient separation between these properties so as not to warrant refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy through overlooking.

5.20 With regard to the properties opposite the site, in Redstock Road, the separation between the building line of the existing houses opposite and the proposed building is approximately 14m metres at the closest point. There will be a number of openings within this elevation which include balconies that are directly orientated towards this dwelling. However, as noted above the affected window is a secondary side window, which currently faces onto the highway. The main habitable room windows to the property will not be overlooked. On balance, it is considered there is sufficient separation between these properties so as not to warrant refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy through overlooking.

5.21 With regard to the proposed flats at 27-28 Redstock Road, there are a number of small windows in the side of the proposed development, which serve hallways and would look towards 27-28 Redstock Road. Any overlooking that would result from these windows could be mitigated by the use of condition to require obscure glazing. There are also windows within the rear projections of the development which would look towards the boundary with 27-28 Redstock Road. These are located some 15.45m from the site boundary. They are located closer to the boundary than the rear projections of the development that were previously approved and have the potential to give rise to some overlooking of the amenity areas of the residential development at Redstock Road. The applicants have amended the window configuration of this block and the windows can also be obscured glazed to avoid overlooking occurring in the future.


Noise and Disturbance to existing residents

5.22 The site has, in the past, been used for industrial purposes. There is a limited element of industrial use which continues on site today. These uses have the potential to cause some disturbance to adjoining residential sites and would also generate activity and traffic movement. There is very limited parking within the site boundary to serve the existing development, and therefore if more fully occupied the industrial use of the site would be likely to result in on street car parking. Therefore, although there will be activity associated with the proposed residential use of the site, this is not considered to be so significant to result in material harm to surrounding occupiers.

5.23 The impact of the development on existing residents is therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan.

Impact on future occupiers of the development

Planning Policy Statements: PPS1- Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS 3 - Housing; PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control; PPG 24: Planning and Noise; East of England Plan Policies - ENV7 ;DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies; CP4, CP6, CP7, CP8; BLP policies C11, C14, C15, H5, H7, E5, T8.

Size of units and amenity space provision

5.24 Turning to the details of the flats, the one bedroom units have a floor area of between approximately 46.4 and 55.6 sqm and the two bedroom units between 68.2 and 78.2 sqm, the 3 bed units are 102 sqm and 4 bed units 95.8 sqm. It should be noted that the size of the 3 bed units could be considered to be generous, and that the 4 bed units are located at ground floor and have access to some private amenity space as well as communal amenity areas. No guidelines are currently provided within the Local Plan for room sizes for new build schemes, however the figures meet the standards set out in the Development Management DPD proposed submission, which although it has little weight is a useful reference point. It is considered that the size of the flats is acceptable.


5.25 With respect to amenity space, the Design and Townscape Guide does not set out minimum standards for amenity space, rather it focuses on usability. There are 4 main amenity spaces to the rear of the proposed buildings, which face south and act as courtyards for the residents. In addition there is an area of soft landscaping to the front which has not been included in the calculation for the communal amenity. The total area for these spaces is 1,239 sqm. In addition, a number of residential units have their own private balcony or outdoor space which equates to a total of 380 sqm. The overall total provision of external amenity space for the scheme is therefore 1,619 sqm. Thus equates to approx 16.6 sqm per unit. The nearest public open space is the Victory Sports Ground to the north of the site which is an approx 800m walk. Most of the amenity space is readily accessible to occupiers although it would be desirable that the western part of the development had greater direct access, on balance the amount and type of amenity space provision is considered acceptable.

5.26 It should be noted that the balconies to the front of the development will suffer noise from the adjacent highway at levels in excess of World Health Organisation guideline values for a reasonable noise climate. Although it will be up to the residents whether or not to use their balconies, as was the case in the determination of the adjoining site, they have limited values as amenity areas.

Noise and nuisance

5.27 PPG24 (Planning and Noise) gives guidance on residential development in relation to road noise, and sets out four categories of noise exposure ranging from “A” to “D” (A being moderate and D being unacceptable). A noise assessment has been submitted which examines the impact of noise on the site. The noise assessment concludes that the site is subject to significant road noise, and states that the proposed dwellings would fall within category “C”, according to PPG24. PPG24 advises permission should not normally be given in such circumstances however, where it is considered permission should be given, conditions must be imposed to protect against noise impact.

5.28 Given that this is an urban location and is on previously developed land, and planning permission has previously been granted for residential development on the site, it is considered that in this case; subject to the use of particular glazing methods (which could be secured by condition) there would be no adverse noise impacts on the occupiers inside the development. This will however, require that windows within the front elevation be kept closed and mechanical ventilation installed. The external balconies on the front elevation of the building would be subject to unacceptable noise levels and although their use would be at the discretion of residents, they have limited value as discussed above.


5.29 27-28 Redstock Road is currently in use for industrial purposes. There is concern regarding the risk of nuisance occurring to the occupiers of the proposed flats due to the emission of smoke and fumes from the chimney to the incinerator, in the rear yard of 27-28 Redstock Road. The chimney is located in the south east corner of the adjoining premises and was located there to maximise the distance between the chimney and the 2 storey residential properties in Redstock Road. The chimney was relocated in response to complaints from residents in Redstock Road and the chimney height was raised to reduce the potential for complaints to occur. The height of the new flats will reach above the discharge height of the chimney.

5.30 It is considered that there will be detriment to the amenity of the occupiers of the flats due to emissions from the chimney, affecting the rear amenity area, and the new flats themselves, with no practical means of solving the problem whilst the use of the incinerator continues. Although there has been a resolution to grant planning permission for residential development on 27-28 Redstock Road, subject to a S106 agreement which remains unsigned, planning permission has not been granted and there is no guarantee that the development will ever go ahead.

5.31 The PPS 23 (Planning and Pollution Control) states in para 9 that “in considering proposals for development, LPA’s should take account of the risks of and from pollution and land contamination, and how these can be managed or reduced”.

5.32 Para 10 states:

“The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest. It plays an important role in determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution, either directly or from traffic generated, and in ensuring that other developments are, as far as possible, not affected by major existing, or potential sources of pollution”.

5.33 Paragraph 11 goes on to state “Where, for example, new housing is proposed close to a source of potential pollution, the risk of pollution from the normal operation of the process or the potential impacts and the extent to which the proposals address such risks will influence whether or not development should proceed”

5.34 Case law suggests that in a situation such as that which is being assessed, it is necessary to consider whether conditions for new residents would be so bad as to create continuing conflicts/complaints, and consequent problems for public authorities, or whether the view should be taken that prospective occupiers should be able to exercise choice as to whether live in an adverse environment or not.

5.35 It is clear from the situation that has previously arisen in relation to the chimney, before its relocation, that the impact on neighbouring occupiers is one that would be very likely to give rise to cause harm to future occupiers and give rise to complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that the impact of the chimney will necessarily diminish in the future.


5.36 Possible methods of mitigating against the impact of the chimney have been considered, but because of the nature impact this is not considered possible or practical.

5.37 As part of the S106 Agreement in relation to permission 10/01190/FULM it was agreed that the incinerator would either be removed or replaced with a model that did not result in an unacceptable level of smoke or fumes, prior to commencement of development. It is considered that in order to protect future occupiers of the flats this provision should be required as part of the S106 Agreement for the development.

Sustainable construction

Planning Policy Statements: PPS1, PPS 3, PPS 6, PPS 22; PPS 23, Planning Policy Guidance Notes PPG 13, East of England Plan Policies - SS1, ENG 1 ENV7. DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP3, BLP policies: U1.

5.39 Policy KP2 sets out development principles for the Borough and refers specifically to the need to: “include appropriate measures in design, layout, operation and materials to achieve:a reduction in the use of resources, including the use of renewable and recycled resources.All development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources. This applies during both construction and the subsequent operation of the development. At least 10% of the energy needs of new development should come from on-site renewable options (and/or decentralised renewable or low carbon energy sources), such as those set out in SPD 1 Design and Townscape Guide, wherever feasible. How the development will provide for the collection of re-usable and recyclable waste will also be a consideration...........development proposals should demonstrate how they incorporate ‘sustainable urban drainage systems’ (SUDS) to mitigate the increase in surface water run-off...”

5.40 The application includes an energy statement and sustainability statement which set out how the energy needs of the development might be met and looks at all the possible options. It is stated that “Low carbon / renewable energy measures will then be specified to generate in excess of 10% of the development’s total energy demand and to ensure that the proposed development meets the requirements of Building Regulations (2010)”. It is intended that the development should make use of Air Source Heat Pumps to provide heating and some hot water. Officers are satisfied that the proposed scheme can provide a minimum of 10% of the annual energy usage via renewable sources. The details of the solution can be agreed by the use of suitable conditions.


Planning Obligations

5.41 The Core Strategy Police KP3 requires that:“In order to help the delivery of the Plan’s provisions the Borough Council will:enter into planning obligations with developers to ensure the provision of infrastructure and transportation measures required as a consequence of the development proposed. This includes provisions such as; a. roads , sewers, servicing facilities and car parking; b. improvements to cycling, walking and passenger transport facilities and services; c. off-site flood protection or mitigation measures, including sustainable drainage systems (SUDS); d. affordable housing; e. educational facilities; f. open space, ‘green grid’, recreational, sport or other community development and environmental enhancements, including the provision of public art where appropriate; g. any other works, measures or actions required as a consequence of the proposed development; and h. appropriate on-going maintenance requirements.”

5.42 During the course of the application, the applicant has altered their initial stance that they are willing to enter into a S.106 Agreement to ensure the delivery of affordable housing at the application site only, to now agreeing to the contributions detailed below.

5.43 In accordance with our usual policy requirement the following contributions are considered appropriate:

30% affordable Housing (29 units); an education contribution of £39,767.84; a public art contribution equivalent to 1% of development costs (in view of

the information submitted by the applicant regarding development costs, this would equate to some £99,800;

highways works as listed above and a requirement to either remove or replace the incinerator on the

adjacent site so that it would not cause nuisance. S106 Monitoring Contribution.

5.44 Education Contribution: The development will lead to an increase in demand for school places or will place pressure on these services leading to a need for either new accommodation or refurbishment and improvement of existing educational facilities. The Council has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places in the local authority area to meet present and future demand for places. The Council is mindful of the impact new development may have on the level of education provision in the area and the cumulative effect on the Borough, hence the requirement for a financial contribution towards educational provision. This is to help address the impact of the new housing on local schools and other educational facilities. If the development is considered acceptable the Council would be liable for the additional costs resulting from additional school pupils generated by the


development.

5.45 Public Art: The quality of the built environment affects the way in which people perceive and enjoy places and spaces. Well designed, accessible and legible urban places and spaces will help promote and support greatly the creation of cohesive, pleasant and sustainable local communities. An environment and its surroundings, whether natural or built, will play a significant role in shaping the quality of life experienced by a population. Interesting and innovative buildings, quality streets, good relationships between new and existing development and the use of public art can all help to develop local identity, create places which people are proud of, and thereby, improve their quality of life and a sense of belonging. This is a prominent development, which will have a significant impact on Sutton Road and its immediate surroundings, and the non provision of public art is seen as a lost opportunity to add further value to the development and to enhance the area.

5.46 Monitoring fees: In line with Government timescales the Council expects planning applications to be determined within statutory 8/13/16 week targets. The delivery of obligations within these timescales may take a considerable amount of time and resources and often requires public consultation, committee resolutions or involvement and support of third parties. Therefore, proposed development will be required to contribute towards the costs incurred during this stage of the process. Once a planning obligation has been signed, administrative costs are incurred on tasks such as ensuring on-site measures are provided, financial contributions are received and contributions are spent in accordance with the terms of the obligation. This requires compliance checks, monitoring, project management and implementation by the Council. If this development is considered to be acceptable the Council would also have to fund monitoring of the S106 Agreement.

5.47 The applicants have agreed to make contributions as set out in para 5.43.

6.0 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations

6.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 came into force on 6 April 2010. The planning obligation discussed above and as outlined in the recommendation below has been fully considered in the context of Part 11 Section 122 (2) of the Regulations, namely that the requested planning obligations are:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; and,b) directly related to the development; and,c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

The conclusion is that the planning obligation which is considered necessary to meet the requirements of this development meets all the tests.


7.0 Conclusion

7.1 There is no objection in principle to the development of this site for housing. Revised plans have been submitted reducing the height of the development at either end, and no objections are raised to the design of the development. It is considered that the level of traffic generation associated with the development is acceptable and the level and layout of parking and servicing is acceptable. Subject to receipt of revised plans amending the fenestration of one of the rear blocks of the development, there would not be an adverse impact on amenities of surrounding occupiers. Subject to the removal or suitable replacement of the incinerator on the adjacent site, the living conditions for future occupiers are considered acceptable. The development will incorporate suitable measures to reduce energy consumption on the site. A S.106 agreement for provision of affordable housing, an education contribution, public art contribution and monitoring contribution is also considered necessary. Subject to completion of such and agreement, the application is considered to be acceptable.

8.0 Planning Policy summary

8.1 National Policies - Planning Policy Statements: PPS1- Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS 3 - Housing; PPS 22- Renewable energy; PPS 23 - Planning and Pollution Control; PPS 25: Planning and Flood Risk; Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG 13: Transport; PPG 24: Planning and Noise.

8.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) Policies - SS1 (Achieving Sustainable Development); SS3: Key Centres for Development and Change ; H1 – Regional Housing Provision 2001-2021; T4 (Urban Transport); T9 (Walking, cycling and other non motorised transport); T14 (Parking); ENG 1 Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Renewal Energy); ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment); ENG1 (Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance); WAT4 (Flood Risk Management); WM6 (Waste Management in Development); ETG1; Strategy for the Sub Region; ETG4 (Southend on Sea Key Centre for Development and Change; ETG5: Employment Generating Development.

8.3 Core Strategy Development Plan Document DPD1: KP1 Spatial Strategy; KP2 Development Principles, KP3 Implementation and Resources; CP1 Employment Generating Development, CP3 Transport and Accessibility, CP4 The Environment and Urban Renaissance, CP6 Community Infrastructure; CP7 Sport Recreation and Green Space, CP8 Dwelling Provision. Supplementary Planning Document 1 (Design and Townscape Guide 2009); Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 (Planning Obligations – a guide to S106 and Developer Contributions 2009).

8.4 BLP Policies; C11 New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations, C14 Trees Planted Areas and Landscaping, E4 Industry and Warehousing, H5 Residential Design and Layout Considerations, H7 The Formation of Self Contained Flats, T8 Traffic Management and Highway Safety, T11 Parking Standards, T12 Servicing Facilities, T13 Cycling and Walking, U1 Infrastructure Provsiion,U2 Pollution Control


9.0 Public Consultation

9.1 Press notice, site notice and neighbour notification - 4 letters have been received objecting for the following reasons:

overlooking and loss of privacy this is a commercial site not residential loss of daylight access onto Sutton Road will be dangerous increased traffic generation the proposed “drop off “ servicing space will be dangerous the transport statement does not take account of recent development in the

area too much flatted development in the area overdevelopment excessively high development, out of keeping with the surrounding area design out of character with the surrounding area will set precedent drainage into adjacent gardens

No objection to flats but insufficient parking; will lead to on street parking

10.0 Representation Summary

10.1 Essex Fire Authority – no comment, more detailed observations will be considered at buildings regulation consultation stage.

10.2 Anglian Water – Raise no objections; confirm that sufficient capacity exists at the waste water treatment works and within the foul sewer network to accommodate the additional flows generated from this development but seek informatives relating to the following: assets close to the site and seek condition relating to the following: surface water strategy.

10.3 Police Architectural Liaison Officer - In principle, the Essex Police Architectural liaison Department does not have any objections to this application, there are however a number of issues we would wish to raise. It is noted that within the sustainability statement Section 4 4.1 reference is made towards adopting the principles of Secured by Design. There is obviously a considerable difference between an intention to follow a set of principles in comparison to actually delivering an accredited development. Essex Police would therefore request that consideration be given to making Secured by Design a planning condition in which full certification is a necessary requirement. We see no reason why this development should not achieve full Secured by Design Certification.


The design layout does conform to the criteria required, in terms of the design layout. Clarity of the issues relating to the sites management specifically the amenity space would need to be provided. Clearly, identification to maximize all aspects of natural surveillance needs to be considered.

PPS1 promotes the fact that good design should achieve developments that ‘create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion’.

It was acknowledged that there did not appear to be a design and access statement to accompany the documentation [Officer comment – a DAS has been submitted]. Design and Access statements should demonstrate how a development can create accessible and safe environments, including addressing crime and disorder and the fear of crime. It would appear from reading the accompanying documentation that the level of detail regarding such issues have not been fully illustrated or addressed.

Central and local government Circular 1/2006 Para 87 states: ‘Design and access statements shall demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design of the proposal, and how the design reflects the attributes of safe, sustainable places set out in Safer Places guidance document – the Planning System and Crime Prevention. CODPM/Home Office 2004’. As PPS1 clearly includes addressing crime risk as part of the creation of safe, sustainable places, this will invariably form part of the context that any development is set in and there will be very few planning applications which could claim that this is irrelevant.

‘Safer Places’ states:- Safety and security are essential to successful, sustainable communities. Not only are such places well-designed, attractive environments to live and work in, but they are also places where freedom from crime and the fear of crime improves the quality of life. Planning Policy Statement 1 sets out how the planning system should play a key role in delivering sustainable communities…. Consideration of design principles can help improve an area’s security – for both people and property.

Whilst it is appreciated that Safer Places is not solely about crime prevention, it is about making places that are safer but also better in a number of ways. This means it is concerned with the promotion of safe and sustainable and attractive environments that meet the full set of planning objectives. The document defines seven attributes of sustainable communities that are all relevant to crime prevention. These are: Access, Structure, Surveillance, Ownership, Physical protection, Activity, Management and maintenance. A good design and access statement should address each attribute in full.


In conclusion, Essex Police would welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed development scheme with the applicants. The Secured by Design initiative sets a minimum standard for safety and security for new developments. We would respectfully be seeking the support of Southend Borough Council to promote this as the minimum standard required for this development should it receive full planning permission. It is recommended that full compliance and certification under the scheme be achieved. It is requested that consideration be given to making this a site specific planning condition.

10.4 Environment Agency - Land Contamination: The site is upon unproductive aquifer and not within a source protection zone. We consider the site of low environmental sensitivity, therefore we will not be providing detailed site-specific advice or comments with regards to land contamination issues for this site. Foul Drainage - We note that, within their consultation report (0410/SP95 (001), 16 February 2011), Anglian Water have confirmed that sufficient capacity exists at the waste water treatment works and within the foul sewer network to accommodate the additional flows generated from this development.

10.5 EDF Energy – no comment

10.6 Building Control – no comment

10.7 Design and Regeneration – [Comments in relation to original plans which have since been revised and unit numbers have altered] The application site has a long, north facing frontage to Sutton Road and is currently occupied by vacant industrial buildings. It is situated in an area of mixed character close to centre of Southend. Opposite the site, to the north, are 2 storey residential properties with generous frontages and these mark the start of one of Southend’s more suburban residential areas which covers the area to the north and east of the site. To the south the site is bounded by the Greyhound retail park, which mainly consists of large retail sheds, and the immediate neighbours to the east and west are small scale industrial buildings.

Sutton Road is a busy local access road that links Southend town centre with the A1159 which runs along the northern edge of the central urban area. The site is situated half way down Sutton Road at a ‘s’ bend and at a point which marks the change between the edge of the town centre and the wider residential area to the north and east. It is therefore effectively defines the start of the town centre area and this has been the justification for previous approvals on this site which are for large flatted development ranging from 3-6 storeys in height. This area is in need of regeneration and is identified as a Priority Urban Area in the Core Strategy.

The proposal is for 99 flats of a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms. It is split into two blocks which share an underground parking area. It is a modern design and is very similar in style to the previously approved scheme although in this application the height of the proposal has been set at a consistent 4 storeys.


The change in scale is the most significant difference between this proposal and its predecessors and it has had an impact on the overall design and its integration into the streetscene. Firstly the lack of any height variation has diluted the visual interest in townscape terms, which is a shame, and secondly, the increase in height at the western end from 3 to 4 storeys will have a negative impact on the neighbouring 2 storey development, especially when it is combined with the raised floor level of the development at this end.

The applicant comments that the increased height of the building over its neighbour to the west marks the transition between the main road (Sutton Road) and the secondary road (Redstock Road) but the western end of the development is clearly within Redstock Road and not Sutton Road so it the proposal needs to provide a transition between the scale and characters in the two streets. The applicant also comments that the adjacent site may well be developed at a larger scale in the future, but there is no guarantee of this and the development needs to work with the current situation.

Whilst there is no objection to the number of units on the site, a scheme with a little more height variation would enable a better relationship to be provided with the neighbours and a more interesting skyline. Consideration should be given to providing a focal point on the axis with the northern approach from Sutton Road, which is a key long view of the site. There is also an opportunity to better articulate the corners of the end bocks to create additional architectural features which help to complete the scheme.

The applicant comments that the gap between the frontage will be the focal point of the development but this is considered to be a rather negative focal point and it is also located to the east of the main view from the approach down Sutton Road

In terms of design detail the articulation and layering of the blocks and the box features and entrances have all helped to break up the massing of the scheme and add interest to the elevations and these are welcomed. It is, however, important that these architectural features are well detailed with appropriate materials to ensure a quality finish to the proposal. The separation between the blocks, which was also a feature of previous schemes, also makes a valuable contribution to reducing the mass and this is also welcomed.

The entrances are generally well designed and on the street frontage and they will help to provide focal points for the elevation. Entrances to flats 9 and 21 which were deep under an overhang have been improved although it is still unclear what the rest of the area under the overhang may be used for. It seems to be a dead area.


Overall the landscaping seems comprehensive although it will need to be demonstrated that this level of planting and, what appears to be grassed amenity areas, can be achieved above a basement parking area that covers the entire site. Particular concern is raised with regard to the proposed trees on the front boundary and it is likely that these will only be able to be ornamental species. It is therefore suggested that the application also includes the provision of additional street trees on this frontage to help to soften the building into the streetscene.

It is pleasing to see that the sustainability statement confirms that an ecological consultant will be employed to inform the design and landscaping in terms of its contribution to local biodiversity – this information should be submitted with any landscaping condition details.

The overall scale of the amenity space seems reasonable and useable for this number of units although there appears to be no direct access to the western most amenity space (except from the ground floor flats). In addition there seems to a number of small areas of the amenity spaces, adjacent to the staircores, which are covered by the upper floors and seem unusable. The intention for these areas needs clarification. They may be suitable for storage only.

To provide additional private amenity most flats have useable balconies, although of a good size, many will be north facing. These also help to add articulation and interest to the elevations and this is a key part of the character of the development. The detailing of these will be key to the success of the elevations and will need to be conditioned.

It is pleasing to see a good number of planters have been included in the landscaping scheme and this should ensure a variety of soft landscaping which should add interest to the scheme. It is noted that some of these also serve as ventilation for the car park below and it is unclear how this will work with the planting. Further details of this aspect should be conditioned, especially where they are visible from the public realm.

The boundaries of the development will also need to be conditioned. There is no objection in principle to the proposed low wall and railing for the street frontage but it would be preferred if the south boundary was a wall rather than a 1.2m close boarded fence as this will also be a publically visible[officer comment – this matter can be addressed by the use of an appropriate condition].

The east elevations of the rear wings, which were blank facades have also been amended to include 2 small windows per floor (1 high level). This is a slight improvement but does not add that much interest to the elevations or help to break up their scale. It is considered that larger windows would make more of a positive impact on these facades.


