Item Agenda Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Council... · Southend-on-Sea foreshore LNR is located...

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 14/032 11/06/2014 Page 1 of 217

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Report of the Corporate Director of PlaceTo

Development Control CommitteeOn

11th June 2014

WARD APP/REF NO. ADDRESS PAGE

Main Plans Report

Shoeburyness 13/01743/RESMShoebury Garrison

Ness Road 3

Kursaal 14/00038/BC4MSea Life Adventure Centre

Eastern Esplanade 40

Victoria 14/00330/BC4MPolice Station

Victoria Avenue 61

Blenheim Park 14/00461/BC4M

Darlinghurst Primary And Nursery

School

Pavilion Drive71

Leigh 14/00486/RESMThe Bell Hotel And Land Adjacent

20 Leigh Hill 78

Southchurch 14/00495/BC3MHamstel Infant School

Hamstel Road 85

Milton 14/00536/BC3Storage Facility

Western Esplanade 94

Milton 14/00540/BC4Shelter

Western Esplanade 106

AgendaItem

Report(s) on Planning Applications

A Part 1 Agenda Item


Eastwood Park 14/00111/FULH8 Hylands Grove

Eastwood 117

Thorpe 14/00151/FULBeaches Hotel

192 Eastern Esplanade 123

West Shoebury 14/00189/FUL99 Ness Road

Shoeburyness 131

Eastwood Park 14/00277/FULLand Rear Of

553 - 555 Rayleigh Road 142

Leigh 14/00344/FUL30 Chalkwell Park Drive

Leigh-On-Sea 153

Blenheim Park 14/00375/FUL97 Mountdale Gardens

Leigh-On-Sea 162

Thorpe 14/00415/FULH4 Burges Road

Thorpe Bay 170

Blenheim Park 14/00436/FULGrove Court

191 Southbourne Grove 178

Victoria 14/00520/FUL14 Avebury Road

Westcliff-On-Sea 191

Leigh 14/00597/FULH8 Glen Road

Leigh-On-Sea 201

Milton 14/00736/TCA121 Alexandra Road

Southend-On-Sea 207

Kursaal 14/00391/FULBelle Vue Motors

50 Chase Road 211


Reference: 13/01743/RESM

Ward: Shoeburyness

Proposal:

Details of New Gunners Park infrastructure/facilities including children's play area, toddlers play area, wheeled sports and multi-use games area, tennis courts, car parks, footpaths/cycleways and historic military structures (approval of reserved matters following outline permission 00/00777/OUT granted on 06/02/2004).

Address: Shoebury Garrison, Ness Road, Shoeburyness

Applicant: Country And Metropolitan Homes

Agent: OSP Architecture

Consultation Expiry: 25.04.2014

Expiry Date: 08.04.2014

Case Officer: Janine Rowley

Plan Nos:

S01; P106F; Q3290B Shoeburyness Junior Area.; P102 H; Q3290B Shoeburyness Wheeled Sport Area.; Q3290B Shoeburyness Toddler Play Area.; Q3290 Shoeburyness Tennis Courts; 1249/C01; 779/FC/GA/11 Revision B; 779/FC/GA/01 Revision H, 779/FC/GA/07 Revision F

Recommendation: APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS


This application was deferred from Development Control Committee on the 7th May 2014. The main issues are detailed in paragraph 1.2-1.4 below.

1 Background and Proposal

1.1 On the 5th March 2014 the Development Control Committee resolved to approve the reserved matters for this application subject to the expiry of the publicity period. This report should be read in conjunction with Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 whereby the committee report and supplementary report are attached.

1.2 Following the committee meeting a letter of representation was received within the publicity period raising a new issue in relation to the siting of the MUGA. Thus, officers have sought further information in the form of a detailed Ecological Report from the applicant further clarify impacts that the MUGA/wheeled sports facility and skate ramp proposal would have on the local wildlife.