Materials - The materials proposed for this scheme is another difference to previously approved applications. In earlier schemes terracotta cladding was proposed in addition to brickwork and render and this provided an additional texture as well as colour to the elevation which added to its interest and overall quality. In this application only brickwork and a mixture of white and coloured render are proposed and it is considered that this will not achieve the high quality design required for this site and for this scale of building. Whilst terracotta cladding would be an acceptable alternative it is by no means the only option but some form of high quality cladding material should be incorporated to replace the coloured render areas. (The coloured render areas are considered to be particularly weak were they wrap around the corners of the development).

This also applies to the entrance canopies and box features which also appear to be coloured render. This again is not considered to be high enough spec and an alternative material should be considered for these aspects of the development.

The proposed powder coated windows and doors are considered appropriate, although the colour will need to be agreed. Balcony and pedestrian ramp details and materials will also need to be conditioned. The brickwork choice will also need to be agreed.

Sustainability - The scheme proposes the use of Air Source Heat Pumps to contribute to the supply heating and hot water to the flats and these have been located out of site on the roof of the development. This will meets the energy requirements of Core Strategy Policy KP2. However, the claims made regarding potable water and CO2 reduction are no better than current building regulations and this is disappointing.

10.8 Housing – (Comments made in response to original plans) In order to meet housing needs inline with the Borough’s, Core Strategy DPD, the council would require the provision of Affordable Housing to reflect the broad mix of accommodation in accordance with the Thames Gateway SHMA, August 2008.

Proposed number of units:- 97 units, Core Strategy DPD Requirement: - 29 Units (30%)

The affordable housing element % required within the borough: - 9 x 1bed, 7 x 2bed, 10 x 3bed, 3 x 4bed. [It should be noted that Housing Officers have reviewed the revised scheme and raise no objections to the unit mix]We would expect a split to rent of: - 70/30 (70% rented, 30% shared ownership)

As the plans do not give clear indication of unit sizes, we would advise that affordable housing units must meet HCA minimum standard, for more information regarding Design & Standards for Affordable Housing, contact:- HCA, Block 2, Suite 3 Westbrooke Centre, Milton Rd, Cambridge, CB4 1YG.

All Affordable Housing should meet Level 3 or 4 code for sustainable homes [officer comment – this is a measure of how sustainable the development is]


10.9 Highways - This application is little different from the previous one from the highway point of view and appears to be generally acceptable. It is recommended however that some form of landscaping is applied to the large area of footway in front of the site in order to deter parking on the footway. A S278 agreement will be required for the lay-by.

The disabled parking bays do not comply with parking standards for which there are minimum dimensions of 3.3m x 6.6m. Disabled parking spaces should have additional space on both sides of the bay to allow for disabled access and egress.[officer comment – the plans have been revised to address these issues]

It is not clear what the hatching is indicating on the basement level drawing. In general the remaining parking spaces appear to conform to the Council’s minimum standards although the aisle at the westernmost end appears to be only about 5.6 metres wide which is below the standard 6 metres and could make it difficult for medium size cars or larger to enter and leave. [officer comment – the plans have been revised to address these issues]

Parks – to be reported

10.10 Children and Learning – (Revised scheme) This application falls within the catchment areas of Bournemouth Park Primary School and Cecil Jones High School. Due to government cuts any additional pupils in the area will put extra pressure on local primary and we would therefore request contribution towards primary provision. Seek contribution of £39,767.84.

11.0 Relevant Planning History

October 2010 – 285 Sutton Road - Planning permission granted to demolish existing building and erect part 3/ part 4 and basement storey block of 32 self contained flats, communal amenity space, including roof terraces, refuse store and landscaping, lay out car parking, cycle storage and motor cycle storage at lower ground level, and form vehicular access onto Sutton Road (Amended Proposal) 10/01190/FULM

11.1 March 2010 – 285 Sutton Road - application to Demolish existing building and erect part 3/ part 4/ part 5 and basement storey block of 35 flats with associated private balconies, communal amenity space, including roof terraces, refuse store and landscaping, lay out car parking, cycle storage and motor cycle storage at lower ground level, and form vehicular access onto Sutton Road. Application recommended for refusal for reasons relating to: the impact of the adjacent industrial use on future occupiers, lack of satisfactory amenity space, inadequacy of servicing, lack of a suitable highways contribution and lack of a completed S106 Agreement. Application withdrawn prior to consideration by Committee. 09/02138/FULM.


11.2 2008 - 257-283 Sutton Road, planning permission granted to demolish existing buildings and erect part 3/ part 4/ part 5 storey block of 66 flats with associated private balconies, communal amenity space (including roof terraces), refuse store and landscaping, layout car parking, cycle storage and motor cycle storage at lower ground level and form lay - by within Sutton Road SOS/07/00602/FUL

11.3 2008 – 27-28 Redstock Road planning permission granted to demolish existing buildings and erect 3 storey block comprising 15 flats and basement parking, lay out amenity area and form vehicular access onto Redstock Road. 08/01391/OUTM. It should be noted this application is subject to completion of a S106 Agreement which remains outstanding.

12.0 Recommendation

a) Members are recommended to:

DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to expiry of the consultation period and completion of a PLANNING AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation to seek the following:

Affordable Housing at 30% (29 units); 12 x 1 bed, 13 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed, 2 x 4 bed, with a split to rent of: - 70/30 (70% rented, 30% shared ownership).

an education contribution of £39,767.84; a public art contribution equivalent to 1% of development costs (in

view of the information submitted by the applicant regarding development costs, this would equate to some £99,800);

highways works: creation of a lay-by and right hand turn lane into the site;

a requirement to either remove or replace the incinerator on the adjacent site so that it would not cause nuisance;

S106 Monitoring Contribution at 4% of any monetary contribution plus £750 per non monetary contribution.

b) The Head of Planning and Transport or the Group Manager (Development Control & Building Control) be authorised to determine the application upon completion of the above obligation, so long as planning permission when granted and the obligation when executed, accords with the details set out in the report submitted and the conditions listed below:

01 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 (three) years from the date of this decision.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990


02 No dwelling shall be occupied until 99 parking spaces to serve the development and two service parking bays to serve development, together with vehicular access from the adjacent highway have been provided in accordance with the approved plans the parking and servicing spaces and vehicular access shall be permanently reserved for the parking of residents and visitors to the residential units

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off-street car parking and turning provision is provided for people using the development in the interests of amenity and highways efficiency and safety, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

03 No part of the development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with plan ref 021D for 149 bicycles and 13 motor cycles to be parked unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory secure off-street bicycle parking is provided in the interests of sustainability, amenity and highways efficiency and safety, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

04 The cycle parking spaces and motor cycle parking spaces provided in relation to condition 03 shall be permanently reserved for the parking of cycles and motor cycles of occupiers and callers to the premises and not used for any other purposes, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any other Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order).

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory secure off-street bicycle and motor cycle parking is retained in the interests of sustainability, amenity and highways efficiency and safety, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

05 No dust or fume extraction or filtration equipment or air conditioning, ventilation, or refrigeration equipment shall be installed until details of its design, siting, discharge points and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained in good working order thereafter.

Reason: To protect the environment of people in neighbouring properties and general environmental quality in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23, East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5.


06 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on all the external elevations, on any screen/boundary walls and fences, and on all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the appearance of the building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. This is as set out in East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

07 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the development is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the appearance of the building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. This is as set out in East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

08 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include, for example:- i. proposed finished levels or contours; ii. means of enclosure; iii) vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; iv. hard surfacing materials; v. minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc.); vi. proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, vii) communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports.);

The scheme of landscaping shall include details of the number, size and location of the trees and shrubs to be planted together with a planting specification, proposed phasing, details of the management of the site, e.g. the uncompacting of the site prior to planting, the staking of trees and removal of the stakes once the trees are established; and details of the treatment of all hard and soft surfaces (including any earthworks to be carried out).


Reason: To ensure that the development is satisfactory in terms of its appearance and that it makes a positive contribution to the local environment and biodiversity in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV1 and ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11 and C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

09 A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.


10 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out before any part of the development is occupied or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority.


11 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no development shall be carried out within Parts 24 and 25 to those Orders unless previously agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with policies C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and policy CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD1.

12 Prior to commencement of the development details of a sustainable drainage system to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the sustainable drainage system for the site has been completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of sustainable drainage in accordance with Policies East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1 and WAT4, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2.

13 Prior to first occupation of the development a Waste Management Plan for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall detail how the development will provide for the collection of general refuse and re-usable and recyclable waste and what strategies will be in place to reduce the amount of general refuse over time. Waste management at the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the environment and ensure adequate and appropriate storage, recycling and collection of waste resulting from the development in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4.

14 No development shall take place until a site investigation of the nature and extent of contamination has been carried out in accordance with a methodology which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The results of the site investigation shall be made available to the local planning authority before any development begins. If any contamination is found during the site investigation, a report specifying the measures to be taken to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures before development begins. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been identified in the site investigation, additional measures for the remediation of this source of contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination on the site is identified and treated so that it does not harm anyone who uses the site in the future, and to ensure that the development does not cause pollution to Controlled Waters in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 1 and 23; East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and WAT4; and DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2.

15 Prior to commencement of development a renewable energy assessment will be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council to demonstrate how at least 10% of the energy needs of the development will come from on site renewable options (and/or decentralised renewable or low carbon energy sources. The scheme as approved shall be implemented and brought into use on first occupation of the development.


Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development through efficient use of resources and better use of sustainable and renewable resources in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 1 and 3, East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1, ENV7, ENG1, WAT1 and WAT4, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

16 No development approved by this permission shall take place until Southend Borough Council (as local planning authority and highway authority) has approved in writing a full scheme of works (including detailed designs and contract details), and the relevant highways approvals are in place, in relation to the following:- reinstatement of redundant vehicular crossovers and details of measures to prevent parking on the public footpath immediately to the north of the site. The development and the associated highway works shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority

Reason: In the interests of highways management, efficiency and safety in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1, T1, T2, T4 and T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, KP3 and CP3, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8.

17 No meter boxes shall be installed on the front elevation of the premises

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity in accordance with Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD1.

18 Construction and demolition works including loading and unloading shall only take place between the hours of 07:30 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturday. No works shall to take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with Polices H5 of the BLP and KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD1.

19 Prior to occupation of the development the windows above ground floor in the westernmost elevation of the development shall be glazed in obscure glazing and the windows shall thereafter be permanently retained in the condition.

Reason: In order to prevent overlooking in the interests of the amenities of existing and future surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan.

20 Prior to commencement of development detailed design plans for the proposed balconies at a scale of not less than 1:20 and including details of how they will be attached to the main building shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. The balconies shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans.


Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies H5 and C11 of the Borough Local Plan and CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD1.

Informative 01: This permission is governed by a legal agreement between the applicant and the Borough Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The agreement relates to

Affordable Housing at 30% (29 units); 12 x 1 bed, 13 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed, 2 x 4 bed, with a split to rent of: - 70/30 (70% rented, 30% shared ownership).

an education contribution of £39,767.84; a public art contribution equivalent to 1% of development costs (in

view of the information submitted by the applicant regarding development costs, this would equate to some £99,800);

highways works: creation of a lay-by and right hand turn lane into the site;

a requirement to either remove or replace the incinerator on the adjacent site so that it would not cause nuisance;

S106 Monitoring Contribution at 4% of any monetary contribution plus £750 per non monetary contribution.

Informative 02: One or more of the conditions above prevent work starting on the development until you have applied for, and we have given, our approval for certain matters. It is important that you are aware that any work you start on the development before we have given our approval will not be authorised by this permission

REASON FOR APPROVAL:

01. This permission has been granted having regard to East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1, ENV7; ENG 1, WAT4, WM6 ETG4, T4, T9, T14 DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy )KP1, KP2, KP3, CP1, CP3, CP4, CP6, CP7, CP8, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, C14, H5 , H7; E5, U1, U2, T8, T11, T12, T13 and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide) together with Government guidance and all other material considerations including any representations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to any conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the local planning authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.

c) In the event that the planning obligation referred to in part (a) above has not been completed before 4th May 2011, the Group Manager (Development Control & Building Control) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the application on the grounds that the application fails to:- i) provide for improvements to the public highway and provide for a satisfactory method of servicing the development; ii) provide for a satisfactory provision of public art, iii)) provide for satisfactory levels of affordable housing; iv) provide contributions for provision of education facilities;


v) remove or replace the incinerator on the adjoining site. As such, the proposal would not make a satisfactory provision for access to or servicing the development, and would result in vehicles obstructing the highway to the detriment of traffic movement and highway safety; would not make a satisfactory contribution towards the quality of the built environment within the vicinity of the site; is likely to place increased pressure on public services and infrastructure to the detriment of the general amenities of the area, and would result in harm to the amenities of future occupiers of the development contrary to Policies SS1, SS6, ENV7, T2, T4 and T9 of the East of England Plan, Policies KP2, KP3, CP3, CP4, CP6 and CP8 of the Core Strategy, Policies C11, C14, U1, U2 T8, T12 and T13 of the Borough Local Plan, and the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).


Reference: SOS/10/01703/FUL

Ward: Victoria

Proposal:

Demolish part existing light industrial units; Erect two storey block of 5 self-contained flats incorporating access beneath; erect two storey front extension and alter elevation to convert existing light industrial unit to form 4 self-contained flats, with amenity space and nine parking spaces and erect cycle and bin store (partly-retrospective)

Address: 217A North Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex

Applicant: Stygrid Property Developments Ltd

Agent: Sorrell Chartered Surveyors

Consultation Expiry: 9th December 2010

Expiry Date: 5th January 2011

Case Officer: Matthew Leigh

Plan Nos: 217NRWOS/01 and 217NRWOS/02b

Recommendation: APPROVAL


This Item was deferred from the Development Control Committee of the 5th January 2011 as members wish to see further alterations to the eastern elevation of the west block. Discussions have been undertaken between the Council and the applicant and the current plans have been submitted in response to these discussions and members’ comments. The amendments to the previous drawings include the use of timber and brick in a similar relationship to the extant consent, provision of timber boarding and the provision of a greater level of soft landscaping.

1 The Proposal

1.1 This is a partially retrospective application to redevelop existing industrial units through the demolition of existing light industrial units and the construction of a two storey block of five self-contained flats.

1.2 Permission is sought to authorise a number of changes to the appearance of the building which has not been constructed in accordance with the previously approved plans under planning application SOS/07/01031/FUL.

1.3 The development would also involve the erection of a two storey extension to the front elevation of an existing industrial building as well as alterations to the elevations and the change of use of the existing industrial building to form four self-contained flats.

1.4 The development would also include an amenity area, the provision of nine car parking spaces and the erection of a cycle and bin store.


2.1 The site is located on the western side of North Road and is accessed via a single width track that lies between 215A and 217 North Road. The site is located within the North Road/Salisbury Avenue Area.

2.2 North Road is predominately characterised by two storey terraced housing. To the north of the site is a block of flats and to the south are a number of industrial buildings.


3.1 The key considerations are the design and impact on the character of the area, impact on residential amenity, effect on future occupiers and traffic and parking.

4 Appraisal

Background to the application

4.1 An application to redevelop the site to provide nine self-contained flats was approved on the 8th November 2007.


4.2 A complaint was received that the development was not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans. This complaint was investigated and this application has been submitted as a result of that investigation.

4.3 The development involves a number of alterations to the previously approved western block containing five flats. These include alterations to the fenestration, alterations to the provision of ‘Juliet’ balconies and the external finishing including cladding, render and brick work.

Principle of the Development:

Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing); DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1, KP2, CP4 and CP8; BLP policies E4, C11, H5, H7 and H10.

4.4 The proposal is for the comprehensive redevelopment of the existing site and the provision of nine self-contained flats in two separate blocks of accommodation. One building comprises of four flats and the second building comprises of five flats.

4.5 The Borough Local Plan and Core Strategy policies generally seek to protect existing retail and employment generating uses. Whilst Policy CP1 states that permission will not be granted for proposals involving the loss of business uses unless this would bring clear benefits. These benefits could include the creation of jobs, the extinguishment of a use which is incompatible with the surrounding area or when the premises are no longer suitable for industrial or warehouse use.

4.6 The site is located within the “North Road/Salisbury Avenue Area”, as identified in the Borough Local Plan, where due to the impact on adjoining residential properties the policy seeks the “improvement of the environment and the amenities of the local residents by:

(i) refusing all applications for the consolidation, redevelopment or extension of existing or propoed industrial, commercial or warehouse premises, except in very special circumstances;

(ii) actively seeking the relocation of such activities and the redevelopment of the premises for residential purposes;

(iii) considering the acquisition by the Council of industrial, commercial or warehouse premises which became vacant, for residential redevelopment, having regard to the circumstances at the time;

(iv) exploring all sources of funding for such relocation, acquisition and residential redevelopment as part of the Council’s on-going programme of action with regard to inappropriately located industrial or other non-residential uses;

(v) considering the introduction of other measures to ease traffic and parking stress in the area.”


4.7 The site is in close proximity to residential accommodation and the use of the site as an industrial use would be likely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of these properties in respect of noise, odour and disturbance. Government guidance currently encourages the efficient use of land and the site has previously been vacant for a number of years. The loss of an employment site, has been previously accepted and given the nature of the application which relates to amendments to the approved building, no objection is raised to the principle.

4.8 The site is in a backland location and the development of suitable plots of land situated to the rear of existing properties can provide a useful contribution to dwelling provision as well as making optimum use of limited land resources.

4.9 There has been no material change in planning circumstances since the previous permission to warrant refusal of the principle of the proposal.

Design and Impact on the Character of the Area:

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policies C7, C11, H5 and H7; Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

4.10 It should be noted that good design is fundamentally important and this is reflected in PPS1 and PPS3 as well as Polices C11 and H5 of the Local Plan and policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.11 The eastern building is considered to be identical in design to the extant consent and thus no objection is raised.

4.12 The form and mass of the western-most building on site is similar in nature in this respect to the proposed scheme. The render and brick finishes are similar in nature to the approved scheme and the proposed fenestration matches the adjoining blocks fenestration. The application also proposes the use of timber boarding, which also references the eastern block. The development is considered to be an acceptable form of design and therefore no objections are raised.

4.13 Due to its location there are limited views of the application site from the public realm and it is not considered that an objection can be raised to the proposal on this basis. It should also be noted that the development proposes a greater level of landscaping than previously.

4.14 There has been no new policy or relevant Government guidance since the previous decision and with this in mind it is considered that the development is not out of character with the area and that a refusal in respect of design could not be sustained upon appeal.


Traffic and Transportation Issues:

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; BLP policies T8 and T11.

4.15 Policy T11 requires the provision of adequate parking and servicing facilities. The Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) set out the requirements for each use. The authority also takes into account Governmental guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) which encourages the reduction in the reliance of the car and promote methods of sustainable transport.

4.16 The site is considered to be in a sustainable location with public transport links; and it is considered that the provision of one car parking space per dwelling would be acceptable in this location. The proposed development would provide nine car parking spaces which is considered to be acceptable as this is in excess of one parking space per dwelling.

4.17 The proposed dwellings will be accessed by a private drive which also provides pedestrian access. It is considered that due to the relatively low number of residential properties serviced by the access and the identical nature of the access to the extant consent, no objection is raised to the proposed access.

Cycle parking

4.18 The cycle store that has been constructed and is considered to be acceptable.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

PPS1, PPS3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.19 It is considered that the use of the site for residential purposes would have a lesser impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties through a significant reduction in noise and disturbance.

4.20 The impact on the adjoining residents in relation to overshadowing and domination is identical to the extant consent. It is not considered that this would have a detrimental impact upon the adjoining residents.

4.21 The development does not have any windows in the side elevations. Therefore, there is no undue impact upon the adjoining residents in relation to overlooking or loss of privacy. It should also be noted that the proposed balconies are ‘Juliet’ balconies.


5 Conclusion

5.1 The development is similar in design, massing and bulk to a recently approved scheme and the appearance of the building with the proposed amendments is acceptable and subject to appropriate conditions, is considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan.


6.1 Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 13.

6.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP1 (Employment Generating Development), and CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance) and CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

6.3 Supplementary Planning Document 1: Design & Townscape Guide (2009)

6.4 Borough Local Plan Policies E4 (Industrial and Warehousing), E5 (Non-Non-Residential uses located close to housing), E5 (North Road/Salisbury Avenue), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (Formation of Self-contained Flats) and T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety) and T11 (Parking Standards).


Highway Authority

7.1 The width of the access road is substandard according to The Design and Townscape Guide. It should be 4.8 metres wide especially in view of its length. Long narrow accessways can result in cars reversing back or waiting on the highway while another car leaves. This can be to the detriment of other road users, possibly creating hazards and traffic delays. Parking provision at a ratio of one space per dwelling is unlikely to be sufficient for these four one-bedroom and five two-bedroom dwellings in this area which is not a town centre location. Parking on-street is likely to result which is undesirable in this area which currently suffers from parking stress. The developer is advised that parking permits would not be offered or made available for new dwellings should a residents’ parking scheme be introduced. The cycle store should be covered and approved prior to planning permission being granted. It is noted however that permission was granted for a similar scheme in 2007 which incorporated these design deficiencies and therefore any objection would be impossible and no objection is raised.



7.2 Due to the past use of the site a contaminated land investigation report is required. Standard condition in respect of this required. [Officers Comment: The proposal does not involve breaking of the ground and it is not considered reasonable to impose the condition at this time.]


7.3 The amended proposals are significantly better than what has been built and will help to integrate this block with block A. In addition the extra landscaping will make an important contribution to the quality of the environment and will help to soften the development into the streetscene.

Park and Open Space

7.4 No Comments.

Public Consultation

7.5 At the time of writing the report no neighbour responses had been received.

7.6 The application was called into Development Control Committee by Councillor David Norman.


8.1 1993 – A certificate of lawful use was issued for motor vehicle damage repairs, including ancillary welding and panel bearing but excluding spray painting.

8.2 2005 – An application to redevelop the site for with eight flats was refused planning permission (SOS/04/01135/OUT).

8.3 2005 – An application to demolish existing building and erect a two storey block of six flats was refused planning permission (SOS/05/00633/FUL). The application was allowed on appeal.

8.4 2006 – An application to demolish existing building, erect two a storey block of six flats was approved (SOS/06/00690/FUL).

8.5 2007 – An application to redevelop the site to provide nine flats through two separate two storey buildings was approved planning permission (SOS/07/01031/FUL)


9 Recommendation

9.1 Approval, subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as stated above.

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the policies outlined in the Reason for Approval.

03 The colour and texture of any materials used on the external elevations of the western building shall match those of the existing eastern building to the approval of the Borough Council.

REASON: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

04 The car parking provided in accordance with the approved plans shall be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing.

REASON: To make provision for parking off the highway, in accordance with Policy T11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

05 The cycle store, constructed on site, is to be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing.

REASON: In accordance with policy H7 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan and PPG13.

06 Within 12 calendar months of the date of decision the landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans. Any trees or shrubs dying, removed, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed with the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of landscaping, pursuant to Policy C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.


This permission has been granted having regard to the Core Strategy KP2 (Development Principles), CP1 (Employment Generating Development),and CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance) and CP8 (Dwelling Provision) and Policies E4 (Industrial and Warehousing), E5 (Non-Non-Residential uses located close to housing), E5 (North Road/Salisbury Avenue), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (Formation of Self-contained Flats) and T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety) and T11 (Parking Standards) of the Borough Local Plan together with, the Design and Townscape Guide SPD, Government guidance and to all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.