1.3 The Ecological Report accompanying this application states that the vast majority of the MUGA and Wheeled Sports Facility is on an area of existing hardstanding. However, since Development Control Committee meeting on the 5th March 2014, the position of the MUGA has been revised slightly in accordance with the recommendations of the Ecological Report. The MUGA has been altered to a horizontal axis to avoid any impact on the ‘tall ruderal vegetation’ to the north of the site, which is considered to be worthy of preservation and will now only affect poor ‘semi-improved grassland’ which is not considered significant to warrant protection for ecological reasons. The Ecological Report is discussed in detail below.


1.4 It should be noted that amended drawings have been received whereby the original play equipment sourced is no longer available so there have been minor changes in the play equipment to be provided on site but this does not alter the overall location of the proposed facilities:

MUGA- Drawing P105L is now superseded with drawing Q3290B Shoeburyness Wheeled Sport Area.

Play Area- Drawing P101F is now superseded with drawing Q3290B Shoeburyness Junior Area.

Toddlers Play Area- Drawing P103F is now superseded with drawing Q3290B Shoeburyness Toddler Play Area.

Danish Camp Sports Courts- Drawing P104G is now superseded with drawing Q3290 Shoeburyness Tennis Courts

2 Site and surroundings

2.1 The Shoebury Garrison site is located to the east of the borough. The site includes residential, commercial development, together with a school and church used for community facilities.

2.2 The main access roads into the Garrison include Campfield Road to the north and Ness Road to the southwest. There are a number of cycle/footpaths that link the site to the northeast and southwest. The landscape to the south of the site leads to the Shoeburyness coastline.

3 Appraisal

Design and Impact on the Character of the Area

NPPF, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policies C11 and C16; SPD1.

Multi-use games area (MUGA) & Wheeled sports area

3.1 A wheeled sports area and MUGA was originally proposed to be sited on the existing grassed tennis courts. However, the MUGA is proposed to be re-sited to the western part of the park due to concerns raised by English Heritage regarding the visual and archaeological impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument. It was considered that this objection is justified and that re-siting the facility will enable the originally identified area to be returned to grass land, opening up views of the SAM and leaving any archaeological interest undisturbed. The amended location is within an area of existing hardstanding and grassed area and is set at a lower level than the surrounding land which will help to reduce its visual impact in the landscape. It is not considered the revised layout of the MUGA will have a detrimental impact on the openness of the area.


Ecology and Bio-DiversityNPPF, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy CP4

Ecological implications of the MUGA & Wheeled Sports Area

3.2 An Ecological Report has been carried out by Tim Moya Associates in relation to the MUGA and Wheeled Sports Area which is discussed in detail below. There are five statutory and four non statutory designated sites located within 2km of the proposed area.

Statutory sites

3.3 Shoeburyness Old Ranges LNR (Local Nature Reserve) is the closest statutory designated site, located at 260m distance away from the proposed site. The habitats within the LNR are not due to be impacted by the proposed development. The LNR site is considered to be at such a distance that protected or notable species such as birds, mammals and invertebrates in the LNR would not be significantly disturbed by the construction or on-going use of the MUGA and Wheeled Sports Area. Foulness and Benfleet & Southend Ramsar, SSSI and SPA sites are located at 370m distance. These designated sites are located at such a distance that they are not due to be impacted by the proposed works. Important bird populations using these sites would not be expected to be disturbed by the construction or on-going use of the MUGA and Wheeled Sports Area, particularly since the proposed development area is raised above and out of view of the designated sites. Southend-on-Sea foreshore LNR is located at 810 m. Again, this site is not due to be impacted by the proposed works.

Non Statutory sites

3.4 The closest non-statutory designated site is Shoebury Old Ranges EWT Reserve LWS (Local Wildlife Site) at 160 m distance. This site is also at a distance that it is considered unlikely to be subject to significant increases in disturbance as a result of the proposed development. Three further LWS sites are located at 700-750m distance and are also not due to be significantly impacted. In order to avoid an impact on any designated sites it will be necessary to ensure that access to the development site during construction does not pass through any designated sites and this can be dealt with by condition.

Habitats & Vegetation

3.5 The footprint of the proposed development is largely focused on an existing area of hard standing, which is considered to be of negligible ecological value. The surrounding habitats of semi-improved grassland, tall ruderal vegetation and dense scrub are widespread in the local area and the loss of small areas of these habitats for the development is not considered to be significant. Vegetation removal will be kept to a minimum and where possible, vehicular access and site compounds required for the works will be restricted to hard standing areas and this can be dealt with by condition.