Ward: Chalkwell

Proposal:

Demolish existing dwelling and doctors surgery, erect three storey block with accommodation in the roof (4 levels in total), comprising of 7 flats, layout parking, cycle and refuse store and widen existing vehicular access onto Kent View Avenue (Amended Proposal)

Address: 77 The Ridgeway, Westcliff on Sea, Essex, SS0 8PX

Applicant: Mrs G. Azulay

Agent: SK Architects Limited

Consultation Expiry: 5 April 2011

Expiry Date: 28 April 2011

Case Officer: Claire Taylor

Plan Nos: 16-08-09/05, 16-08-09/06, 16-08-09/20, 16-08-09/21, 16-08-09/22, 16-08-09/23

Recommendation: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION


1 The Proposal

1.1 This amended proposal seeks planning permission to demolish an existing dwelling and doctor’s surgery and erect a three storey block with a further level of accommodation in the roof (4 levels in total) comprising of 7 no., 2 bedroom flats. The proposal includes widening the existing vehicular access onto Kent View Avenue to accommodate 7 car parking spaces, cycle store and refuse store.

1.2 This follows a previous application that was refused permission at Development Control Committee on 6 October 2010, (SOS/10/01420/FUL) to “Demolish existing dwelling and doctors surgery, erect three storey block, with accommodation in the roof, comprising of 7 flats, lay out parking, cycle and refuse store and widen existing vehicular access onto Kent View Avenue”. The application was refused by the following reasons:

1. “The proposed development, by reason of its unsatisfactory design, excessive scale, bulk and massing would result in an overbearing and incongruous form of development out of character with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), Policies C11, H5, H6 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) and Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 3.”

2. “The proposed development, by virtue of its height, bulk and proximity to 7 Kent View Avenue, would be over bearing and result in loss of outlook and daylight to this property to the detriment of residential amenity. This would be contrary to Polices C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).”

3. “The visual impact of forecourt car parking and loss of planted verge, which form an important part of the local character of the area, would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and wider area, contrary to Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), Policies C11 of the Borough Local Plan and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).”

1.3 An earlier outline application was also refused at Development Control Committee on 7 February 2007 to “Demolish building and erect three storey block comprising 9 flats, lay out 9 parking spaces and widen existing vehicular accesses onto Kent View Avenue”, under planning reference SOS/06/01359/OUT. This was subsequently allowed on appeal, with the Inspector concluding:

“The proposed development would relate to the existing pattern of buildings and gaps and hence reflect the urban grain of the area...

...Whilst a landmark building was not considered appropriate, a design could be achieved similar in scale and proportion to the buildings nearby that would sit comfortably in this corner location.”


1.4 The table below shows the similarities between the existing property, the scheme allowed on appeal, the refused scheme and the proposed scheme in terms of foot print, scale and height:

Footprint only (approx)

Height Depth Width

Existing Property 198 sqm 9.3 m 22 m 9 mAppeal Scheme 195 sqm 12 m (indicative

only)16 m 14 m

RefusedScheme

320 sqm 12.4 m 22 m 15.4 m

Proposed Scheme

270 sqm 12.4 m 19.6 m 15.4 m

1.5 The proposed development measures 12.4 metres high x 19.6 metres deep and 15.4 metres wide. The depth of the proposal has been reduced by 2.4m since the last refusal, however it is significantly larger than the appeal scheme in that it extends up to 8.6 metres to the rear of the site adjacent to 7 Kent View Avenue.

1.6 The applicant’s Design and Access Statement indicates that the grain and pattern of development has been retained although the plan form has been reduced to reflect the Council’s concerns in relation to the impact on 7 Kent View Avenue. The applicant states that the grain is tighter than the existing but this remains more contextually appropriate to the street pattern.

1.7 The applicant has submitted a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, which is currently being reviewed by officers and the results of the assessment will be reported to members in the supplementary information.


2.1 The application site comprises a site of approximately 700 square metres (0.07 hectares), located on the north side of The Ridgeway. The site has two street frontages; one on The Ridgeway, and one on Kent View Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a detached building used as a residence and doctor’s surgery. The building is of a domestic scale, and resembles a large detached house. There is also a single garage building within the north boundary.

2.2 The site includes two vehicle accesses off Kent View Avenue, which serve a hard-surfaced parking area. There are areas of soft landscaping within the site; an area of approximately 240sq metres to the west of the building and smaller areas to the south (front) of the site.


2.3 No.77 The Ridgeway itself is a two storey building with a pitched/hipped roof, of a traditional early 20th Century style. The building includes a projecting 2 storey bay and balcony to the front, and a number of large external chimneys. The building is finished in a white render with a dark clay-tiled roof and is bounded by a traditional ‘clinker’ wall. The site slopes gently up from north to south.

2.4 To the south of the site, on The Ridgeway lies Chalkwell Rail Station, and beyond this is the Thames Estuary. To the east and west of the site lie residential dwellings on The Ridgeway, which are typically 2 to 3 storey dwellinghouses of a similar style and appearance to that of the application property. To the north is an area of 2 storey early 20th Century traditional dwellinghouses. The immediate area is residential in character, typified by semi-detached and detached dwellinghouses, in a suburban setting.


3.1 The main planning considerations for this application are principle of development, design, visual impact in the street scene, potential impact on neighbouring properties, traffic and transportation issues and sustainable construction.

4 Appraisal

Principle of Development

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP8; BLP policies C11, H5, H7 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.1 The principle of development is considered acceptable following the outcome of the appeal decision, dated 29 July 2008, in which the Planning Inspector concluded “the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site are acceptable in principle.”

Design and Impact on the Street Scene

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; BLP policies C11, H5, H6 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.2 Layout There is a distinct division between properties on The Ridgeway and Kent View Avenue and in particular properties on corner plots of the Ridgeway have a definitive separation between them and those to the north of the site. This space provides an important separation between the uniform housing to the north and the more mixed style of properties along the Ridgeway. The existing building would be replaced by a building which would be substantially larger than the existing footprint or the appeal scheme.


Although the layout reflects the established building lines of both road frontages, the increase in the footprint to the side of the site, would close the gap to 81 The Ridgeway and would therefore be uncharacteristic in the street scene. This would result in a cramped appearance relative to the surrounding area, and would be contrary to the above policies. The depth of the proposal has been reduced, so that the separation to properties in Kent View Avenue is maintained.

4.3 ScaleThe immediate area is predominantly characterised by 2 or 2 ½ storey semi-detached and detached properties. The properties in Kent View Avenue are similar in style and form to those on the Ridgeway but overall the scale of property’s are larger on the Ridgeway. The application scheme is significantly larger in scale than both the existing building and the appeal scheme. The Design and Access Statement has made a comparison of the south elevations of the proposal and the appeal scheme fronting The Ridgeway, however, the proposal includes a substantial amount of accommodation in the roof space and this adds significantly to the massing of the development. It should be noted that what the comparison does not show is the difference in the length of the buildings which would have been highlighted on an assessment of the east elevations fronting Kent View Avenue. The combination of the height and footprint of the building means the scale, massing and bulk of the proposal is significantly greater than the appeal scheme and other properties in the vicinity. The appeal scheme established that a full three storey development in this location is in principle acceptable, however it does not establish that a four storey building is acceptable. Although, the accommodation is contained within a double pitched roof, the proposal includes a large amount of accommodation at four storey level (128 sqm), which is a significant scale increase to that of the appeal scheme and the existing locality. It is therefore, considered the proposal will appear out of scale and incongruous in the street scene and surrounding area, resulting in harm to the visual amenity and character of the area. This is contrary to the above policies.

4.4 Whilst in isolation, the detailed design of the scheme is interesting and well resolved, particularly at lower levels, the scale and massing of the scheme is of particular concern and is not in context with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

4.5 Parking and VergesThe existing property has space for 6 cars to be parked on the frontage of Kent View Avenue. The spaces are accessed from two small crossovers, one at each end of the site. This frontage is bordered by soft verges, which is an important part of the character of the area and reduces the visual impact of car parking in the street scene. The proposed arrangement of forecourt parking has been amended for five cars on the frontage and to the rear of the site, which would involve the loss of some of the planted verge. However, the proposal seeks to provide further soft landscaping to help reduce the impact of car parking in the streetscene. This element of the proposal can be conditioned requiring a landscaping scheme to be submitted, and would be acceptable.


4.6 Amenity SpacePrivate amenity space for the flats is provided by good sized balconies and terraces, with some private communal open space at the front of the building. Given, this is a similar arrangement to the appeal scheme and the close proximity of nearby public areas and foreshore, there is no objection to the provision of amenity space for the proposed development.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies CP4; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.7 A number of objections have been received regarding the potential loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy from the proposed development. The existing property is only set back 3m from the boundary of no. 7. The proposed development would be 5.4m from the boundary. There are main windows to the kitchen and dining room in the ground floor on the south facing elevation of the neighbouring property and a sole window to a bedroom in the dormer on the south facing roof slope. The proposed development will have an overall depth of 19.6 metres and a height of 12.4 metres comprising of three storeys with accommodation in the roof. The siting of the development has been amended so that it is set back a further 3.4m from the north boundary of no. 7 than the refused scheme. The proposed development will be a total of 8.2m from the kitchen and dining room window, of No. 7 Kent View Avenue, thus it will not have an adverse impact on the amenities of this property in terms of daylight and sunlight. However, it is considered the combined height, scale and bulk of the development and its proximity to the boundary would negatively impact on the outlook from these windows and result in an overbearing impact to the detriment of residential amenity of the occupiers at 7 Kent View Avenue.

4.8 There are two windows on the rear elevation of the proposal which serve bedrooms at first and second floor level. A condition can be imposed requiring these windows to be obscurely glazed to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring property to the rear (7 Kent View Avenue), given the main habitable windows to these rooms are on the principle elevation facing Kent View Avenue.

4.9 The residential flats are between 92 to168sqm in size, have their own private balcony and access to communal amenity area at the front of the building. All rooms are considered to be of adequate size suitable for their function and no objections are raised to the internal room layouts. Overall the standard of accommodation being proposed is considered to be acceptable and satisfies the above policies.

4.10 Concerns have been raised by a third party regarding the effect the proposal would have on their residential amenity, in particular 7 Kent View Avenue and 81 The Ridgeway, with regard to noise and disturbance from the proposed parking area for two cars and refuse storage area.


The Planning Inspector concluded in the appeal decision that by increasing the boundary planting together with a 2m high wall “would help to minimise the impact of the parking and refuse area”. It should be noted that in the appeal scheme the proposed parking area was for six cars and in this case it is for two cars.

Traffic and Transportation

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; BLP policies C11, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.11 The proposal includes provision for 7 parking spaces; 1 per flat. The number of spaces meets the EPOA standard and PPG13 guidance, based on the proximity of the site to public transport links. Highways Engineers have previously raised no objection to the access or emerging visibility. The application is considered to comply with Policy T11.

Sustainable Construction

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 22; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies: KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan Policy C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.12 National guidance and relevant planning policy statements together with Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy and the Borough Local Plan advocate the need to ensure design maximises the use of sustainable renewable resources in the construction of development. It also states that all development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources and at least 10% of the energy needs of new development should come from on-site renewable options.

4.13 The Design and Access Statement accompanying this planning application proposes to harness solar gain and utilise solar shading, natural ventilation, ground source heat pumps, individual combined heat power units and photo voltaic cells on the roof. It is considered given the nature of the scheme a condition can be imposed if the scheme is deemed acceptable for a scheme of 10% renewable energy sources.

4.14 Policy KP2 states that developments should demonstrate how they incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems to mitigate the increase of surface run-off. In this instance, full details could be required by condition if this scheme is deemed acceptable.

Conclusion

4.15 Whilst the redevelopment is acceptable in principle, as a result of the size of the footprint, design, scale, bulk, and massing the development is considered to be contrary to policy.


Planning Policy Summary

5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport), Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy).

5.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP2 (Development Principles) and CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance), CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

5.3 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H7 (The Formation of self contained flats) and T11 (Parking Standards).

5.4 Design & Townscape Guide, 2009 (SPD1).

5.5 EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001)

5.6 Waste Management Guide


C2C Rail

5.1 No comments received at the time of writing this report.


5.2 The amended scheme is an improvement over the previously refused scheme. The parking arrangements and the separation between the development and the properties in Kent View Avenue are better and in these respects the proposal will have a much more positive relationship with local character. The height of the proposal, however, is significantly greater than the neighbouring development and the appeal scheme and this aspect of the development in particular remains a concern.

5.3 It is noted that the actual design approach taken to the roof form is the most resolved of all the options shown in the design development section of the Design and Access Statement, but there is no doubting that it does add considerable bulk to the building. It is recognized that this site is on a corner and opposite the station but it is not considered a location for a landmark building (which would justify an increase in height over the locality), a characteristic acknowledged by the Inspector, and that overall the scale of this development is still considered to be an issue. If the roof form were removed and replaced with a roof terrace there would be no significant design objections to this proposal.



5.3 No objection.

Building Control




Public Consultation

5.6 A Site notice has been displayed on 15 March 2011 and 74 neighbours have been notified. 129 letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposed development. The objections are as follows:

Development is out of character with the area; Inadequate parking provision; [Officer Comment: This is referred to in

section 4.10.] The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining

properties by way of loss of outlook, daylight and privacy; Right to light; Increase in traffic; Local infrastructure cannot support yet another high density development as

proposed; Too many flats; Overdevelopment of the site; The proposed development by virtue of its height, scale and proximity to 7

Kent View Avenue will result in considerable loss of daylight and sunlight to the detriment of residential amenity;

The height and scale of the development is inappropriate and out of character with other properties in the area;

The proposed development will dominate the skyline; The development would set a precedent for more flats in the area; Out of keeping with the streetscene in the Ridgeway; The density, height and scale of the development is too high; The development does not respect the building line; There is a covenant restricting the nature of properties that can be built and

the proposal falls outside the covenant. [Officer Comment: This is a legal matter and does not form a planning consideration].



6.1 Demolish building and erect three storey block comprising 9 flats, lay out 9 parking spaces and widen existing vehicular accesses onto Kent View Avenue (Outline) (Amended Proposal) (Application to extend the time limit for implementation following planning permission 06/01359/OUT allowed on Appeal 29/07/08). Due for a decision by 13 May 2011 (SOS/11/00413/EXT).

6.2 Demolish existing dwelling and doctors surgery, erect three storey block, with accommodation in the roof, comprising of 7 flats, lay out parking, cycle and refuse store and widen existing vehicular access onto Kent View Avenue. Refused 6 October 2010 (SOS/10/01420/FUL).

6.3 Demolish building and erect three storey block comprising nine flats, lay out nine parking spaces and wide existing vehicular access onto Kent View Avenue (outline). Refused on 7 February 2007. Appeal allowed on 29 July 2008 (SOS/06/01359/OUT).

6.4 Demolish existing buildings and erect three storey block comprising nine flats, lay out nine parking spaces and widen existing vehicular access onto Kent View Avenue. Refused 14 March 2006 (SOS/06/00067/OUT).

6.5 Use doctor’s surgery (Class D1) as dwellinghouse (Class C3) granted 3 May 2004 (SOS/04/00196/FUL).

7 Recommendation

Members are recommended to refuse PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its unsatisfactory design, excessive scale, bulk and massing would result in an dominant and incongruous form of development out of character with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), Policies C11, H5, H6 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) and Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 3.

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its height, bulk, scale and proximity to 7 Kent View Avenue, would be over bearing and result in loss of outlook to this property to the detriment of residential amenity. This would be contrary to Polices C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).


Reference: SOS/11/00201/OUT

Ward: Milton

Proposal:Form additional floor and convert existing ground floor retail unit (Class A1) and first floor dwelling (Class C3) into bar and restaurant (Class Sui Generis) (Outline)

Address: 29-31 Clifftown Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, SS1 1AB

Applicant: Regisport Plc Directors Pension Fund

Agent: ACS Design Associates Ltd


Expiry Date: 19th April 2011

Case Officer: Sophie Glendinning

Plan Nos: 2713/TP/01, 271/TP/02

Recommendation: Delegate to the Group Manager or Head of Planning & Transport to GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION


1 The Proposal

1.1 Outline planning permission (all matters reserved) is sought to form an additional floor and convert an existing ground floor retail unit (Class A1) and first floor dwelling (Class C3) into a bar and restaurant (Sui Generis). Indicative elevations and a layout have been submitted for consideration showing the bar area at ground floor, the restaurant on first floor and an associated function room at second floor level. The ground floor bar would be accessed from the existing shop door, and there would also be an additional access door situated where the door to the first floor flat currently is.

1.2 The proposal seeks a restaurant seating area of approximately 60sqm. The premises as a total floor area including the function room, restaurant and bar of approximately 222sqm.

1.3 The indicative elevations show that the ground floor (which currently contains a shopfront and has two frontages) will feature extensive glazing to include bi-folding windows. The proposed second floor extension would be a continuation of the existing first floor, and a pitched roof is also proposed which would have a ridge height consistent with that of the adjoining property.

1.4 It is proposed that the premises would be open from 10.00am to 11.00pm 7 days a week

1.5 No car parking would be provided with the development.


2.1 The application site is located on the corner of Clifftown Road and Nelson Mews and is presently occupied by a two storey flat roofed building. The ground floor unit is currently vacant but was last used as a clothing shop. The first floor is used for residential purposes containing a self-contained flat. The first floor is brick built with timber sliding sash windows. The ground floor shopfront is of a traditional design; well detailed and proportioned, and has been designated as a Frontage of Townscape Merit.

2.2 The adjoining properties to the east are three storey terrace buildings and consist of commercial uses at ground floor with residential accommodation above. They are typically Victorian and are characterised by gable roofs. There is a car park to the rear of the property and the Railway public house on the opposite corner of Nelson Mews.

2.3 The application site is within a town centre location, and is situated opposite Southend Central Station. The application property sits directly adjacent to the boundary of the Clifftown Conservation Area.



3.1 The considerations are the principle of the development, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

4 Appraisal

Principle of the Development

Core Strategy DPD (adopted December 2007) Polices KP2 and CP4, CP8; BLP Policies: C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), E3 (Secondary Offices)

4.1 The application site is within a Secondary Office Frontage within a town centre location which is characterised by mixed uses. Policy E3 (Secondary Offices) seeks to encourage offices at ground level and above in such areas. In this case however, the principle of residential accommodation has already been accepted at first and second floors, and the ground floor has been occupied by retail for some time. Accordingly, the use of the premises for non-office use has already been established.

4.2 It is acknowledged that the proposal would result in the loss of the first floor flat. In this case however, the flat, not being a family dwelling, is not considered to make a significant contribution to local housing needs. The Borough is currently meeting its required target for provision of dwellings in accordance with Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy, and therefore the loss of the existing flat is not considered to be detrimental to the total supply of residential accommodation. Furthermore, it is noted that the existing flat has no provision for outdoor amenity space and is in a locality which is characterised more by mixed uses. Accordingly, the loss of the residential flat in this location is not objected to.

4.3 The proposed bar and restaurant is considered to be an appropriate use in this location. To the west is the Railway Hotel pub and to the east is an Indian restaurant; the area in general is characterised by commercial premises at ground floor. Whilst the proposed use would introduce an additional restaurant/bar use in this parade the Council does not have any policy relating to the proliferation of A3/A4 uses and therefore, permission could not be refused on this basis.

Design and Impact on Street Scene

Planning Policy Statement 1, DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan Policies C11, C4, H5, C6, C7 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.4 Under the matters for consideration of outline planning permission the applicant is required to provide information regarding the overall scale of the building which relates to its height, width and length, even if ‘scale’ is reserved for future consideration.


4.5 The applicant has submitted indicative elevations, which shows that a second floor would be created and a pitched roof formed to align with the ridge height of the adjoining building.

4.6 With regards to the design of the additional floor, this is shown to replicate the existing first floor, and the existing parapet detail would be incorporated into the eaves of the new roof structure. The streetscene in this part of Clifftown Road is characterised by three storey terrace buildings of various architectural styles. It is not therefore considered that an objection can be raised in principle to creating a second floor to the existing building. The adjoining terrace property is three storey and the Railway Public House to the west is four storey. Accordingly, the proposed additional floor and roof is considered to be of an acceptable scale for this location, and would resolve the buildings existing truncated appearance. Furthermore, it is noted that there is an extant permission for the formation of a second floor flat on this property.

4.7 It is indicated the external materials to be used for the additional floor would be facing brickwork however, it would be important that any new brickwork should match the existing. The windows should be timber and match the style of the existing and the roof covering should be natural slate. Concern is raised in relation to the alignment of the second floor windows with those of the adjoining property thereby creating an awkward transition between the buildings. This could be overcome by removing the arches from the existing structure and lowering the parapet and incorporating this into the elevation as a string course which carries through the line of the adjacent building’s string course. These details, along with the materials can however be addressed through the reserved matters application.

4.8 In terms of the proposed roof form, it is noted that there is an extant permission (SOS/09/01900/OUT) which includes an addition of a second floor which was incorporated within a mansard style roof. Whilst no objection was raised in principle to the addition of a roof here, the mansard style roof was not considered appropriate. The current application has however amended the design of the roof to a pitched roof, and altered the proportions which are considered to be of a more appropriate design. The ridge of the roof would align with the adjoining terrace property and would overcome the truncated appearance of the existing flat roof.

4.9 The indicative alterations to the ground floor shopfront are in general acceptable with the retention of the stall riser and traditional detailing such as the pilasters. There is concern that the cornicing has not been replicated in the middle section of the Clifftown road elevation, (although this appears to be the existing situation) which would maintain the character and improve the detailing. There is also concern that the appearance of the shopfront may be affected by the indicative position of the toilets on ground floor which could decrease presence and activity at ground floor and creating an uninviting, blank section in this frontage. These issues could however could again be addressed through a separate submission where detailing can be revised.


4.10 A chimney flue is proposed to the rear elevation, just above the eaves. It is indicated that this would not exceed the ridge height and as such this would not be visually detrimental to the character and appearance of the building.

4.11 However, given that this application is in outline form with all matters reserved, these issues could be addressed successfully at Reserved Matters stage.

Residential Amenity

Planning Policy Statement 1; Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP4; Borough Local Plan Policies E5, H5 and H7.

4.12 The proposal is considered in the context of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1) and Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan, which requires all development within residential streets to be appropriate in its setting by respecting neighbouring development, existing residential amenities and the overall character of the locality. Policy E5 of the Borough Local Plan also requires that any change of use to establish non-residential activities should not adversely affect residential amenity in terms of noise or smell. This is reiterated in Policy U2 which seeks to prevent developments with a potential risk of noise or odour pollution.

4.13 It is noted that the previous application (SOS/10/00215/FUL) was refused as it had not been demonstrated that the proposed use would not have a harmful impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property which contains an Indian restaurant at ground floor (No. 28), a first floor flat (28A) and a second floor flat (28B).

4.14 The indicative layout plans show that the extract ducting would be internal, positioned on the southern rear wall extending up from the kitchen through the first and second floors with a discharge point approximately 2m above the eaves. An acoustic party wall between the attached property would also be installed to reduce noise transmission. An acoustic report has also been submitted with the application, however at the time of writing the report the Council’s Environmental Health Department were yet to verify the conclusions of this report, and it is considered that this is required in order to make an appropriate assessment of any potentially harmful effect upon residential amenity and general environmental quality. Members will be updated on receipt of this information.

Parking and Highways Considerations

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP3; Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11, Essex Planning Officer Association (EPOA) Vehicle Parking Standards.


4.15 Policy T11 of the BLP requires the provision of adequate parking and servicing facilities. The EPOA sets out the requirements for each use. The application includes no car parking provision. The application site is currently occupied by an A1 unit which would have a maximum car parking requirement of 4 spaces, and a flat which would require a maximum of 1 car parking space. The proposed change of use would require a maximum of 44 parking spaces. The required parking standards are however, expressed as a maximum and the site is in a town centre location which offers good public transport facilities and services, and the opportunity for linked trips. Public car parks are also available in the vicinity. Southend Central Station is opposite the site and there is an opportunity for servicing from Nelson Mews. It should also be noted that PPG13 encourages the reduction in the reliance of cars and promotes modes of sustainable transport. It is therefore not considered that an objection can be sustained in relation to car parking provision. Furthermore, the Councils Highways Department has not raised any objections to the application.

Other Issues

Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5, C14, C4

4.16 Landscaping is a reserved matter, however it is noted that the proposed development would not incorporate any soft landscaping.


5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Planning and Transport), Planning Policy Statement 23 (Pollution Control), Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise).

5.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility), CP4 (The Environment & Urban Renaissance), CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

5.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C6 (Frontages of Townscape Merit), C7 (Shop and Commercial Frontages and Fascias), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), E1 (Employment Promotion), E3 (Secondary Offices), E5 (Non Residential Uses Close to Housing), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities), U2 (Pollution Control).






6.1 Being a town centre site this proposal has a very limited implication for parking generation particularly during the day time. No off street parking provision is proposed but there are parking controls in the neighbouring roads and there are public car parks in the vicinity although the nearest ones can be stressed. Servicing can take place from the kerbside in Nelson Mews without causing any significant traffic problems. There are therefore no highway objections.


6.2 The shopfront is designated as a frontage of townscape merit and any proposed alterations should therefore seek to enhance this. To enhance the quality and appearance of the shopfront the extent of the fenestration should fit with the layout of the existing piers, rather than additional piers being added (e.g. three panes per section). This is a strong, horizontally proportioned shopfront and the proposals detract from this character.

It is noted from the plans that the toilets are to be located on the frontage at ground floor, this is likely to have a significant impact on the shopfront, decreasing presence and activity at ground floor and creating an uninviting, blank section to this characterful frontage (details to be confirmed). It would be preferable to see the toilets relocated to ensure the whole extent of the shopfront remains active.

The shopfront would benefit from a unified approach to its detailing, which adds to its character. It is noted that the cornicing has not been replicated in the middle section of the Clifftown Road elevation and it would be preferable to see this addressed, with cornicing proposed to match existing. As an additional storey is proposed, key to the success of this development will be the quality of materials and detailing, and importantly the integration of new and old materials. The roof in particular will need to integrate successfully with the existing building and the materials must be sympathetic to local character. Materials to be agreed by condition.

The impact of the rear elevation in the streetscene would increase given the proposed change in scale. As proposed, a large blank, dominant elevation would be created which lacks articulation and may have a negative impact on the streetscene.


6.3 To be reported.



6.4 To be reported.

Essex County Council

6.5 Given the building’s truncated appearance there is no objection to the principle of forming a second floor. Although the plans lack detail it is proposed that the second floor would replicate the existing first floor and the existing parapet detail would be incorporated into the eaves of the new roof structure. The proposals would result in the first floor window lintels being in line with those of the neighbouring property whilst the second floor windows would align at cill level, creating an awkward transition between the buildings. To amend this it is recommend that the red brick relieving arches are removed from the existing structure and the existing parapet is lowered down and incorporated into the elevation as a string course which carries through the line of the adjacent building’s string course. This would allow the proposed second floor windows to be aligned at lintel level with those of the neighbouring building and would improve the proportions of the elevation. The proposed windows should match the dimensions of the existing first floor windows.

The proposed rear elevation occupies a prominent position and could be improved by altering the fenestration and adding windows; the large expanse of brickwork with very few openings would otherwise appear monotonous.

There is no information regarding the material of the roof covering; it is recommended that this is natural slate. The timber windows should match the existing exactly. New brickwork should match the existing, a sample of which should be approved by the local planning authority.

No objection if proposal amended in line with above comments.

Public Consultation

6.6

6.7

A site notice has been displayed and 11 neighbouring addresses notified by letter. No representations received at time of writing report.

This application has been called in to Development Control Committee by Cllr Kaye.


7.1 Outline planning permission granted to erect second floor to form self contained flat. SOS/09/01900/OUT.

7.2 Outline planning permission granted to erect second floor to form self contained flat. SOS/05/00156/OUT.


7.3 Erect second floor to form self-contained flat. Approved (SOS/09/01900/OUT).

7.4 Use premises as restaurant and bar (Sui Generis), use roof as terrace, erect roof extension and alter elevations. Refused. 10/00215/FUL.

7.5 Form additional floor and convert existing ground floor retail unit (Class A1) and first floor dwelling (Class C3) to Bar and Restaurant (Class Sui Generis) (Amended Proposal). Withdrawn. 10/01978/FUL.

8 Recommendation


(a) DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control to GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the expiration of public consultation:

GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

01. Application for approval of the scale, appearance, layout, access, and landscaping (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than 3 (three) years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 2 (two) years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and because the application is for outline planning permission only and the particulars submitted are insufficient for consideration of the details mentioned.

02. No part of the premises shall be open for use other than between the hours of 10.00 – 23.00 Monday to Sunday.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential properties, in accordance with Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan.


03. No development shall take place until details including samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, Policies KP2 and CP4 of DPD1 (Core Strategy) and Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

04. Loading or unloading of goods or materials shall not take place on the land before 08:00 hours or after 22:00 hours on any day.


05.The rating level of noise from the ventilation and air conditioning equipment determined by the procedures in BS:4142:1997, should be at least 5dB(A) below the background noise LA90 determined according to the guidance in BS:4142 at 3.5m from ground floor facades and 1m from all facades above ground floor level to residential premises. The equipment shall not be installed before an acoustic assessment of the plant confirming compliance with the aforementioned standard has been submitted to the planning authority and approved in writing. The assessment should be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant who would normally be a member of the Institute of Acoustics. The equipment shall be maintained in good working order thereafter. The plant must not have distinctive tonal or impulsive characteristics.


06. No development shall take place until detailed drawings of the proposed shopfront at a scale of 1:20 or 1:10 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of this building as a Frontage of Townscape Merit in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4, policies C4, C6 and C7 of the Borough Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.



Ward: West Leigh

Proposal:Form additional floor to create self contained flat, internal alterations, alter elevations and layout additional parking space at rear

Address: Oak Lodge, Salisbury Road, Leigh on Sea, Essex, SS9 2JL

Applicant: Mr Middleton

Agent: Knight Gratrix Architects

Consultation Expiry: 29 March 2011



Plan Nos: 010A, 011A, Streetscene Elevations, Streetscene Section, Side Sections



1 The Proposal

1.1 This application seeks permission for the erection of an additional storey to create a self contained flat on the existing three storey block of flats, together with alterations to the elevations and the layout of an additional parking space to the rear.

1.2 It is proposed to form an additional storey to create a two bed, self contained flat and internal alterations to the existing two bed, self contained flat (No. 8 Oak Lodge) to create an additional bedroom, to form a duplex.

1.3 The proposed development has a maximum width of 17 metres and a maximum depth of 12.2 metres. The height of the proposed development is 2.6 metres taking the height of the existing building from 8.1 metres to 10.7 metres overall. There are eight garages to the rear of the site which provide off street parking for residents of Oak Lodge and it is proposed to provide an additional parking space to serve the proposed self contained flat.

1.4 A Design and Access Statement has been submitted setting out the principles of design that have been incorporated into the proposal.


2.1 The application site comprises a site of approximately 1000 square metres (0.1 hectares), located on the west side of Salisbury Road. The site is currently occupied by a 1970’s style building comprising of 6 No., two bed self contained flats and 3 No., one bed self contained flats. The building is three storeys in height with a flat roof, and is considered to be of little architectural merit and is out of character with other residential properties in the street scene. There is also a row of eight garages to the rear of the site (west).

2.2 The site includes a vehicular access off Salisbury Road, which serves a hard-surfaced parking area to the rear of the site. There are areas of soft landscaping within the site; an area of approximately 180 square metres to the east of the building and smaller areas to the west (rear) of the site, measuring 70 square metres. There is an oak tree located between the garages to the rear of the site which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order and can be seen from Salisbury Road providing good amenity value.

2.3 The streetscene in Salisbury Road is mixed with two storey and three storey properties of varying architectural styles. The application site, is however, flanked by two storey detached residential dwellings of a modest scale to the north and south.



3.1 The main planning considerations for this application are principle of development, design, visual impact in the street scene, potential impact on neighbouring properties, traffic, transportation issues, and sustainable construction.

4 Appraisal


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP8; BLP policies C11, H5, H7 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.1 The proposal is considered in the context of the Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations) and H7 (Formation of Self Contained Flats), and the Design and Townscape Guide. These policies require that alterations and extensions to properties respect the existing character and appearance of the building and the streetscene, and improve the environment through quality design.

4.2 Government advice currently states that all sites should be examined in order to determine their potential for redevelopment for residential purposes. It should also be noted that Government policy is to maximise the use of urban land. The proposed development is an extension to the existing use and this is considered acceptable in principle.

Design and Impact on the Street Scene

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; BLP policies C11, H5, H6 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.3 It should be noted that good design is fundamental and its importance is reflected in PPS1 and PPS3 as well as Polices C11 and H5 of the Local Plan, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) states that the Council is committed to good design and will seek to create attractive, high-quality living environments.

4.4 In determining an appropriate contextual relationship with surrounding development, factors such as height, scale, massing and siting are material considerations. Details such as architectural style, along with colour texture of materials, are also fundamental in ensuring the appearance of any new development is sympathetic to its surrounding and therefore wholly appropriate in its context.


4.5 The existing building is of little architectural merit, and whilst the streetscene is considered to be relatively diverse it is clearly residential in character. The existing building already appears out of place and to the detriment of the wider area forming an alien feature within the streetscene. It is considered that the proposed development, by adding a further storey would exacerbate this situation and be out of scale with neighbouring properties that are modest in scale. The proposal therefore does not comply with guidance in the SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

4.6 It is proposed to increase the height of the existing building from 8.1 metres to 10.7 metres. Whilst it may be possible to achieve an additional storey, its visual impact must be minimal. The design of the proposed roof is thick and bulky, which acts to emphasise its form and amplify its visual impact within the streetscene and surrounding locality. The design of the proposal does not include sufficient transparency and is not a ‘lightweight’ structure as advocated in paragraph 377 of the SPD1.

4.7 Private amenity space for the proposed flat and the existing flat (No. 8 Oak Lodge) is provided by good sized balconies and terraces. There is communal open space to the front and rear of the building for existing residents. Given, the close proximity of nearby public areas and foreshore, there is no objection to the provision of amenity space for the proposed development.

4.8 The additional storey proposed will reduce the amenity value of the oak tree, which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order, when viewed from Salisbury Road. The scale of the extension should therefore be reduced to minimise the impact of the proposal on the oak tree.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies CP4; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.9 A number of objections have been received regarding loss of privacy and overlooking from the proposed development. The proposed windows in the east elevation would overlook the highway which is considered acceptable. The development already has windows in the rear (west) elevation and the proposed development will result in the formation of additional openings to habitable rooms. However, these are setback a minimum of 18 metres from the rear boundary of residential properties on Burnham Road and therefore it is not considered the proposal will be materially different in terms of overlooking of adjoining properties. There is a full height window proposed on the south west facing elevation of the proposal which is set back 11 metres from the neighbouring boundary of No. 25 Salisbury Road to the south of the application site. Given, there are no openings on this side of Oak Lodge and that the proposed window does not serve a habitable room, a condition requiring the window to be obscurely glazed to prevent any overlooking or loss of privacy to adjoining residents is recommended.


4.10 Concerns have been raised regarding loss of light and overshadowing of neighbouring properties as a result of the addition of a fourth storey. It is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers to the south (No. 25) given the orientation of the sun and separation distances.

4.11 The proposed development would provide a terraced and balcony area to the east, south and west elevations, for the proposed residential unit. These terraced areas are in relative close proximity to the adjoining residence, and concerns in relation to overlooking and privacy are noted. However it is possible, through the erection of partial screening, to mitigate against overlooking. Subject to a condition requiring appropriate screening that protects the amenity of the adjoining residence, particularly the occupants of No. 25 and No. 31 Salisbury Road, it is not considered that an objection can be raised to the amenity space proposed.

4.12 The residential flat measures approximately 96 sq metres in size, has its own private balcony and access to communal amenity area at the front of the building. All rooms are considered to be of adequate size suitable for their function and no objections are raised to the internal room layouts. Overall the standard of accommodation being proposed is considered to be acceptable and satisfies the above policies.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; BLP policies C11, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.13 The proposal includes provision for 9 off street parking spaces; less than 1 per flat. The number of spaces is therefore below EPOA parking standards, which requires 1.5 spaces per dwelling in areas which are not in town centre locations. Highways Engineers have raised an objection, given that this is an area which suffers from parking stress and therefore, the proposal would be likely to give rise to additional demand for on street parking in this residential area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy T11 of the Borough Local Plan.

4.14 An objection has been received concerning the loss of amenity space to facilitate the additional off street parking space. The proposal would result in the loss of approximately 6 square metres of amenity space, and whilst this is regrettable, on balance the proposal will result in an additional 28 square metres of private amenity space. As such, it is not considered an objection can be justified in this instance.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 22; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies: KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan Policy C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.


4.16 National guidance and relevant planning policy statements together with Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy and the Borough Local Plan advocate the need to ensure design maximises the use of sustainable renewable resources in the construction of development. It also states that all development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources and at least 10% of the energy needs of new development should come from on-site renewable options.

4.17 The Design and Access Statement accompanying this planning application proposes to use a Whole House Ventilation System (MVHR) and solar panels. However, no details have been provided showing where the vents will be located and internal space for the MVHR technology. Whilst it is noted the solar panels are proposed to the flat roof, some projection will be necessary to ensure they benefit from maximum exposure. It is therefore considered unreasonable to condition these matters as this could impact upon the design of the proposed development.

Conclusion

4.18 Whilst the development is acceptable in principle, as a result of the design, scale, bulk, and massing the development is considered to be contrary to policy.


5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport), Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy).

5.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) Policies SS1 (Achieving Sustainable Development), ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment) and ENG1 (Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance).

5.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP2 (Development Principles), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance), and CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

5.4 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H7 (The Formation of self contained flats) and T11 (Parking Standards).

5.5 Design & Townscape Guide, 2009 (SPD1).




Leigh Town Council

6.1 The proposed roof terraces and windows would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy both actual and perceived. The additional floor will cause overshadowing to the property to the north. The additional height and changes to the front elevation will be detrimental to the streetscene as they are inappropriate in a road of two storey houses of traditional design.


6.2 The streetscene is mixed with two and three storey properties in the vicinity of varying architectural styles. The property is however flanked by two storey, detached, residential dwellings of a modest scale. As proposed, the additional storey would increase the property to four storeys, which would take it out of scale in the modestly scaled surrounding streetscene.

6.3 As noted at pre-application stage, it may be possible to achieve an additional storey to Oak Lodge providing that its visual impact is minimal. It is not considered that the proposed design achieves this and in its current form the proposed design is not supported.


6.4 Nine parking spaces for ten flats, seven of which will be two bedroomed, is below the Council’s standard of 1 ½ spaces per dwelling in areas which are not in town centre locations. This is an area which suffers from parking stress and therefore any proposal which is likely to increase that would be unattractive from the highway point of view and would be contrary to Policy T11.


6.5 No comments received.

Public Consultation

6.7 A Site notice has been displayed and neighbours have been notified. Nine letters of objection have been received regarding the following:

Increased height of building would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to surrounding properties;

The addition of a fourth storey is out of scale and context with surrounding two storey dwellings;

The design of the proposal would add further massing and bulk to an already over scaled building;


The proposal would appear incongruous in the street scene and result in overdevelopment of the site;

Loss of light of neighbouring dwellings; The design of the proposal will radically alter the overall street scene and

appearance of Salisbury Road; Insufficient parking provision; and Loss of existing amenity space.

6.8 The application was called to Development Control Committee by Councillor Lamb.


7.1 None relevant.

8 Recommendation

Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its unsatisfactory design, excessive scale, bulk and massing would result in an dominant and incongruous form of development out of character with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), Policies C11, H5, H6 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) and Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 3.

2. The parking spaces provided for the proposed development are considered inadequate as per the EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards 2001 and would lead to an increased incidence of parking on street contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; policies KP2, CP3 and CP4 of the Core Strategy; policies C11, T11 of the Borough Local Plan; EPOA Parking Standards and advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

3. The proposed development, by virtue of the failure to address sustainable construction and design issues and the use of renewable energy resources, is contrary to PPS1 and PPS22, East of England Plan (May 2008) Policies SS1, ENV7, ENG1, WAT1 and WAT4; Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).


Reference: 11/00085/DOV

Application Type: Deed of Variation

Ward: Shoeburyness

Proposal: Modification of planning obligation dated 6 February 2004 pursuant to application 00/00777/OUT to remove the obligation to speculatively build any more Class B1 (business) employment space beyond that which has already been delivered within the 3 existing office buildings in the "mixed use area"; and to remove obligation to transfer land to East of England Development Agency in lieu of providing employment space.

Address: Shoebury Garrison, Ness Road, Shoeburyness

Applicant: Gladedale (Rochester) Limited & Gladedale Commercial Limited

Agent: Anthony Hawkins of Bell Cornwell LLP

Consultation Expiry: 16th February 2011

Expiry Date: 15th March 2011

Case Officer: Amanda Rogers

Recommendation: Delegate authority to Head of Planning and Transportation or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control to modify the Section 106 Agreement dated 6 February 2004 in respect of the Class B1 business floorspace, namely removal of clauses 3.4.2 – 3.4.5


1 Executive Summary

1.1 It is important to note that this application is not seeking to change the land use of the areas within the Garrison that have been designated as commercial uses in the outline application granted permission on 6 February 2004. The application is also not proposing that the land allocation be changed from employment uses as shown in various LDF documents including the Core Strategy and the emerging Development Management DPD and Area Action Plan. What is being requested is that the developer be released from the clauses within the S.106 agreement, which essentially require them to speculatively build further office accommodation as they are concerned that it will only stand vacant due to the apparent lack of demand. The intention of removing the employment land clauses within the S.106 agreement is also to avoid delay to the further delivery of houses which are already granted permission under the outline permission.

2 Background

2.1 This application was previously considered by Development Control Committee on 4th April 2001 and following the completion of a Section 106 (S.106) agreement outline planning permission was granted on 6 February 2004 for:

“Mixed use development comprising conversion of existing buildings and erection of new buildings for: parkland and open space; up to a total of 465 dwellings; up to 23,750sq.m of business floorspace (Class B1(a) and (b); up to 1625sq.m of non-residential (Class D1) uses, including A. a health centre within the mixed use area, B. the former Garrison Church as a community hall, and C. the former battery gun store as a heritage centre; up to 5,900sq.m of leisure (Class D2) uses; up to 800sq.m of retail (Class A1); up to 600sq.m of financial services (Class A2) use; formation of hotel (Class C1) with approximately 40 bedrooms;


land for a new school; erection of landmark residential building; construction of new access roads; and associated works”.

2.2 The S.106 agreement secured the following:

Transfer to the Council the Primary School Site (land transferred to SBC August 2010 for provision of new Hinguar School)

Highways improvement works (financial contributions all paid and highways works carried out to satisfactory standard)

Restore Battery Gun Store and convert to Heritage Centre (it is hoped that works of restoration will commence this year or next)

Works to Sea Wall, groynes, pier and associated structures (works carried out to satisfactory standard)

Works to Gunners Park and New Gunners Park (works close to completion) Provision of storage facility in New Gunners Park (financial contribution paid

to SBC to allow the Council to provide the storage facility) 10% affordable housing (provided in relation to the houses built to date,

ongoing obligation in relation to the remainder of the houses to be built on site)

Restoration and repair of Cricket Pavilion and Cricket Pitch (obligation met) Maintenance of Cricket Pavilion and Cricket Pitch (maintenance contribution

paid) Garrison Church - community use (Gladedale currently seeking appropriate

occupier for building) Provision of employment land Works to drainage and associated sewerage services (works complete) Landmark Building Design Competition (obligation met)

2.3 There were various triggers within the S.106 agreement requiring provision of the above at different stages of the development. A large proportion of the S.106 requirements have already been met. Out of the 465 dwellings approved for the site at outline application stage, only 97 dwellings remain to be constructed. This final stage of residential development for the Garrison site – Gunnery Hill Phase 2 (ref. 10/02099/RESM) – was considered by Development Control Committee on 2 March 2011 and it was resolved to grant conditional permission.

2.4 In terms of employment land, 3 office buildings have been constructed to date in the area designated for “mixed use” in the masterplan approved under the outline permission. This provision amounts to 2,326sqm (gross internal area), which unfortunately has remained vacant since it was constructed in July 2006 despite extensive marketing by the developer. This provision however does satisfy clause 3.4.1 of the S.106 agreement, which required a 2,000sqm (GIA) premises to be constructed for a use within Class B1(a) or B1(b) (i.e. offices or research and development) to a shell finish together with all access and services infrastructure prior to occupation of more than 250 open market residential units on the Garrison site.


3 The Proposal

3.1 The Council has received an application from Gladedale (Rochester) Limited & Gladedale Commercial Limited requesting a modification to the existing S.106 agreement to allow the following:

Removal of clause 3.4.2, which requires:either the transfer of the freehold of not less than 1.5 hectares (15,000sqm) to the East of England Development Agency (or its successors) (including any land transferred pursuant to clause 3.4.1)or the provision of premises of a gross internal area of 4,550sqm (including any premises erected pursuant to clause 3.4.1.1) to be constructed for a use within Class B1(a) or B1(b) (i.e. offices or research and development) to a shell finish together with all access and services infrastructure prior to occupation of more than 400 open market residential units on the Garrison site.

Removal of clause 3.4.3, which requires the provision of associated drainage and other services

Removal of clause 3.4.4, which states that the obligation contained within 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 can be satisfied by the transfer of lesser areas of land and erection of smaller B1 premises provided that the aggregate of land and premises equate to 1.5 hectares on the premise that each 30.33sqm of gross internal floorspace equates to 100sqm of land (i.e. a GIA of 4,550sqm)

Removal of clause 3.4.5, which requires the land owner to use its “reasonable endeavours” to promote employment uses on the site in accordance with the principle set out in the Annexure 5 of the agreement until the provisions of clause 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 have been complied with (i.e. the B1 land has been provided

3.2 The relevant clauses from the S.106 agreement (including Annexure 5 outlining the promotional principles) are included as Appendix 1.


4.1 The main consideration is one of principle, and whether or not the removal of the above specified clauses is acceptable in terms of planning policies relating to land use on this site.

5 Appraisal

Planning Policy Statements 1 and 4; East of England Plan Policy SS1, E1 and E2; DPD1 Strategic Objective 3, 5 and 6, Policies KP1, KP2, KP3, CP1, CP6 and CP8; SPD1 and SPD2


Planning Policy Considerations

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

The mixed use development scheme approved in outline for the Shoebury Garrison site continues to perform well against the spatial strategy and policy requirements of the Core Strategy in that it will deliver a balance of employment generating uses, community uses and housing when complete.

With regard to housing, a substantial proportion of the approved 465 residential units (approx 365 units) have been successfully taken forward along with associated affordable housing provision, leaving a residual dwelling provision of approximately 115 units.

With regard to employment land, the outline permission provides for 23,750sqm of Class B1a and B1b uses (based on the approved scheme description), of which 18,000sqm would be provided in land allocated for a ‘Business Park’, 400sqm within a ‘Mixed Use’ area and 1,750sqm identified in the ‘Drill Hall’ (referred to in the approved Development Schedule). To date, in line with the S.106 agreement 2,326sqm of B1a or B1b premises have been built in the ‘Mixed Use’ area. This leaves a total residual floorspace requirement of 21,424sqm B1a and B1b uses of which delivery of a further 2,224sqm floorspace is currently bound by the S.106 agreement before the final phase of housing delivery.

It is also noted that land has been transferred and detailed planning permission granted for a Primary School in accordance with the approved scheme. In addition the health care provision of 800sqm within the ‘Mixed Use’ area has now been taken forward as a 1,858sqm Primary Care Centre in line with Core Strategy Policy CP6.