Furthermore, the location of the MUGA has been altered as this limits the impact on the ‘tall ruderal vegetation’.

Pond

3.6 There is an existing pond located directly adjacent to the proposed MUGA site. Ponds are listed as a priority habitat under the Essex Biodiversity Action Plan and UK Biodiversity action Plan. Therefore it is important that the proposed development retains the pond and that degradation or pollution of the pond is avoided where possible and this can be dealt with by condition to ensure a management plan is submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority to ensure the pond is enhanced for wildlife in the future.

Protected and notable species

3.7 Reptiles - A common lizard, slow-worm and grass snake have all been recorded within 1km of the site and reptiles are likely to be present in suitable habitats within the site. The hard standing habitat on which the proposed development is focused provides negligible habitat for reptiles. However, tall ruderal, long grass and scrub areas provide good habitat for reptiles. In order to minimise the risk of harming reptiles during the proposed works a phased approach will be taken in accordance with the recommendations of the Ecological Survey to ensure the vegetation is preserved.

Invertebrates

3.8 The habitats found around the proposed development are considered suitable for a Variety of invertebrates, particularly the pond. The area of hard standing on which the development is to be focused is considered to be of negligible value to Invertebrates. The loss of small areas of ruderal vegetation resulting from the proposed development would not be expected to have a major impact on local populations of invertebrates. The pond will be retained as a feature of value to invertebrates and other wildlife.

Birds

3.9 A high number of bird species have been recorded within the wider Gunners Park area, including species likely to nest within the site. The habitat with most potential for nesting birds is dense scrub, which is not due to be removed for the proposed MUGA or Wheeled Sports area. Disturbance resulting from the construction and use of the new facility may dissuade birds from nesting or sheltering within vegetation directly adjacent to the facility but habitats in the wider area are unlikely to be impacted. Since only very limited areas of dense scrub fall within 15m of the footprint of the proposed MUGA and Wheeled Sports area, it is considered that the majority of valuable nesting and sheltering habitat in the local area will remain suitable for nesting and sheltering birds.


Badgers

3.10 No badger setts were found within 30 m of the proposed working area and therefore badgers are considered unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works.

Great crested newts

3.11 Great crested newts have previously been recorded 1.9 km north-north-west of the site. Seven ponds were identified within 500m of the site. In light of this a recommendation for a crested newt survey to be carried out is recommended and will be dealt with by condition.

Conclusion

3.12 It is considered that further surveys to ensure the proposal complies with the relevant wildlife legislation are pursued including a reptile survey, invertebrate survey, bird survey and a great crested newt survey which can be dealt with by condition. The site itself is not considered to have any significant habitat value on a local scale.

Impact on residential amenity

National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies CP4; BLP policies H5 and E5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

3.13 It is proposed to reposition the MUGA for the ecological reasons outlined in detail above. As such, the nearest residential property is now 104m to the east of the site on Gunnery Hill (rather than 125m as originally proposed); this distance is still considered a significant separation distance to mitigate against any potential impact on residential amenity. Furthermore, the MUGA is within an area lower than the existing site levels of properties in Gunnery Hill to the east. Whilst a 2m perimeter fence is proposed to surround the MUGA, given the site levels and a separation distance of 104m from the nearest residential property, it is not considered the proposal will have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of existing occupiers at Gunnery Hill.

Other Matters

West Car Park Layout

3.14 On 5th March 2014 this application was considered in conjunction with an application to modify the Section 106 (s.106) agreement dated 6th February 2004 (14/00153/DOV). Part of the resolution to approve the reserved matters and the proposed s.106 modifications included a revised layout for the West Car Park including retention of existing hard surface in its entirety, one-way traffic flow and alternative highway works outlined in para.4.3 of the main report of the Corporate Director for Place No. DETE 14/010, which included the following:


Ramps/traffic calming within the main car park area; Drop down bollards to enable a reduction in size of the main car park as

required; Knee rail around the central grass area in the main car park; Disability Discrimination Act compliant ramp from the main car park up to

the footway/cycleway towards seafront; and

Whilst drop down bollards (allowing a reduction in the size of the car park during off-peak times and to limit the times when cars will be in close proximity to Gunnery Hill) together with a one-way traffic flow will provide versatility in the future management of the car park, Ward Members have now objected to the inclusion of these bollards. Hence, the matter is referred back to committee with bollards and gates omitted (see revised plan P102 H).