The Current Council Position

5.5

5.6

The Borough Council’s Employment Land Review (ELR) found a future employment land demand gap across the Borough in the long term. As such, all employment land /floorspace approved may well be required for employment. It would not be unreasonable, therefore, to safeguard this provision for employment use for the post 2021 period.

The ELR considers that to support the Core Strategy objective of 1,500 jobs in Shoeburyness, 4.3 ha of the Garrison site will be required to meet future employment requirements (in addition to future supply coming from existing industrial estates in the area). This would support, 25,800 sq m of floorspace. However, whilst all employment land in Southend is a valuable commodity, the ELR suggests that in the medium term to 2021 there is a lower demand for employment land in this location leading to an oversupply. Oversupply in this location could potentially compete with other priorities within the Town Centre and at the Airport in the medium term. As a result, the ELR recommends that to meet forecast demand in this area, a minimum of 3.2 ha is required to support 19,000 sqm by 2021.


5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

The ELR further considers that the use of remaining land should be determined through the production of the Shoeburyness AAP, which can consider this site alongside other employment sites in Shoeburyness, such as Campfield Road and Vanguard Way.

For the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that the ‘transitional model’ in the ELR assumes 80% of future job growth in sectors such as education, health and social care will occur in existing and future facilities and has already been taken into account when determining supply requirements. The employment land requirement of 3.2ha is, therefore, for commercial and industrial premises only (i.e. B1 and perhaps small scale B2).

With regard to housing, research has shown that progress on housing delivery has been steady during the period 2001 – 2010 with approximately 900 net additional units either completed or with planning permission in the Shoeburyness area (of which approximately 350 units have been completed on this site and 115 have Outline permission). It is considered that the residual ‘target’ of approximately 500 homes in the wider Shoeburyness area during the remaining plan period (2010-21) would be relatively easy to achieve and certainly not a reason to forgo much needed strategic employment land.

It is the Council’s position therefore that to deliver the spatial strategy and policy requirements in the adopted Core Strategy; there is a need to establish and maintain a balance between jobs and housing growth in Shoeburyness. The approved mixed use scheme supports this approach. The Employment Land Review supports the Council’s position with regard to the continued requirement for employment land provision on this site. To conform with the Core Strategy DPD’s Policies KP1 and CP8, therefore, a minimum of 3.2ha is required to support 19,000 sqm by 2021. These conclusions are consistent with the Council’s strategic planning approach to this site.

On the basis that the removal of the clauses the subject of this application would not affect the substantive scheme approved under 00/00777/OUT (in particular the business park/B1a/b floor space element) and to proceed with any different scheme would require further planning approval which would be subject to the policy considerations set out above and in the Core Strategy DPD there is no objection in terms of planning policy for the removal of the clauses within the planning obligation relating to further provision of employment land.

Marketing

5.11 The justification for removal of clauses 3.4.2 – 3.4.5 is based on economic viability and the fact that Gladedale have provided evidence to demonstrate that the three existing vacant office buildings on the Garrison have been marketed since 2006 without any firm interest and subsequent tenants.


5.12 The S.106 dated 6 February 2004 set out in detail the promotional principles for marketing the office accommodation on Shoebury Garrison. The principles that Gladedale were required to follow until the provisions of clause 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 have been complied with included the following:

i) Development Brandingii) Web Siteiii) Marketing Boardsiv) Brochuresv) Advertisingvi) Mailing vii) On Site Marketing

5.13 In respect of the above marketing principles, Gladedale have submitted the following evidence:

Development Branding (i) and (iii) – Gladedale have given the development an appropriate image and identity and letting/promotional boards have been provided around the site. Website (ii) – marketed online on Starfish.net and via Glennys website between 2005 and 2009; and details are also currently on Ayers and Cruiks website.Brochures (iv) – marketing leaflets have been provided and these have been circulated to local and national property agents via Starfish (N.B. price not included in details as no comparables in immediate area therefore considered more appropriate to discuss price/terms on application)Advertising (v) – a marketing schedule has been provided for September 2005 showing that the site was advertised in the Southend Standard, Southend & Castlepoint Yellow Advertiser, Basildon & Southend Evening Echo and Essex Chronicle in summer 2005. This local advertising campaign (including local press and radio) was repeated in 2009. The marketing schedule also shows that the site was advertised at a national level in Property Week – Essex and NE London Feature (25th November 2005), and the Evening Standard (26th September, 17th October and 21st November 2005). Mailing (vi) – the agreement required a brochure and accompanying details to be mailed to all London and local agents – Starfish have confirmed that they have been responsible for circulation of these details since 2005.On Site Marketing – details have been provided in respect of on site marketing to show that advertising boards of varying designs have been displayed around the site from 2005 to date. In addition, to coincide with the local advertising campaign that ran for 6 weeks from October 2009, an on-site information bureau was set up on site in the former chapel.


5.14 A supporting letter has also been submitted by ‘Starfish’, land and property experts, who have been acting for Gladedale and have been responsible for the marketing of the various commercial/mixed use development opportunities at the Garrison since 2005. In summary their letter states the following points:

this site is considered to be inappropriate for a mixed use development particularly due to its location, access and journey times;

only a “thin market” for office space in this location in good economic times; Starfish failed to gain any interest from potential commercial occupiers

beyond the areas east of central Southend and no success in encouraging applicants to consider relocation from Southend town centre offices;

2005 national advertising campaign was not repeated as the 2005 adverts brought no responses and Starfish’s advice to Gladedale was that a further campaign would be costly and futile, and the budget would be better committed to other media;

based on Starfish’s advise a local and focussed marketing campaign ran for 6 weeks from October 2009;

all local, Essex based and many London commercial agents are fully aware of the opportunities at the Garrison, and Starfish have contacted most of these agents directly and through their joint agents (Glenny) over the last few years to no avail;

London agents have been invited to site but have declined on the basis that they remained unconvinced that they would be able to encourage clients to by/rent space in Shoebury;

any substantial interest has only come from individuals and companies with very local connections;

only serious enquiry came from a major sports firm located within the Borough who were looking for new headquarters – withdrew from negotiations due to location (difficult for staff to get to and from work, poor public transport, excessive journey times by car through Southend and limited facilities for staff to enjoy at lunch e.g. sandwich bars and quality shops)

consider that everything possible has been done to encourage businesses to relocate to the Garrison.

Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations

5.15 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 came into force on 6 April 2010. Part 11 Section 122 (2) of the Regulations, set out the statutory tests for all planning obligations, which must now be taken into consideration; namely that all planning obligations must be:

d) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; ande) directly related to the development; andf) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development


At the time of the outline application the imposition of the clauses relating to the delivery of offices or research and development accommodation on a speculative basis would have been considered to meet the above tests of necessity, direct link to the overall development and reasonableness. However, since 2004 the economy as suffered severe decline and in light of this change in economic circumstances it is now considered that it would be unreasonable to require the developer to invest significant further funds into speculative commercial builds, which on the basis of the evidence provided, are at a severe risk of standing vacant. It is also noted that the land allocations outlined in adopted planning policy will protect the areas approved under the outline permission for commercial purposes in the interests of sustainable development of the Garrison. On this basis, the proposed modification to the S.106 agreement as outlined in paragraph 2.1 is considered to meet the statutory tests.

Conclusion

5.16 Based on the substantial marketing evidence provided it is considered appropriate to vary the legal agreement made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to allow the developer to remove the requirement to speculatively build any more Class B1 (business) employment space beyond that which has already been delivered within the 3 existing office buildings in the "mixed use area"; and to remove obligation to transfer land to East of England Development Agency in lieu of providing employment space. This includes removal of the clauses detailed above in paragraph 3.1. No other variations to the S.106 agreement are proposed and all other developer contributions are to be provided in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 6 February 2004.

5.17 Taking into account the above and all other material considerations, the application to modify the S.106 agreement is considered acceptable.


6.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); Planning Policy Statement 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth)

6.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) – Policies SS1 (Achieving Sustainable Development), E1 (Job Growth), E2 (Provision of Land for Employment)

6.3 Development Plan Document 1 – Core Strategy Strategic Objective 3, 5 and 6; Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), KP3 (Implementation and Resources), CP1 (Employment Generating Development), CP6 (Community Infrastructure) and CP8 (Dwelling Provision)

6.4 Supplementary Planning Documents – SPD1 Design & Townscape Guide 2006 and SPD2 ‘A guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions’



Legal

7.1 1. Clause 3.4.1 If this has already performed it would not be controversial to delete this provision.

2. Clause 3.4.1.1 Ditto 3. Clause 3.4.1.2 Ditto 4. Clause 3.4.2 I understand this trigger has nearly been reached. I further

understand that Gladedale have transferred 1.5 hectares to Garrison LLP but also retain sufficient employment land to satisfy this provision in any case. The provision does a number of things:

It regulates the phasing of the housing and the provision of the employment land as set out in paragraph 3.4.2.2

It provides a legal incentive to provide the employment land as otherwise the housing development cannot proceed.

5. Clause 3.4.2.1 This provision gives Gladedale a let out from the obligations and restrictions in 3.4.2 if they are unable to develop the employment land as anticipated in 3.4.2.2 as they could transfer the employment land to the of England Development Agency or which ever body constitutes it’s successor.

6. Clause 3.4.2.2 Please see above. 7. Clause 3.4.3 Please see above 8. Clause 3.4.4 Please see above. 9. Clause 3.4.5 Without prejudice to the specific obligations above there is a

general obligation to promote employment uses on the whole of the site until the above obligations are met. I understand that the employment areas are identified in the 2004 outline permission.

As I understand it the economic climate militates against the development of the employment land and it would be harsh to restrict the progress of the housing development in these circumstances. In these circumstances it is not unreasonable to request amelioration to the trigger by either removing it altogether or inserting a new trigger for later on in the development. However it must be appreciated that the legal incentive discussed above would be lost or reduced if this was agreed to.

The agreement has already anticipated this situation by providing the possibility of a transfer to a successor organization to the East of England Development Agency and why has this option not been considered by Gladedale? I don’t consider that the transfer to Garrison LLP changes the obligations as the obligations both run with the land and any part. The downside with this provision is that the land is not identified in the 2004 agreement and the development “quality” of the land for employment purposes cannot be guaranteed.


However, if it is the Council’s view that the provision of the employment land is not now feasible (and would the East of England Development Agency want the land in these circumstances) or that the status of the land is nevertheless protected adequately within the Core Strategy this may provide an argument for removing the obligations. If this is the case there would be a financial benefit to Gladedale in being freed of the obligation to transfer the land.

There is an argument for requiring Garrison LLP to the agreement as the obligations also bind the land transferred to them.

Strategic Planning

7.2 Details of comments included in Section 4.1-4.13 above.

Public Consultation

7.3 Five site notices posted around the site to cover each entry point – no responses received to date.

Councillors

7.4 Application called in to committee by Councillor Hadley and Councillor Rayner.


8.1 6 February 2004 (00/00777/OUT): Outline planning permission granted for mixed use development comprising conversion of existing buildings and erection of new buildings for: parkland and open space; up to a total of 465 dwellings; up to 23,750sq.m of business floorspace (Class B1(a) and (b); up to 1625sq.m of non-residential (Class D1) uses, including A. a health centre within the mixed use area, B. the former Garrison Church as a community hall, and C. the former battery gun store as a heritage centre; up to 5,900sq.m of leisure (Class D2) uses; up to 800sq.m of retail (Class A1); up to 600sq.m of financial services (Class A2) use; formation of hotel (Class C1) with approximately 40 bedrooms; land for a new school; erection of landmark residential building; construction of new access roads; and associated works.

Non-residential planning history

8.2 11 August 2010 (10/01118/FUL): Change of use of Drill Shed to storage and distribution (Class B8) and ancillary office use (Class B1) – refused on grounds of residential amenity (Allowed on appeal 11 February 2011)


8.3 29 July 2010 (10/00881/BC3M): Conditional planning permission granted to erect three storey building for use as Nursery and Primary School (Class D1) and associated out of hours community use, lay out associated parking for 47 cars, 1 loading bay, 53 cycle spaces, associated sports pitches, games courts and outdoor learning and play areas, erect refuse/recycling store, 3 no. flagpoles, tree house, ramped entrances and access bridges, security screening, fencing and gates, form cycle lane, pedestrian access and vehicular accesses onto Barge Pier Road and New Garrison Road, landscape including pond and sunken moat garden.

8.4 10/01829/FULM: Development Control Committee resolved to grant permission to “Erect three storey building for use as Primary Care Centre (Class D1) incorporating entrance ramp with steps and balustrade to north boundary, lay out associated parking for 171 cars, 78 cycle spaces, ambulance bay and service yard, hard and soft landscaping, erect sub station to east elevation and erect 1.1m high mesh fencing to boundary on land adjacent to Barge Pier Road.” subject to completion of a S.106 agreement.

9 Recommendation

9.1 Members are recommended to DELEGATE to the Head of Planning & Transportation or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE S.106 AGREEMENT associated with the planning permission reference 00/00777/OUT in accordance with Section 4 of this report.

10 Appendices

Appendix 1: Extracts from S.106 agreement dated 6 February 2004





Reference: SOS/11/00114/EXT

Ward: Milton

Proposal:Demolish existing house and erect two detached houses (Application to extend the time limit for implementation following planning permission 07/01731/FUL dated 04/02/08)

Address: 34 Ditton Court Road, Westcliff-On-Sea, Essex, SS0 7HG

Applicant: Mr S. Brown

Agent: ACS Design Associates Ltd.

Consultation Expiry: 10th March 2011


Case Officer: Janine Argent

Plan Nos:2325/TP/01; 2325/TP/06; 2325/TP/05; 2325/TP/10; 2325/TP/09; 2325/TP/04; 2325/TP/03; TP/2325/02; 2325/TP/11

Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION


1 The Proposal

1.1 The application seeks to extend the time limit to demolish the existing dwelling and erect two detached houses (Application to extend the time limit for implementation following planning permission 07/01731/FUL dated 04/02/08).

1.2 The applicant states that the proposal was not constructed at the time, as the applicant was pursuing other developments for the Balmoral Hotel. Due to the economic situation worsening and now that the hotel has now closed.There are applications for other uses for the site, but, the applicant wants to retain the opportunity to demolish a single dilapidated house on a large site and replace it with two new family houses, which will improve the character and vitality of Ditton Court Road.


2.1 The site includes a large bungalow with rooms in the roof, likely built between 1900 and 1914. The dwelling sits on a wide plot, and is set higher than the level of the street. The bungalow has been historically extended to the front and the rear, and is in a reasonably poor state of repair. It has an established and well planted rear garden and detached flank garage.

2.2 The wider streetscene consists of predominantly detached dwellings; largely two storey, although there are some bungalows. The houses are not of uniform design, but most date from the early 20th Century and are of a good size. The street has a suburban and low-density appearance, with highway verges and established landscaping visible from the public realm.


3.1 The main considerations of this application are the principle of the development, design and impact on character of the area, traffic and transportation issues and impact on residential amenity and sustainable construction.

4 Appraisal


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3, East of England Plan policies ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP8; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)


4.1 Circular 08/2005 Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System provides some useful advice in assessing such applications. It advises that an application to renew an existing planning permission should be refused only where:

“a) there has been a material change in planning circumstances since the original permission was granted (e.g. a change in some relevant planning policy for the area, or in relevant highway considerations, or the publication by the Government of new planning policy guidance, material to the renewal application);

b) continued failure to commence the development would contribute unacceptably to uncertainty about the future pattern of development in the area;

c) the application is premature because the permission still has a reasonable time to run”.

4.2 Since the planning permission was granted in February 2008, there have been two policy changes whereby the East of England Plan has been adopted (May 2008) and there has been a revision to the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) adopted in November 2009. Accordingly it is considered that given the material change in planning circumstances since the previous planning permission was granted the proposal should be assessed against current policy.

4.3 Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan requires new development to be of high quality which complements the distinctive character and best qualities of the area. The key changes of the Design and Townscape Guide include update of introduction in light of recently adopted policy and guidance, cross links to the Core Strategy, East of England Regional Spatial Strategy and saved Borough Local Plan Policies together with improved guidance the overall design notably scale, height and massing, sustainable development and design, amenity space, infill Development, space standards including Lifetime Home Standards. It is considered that this planning application respects the provisions of Policy ENV7 and advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.4 In light of the above, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable.

Design and impact on the character of the area

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3, Planning Policy Statement 5; East of England Plan policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan policies C11, H5 and Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.5 The proposed dwellings would be of the same design and layout, although ‘handed’ (a mirror image of one another). The general standard of design and layout is good, providing spacious room sizes and good circulation.


4.6 The elevational design is of a good standard, and would work well in this setting. External chimney detail, two storey bay windows and front gable elements respect local character and would integrate well with the streetscene. The front elevations would include two small ‘cottage’ style dormers, which would occupy approximately 4.5% of the roofslope, and not compromise the roof plane. There are examples of existing front dormers in the street.

4.7 The dwellings would be well spaced, with similar spacing to existing properties in this street and not appear cramped. It should be noted the proposed density would be only 25 dwellings per hectare, however, the low density is considered characteristic of the area, and higher densities would be more likely to result in harm to the spacious and suburban character of the area in this instance. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy C11.

4.8 Amenity space is considered acceptable to serve the dwellings at 130m² each.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; East of England Plan policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP3; BLP policies T8, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.9 Parking would consist of two spaces per dwelling, which is within the maximum standard of three spaces. A second crossover would be required, and would be likely to result in the loss of a small street tree. This should be replaced and condition 6 ensures that a replacement will be sought.

Impact on residential amenity

Planning Policy Statement 1, East of England Plan policies ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.10

4.11

In terms of impact on neighbouring properties, both adjacent dwellings are two storey, and have been extended to the rear at ground floor level. As a result of the neighbours’ extensions the proposed dwellings would be outside the field of view of neighbours’ principle ground floor windows (45º rule), and result in a minimal loss of light. In terms of neighbours’ first floor windows the proposed dwelling would be outside the field of view of No.36’s upper rear windows, and the separation distance would ensure minimal impact. The proposed dwelling closest to No.32 Ditton Court Road, would project approximately 10m beyond an upper rear window at No.32. This projection would be set approximately 6m from the flank wall of No.32, and the main flank wall of the proposed dwelling would be outside No.32’s upper rear windows field of view therefore would result in little impact.

However, the proposed dwelling would be to the south of No.32, and restrict some


light to the immediate upper windows at No.32. However taking into account the separation distance, roof height of the rearward projection, and the minimal impact the proposed dwelling would have at ground floor level, it is not considered impact would be significant so as to warrant refusal.

4.12 The dwellings would not include any principal upper floor windows facing adjacent neighbours, and there would be a back to back distance of approximately 18m to the property behind the site, which is a hotel. There are not considered to be any significant overlooking issues as a result. Adequate boundary fencing would be required to mitigate through-views at ground floor level.


Planning Policy Statement 22, East of England Plan policies SS1; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.13 National guidance and relevant planning policy statements together with Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy advocate the need to ensure design maximises the use of sustainable and renewable resources in the construction of development. It also states that all development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources and at least 10% of the energy needs of new development should come from on-site renewable options and sustainable urban drainage systems shall be successfully integrated.

4.14 No details accompany this planning application, however given the nature of the scheme it is considered this can be dealt with by condition.


5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport), Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy)

5.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment)

5.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance)

5.4 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations, T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H3 (Retention of Small Dwellinghouses)

5.5 SPD1 Design & Townscape Guide 2009






6.1 No objections to the principle of the development or the proposed design which relates well with the existing streetscene. Conditions should ensure materials, landscaping and boundaries, 10% renewable energy sources are agreed.

6.2 There is concern with respect to the location of the crossover due to the loss of a street tree. [Officer Comment: Condition 6 will ensure any trees removed will be replaced on a two for one basis].


6.2 No objections


6.3 To be reported

Public Consultation

6.4 One site notice has been displayed on the 17th February 2011 and 22 neighbours have been notified. One letter of objection has been received stating that the proposed development is unacceptable and will result in the loss of a character dwelling.

6.5 Councillor Garston has requested this application come before Development Control Committee.


7.1 Demolish existing buildings, erect 2 two storey buildings comprising 10 bedrooms and associated facilities for ancillary use to Balmoral Hotel, erect covered walkway and refuse and cycle store, lay out 10 car parking spaces and two access ramps to front- Planning permission granted 2nd February 2010 (SOS/09/01551/FUL)

7.2 Demolish existing buildings, erect 2 two storey buildings comprising 10 bedrooms and associated facilities for ancillary use to Balmoral Hotel 32-36 Valkyrie Road, erect covered walkway and refuse store at rear and lay out hardstanding and form 4 car parking spaces and two access ramps to front- Planning Permission Refused 1st June 2009 (SOS/09/00214/FUL)

7.3 Demolish existing house and erect two detached houses- Planning Permission Granted 4th February 2008 (SOS/07/01731/FUL)


7.4 Demolish dwelling, erect part two/part three storey block of 7 self-contained flats with balconies to front and rear, layout parking, amenity areas and landscaping- Planning Permission Refused 27th March 2007 (SOS/07/00095/FUL)

8 Recommendation


8.1 GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

01 Condition: The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason:Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02 Condition: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans 2325/TP/01; 2325/TP/06; 2325/TP/05; 2325/TP/10; 2325/TP/09; 2325/TP/04; 2325/TP/03; TP/2325/02; 2325/TP/11.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the policies outlined in the Reason for Approval.

03 Condition:Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no development shall be carried out within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, B, C, and D to those Orders.

Reason:To safeguard the character and amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

04 Condition: No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations, hard surfacing and boundary treatment have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


Reason:To safeguard the amenities of area, in accordance with ENV7 of the East of England Plan KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies C11, H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

05 Condition:Prior to the commencement of works on site details of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed details prior to occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the privacy and amenities of residents in accordance with Policy H5 of The Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

06 Condition:No dwelling shall be occupied until the 4 off-street parking spaces have been provided on hardstandings, together with 2 properly constructed vehicular access to the adjoining highway, all in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason:To make provision for parking off the highway, in accordance with Policy T11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

07 Condition: The garage/parking spaces provided in relation to condition 4 shall be permanently reserved for the parking of vehicles of occupiers and callers to the premises and not used for any other purposes.

Reason:To make provision for parking off the highway, in accordance with Policy T11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

08 Condition: Prior to the commencement of development a scheme dealing with the removal of any trees required as a result of this development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. All trees to be felled shall be replaced by trees of such size, species and location first agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the scheme shall have been implemented in its entirety.


Reason:To safeguard the amenities of area, in accordance with ENV7 of the East of England Plan KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies C11, C14, H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

09 Condition:A scheme detailing how at least 10% of the total energy needs of the development will be supplied using on site renewable sources shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development and implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the dwelling houses. This provision shall be made for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of providing sustainable development in accordance with Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1) and PPS1.

10 Condition: No development hereby permitted shall commence until details of surface water attenuation for the site, based on SUDS principles, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works agreed shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with PPS25 and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1).

11 Condition:No construction works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall take place outside the following times 07.30-1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 0800-1300 on Saturdays and no such works shall take place on Bank and public holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties, in accordance with Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

Informative

1 Any works that are required within the limits of the highway require the permission of the highway authority and must be carried out under supervision of that authority's staff. The Applicant is therefore advised to contact the authority prior to the commencement of works.


Reason for approval:This permission has been granted having regard to policy ENV7 of the East of England, policies KP2, CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD, policies C11, C14, H5, T8, T11 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009) and to all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.


Reference: 11/00164/FULH

Ward: Blenheim Park

Proposal: Erect two storey rear extension (retrospective)

Address: 28 Lindisfarne Avenue, Leigh-On-Sea, Essex, SS9 3NR

Applicant: Mr. A. Cammidge

Agent: Miss Charlotte Taylor




Plan Nos: Existing layout (issue 2.11), Rear Extension (issue 3.11)



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a two storey rear extension. At the time of a site visit construction work was well underway on the proposed extension. As such the application is retrospective.

1.2 The extension would be 3m deep, 5.4m wide and 8.8m high to the ridge height. At first floor level however the extension would only be 2m deep. A pitched roof is proposed. The extension would square off the rear of the dwelling which is currently stepped in towards the northern boundary. The extension would facilitate an enlarged kitchen/dining room at ground level and an additional bedroom at first floor level.

1.3 The materials to be used in the construction of the proposed development would include rendered block cavity walls, tile roof, and UPVC window and door frames.


2.1 The application property is a two storey semi-detached located on the east side of Lindisfarne Avenue. The dwelling has a pitched roof and a gabled ended projection to the front and rear. The property has a crossover with parking available on hardstanding to the front. There is an integral garage to the side.

2.2 The property has a reasonably sized rear garden, relative to the surrounding area, which is bounded to the sides by fencing (approximately 1.8m high).

2.3 Lindisfarne Avenue is predominantly characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings of similar style, massing and form. There is a consistent building line along the street.


3.1 The main considerations in relation to this application are the principle of the development, design (including the impact of the proposed works on the character and appearance of the building), and the impact on neighbouring properties (residential amenity).

4 Appraisal


East of England Plan Policy ENV7, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, H5 and SPD1


4.1 This proposal is considered in the context of the Borough Council Local Plan policies relating to design. Also of relevance are Core Strategy DPD Policies KP2 and CP4. These policies and guidance support extensions to properties in most cases but require that such alterations and extensions respect the existing character and appearance of the building. It should be noted that high quality good design is fundamental of new development and its importance is reflected in PPS1 and PPS3 as well as Polices C11 and H5 of the Local Plan, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) which states that the Council is committed to good design and will seek to create attractive, high-quality living environments.

Design

Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.2 The character of the surrounding area is for traditional two storey dwellinghouses with relatively modest depth private rear gardens. The proposed development is considered to relate satisfactorily in terms of size and design to the surroundings in accordance with Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan and SPD1. The depth at 3m is not considered excessive and it would be set 2m off the northern boundary. The ridge height would be approximately 0.6m lower than the ridge height of the main dwelling. The design and size of first floor rear windows would match existing windows, and the full height windows/doors at ground level would allow natural light to enter the dwelling. The overall width and depth of the original dwelling would remain.

4.3 Section 10.2.1 of SPD1 deals with rear extensions to dwellings. It is advised that rear extensions should integrate with the parent building particularly in terms of scale, materials, roof form and fenestration. Whilst the proposed extension appears to be rather wide and overly stretched when viewed from the rear elevation, no objections are raised as this elevation cannot be seen from the street scene or public view.

Impact on Neighbouring Properties

Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.4 It is not considered the proposed extension would give rise to any adverse overlooking. No windows are proposed on the side elevations of the extension. There would also be a separation distance of 9.5m from upper floor windows to the rear boundary of the garden, and a separation distance of approximately 25m from upper floor windows to the rear wall of the property directly east. A letter of objection received has referred to a frosted window at first floor level on the side elevation of the existing dwelling being replaced with a clear window. This does not form part of the application and will be liable to a subject to a separate enforcement investigation.


4.5 It is not considered the proposed extension would give rise to any adverse overshadowing. Given the orientation of the site there is really only potential for overshadowing to the property directly to the north (No. 32). This property is built flush to the boundary with the application site, however the window and double doors nearest the application property serve non habitable rooms. The nearest habitable room window is approximately 3m from the boundary and approximately 5m from the side wall of the proposed extension. A 45º line taken from this nearest habitable room window to No. 32 is not infringed upon by the proposed extension. Whilst the extension would overshadow part of the garden to this property, there would still remain a significant amount of the garden unaffected by the extension and still able to receive direct sunlight.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The proposed two storey extension, by reason of siting, design, form and profile would not be out of character with or detrimental to the character and the visual amenities of the street scene or adjacent properties, and is consistent with policy.


6.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), and Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing).

6.2 East of England Plan Policy ENV7.

6.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP2 (Development Principles) and CP4 (Environment & Urban Renaissance).

6.4 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), and H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations).




Public Consultation

7.1 Four neighbours notified of the application. Two responses were received objecting for the following reasons:

Height of proposed extension would restrict the amount of sunlight to garden and terrace area to north.

No. 28 has already been extended to the side which has infringed sunlight to the north.

Extension has interfered with television reception. A frosted side window on the first floor of the existing dwelling has been

replaced with a clear glass window which infringes on privacy enjoyed by property to north. [Officer Comment: Such works do not form part of the current application and will be subject to a separate enforcement investigation].

Ward Councillor

7.2 Cllr. Clinkscales requested this application to be considered by the Development Control Committee.


8.1 Planning permission granted in 1988 to ‘Erect Two Storey Side Extension’ – 88/0397.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing layout (issue 2.11) and rear extension (issue 3.11).


02 The colour, type and texture of any materials used on the external elevations of the building shall match those of the existing building. The agreed materials shall be permanently retained unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 Policy ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 Policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).


Reason for ApprovalThis permission has been granted having regard to East of England Plan Policy ENV7, Core Strategy DPD1 Policies KP2 and CP4, Policies C11 and H5 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, the principles contained within the Design & Townscape Guide SPD1 and all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.


Reference: 11/00252/TPO

Ward: Eastwood

Proposal: Fell 3 oak trees at the rear of 3, 5 and 6 Sunnybank Close (works to trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order)

Address: 5 Sunnybank Close, Eastwood, Leigh on Sea, Essex, SS9 5SP

Applicant: Marishal Thompson Group

Agent: Not Applicable




Plan Nos: Arboricultural Report, Engineers Report, Site Investigations, Monitoring

Recommendation: GRANT CONSENT FOR WORKS TO TREES


1 The Proposal

1.1 The application relates to three Oak trees located in the rear curtilage of the dwellings at 3, 4 and 5 Sunnybank Close. The applicant states that the trees have been implicated as contributory factor in subsidence damage to clay shrinkage resulting in damage to the property of 4 Sunnybank Close.


2.1 The Oak trees are located in the rear gardens of 3, 5 and 6 Sunnybank Close. The gardens are approximately 18m deep and north facing. Sunnybank Close is a residential cul-de-sac located to the east of Heycroft Road and characterised by semi-detached bungalows.

2.2 The application site where the trees are located are situated on the northern side of Sunnybank Close and backs onto Heycroft School playing fields. Along this boundary to the rear of residential properties are a number of large Oak trees which are prominent from the Sunnybank Close street scene. The crowns of these trees overlap one another so they appear as a group of trees.


3.1 The principal issues relates to the trees’ amenity value, and whether the applicant’s argument that the tree is causing structural damage to nearby foundations is sound.

4 Appraisal

Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy C14 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.1 Policy C14 of the BLP seeks to preserve trees and planted areas which contribute to the townscape of an area. Applications will be required to respect existing trees.

4.2 The trees provide a significant degree of amenity to Sunnybank Close and are highly visible in the street scene. Given also that they are mature and healthy, it is considered that the trees should be protected from felling unless it is absolutely necessary.

4.3 The applicant has submitted supporting documents advocating the felling of the trees for reasons of damage caused to the property. A previous application to fell the oak trees was refused on the basis, that whilst it was acknowledged that sufficient evidence to show that shrinkage of clay soil beneath the foundations of the property due to the presence of tree roots is the cause of the property damage, insufficient evidence had been submitted to warrant the removal of all three trees. It was recommended that specific DNA testing of the roots should be undertaken in order to establish, which, if any, of the trees was the cause of damage to the property.


4.4 The applicant has now carried out specific DNA testing of the roots and the results prove that the trees to the rear of 3, 5 and 6 Sunnybank Close (T2, T4 and T6) implicate the oak trees with the damage occurring to 4 Sunnybank Close.

4.5 Concerns have been raised as to what other solutions may be available to prevent the felling of the trees, such as the installation of root barriers. The Council’s Arboricultural officer and Insurance officer have advised that the installation of root barriers is not a permanent solution to resolve the issue of property subsidence damage. It would involve digging a deep trench across the width of the garden to sever all of the tree roots heading to the property (No. 4 Sunnybank Close). A barrier material would then be installed to a suitable depth to prevent any further roots growing to the property. Furthermore, an agreement with all of the property owners, including loss adjusters and insurers, that are or maybe affected by the Oak trees is required to install the root barriers. If one property occupier will not agree to the root barrier on their property, it nullifies the objective of the proposed works.

5 Conclusion

5.1 There is the potential that the Local Authority could be liable under the Town and Country Act 1990 (as amended) for costs as a result of property damage sustained if the application is declined, given the evidence provided by the applicant. It is acknowledged that the felling of the oak trees is regrettable, given their public amenity value. However, balanced against damage that has been caused to the property, it is considered that consent should be granted in this case. Therefore, it is considered necessary to impose a condition requiring them be replaced with replacement trees, full details of which, including their location, size, species and time of planting to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to their removal.


6.1 Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance).

6.2 Borough Local Plan Policy C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping).



Parks and Trees


7.1 Sufficient technical evidence has been supplied to show that shrinkage of clay soil beneath the foundations of the property due to the presence of tree roots is the cause of the property damage. We recommended that DNA analysis was performed to determine precisely which trees are involved. This has now been carried out with the following results provided:

Roots removed from trial hole 1 (TH1) of 4 Sunnybank CloseRoots R1 and R2 were identified as originating from oak tree T2 in the garden of 3 Sunnybank Close.

Roots removed from bore hole 2 (BH2) of 5 Sunnybank CloseRoot R3 was identified as originating from oak tree T6 in the garden of 6 Sunnybank Close.

Root R4 was identified as originating from oak tree T4 in the garden of 5 Sunnybank Close.

7.2 SummaryProof has now been provided to implicate the following three oak trees with the damage occurring at 4 Sunnybank Close:

T2 – Oak in the rear garden of 3 Sunnybank CloseT4 – Oak in the rear garden of 5 Sunnybank CloseT6 – Oak in the rear garden of 6 Sunnybank Close

Insurance Officer

7.3 DNA testing has been done of the roots found under the foundations of the property and these have all been identified as belonging to the relevant trees in the respective rear gardens. If the trees are not felled, the Authority will become liable under the Town and Country Act for all damage caused to the property after the date the application is determined, if the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to implicate the trees, of which they have.

7.4 If the application is declined to fell the trees, the Authority are likely to receive a claim for property damage sustained from that date onwards, and quite likely not only for No. 5 Sunnybank Close in the long run, but also for any other properties in the vicinity that may be influenced by the trees roots.

7.5 An agreement would be required across all the properties that are/may be affected by the Oak trees and if one property owner will not agree to the root barrier on their property, it essentially renders the whole exercise worthless. It requires the agreement of all the property owners/loss adjusters/insurers involved and one may not agree. The other point to make is that root barriers are rarely a permanent solution, depending how deep you go, most trees will eventually find a way round or under the barrier


Structural Engineer

7.6 No objection subject to Arboricultural Officer and Insurance Officer’s recommendation.

Public Consultation

7.7 Site notice displayed and ten neighbours notified of the application. One response received objecting for the following reasons:

Loss of the trees would be detrimental to the amenity value they provide in the streetscene, given their historical importance;

Queries if root barriers could be installed in order to retain the trees and prevent them from been felled; [Officer Comment: refer to section 4.5.]

The damage to properties could be related to natural drainage of surface water, possibly due to work carried out to the drainage system at Heycroft School some years ago.

Ward Councillor

7.8 Cllr. Walker requested this application to be considered by the Development Control Committee.


8.1 Refused consent to fell three oak trees on 31 October 2010 (SOS/10/01708/TPO).

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT CONSENT FOR WORKS TO TREES subject to the following conditions:

01 The works covered by this consent must be begun not later than the expiration of two years beginning with the date of this consent.

Reason: To enable the circumstances to be reviewed at the expiration of the period if the consent has not been implemented, in the interests of Policy C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

02 The works shall be carried out in accordance with BS 3998 (1989) by a suitably qualified person.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the tree(s), pursuant to Policy C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.


03 The Oak trees to be felled shall be replaced with replacement trees, full details of which, including its location, size, species and time of planting shall be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the Oak trees removal. The replacement trees shall be planted and permanently retained in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with Policies C4 and C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

Reason for ApprovalThis permission has been granted having regard to Core Strategy DPD Policies KP2 and CP4, Policy C14 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, the principles contained within the Design & Townscape Guide SPD and all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.

Informative

01 The Council accepts no responsibility for any possible damage related to this permission.


Reference: 11/00254/ADV

Ward: Shoeburyness

Proposal: Erect no. 2 externally illuminated double sided twin post signs and no.1 externally illuminated twin post sign to boundary

Address: Land Adjacent Asda, North Shoebury Road, Shoeburyness, Southend-On-Sea, Essex, SS3 8DA

Applicant: Marston's PLC

Agent: Sign Specialists Ltd.

Consultation Expiry: 30TH March 2011


Case Officer: Darragh Mc Adam

Plan No’s: Block Plan, Site Plan, Elevations for Signs A, B and C (drawn 14.02.2011).

Recommendation: GRANT ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT


1 The Proposal

1.1 Consent is sought to display three advertising signs within the application site. All the advertising signage relates to ‘The Meadow Lark’ pub and restaurant. An earlier application was part granted and part refused by the Development Control Committee on 9th February 2011. The current application has amended the three signs for which consent was refused.

1.2 The signage proposed is as follows:Sign A Free standing signage erected on two posts affixed to ground. It would

be positioned to the south west corner of the site near the junction of North Shoebury Road and Artillery Avenue. The total structure would be 4.0m high, 1.55m wide and 150mm deep. It would contain two main double sided advertising panels; the bottom panel would be 1.2m wide and 1.3m high; and the top panel would be 1.2m wide and 1.0m high. The bottom panel would contain text advertising ‘Two for One on all Main Courses’ and the top panel would contain pictorial images. A double sided logo sign would be fixed on top of the structure. The sign would be externally illuminated.

Sign B This would be a free standing sign attached to two posts affixed to the ground. The structure would be 1.9m high, 1.65m wide and 75mm deep. The main advertising panel would be 1.3m wide and 0.9m high and contain text advertising ‘Two for One on all Main Courses’. The sign would be externally illuminated. The sign would be located to the northwest corner of the site.

Sign C This sign would be identical to Sign B described above but would be located to the south-eastern corner of the site.

1.3 Sign A is 700mm lower in height than previously submitted. It also has a smaller bottom advertising panel. Signs B & C are approximately 100mm lower and 350mm narrower than previously submitted.


2.1 The application site is located on the east side of North Shoebury Road and to the north of Artillery Avenue. ASDA is located to the north of the site. The main vehicular access to the site is from Artillery Avenue, with pedestrian access from North Shoebury Road. The site has recently been developed for a pub and restaurant.

2.2 Land to the east is occupied by a recent residential development. Land to the west is open grassland with residential use beyond this.



3.1 The main considerations of this application are impact on amenity and impact on highway safety.

4 Appraisal

Impact on Amenity

PPG19, Borough Local Plan Policy C8, and SPD1

4.1 The Borough Local Plan recognises that advertisements are an essential part of commercial development and can add vitality to areas. SPD1 states that the principle of signs above first floor level will be decided on a case by case basis. Given the approved commercial use of the site, and the presence of commercial uses to the north, it is considered that the principle of signage at this site is acceptable.

4.2 Policy C8 of the Borough Local Plan requires that signage be well designed and sited, respect the character and architectural features of the buildings on which they are displayed, should not result in a proliferation of advertisements at any one location, should not be obtrusive in the streetscene or harm residential amenity, or endanger traffic.

4.3 Section 11.3 of SPD1 deals with signage in more detail. Guidance includes that signage should (in summary):- have adequate regard for their setting;- relate to proportions of building and not appear as dominant; and, - should not obstruct architectural features.

4.4 Section 11.3 further states that applications for new advertisements will be assessed on the following criteria:- prominence in the streetscene;- effect on the building and the wider townscape;- impact and relationship to existing architectural features;- cumulative affect in conjunction with other advertisements in the vicinity;- impact on any historic building; and,- effect on residential amenity.


4.5 The freestanding signs to be erected around the pub/restaurant are considered acceptable in the streetscene and an improvement on those refused consent under a recent application (10/01999/ADV). Sign A would be 4.0m high and located close to North Shoebury Road in a corner location. In this context a 4.0m high sign is considered appropriate in terms of scale and would not adversely impact on the streetscene.

4.6 Signs B and C are also considered acceptable in the streetscene and an improvement on those refused consent under a recent application (10/01999/ADV). The panels of each sign would be approximately 1.3m by 0.9m.

4.7 The need for advertising signage must be balanced against the need to protect the streetscene and visual amenity of the setting. North Shoebury Road has a verdant and green character and is largely devoid of commercial signage for its entire length. A commercial node exists in the vicinity of the application site (land to the north and northeast), however the verdant and green character still remains to a large degree. On balance it is considered that the proposed signage meets the need of the site operator without adversely detracting from the character of the area.

4.8 The signs proposed are illuminated. The effect this would have on surrounding residential properties would be limited given the separation distances from the dwellings to the relevant signs. A condition will be added to control the luminance of approved signage.

Impact on Highway Safety

PPG19

4.9 Traffic and Highways have no objection to the proposed signage.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The proposed signage by reason of its siting, design, form and profile would not be out of character with or detrimental to the amenities of the area, and would not have an adverse impact on highway safety.



6.2 Planning Policy Note 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), and Planning Policy Guidance 19 (Advertisement Control).



6.4 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C8 (Advertisements) and C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations).



Public Consultation

7.1 A site notice was displayed outside the site. No responses received.


7.2 No objection.


7.3 No response received.

Ward Councillor

7.4 Cllr. Assenheim has requested this application be considered by the Development Control Committee.


8.1 Consent part granted and part refused to ‘Install 8 externally illuminated fascia signs to all elevations, 1 non illuminated fascia sign and 1 internally illuminated lantern to front elevation and 1 externally illuminated free standing sign to southern boundary and 2 free standing signs to western boundary to the proposed pub’ – (10/01999/ADV).

8.2 Permission refused in January 2010 to ‘Erect Public House (Class A4) and Restaurant (Class A3) Layout parking and cycle storage’ – (09/02269/FUL. This was allowed on appeal by decision dated 22.09.2010.


9 Recommendation

Members are Recommended to Grant Consent:

Conditions:1. The luminance of approved signage shall not exceed 300 candelas per

square metre.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy C8 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

Reason for Approval :Consent has been granted for the hereby approved signage having regard to Policy KP2 (Development Principles) and CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance) of the Core Strategy, Policy C8 (Advertisements) of the Borough Local Plan, the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD) and all other material considerations. The installation of the signage permitted, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify refusal of permission.


Reference: 11/00276/FUL

Ward: Milton

Proposal:

Extend opening hours to: 0800 to 0400 on Mondays, 0800 to 2400 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 0800 to 0200 on Thursdays, 0800 to 0400 on Fridays, 0800 to 0500 on Saturdays, 0800 to 2400 on Sundays. (Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission 04/00511/FUL which states that the premises shall not be open for use other than between the hours of 0800 and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday)

Address: 68 London Road, Southend-On-Sea, Essex, SS1 1PG

Applicant: Mr M. Khan

Agent: Mr M Warner



Case Officer: Yonas Fentie

Plan Nos: Location Plan



1 The Proposal

1.1 This application seeks to extend the opening hours of the ground floor hot food takeaway to: 0800 to 0400 on Mondays, 0800 to 2400 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 0800 to 0200 on Thursdays, 0800 to 0400 on Fridays, 0800 to 0500 on Saturdays, 0800 to 2400 on Sundays.

1.2 The opening hours of the takeaway are restricted by condition 06 of planning permission (04/00511/FUL) which requires the premises to open only between the hours of 0800 and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday. Notwithstanding this condition, the business is currently operating from 1200 to 0400 on Mondays, 1200 to 0200 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 1200 to 0200 on Thursdays, 1200 to 0400 on Fridays, 1200 to 0500 on Saturdays, 1200 to 2400 on Sundays.

1.3 This application follows a recent Breach of Condition Notice served by the Council in connection with the operation of the takeaway outside the opening hours imposed by condition 06 of planning permission 04/00511/FUL.


2.1 The application relates to the ground floor of a two storey mid terraced building located on the southern side of London Road. The ground floor is currently occupied by HFC as a takeaway (Class A5) while the upper floor is residential accommodation.

2.2 The surrounding properties are in mixed use comprising commercial at ground floor with residential at first floor levels. The adjoining property to the east, no. 66 is occupied by a fish bar at ground floor with residential at upper floors. Part of the ground floor of the adjoining property to the west (no. 70) is in retail use (computer sale and repairs) while the remaining ground floor and upper floors are in residential use. The site lies within the town centre and is designated for Secondary Offices on the Borough Local Plan Proposals Map.


3.1 The main issue for consideration is the impact of the proposed opening hours on neighbouring residential properties by way of noise, disturbance and increased activity.

4 Appraisal Impact on amenities of neighbouring occupiers

Planning Policy Guidance 24; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies CP1, KP2 and CP4; BLP policies H5, E5 and U2


4.1 The Council seeks to encourage local business in principle and this is supported by Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy. However, this must not be at the expense of the amenities of local residents. Where commercial premises are in close proximity to residential properties, the level of activity and hours of use must be given careful consideration. Paragraph 10 of PPG 24 states that local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion. The guide identifies 2300 to 0700 as normal sleeping hours, where residents expect reasonable quietness within their premises.

4.2 Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy requires all development to maintain and enhance the amenities, appeal and character of residential areas securing good relationships with existing development.

4.3 Policy E5 of the BLP requires proposals to establish, continue, intensify or expand a business or other non-residential activity within or adjoining a housing area not to adversely affect residential amenity in terms of appearance, overlooking, noise, smell, parking, traffic or activity. Policy U2 of the BLP advises against proposals which are likely to result in potential pollution risk.

4.4 The adjoining property to the west (no. 70) has a residential unit at ground floor level and the upper floors of the two adjoining properties (no. 66 and 70) including the application unit are in residential use. The ground floor habitable rooms of no. 70 are within 3.3 metres of the ground floor commercial area.

4.5 It is noted that the takeaway currently opens until 5 am in the morning serving takeaway food from the premises. It has also been reported that a delivery service is provided until midnight.

4.6 The Council’s Environmental Department has received complaints from neighbouring occupiers on the grounds of noise, disturbance and increased activity from the ground floor takeaway, extract duct and residential unit at 68 London Road.

4.7 The noise, disturbance, comings and goings of delivery vehicles and increased activity associated with the late opening of the takeaway is considered to adversely affect the living conditions of adjoining residential properties, particularly the ground floor flat at 70 London Road. This is therefore, contrary to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy, and Policies E5 and U2 of the Borough Local Plan.

4.8 The applicant has submitted a petition signed by 124 people in response to complaints from nearby residents, however it is noted that the majority of the signatories of this petition do not live locally. He also makes reference to other hot food takeaways within the immediate surrounding area which are open until late hours and argues that the proposed opening hours are in keeping with other identical businesses within the locality and therefore should be allowed.


4.9

4.10

There are four takeaways and an off-licence within the immediate surrounding area. The adjoining fish bar at 66 London Road opens between 1130 to 2100 Monday to Saturday, the takeaway at 61 London Road (Ali Baba’s) opens from 1200 to 0300 Monday to Sunday, Tasty Chicken at 86 London Road opens from 1200 to 0100 Monday to Sunday and the off-license at 72-74 London Road opens from 0900 to 0100 Monday to Sunday. There are no planning restrictions on these properties in terms of their hours of operation.

The cumulative impact of a number of late night businesses in this location is a material consideration on the impact of amenities for residents in this area.

4.11 Whilst the above premises are open until late hours, none of these premises open until 5am. It is therefore considered that for the reasons discussed in paragraphs 4.4 to 4.10 above, the opening hours of the takeaway into the early morning when residents expect a reasonable level of quiet within their premises is considered to adversely affect the living conditions of adjoining residential properties, particularly the ground floor flat at 70 London Road contrary to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies E5 and U2 of the Borough Local Plan. Other Matters

4.12 It is noted that a license has been granted allowing the premises to trade until 0500 in the morning. The existence of a license does not address the issue of concern which is the adverse impact on residential amenity as described in the main body of the report.


5.1 National Policy: PPG24 (Planning and Noise)

5.2 East of England Plan Policies: SS1 (Achieving Sustainable Development), SS2 (Overall Spatial Strategy), ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment).

5.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies CP1 (Employment Generating development), (KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The Environment & Urban Renaissance).

5.4 Borough Local Plan Policies E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), and U2 (Pollution Control).


6.1 Public Consultation

Cllr Dr Maria Caunce requested this application to be determined by the Development Control Committee.


6.2 Neighbouring occupiers notified and a site notice posted. One letter received raising objections on the grounds of late night noise pollution, disturbance, smells, littering and anti-social behaviour from customs congregating in and around the premises at late night hours.

6.3 Environmental Health – No comments received.


7.1 16 June 2004 - Permission granted to use the property as mixed use restaurant (Class A3), training facilities (Class D1) and office facilities (Class A2) - (04/00511//FUL). Condition 06 states that the premises shall not open outside the hours of 0800 and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday.

7.2 15 April 2008 - Permission refused to use first floor (front) as additional seating for ground floor cafe (class A3) and reposition extract duct to side elevation (retrospective) on the grounds that the extract ventilation in its current position was considered to be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties by way of noise, vibration and odour - ( 08/00130/FUL).

7.3 28 July 2010 - Enforcement complaint alleging the conversion of the first floor from a cafe use into 3 bedroom flat and the erection of staircase at rear. It was also noted that a solid roller shutter was installed and an extract flue repositioned. The owner was advised to submit a retrospective application to address these matters - (EN/10/00288/UCOU_C).

7.4 09 February 2011 – Permission refused by the Development Control Committee to use the first floor as self-contained flat and erect staircase to rear elevation (Part-Retrospective) – (10/01544/FUL)

8 Recommendation

Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reason:

The opening hours are considered to result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance during unsocial hours to the detriment of the amenities of the nearby residents contrary to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies E5 and U2 of the Borough Local Plan and PPG24 (Planning and Noise).


Reference: 11/00281/FULH

Ward: Leigh

Proposal: Erect single storey side and rear extension (amended proposal)

Address: 15 Station Road, Leigh on Sea, Essex, SS9 1ST

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Gibson

Agent: PA Design

Consultation Expiry: 7 April 2011



Plan No’s: P01, P02A



1 The Proposal

1.1 The proposal seeks permission to demolish the existing conservatory to the rear and erect a single storey side extension (orangery) and a single storey rear extension. The application is an amended proposal following refusal of planning permission in February 2011 because of an unsatisfactory design.

1.2 Exterior materials and roof finishes are proposed to match the existing building. The fenestration is similar to the existing dwelling.


2.1 The application relates to a two storey semi detached property located along the west side of Station Road in a residential area. The house is an attractive building built from brick, with a slate roof. There are two off street parking spaces with an additional space in the garage at the side of the property. To the south of the property is a detached bungalow and to the north a semi detached dwelling.


3.1 The main considerations of this application are the principle of the development, design (including the impact of the proposed works on the character and appearance of the building), and the impact on neighbouring properties (residential amenity).

4 Appraisal


Planning Policy Statment 1, Planning Policy Statement 3, East of England Plan Policy ENV7, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, H5 and SPD1

4.1 The principle of development is assessed against Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; DPD (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; Borough Local Plan policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1. In this instance the proposed development is considered acceptable in principle given the application site is located within an established residential area as shown in the Borough Local Plan. However, this is subject to other detailed material considerations as outlined below.

Design

Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)


4.2 Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy seeks development which contributes to the creation of high quality, sustainable urban environment which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend through maintaining and enhancing amenities, appeal and character of residential areas, securing good relationships with existing development, and respecting the nature and scale of that development.

4.3 Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan states that new buildings and extensions or alterations to existing buildings should be designed to create a satisfactory relationship with their surroundings in respect of form, scale massing, height, elevational design and materials.

4.4 The application is for a single storey side extension to form an orangery. The building is one of a pair of semi detached properties and the extension will be set back 7.4m from the front elevation so that it appears subservient in the streetscene. It will have an overall depth of 7m and be 3.05m high with a flat roof. The application has been amended to include a new opening to the front of the extension following concerns regarding the design of the proposal and its relationship to the main dwelling. Following this amendment, it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the property or the wider area.


Core Strategy Policy CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy H5 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.5 The proposal is considered in the context of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1) and Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan, which requires all development within residential streets to be appropriate in its setting by respecting neighbouring development, existing residential amenities and overall character of the locality.

4.6 The proposed extension will be set back 1m from the neighbouring boundary to the south and will extend 3.4m beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property at No. 7 Station Road. Concerns have been raised from the neighbouring occupier (No. 7) regarding loss of light to the kitchen. There are two small secondary windows in the flank elevation of the neighbouring property that serve the kitchen. The kitchen also has a main window and door on the rear elevation, which provides light to the kitchen. It is considered that as the windows in the flank elevation are secondary windows and there is an existing 2m high boundary fence there will be no additional impact on the neighbouring windows of this property by way of loss of daylight or sunlight.


4.7 With respect to the impact on the main kitchen window at No. 7 Station Road. The extension will be 3.4m beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property, and will be set back 3.2m from the nearest main window. It is therefore considered that the proposal will have no adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property, No. 7 Station Road by way of loss of light or outlook.

4.8 It is also proposed to demolish the existing conservatory and erect a 1.2m deep rear extension to the adjoining boundary of No. 17 Station Road to the north. It is not considered that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining resident given the limited depth of the extension and set back of the nearest main habitable window by way of loss of light or outlook.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The proposed extensions, by reason of siting, design, form and profile would not be out of character with or detrimental to the character and the visual amenities of the street scene or adjacent properties, and is consistent with policy.



6.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), and Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing).

6.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP2 (Development Principles) and CP4 (Environment & Urban Renaissance

6.4 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), and H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations).



Leigh Town Council



Public Consultation

7.2 Six neighbours notified of the application. One response received objecting for the following reasons:

Loss of light to kitchen window on flank elevation of the bungalow due to height and proximity of the extension to the neighbouring boundary;

Loss of light and privacy to rear kitchen window due to the depth of the extension; and

The extension would devalue the property and effect quality of life. [Officer comment: Property value is not a material planning consideration.]

Ward Councillor

7.3 Cllr. Crystall requested this application to be considered by the Development Control Committee.


8.1 Planning permission refused for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension on 14 February 2011. SOS/10/02198/FULH.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Plan (P01) and Proposed Plan (P02).


03 The colour, type and texture of any materials used on the external elevations of the building shall match those of the existing building, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Such agreed details shall be permanently retained.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 Policy ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 Policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).


Reason for ApprovalThis permission has been granted having regard to East of England Plan Policy ENV7, Core Strategy DPD1 Policies KP2 and CP4, Policies C11 and H5 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, the principles contained within the Design & Townscape Guide SPD1 and all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.


Reference: 11/00347/BC4

Ward: West Shoebury

Proposal: Erect two semi-detached dwellinghouses

Address: Rear of 71 - 81 Delaware Road, Shoeburyness, Southend-On-Sea, Essex, SS3 9NW

Applicant: Mr J Lefever

Agent: AK Design Partnership LLP




Plan Nos: 2992.100, 2992.101 P3



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect two semi-detached dwellinghouses with associated landscaping and parking.

1.2 South Essex Homes have recently carried out a survey for all Council owned parking areas and garages within the Borough. The findings conclude that there is the ability to provide additional family housing within the Borough on such sites. Hastoe Housing Association intends to provide the units as affordable homes to meet local needs, and this application is one of several for new residential dwellinghouses, that have been and will be, submitted to the Council for determination.


2.1 The site is to the rear of 71-81 Delaware Road. The existing site is vacant and was previously occupied by garages which have been demolished. The site is surrounded by a close boarded timber fence to the east and palisade fencing to the north and west of the site.

2.2 The site abuts the boundary with Thorpedene School to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south boundaries. The area is characterised by two storey dwellinghouses and three storey flatted blocks. Immediately to the east of the site is a vehicular access to the Thorpedene School car park which shares a dropped kerb with the access to the application site.



4 Appraisal



4.1 The application site is located in a residential area characterised by two storey dwellinghouses and three storey flats. Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy states that any development should make the best use of previously developed land, ensuring that sites and buildings are put to best use. Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy advocates the need for all development proposals to contribute to the creation of a high quality, sustainable urban environment, which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend.


Policy H10 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan states that applications for residential development on backland sites will only be permitted where proposals respect the character of the area, residential amenities of adjoining dwellings and are in accordance with Policies H3 and H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Council Local Plan.

4.2 Garages on the site have been demolished following a survey carried out by South Essex Homes which assessed all sites occupied with Council garages. The paper concluded that local residents were deterred from using garages due to their location, lack of security and lighting. In addition, the cost of repairs to keep the garages in a serviceable condition is excessive in comparison to the potential income. The site is rarely used for the parking of vehicles given its degree of isolation and therefore no objections are raised to the loss of this parking area. In light of this, and given that the site is currently vacant, the proposed development will provide a positive contribution to the area, subject to the considerations below being satisfactorily addressed.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; East of England Plan Policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan Policies C11, C14, H5 and Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.3 The existing site is vacant and is characterised by two storey residential dwellings and three storey flatted blocks. The proposed dwellings are considered to relate satisfactorily to the surrounding area in terms of elevational design. Design features such as the fenestration and roof design have picked up the features of the local area. The proposal also includes the installation of solar panels to the south slope of the roof to ensure the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy. It is considered the solar panels will not detract away from the character and appearance of the area.

4.4 In terms of materials, the dwellings will include facing brickwork to match the adjacent properties, concrete roof tiles, traditional felt roof, painted timber windows, timber roof windows and timber doors. These reflect the materials of surrounding development. All materials will be agreed by condition.

4.5 The dwellings will include kitchen, lounge/dining room and WC to the ground floor and 3 bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor. The internal layout arrangements of the two dwellings are considered acceptable and in accordance with the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.6 In terms of landscaping, Policy C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Council advocates the need for any new development to include landscaping. To the front of the properties will include soft landscaping and a lawned area together with shrubs. To the rear of the properties will be lawned area with a patio area also. Amenity space will include 62.8sqm to plot 1 and 74.sqm to plot 2. It is considered the proposed amenity space is acceptable in accordance with the guidance detailed within the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.7 In light of the above, the proposed development is considered to make a positive contribution


to the area in accordance with the provisions of Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, policies H5, C11 and C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan and guidance within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; East of England Plan Policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4, CP3; Borough Local Plan Policies T8, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.8 The access to the site will be from Delaware Road. The access road width is 2.6m for the first 5.2m then the access width widens to 4m. No objections have been raised in relation to the road access width from the Council’s Highway Officer and therefore it is considered to be satisfactory and not detrimental to highway or pedestrian safety.

4.9 In terms of parking spaces, the EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001) advocates the need for at least 1.5 parking spaces per residential dwelling. The proposal will include 2 parking spaces per dwelling which is considered acceptable.


Planning Policy Statement 1, East of England Plan Policies ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP4; Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.10 In terms of separation distances of the proposed development to adjacent residential occupiers, the proposed dwellings are located 13.6m away from the boundary to the south, 1.2m away from the boundary to the east, 10.2m away from the boundary to the north and 4m away from the boundary to the west. Given the separation distance from the boundaries it is considered the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on residential amenity. There is a distance of 23m between the front of the proposed dwellings and the rear of the three storey flats in Delaware Road. This distance is considered to be sufficient to mitigate overlooking. Whilst no windows are proposed within the flank elevations and will therefore not give rise to overlooking, a condition will ensure no further windows are inserted into the development at a later date.

4.11 The proposed height of the dwellings are 8.2m and given the separation distances it is not considered that the proposed development will result in overshadowing or an obtrusive form.

4.12 In light of the above, the proposed development will not have a harmful impact on residential amenity, therefore in accordance with Policy H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.




4.13 National guidance and relevant planning policy statements together with Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy advocate the need to ensure new development maximises the use of sustainable and renewable resources. It also states that all development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources and at least 10% of the energy needs of new development should come from on-site renewable options and sustainable urban drainage systems shall be successfully integrated.

4.14 The Design and Access Statement accompanying this planning application states that all materials are to be sourced from renewable sources as much as possible to a minimum requirement of 10% and in addition solar panels are to be installed on the roof. Full details will be required to be submitted by condition to ensure the proposal meets the requirements of Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy.


5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport), Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy)

5.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment)

5.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance)

5.4 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations, T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations)

5.5 SPD1 Design & Townscape Guide 2009





6.1 No comments.



6.2 No objections


6.3 No comments. Public Consultation

6.4 One site notice has been displayed on the 17th March 2011 and 27 neighbours have been notified. No letters of representation have been received at the time of writing this report.

6.5 Councillor Clinkscales has requested this application come before Development Control Committee.


7.1 None

8 Recommendation





02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans 2992.100, 2992.101 P3.


03 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations, hard surfacing and boundary treatment have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


Reason: To safeguard the amenities of area, in accordance with ENV7 of the East of England Plan KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies C11, H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

04 No dwelling shall be occupied until the 4 off-street parking spaces have been provided on hardstandings and the fence posts to the rear of no. 77 Delware Road have been removed to allow a widened access in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To make satisfactory provision for parking off the highway, in accordance with Policy T11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

05 The parking spaces provided in relation to condition 4 shall be permanently reserved for the parking of vehicles of occupiers and callers to the premises and not used for any other purposes.

Reason: To make provision for parking off the highway, in accordance with Policy T11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

06 No windows shall be formed in the dwellinghouses other than those shown on the approved plan unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be permanently retained in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining properties, including their privacy, in accordance with Policy H5 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan.

07 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no development shall be carried out within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, B, C, D to those Orders.

Reason: To safeguard the character and amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

08 A scheme detailing how at least 10% of the total energy needs of the development will be supplied using on site renewable sources shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development and implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the dwelling houses. This provision shall be made for the lifetime of the development.



09 No development hereby permitted shall commence until details of surface water attenuation for the site, based on SUDS principles, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works agreed shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with PPS25 and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1).

10 No construction works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall take place outside the following times 07.30-1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 0800-1300 on Saturdays and no such works shall take place on Sundays, Bank and public holidays.


Informative


Reason for Approval

This permission has been granted having regard to policy ENV7 of the East of England, policies KP2, CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD, policies C11, C14, H5, T8, T11 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009) and to all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.



Ward: West Shoebury

Proposal: Erect two semi-detached dwellinghouses

Address: Rear of 214 - 224 Caulfield Road, Shoeburyness, Southend-On-Sea, Essex, SS3 9LX

Applicant: Mr J Lefever




Case Officer: Darragh McAdam

Plan Nos: 2992.100 R1, 2992.102 P2

Recommendation:Delegate to the Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control or Head of Planning and Transport to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the expiration of public consultation


1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect two semi-detached dwellinghouses with associated landscaping and parking.

1.2 South Essex Homes have recently carried out a survey for all Council owned parking and garages within the Borough. The findings concluded that there is the potential to provide additional family housing within the Borough on such sites. Hastoe Housing Association intends to provide the units as affordable homes to meet local needs, and this application is one of several for new residential dwellinghouses that have and will be submitted to the Council for determination.


2.1 The site is to the rear of 214-224 Caulfield Road. The existing site is vacant and was previously occupied by garages which have been demolished. The site is surrounded by a close boarded timber fence.

2.2 The entire site is surrounded by residential dwellings. The area is characterised by two storey dwellinghouses to the east, south and western side of the site and three storey flatted blocks are to the north of the site. The vehicular access will be from Caulfield Road sited between the flatted blocks of 214-224 Caulfield Road and the rear of 94 Maplin Way.



4 Appraisal



4.1 The application site is located in a residential area characterised by two storey dwellinghouses. Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy states that any development should make the best use of previously developed land, ensuring that sites and buildings are put to best use. Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy advocates the need for all development proposals to contribute to the creation of a high quality, sustainable urban environment, which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend.


Policy H10 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan states that applications for residential development on backland sites will only be permitted where proposals respect the character of the area, residential amenities of adjoining dwellings, and are in accordance with Policies H3 and H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Council Local Plan.

4.2 The garages on site have been previously demolished following a survey carried out by South Essex Homes which assessed all sites occupied by Council garages. The paper concluded that local residents were deterred from using garages due to their location, lack of security and lighting. In light of this, and given that the site is currently vacant, the proposed development will provide a positive contribution to the area, subject to the considerations below being satisfactorily addressed.

Design and impact on the character of the area

Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3; East of England Plan policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan policies C11, C14, H5 and Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.3 The existing site is vacant and the surrounding area is characterised by two storey residential dwellings and three storey flatted blocks. The proposed dwellings in terms of elevational design are considered to relate satisfactorily to the surrounding area. Design features such as the fenestration and roof design have picked up the features of the local area. The proposal also includes the installation of solar panels to the western slope of the roof (front elevation) to ensure the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy. It is considered the solar panels will not detract from the character and appearance of the area.

4.4 In terms of materials, the dwellings will include facing brickwork to match the adjacent properties, concrete roof tiles, traditional felt roof, painted timber windows, timber roof windows and timber doors. All materials will be agreed by condition.

4.5 The dwellings will include kitchen, lounge/dining room, WC to the ground floor and 3 bedrooms with a bathroom to the first floor. The internal layout arrangements of the two dwellings are considered acceptable and in accordance with the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.6 In terms of landscaping, Policy C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Council advocates the need for any new development to include landscaping. To the front of the properties will include soft landscaping and a lawned area together with shrubs. To the rear of the properties will be lawned area with a patio area also. Amenity space will include 69.5sqm to plot 1 and 68sqm to plot 2. It is considered the proposed amenity space is acceptable in accordance with the guidance detailed within the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.7 In light of the above, the proposed development is considered to make a positive contribution to the area in accordance with the provisions of Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, policies H5, C11 and C14 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan and guidance within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.



Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; East of England Plan policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP3; BLP policies T8, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.8 The access to the site will be from Caulfield Road. The access road width is 2.7m and then the access width widens to 3.82m when the access road is 21m into the site. The Council’s highway officer considers the turning and manoeuvring space to be quite small and is likely to result in cars reversing back onto the highway. However, no objections have been raised in principle to the proposed access and it is therefore not considered to result in harm to the highway network and pedestrian safety in accordance with the provisions of Policy T8.

4.9 In terms of parking spaces, the EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001) the proposal will include 3 parking spaces (1.5 spaces per dwelling) available to both dwellings which is considered acceptable.

Impact on residential amenity


4.10 In terms of separation distances, the proposed development will be located 8.6m away from the boundary to the west, 1.2m away from the boundary to the south, 10m away from the boundary to the east and 1m away from the boundary to the north. In terms of the distances from the boundary to the nearest residential dwellings to the west is 22m, 30m to east, 10m to the south and 9.4m to the north. Given the separation distance from the boundaries it is considered the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on residential amenity.

4.11 The proposed height of the dwellings are 8.3m and given the separation distances it is not considered that the proposed development will result in overshadowing or an obtrusive form. Whilst no windows are proposed within the flank elevations and will therefore not give rise to overlooking, a condition will ensure no further windows are inserted into the development at a later date.

4.12 In light of the above, the proposed development will not have a harmful impact on residential amenity, therefore in accordance with Policy H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.




4.13 National guidance and relevant planning policy statements together with Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy advocate the need to ensure design maximises the use of sustainable and renewable resources in the construction of development. It also states that all development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources and at least 10% of the energy needs of new development should come from on-site renewable options and sustainable urban drainage systems shall be successfully integrated.



5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport), Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy).

5.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment).

5.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance).

5.4 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations, T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations).

5.5 SPD1 Design & Townscape Guide 2009.


5.7 Waste Management Guide.






6.2 The turning and manoeuvring space is quite small and is likely to result in cars reversing back onto the highway. Reversing over long distances is unattractive since it tends to deter some drivers from using the parking area and could lead to parking on street particularly medium to larger cars. The driveway is approximately 22.5m long.


6.3 No comments received at the time of writing this report. Public Consultation

6.4 One site notice has been displayed on the 23rd March 2011 and 31 neighbours have been notified. No letters of representation have been received at the time of writing this report.



7.1 None

8 Recommendation

Members are recommended to Delegate to the Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control or Head of Planning and Transport to Grant Planning Permission subject to the expire of public consultation:


01 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. (C01A)

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (R01A)

02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2992.100 R1, 2992.102 P2 (C01D)

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the policies outlined in the Reason for Approval. (R01D)


03 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations, hard surfacing and boundary treatment have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the appearance of the building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. This is as set out in East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). (R23DB)

04 Three car parking space(s) shall be provided in accordance with plan no. 2991.101 Rev. P2 prior to occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby approved and shall thereafter be permanently retained for the parking of private motor vehicles solely for the benefit of the occupants of the dwelling(s) of which it forms part and their visitors and for no other purpose unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. (C18B)

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off-street car parking and turning provision is provided for occupants of the new dwelling(s) and in the interests of residential amenity and highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). (R18B)


Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). (R17A)



Reason: In the interest of visual amenity in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). (R24A)



08 No development hereby permitted shall commence until details of surface water attenuation for the site, based on SUDS principles, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works agreed shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with PPS25 and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD1.

09 Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme to deal with risks associated with the contamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a desk study identifying previous uses, potential contaminants, a conceptual model of the site and potentially unacceptable risks arising from the contamination at the site. The scheme shall also include an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected (including those off-site), a statement of remediation measures that have been undertaken and a verification report on completion of the works. The scheme shall be built in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To ensure the development does not cause pollution of controlled waters and that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of controlled waters, in accordance with Policy U2 of the Southend on Sea Local Borough Plan and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.

10 No construction works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall take place outside the following times 07.30-1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 0800-1300 on Saturdays and no such works shall take place on Bank and public holidays.


Reason: To protect residential amenity and general environmental quality in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5 and U2. (R09A)

Informative


Reason for approval

This permission has been granted having regard to policy ENV7 of the East of England, policies KP2, CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD, policies C11, C14, H5, T8, T11 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009) and to all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.



Ward: West Shoebury

Proposal: Demolish existing garage blocks and erect three dwellinghouses

Address: Rear of 12 Bunters Avenue, Shoeburyness, SS3 9NG

Applicant: Mr J. Lefever, Hastoe Housing Association





Plan Nos: 2993.101 P2 & 2993.100 R1.



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a terrace of three dwellinghouses with associated parking and landscaping.

1.2 South Essex Homes have recently carried out a survey for all Council owned parking and garages within the Borough. The findings concluded that there is the ability to provide additional family housing within the Borough on such sites. Hastoe Housing Association intends to provide the units as affordable homes to meet local needs, and this application is one of several for new residential dwellinghouses that have and will be submitted to the Council for determination.


2.1 The site is located to the rear of 12 Bunters Avenue and dwellinghouses in Church Road, Pentland Avenue and Maplin Way. There are two garage blocks on the site comprising 24 garages.

2.2 Access to the site is at the head of the cul-de-sac adjacent to 12 Bunters Avenue and at the rear of 42 Maplin Way.


3.1 The main considerations are; the principle of the development, design and impact on character of the area, traffic and transportation issues and impact on residential amenity and sustainable construction.

4 Appraisal


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3, East of England Plan Policies ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4, CP8; Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5; and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.1 The application site is located in a residential area characterised by two storey dwellinghouses. Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy states that any development should make the best use of previously developed land, ensuring that sites and buildings are put to best use. Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy advocates the need for all development proposals to contribute to the creation of a high quality, sustainable urban environment, which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend. Policy H10 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan states that applications for residential development on backland sites will only be permitted where proposals respect the character of the area, residential amenities of adjoining dwellings and are in accordance with Policies H3 and H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Council Local Plan.


4.2 A survey was carried out by South Essex Homes which assessed all sites occupied with Council garages. The paper concluded that local residents were deterred from using garages due to their location, lack of security and lighting. In addition, the cost of repairs to keep the garages in a serviceable condition is excessive in comparison to the potential income. On the whole the garages are in a poor state of repair and the majority of which have been boarded up, disused and are covered in graffiti. The area appears to be vulnerable to anti-social behaviour and nearly all the garages are surplus to requirements.

4.3 The site is within a wider residential area and thus the principle of residential development is considered acceptable. The proposal has the potential to result in a more efficient use of land, as advocated by PPS3 advice.

4.4 In light of this, it is considered that the proposed development will provide a positive contribution to the area, subject to the considerations below being satisfactorily addressed.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 3, Planning Policy Statement 5; East of England Plan policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan policies C11, C14, H5 and Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.5 The surrounding area is characterised by two storey residential dwellinghouses which are predominantly terraced properties. The proposed dwellings in terms of elevational design are considered to relate satisfactorily to the surrounding area. Design features such as the fenestration and roof design have picked up the features of the local area. The proposal also includes the installation of solar panels to the south slope of the roof to ensure the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy. It is considered the solar panels will not detract away from the character and appearance of the area.

4.6 The proposed dwellinghouses will be finished in facing brickwork to match the adjacent properties and will use materials such as concrete roof tiles, plain concrete roof tiles. However, all external materials will be agreed by way of a condition.

4.7 The dwellings will include kitchen, lounge/dining room, WC to the ground floor and 3 bedrooms with a bathroom to the first floor. The internal layout arrangements of the two dwellings are considered acceptable and in accordance with the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.8 In terms of landscaping, Policy C14 of the Borough Local Plan advocates the need for any new development to include landscaping. To the front of the properties will include soft landscaping and a small area of lawn with shrubs. To the rear of the properties will be a patio and lawn. Amenity space will include 128sq.m to Plot 1, 98sq.m to Plot 2 and 80sq.m to Plot 3. It is considered the proposed amenity space is acceptable in accordance with the guidance detailed within the Design and Townscape Guide.


4.9 In light of the above, the proposed development is considered to make a positive contribution to the area in accordance with the provisions of Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies H5, C11 and C14 of the Southend Borough Local Plan and guidance within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1. The site will provide three new larger sized Council properties which are much needed in the Borough.


Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; East of England Plan Policy ENV7; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4, CP3; Borough Local Plan Policies T8, T11; Essex Planning Officer (EPOA) Vehicle Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.10 The access to the site will remain from Bunters Avenue at the head of the cul-de-sac. The width of the access is 3.1m which widens to 3.2m. Whilst the access road is only one car width, there is the ability to turn a car within the application site and should a car need to wait at the head of the cul-de-sac to enter the site, this would not be detrimental to highway safety. No objections have been raised from the Council’s Highways Officer. The proposal would not be detrimental to highway or pedestrian safety.

4.9 In terms of parking spaces, the EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001) advocates the need for at least 1.5 parking spaces per residential dwelling. The proposal will include a total of 5 parking spaces which is considered acceptable and meets the EPOA standards.



4.10 In terms of separation distances of the proposed development to adjacent residential occupiers, the proposed dwellings are located a minimum distance of 12.4m away from the boundary to the east of the site (no. 7 Pentland Avenue), 1m to the south of the site and 1.1m to the north of the site.

4.11 The proposed dwellinghouses will have a separation distance of 13m from the rear of No’s 14, 16 and 18 Bunters Avenue, and some 30m from the rear of properties in Maplin Way and Pentland Avenue. Given the separation distance from the boundaries, the distance of the proposed dwellinghouses from the rear elevations of existing neighbouring occupiers and the siting of the proposed dwellinghouses, it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on residential amenity.


4.12 The proposed height of the dwellings are 8.2m and given the separation distances it is not considered that the proposed development will result in overshadowing or an obtrusive form of development. No windows are proposed within the flank elevations and therefore will not give rise to overlooking; a condition will ensure no further windows are inserted into the development at a later date.

4.13 In light of the above, the proposed development will not have a harmful impact on residential amenity, and is therefore, in accordance with Policy H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.



4.14 National guidance and relevant planning policy statements together with Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy advocate the need to ensure design maximises the use of sustainable and renewable resources in the construction of development. It also states that all development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources and at least 10% of the energy needs of new development should come from on-site renewable options. It is not considered that a condition in respect of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) is necessary given that the site currently consists entirely of hardstanding and the proposed soft landscaping will reduce levels of surface water run-off.



5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport), Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy).

5.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment).

5.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance).

5.4 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations, T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations).


5.5 SPD1 Design & Townscape Guide 2009.





6.1 No comments received at the time of writing this report. Traffic and Transportation

6.2 No objections


6.3 No comments received at the time of writing this report. Public Consultation

6.4 Neighbouring occupiers have been notified and a site notice displayed. One letter of representation has been received requesting to see detailed plans of the site.



7.1 None

8 Recommendation





02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 2993.101 P2 & 2993.100 R1.




Reason: To safeguard the character and amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

04 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations, and details of hard surfacing and boundary treatments have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of area, in accordance with ENV7 of the East of England Plan KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies C11, H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

05 No dwelling shall be occupied until the 5 off-street parking spaces have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.


06 The parking spaces provided in relation to condition 4 shall be permanently reserved for the parking of vehicles of occupiers and callers to the premises and not used for any other purposes.



Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining properties, including their privacy, in accordance with Policy H5 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan.




09 No construction works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall take place outside the following times 07:30-18:00 on Mondays to Fridays and 08:00-13:00 on Saturdays, and no such works shall take place on Sundays, Bank and public holidays.


Reason for Approval

This permission has been granted having regard to Policy ENV7 of the East of England, Policies KP1, KP2, CP4 of the Core Strategy DPD, Policies C11, C14, H5, T8, T11 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009) and to all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, subject to the conditions imposed, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission.


Reference: 11/00393/TCA

Ward: Shoeburyness

Proposal: Fell 2 Sycamore Trees (Application for works to trees in a Conservation Area)

Address: 1 The Pavilions, Shoeburyness, Southend-on-sea, Essex, SS3 9QA

Applicant: Mr. Peter Reid

Agent: None


Expiry Date: 02nd May 2011


Plan No’s: Not Applicable

Recommendation: Raise No Objection


1 The Proposal

1.1 Permission is sought to fell two sycamore trees at this property. The two trees are located in a side garden of No. 1 the Pavilions. Both trees are mature species and are located close to the public footpath on Magazine Road.

1.2 The reason the applicant has provided for wishing to remove the trees is that the western most tree (T2) has died, most likely by root compaction due to building works on Magazine Road, and the eastern most tree (T3) is showing signs of dying for the same reasons as T2. The applicant has indicated willingness to replace the two trees with a type to be advised by the Council’s Arboriculturist Officer.


2.1 No. 1 The Pavilions is located on the south side of Magazine Road and is a traditional style garrison building. The land is located within the Shoebury Garrison Conservation area.

2.2 Magazine Road has a verdant/green character largely owing to mature trees lining the entire northern boundary of the road and the edge of the cricket green. The southern side of the road, on which side the trees in question sit, has very few trees on it, as new housing development has occurred on this side.

2.3 The land in this area is largely flat. The area is residential in character.


3.1 As this is an application for works to trees in a Conservation Area, the choice of action can only be to make the trees subject to a TPO, or to grant consent. Essentially the main planning consideration is therefore whether there is amenity value to be derived from the trees at present.

4 Appraisal


Borough Local Plan Policy C4, C14 and SPD1

4.1 This proposal is considered in the context of the Borough Council policies relating to trees and conservation areas. Essentially these policies seek to protect and preserve trees where they contribute to the character of a conservation area.

Amenity and Impact on Conservation Area

Borough Local Plan Policy C4, C14 and SPD1


4.2 The two trees are visible in the streetscene but are towered over by more mature and prominent trees on the north side of Magazine Road.

4.3 As set out in paragraph 7.3 below, the trees are in poor condition. The most westerly tree is considered to be dying and in a steep rate of decline. The other tree has crown dieback and moderate amounts of deadwood throughout the whole crown and appears also to be in some decline. It is suspected that this tree will also follow a steep decline in health. The Arboricultural Officer is of the view that the trees are unworthy of protection. In their current state the trees are of little amenity value.

4.4 It is considered that the trees in question do not warrant a TPO, and in accordance with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer’s comments, no objection is therefore raised with regard to their removal. The applicant has offered to plant replacement trees which are welcomed. However as conditions cannot be attached to such applications the replanting cannot be enforced.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The trees in question are not of significant amenity value and there is no objection to their removal.


6.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development).

6.2 East of England Plan (May 2008) Policy ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment).


6.4 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), and C14 (Trees, Planted Areas, and Landscaping).



Public Consultation

7.1 Two neighbours notified of the application. A site notice was also erected. No responses received at time of writing the report.


7.2 To be reported.


Building Control (Structural Engineer)

7.3 To be reported.

Parks / Trees

7.4 A site visit was made on 28/03/11. The application refers to two mature Sycamores growing within the privately owned garden immediately west of the subject property. Both trees were inspected visually from ground level. The more westerly tree (nearest the driveway entrance) is in very poor condition with approximately 80% estimated crown area having died with this now including die-back extending into the main primary branches. The tree is liable to shed branches and is in a steep steady decline. I would consider the tree to be dying and exempt from the requirement to make an application. The second tree (closest to the property) has crown dieback and scattered moderate amounts of deadwood throughout the whole crown and appears also to be in some decline. It is suspected that this tree will also follow a steep decline in health. Records show that the site was previously (about five years ago) occupied by the developer and since used as their site office and show home during the initial phases of the garrison development. Soil surface compaction and trenching for the adjacent nearby wall footing at this period of use occurred within the rooting area of these trees. Due to a lack of protective fencing being erected soil compaction is suspected to be the prime cause of the crown die-back although other now secondary additional factors cannot be ruled out. Given the poor condition of both the trees, it is considered that they would not be appropriate for any legal protection as they are in poor health with further decline being most likely. One tree is almost dead and the second has generally poor potential retention value due to its condition and high likelihood of further decline. The garden area would be suitable for replacement tree planting. The owners have said that they would be willing to replant trees. Suitable replacement tree species would include, but are not limited to: Amur Maple (Acer ginnala), Serbian Spruce (Picea omorika), Gleditsia tricanthos Ruby Lace, and Magnolia grandiflora Gallisonniere.

The Shoebury Society

7.5 To be reported.

Ward Councillor

7.6 Cllr. Assenheim has requested this application be considered by the Development Control Committee.



8.1 No recent planning history.

9 Recommendation: Members are recommended to Delegate to the Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control or Head of Planning and Transport to RAISE NO OBJECTION subject to the expiry of public consultation:

INFORMATIVE: This decision has been made in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 23 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991), Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999. You are advised that this consent must be implemented and the tree works completed within two years of the date of this decision letter in accordance with this legislation.


Reference: 11/00399/FUL

Ward: Belfairs

Proposal: Demolish existing building and erect a two storey dwelling over basement

Address: 67 Eastwood Road, Leigh-On-Sea, Essex, SS9 3AH

Applicant: Mr. D. Holmes

Agent: BGA Architects




Plan No: 0-001, 0-002, 0-003 Rev. A, 1-100, 1-101 Rev. C, 3-001, 0-005, 2-001, 2-002 Rev. A, 18-001

Recommendation:Delegate to the Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control or Head of Planning and Transport GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION


1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to demolish an existing dwelling and in its place erect a new two storey dwelling. The new dwelling would be two storey and have an irregular pitched roof. A basement level is proposed which would contain three parking spaces. Vehicular access to this basement would be via a vehicle lift platform.

1.2 The application is further to an earlier application considered by the Development Control Committee on 2nd March 2011 (Ref. No. 11/00062/FUL). Permission was refused for this application for reasons relating to scale, height and elevational design. The current application has sought to address this reason for refusal.

1.3 The table below compares the existing dwelling, the dwelling refused under 11/00062/FUL, and the current proposal.

Existing Proposed Under11/00062/FUL

Current Proposal

No. Bedrooms 4 4 4

Gross Floor Area Approximately 188m² (excluding garage & outside store)

Approximately 578m² Approximately 490m²

Width Excluding attached garage: 11.6m

Including attached garage: 14.1m

13m 12.5m

Depth 10.1m (excluding single storey rear extension)

15.5m (at two storeys in height)

14.7m

Ridge height 8.5m 9.2m 8.6m

Eaves Height 5.7m 5.9m 5.6m

Roof Type Regular hipped Irregular pitched Irregular pitched

Set back from front boundary

13.0m 13.1m 13.1m

1.4 Landscaping is proposed to the front and the rear of the new dwelling. The rear garden would have an area of approximately 465m². A new front boundary treatment is also proposed and would consist of a 0.6m high brick wall and coping stone, with iron railings above rising to a total height of 1.0m. One vehicular access gate and two pedestrian gates are also proposed.

1.5 Car parking for the new dwelling would be provided both at basement level (at least 3 spaces) and at ground level to the front (with room for approximately 2 spaces).



2.1 The application site is located on the west side of Eastwood Road and has an area of approximately 940m². There is currently a two storey dwelling on the site which is set back from Eastwood Road by a similar distance to other dwellings on this side of the road. There is an attached garage to the south of the dwelling and an attached store to the rear which is built flush to the boundary with the adjoining property to the north.

2.2 Vehicular access to the property is via a crossover to the south eastern corner of the site. The majority of the front curtilage of the property is hard surfaced and used for parking. The dwelling has a large rear garden. The topography slopes gently from north to south.

2.3 The site is located within a largely residential area. Eastwood Road is a mix of mainly large detached houses of varying styles and form. Directly to the west of the site are playing fields and Belfairs Golf Club.


3.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the development, design and relationship with adjacent development and the streetscene, any impact on neighbours, living conditions for future occupiers, use of on site renewables, parking implications and any impacts on urban drainage.

4 Appraisal


PPS1, PPS3, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, H5 and SPD1

4.1 PPS1 and PPS3 are aimed at guiding local authorities in the delivery of sustainable development and housing. Of particular relevance to the current application is PPS1 which states that good design is indivisible from good planning. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. PPS1 continues by stating that development should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary planning documents on design. PPS3 reinforces these points and states that development should be well integrated with, and complement, the neighbouring buildings and the local area, more generally in terms of scale, density, layout and access.

4.2 The proposal consists of a 1 for 1 replacement dwelling within a residential area. Thus, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle.


Design

Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, H5 and SPD1

4.3 Policy C11 of the BLP states that new buildings and extensions or alterations to existing buildings should be designed to create a satisfactory relationship with their surroundings in respect of form, scale, massing, height, elevational design and materials.

4.4 Policy H5 of the BLP requires all development within residential streets to be appropriate in its setting by respecting neighbouring development, existing residential amenities, and the overall character of the locality.

4.5 Eastwood Road contains an eclectic mix of mainly large detached houses. The proposed dwelling would add to this mix and the proposed scale and building line is considered acceptable in the streetscene.

4.6 The size of the site is able to accommodate the scale and bulk proposed which is not considered excessive. The dwelling would be of a similar width as the current dwelling on the site, and would provide for greater separation distances to the side boundaries (the existing dwelling has a side garage built close to the southern boundary). The design of the dwelling is better resolved than that proposed under application No. 11/00062/FUL and is more consistent on all elevations. The current front building line has been retained, and soft landscaping is proposed for the front garden. The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application has stated that permeable surfacing is to be used for the hard surface treatment of the front curtilage area.

4.7 Section 4.7.2 of the Design and Townscape Guide states that basement parking is not considered appropriate for single dwellings as it would dominate the frontage detrimentally affecting the design of the building and is normally out of character with the streetscene. There is some concern that the proposed car lift when not in use and if left at basement level could look odd and out of place. However in the Design and Access Statement it is stated that the lift would be left at ground level level when not in use. It is reasonable to assume that this would indeed happen as the dwelling would be more secure when the lift is left at ground level. A condition could be added to ensure that the surface of the vehicle lift is finished in materials to match the surrounding hardstanding.

4.8 The boundary treatment design is considered appropriate to the streetscene, and there are examples of similar boundary treatments nearby. The majority of the front boundary would have a maximum height of 1m the height which can be erected under permitted development rights.


4.9 Given the size of the site, and the gross floor area proposed in the dwelling, it would be appropriate to remove certain permitted development rights to safeguard the amenities of adjoining neighbours, and to limit any further extensions to the dwelling which would have the potential to be overbearing on adjacent properties.



4.10 Policy H5 of the BLP requires all development within residential streets to be appropriate to its setting by respecting neighbouring development, existing residential amenities, and the overall character of the locality.

4.11 It is not considered that there would be any undue overlooking as a result of the proposed development. The proposed north elevation contains no windows at first floor level, and the proposed south elevation contains one obscure glazed window at first floor level (this can be conditioned to be fitted with obscure glazing). A modest terrace area is proposed at first floor level to the rear and 1.8m high obscure glazed screens are proposed on both the southern and northern edges of this terrace area preventing views into adjoining properties. The terrace area would be set approximately 10m off the northern boundary and approximately 2.0m off the southern boundary to which the neighbouring property to this side has an outbuilding built flush to the boundary. As such it is not considered that there would be adverse impacts in terms of noise and disturbance to the residential amenities of adjoining properties through use of this terrace area.

4.12 It is not considered that there would be any adverse overshadowing as a result of the proposed development. Given the orientation of the site the main potential for overshadowing is to the adjoining property to the north (No. 69). The proposed dwelling would have a ridge height almost identical to the existing dwelling. There are also no habitable room windows in the southern flank wall of No. 69. It is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would be approximately 4.6m deeper then the existing house. However the increased depth does not infringe a 45° line taken from the nearest habitable room in No. 69 and this would mean there is little impact on the outlook of this property. The proposed dwelling has been stepped in on the northern elevation to ensure there is no infringement. As such it is not considered that there would be any undue overshadowing.

4.13 Although the proposed dwelling would extend further out to the rear than adjoining dwellings, this is not considered excessive as the dwelling is set off the boundaries and there is a further separation distance to the flank and rear walls of the neighbouring dwellings.


Living Conditions for Future Occupiers


4.14 The new dwelling would have generous size rooms. It is considered that internal room sizes are sufficient to provide for good living conditions for future occupiers.

Use of On Site Renewable Energy Resources


4.15 Policy KP2 of the DPD1 and the SPD1 require that 10% of the energy needs of a new development should come from on site renewable resources, and also promotes the minimisation of consumption of resources. A grey water collection system and solar pv tiles are proposed for the new dwelling. These are considered sufficient to meet the energy requirement, although specific details would be needed to confirm this. This can be addressed by way of condition.

Parking Implications

Borough Local Plan Policy T11, EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards

4.16 Policy T11 of the BLP states that Council will require the provision of off-street car parking spaces and permission will not normally be granted for any development which would be likely to give rise to additional demand for on-street parking, particularly in residential areas. The EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards require an average off-street parking provision of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. The proposed dwelling would accommodate three parking spaces at basement level, and at least two spaces at ground level. This is considered to be adequate parking provision.

Previous Reasons for Refusal

4.17 Planning permission was refused for a similar scheme in March 2011 (Ref No. 11/00062/FUL). There was one reason for refusal in this application:“The design of the dwelling by virtue of scale, height and elevational design would result in an incongruous feature of streetscene and constitute overdevelopment, contrary to Policy ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment) of the East of England Plan, Policy KP2 (Development Principles) and CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance) of the Core Strategy, Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions & Alterations) and H5 (Residential Design & Layout Considerations) of the Borough Local Plan, and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)”.


4.18 The current proposal has been reduced in height and width from the previous refused application. There are greater separation distances to site boundaries, and a simpler design approach has been adopted for the front elevation, and the design is more consistent on all elevations.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 Eastwood Road is a mix of mainly large detached houses of varying style and form. The proposed dwelling would complement this mix and the scale and building line is considered acceptable in the streetscene. Internal room sizes are more than adequate to provide for good living conditions for future occupiers. It is not considered that there would be any undue overlooking as a result of the proposed development, or any adverse overshadowing impacts. The dwelling would incorporate sustainable design features including gray water collection, solar photovoltaic panels, and permeable hard surfacing for ground level parking area. An adequate level of parking has been provided.


6.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing).


6.3 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP2 (Development Principles) CP4 (Environment & Urban Renaissance), and CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

6.4 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), and H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T8 (Traffic Management & Highway Safety), and T11 (Parking Standards).



Public Consultation

7.1 Thirty one addresses notified of the application. A site notice was also displayed outside the site. No responses received at time of writing the report.


7.2 To be reported.



7.3 To be reported.


7.4 To be reported.

7.5 Property and Regeneration

To be reported.


8.1 Planning permission refused in March 2011 to ‘Demolish existing building and erect a two storey dwelling’ – (11/00062/FUL).

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to DELEGATE TO THE GROUP MANAGER OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & BUILDING CONTROL OR HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the expiry of public consultation:

Conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. (C01A)

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (R01A)

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 0-003 Rev. A, 1-101 Rev. C, 3-001, 0-005, 18-001 (C01D).

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the policies outlined in the Reason for Approval. (R01D)

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), or any other revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no development shall be carried out within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, B, C, D and F to those Orders.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control development in the interest of the amenity of neighbouring properties and to safeguard the character of the area in accordance with Policies C11 and H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.


4 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority details of a barrier to the sides of the vehicle lift platform. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, and thereafter permanently retained.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off-street car parking provision is provided for people using the development in the interests of amenity and highways efficiency and safety, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide.

5 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations of the dwelling, on any screen/boundary walls, fences and gates, and on any driveway, access road, forecourt or parking area have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, and Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan and KP2 and CP4 of the Borough Local Plan.

6 1.8m high obscure glazed screens shall be erected concurrently with the carrying out of the development hereby permitted and shall be thereafter permanently retained on the northern and southern boundary of the rear first floor terrace area on the approved plans, in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policies H5 and C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

7 The top surface of the vehicle lift shall be finished in materials to match the surrounding hardstanding and thereafter permanently retained.

Reason: To ensure that the development is satisfactory in terms of its appearance and that it makes a positive contribution to the local environment in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV1 and ENV7, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide)


8 The window at first floor level in the south elevation shall only be glazed in obscure glass (the glass to be obscure to at least Level 4 on the Pilkington Levels of Privacy, or such equivalent as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority) and fixed shut, except for any top hung fan light which shall be a minimum of 1.7 metres above internal floor level unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. In the case of multiple or double glazed units at least one layer of glass in the relevant units shall be glazed in obscure glass to at least Level 4. (C17B)

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with East of England Plan 2008 policy SS1, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). (R17A)

9 A scheme detailing how at least 10% of the total energy needs of the development will be supplied using on site renewable sources must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any of the units. This provision shall be made for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of providing sustainable development in accordance with Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy (DPD1) and PPS1.

Reason for Approval

This permission has been granted having regard to PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS3 (Housing), Policy KP2 (Development Principles) CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance), and CP8 (Dwelling Provision) of the Core Strategy, Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions & Alterations), H5 (Residential Design & Layout Considerations), T8 (Traffic Management & Highway Safety), and T11 (Parking Standards) of the Borough Local Plan, the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD) and all other material considerations. The carrying out of the development permitted, would accord with those policies and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify refusal of permission.

Date post:	05-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times