Changes to conditions

3.15 Since the committee resolution on 5th March 2014 the following changes to the recommended conditions have been made:

Condition 1 updated to include revised MUGA plan, car park layout plan and tennis court/SAM area plan (any works not requiring planning permission such as clearance of grass tennis court area will be dealt with under the Section 106 agreement, TCA application and Scheduled Monument Consent);

Condition 2 has been amended to allow for changes in the Supporting Statement to be agreed in writing as minor amendments may be required if subsequent changes are made to the details in the S.106 agreement;

Condition 5 has been amended to make it specific to the tennis court refurbishment;

Condition 6 added to require further ecological surveys in relation to MUGA and Wheeled Sports Area;

Car/cycle parking condition updated to include revised plan but allow for submission of further revisions should Members require this;

Former condition 8 omitted (re: fencing around existing grass tennis courts) as this matter is to be dealt with in the Section 106 Deed of Variation);

Informatives added re: Scheduled Monument consent and TCA application requirements.


4 Public Consultation

4.1 All those who previously objected to both application 14/00153/DOV and 13/01743/RESM have been re-consulted by letter on the revised details. Since 5th March 2014 committee and this consultation, 8 further letters of objection have been received stating the following:

Local residents not written to in relation to the reserved matters application.[Officer Comment: Consultation carried out in accordance with Statement of Community Involvement and statute]

Focus of the objections relate to the MUGA and Skate Park and the original outline permission some 10 years ago suggested it would be sited 800m to the north of the now proposed site.

Planning amendments have been passed using the S106 agreement for the site and these original outline plans were decided over 10 years ago.[Officer Comment: Development of this scale will normally take a considerable amount of time to complete following the approval of the development in outline]

Planning office continued to add decision making information to the planning portal after the initial planning notices had been displayed. [Officer Comment: Additional minor details and points of clarification were added shortly after the posting of the site notices – minor amendments are commonly received during the course of applications and they do not always necessitate re-consultation]

167 local people signed a petition against the application and these were not raised by local Cllr.

During the planning meeting the Chair of the Garrison Resident’s Association and MD of C&M Homes were allowed to speak and several seconds were lost due to moving the clock at the committee.

It was noted to the Councillors that 22 written objections had been received during the meeting but they were not included in the notes available at the previous committee meeting. [Officer Comment: All representations detailed in main report and supplementary report to committee on 5th March 2014]

Councillor Assenheim during the committee meeting suggested very little crime is reported in Shoebury Park however the national crime database suggests 19 incidents have been reported specifically ‘Crime on or near Sports/Recreation Area and the same number of incidents in the car park next to Shoebury Park [Officer Comment: See paragraph 7.23 page 8 of the Supplementary Report dated 5th March 2014; £15,000 has been secured through the S.106 agreement for CCTV if proved necessary]

Ecological report previously submitted did not relate to the area affected by the amendments i.e. MUGA/Wheeled Sport Area.

Lack of response from Natural England. [Officer Comment: NE’s comments are detailed within the report]

MUGA and Wheeled Sports Facility would have detrimental impact in terms of ecology.


Increased crime and anti-social behaviour. [Office Comment: Addressed in previous reports to committee]

Detrimental impact on conservation area, listed buildings and SAM; Out of keeping with character of area; Objection to retention of eastern end of West Car Park; Need for traffic calming on Gunners Rise;

[Officer Comment: Not an adopted road – responsibility is with the management company]

New houses’ alleged non-compliance with flood mitigation measures.[Officer Comment: Not part of this application]

5 Conclusion

5.1 In light of the above, the proposed reserved matters are considered to comply with policy and the outline planning permission (00/00777/OUT), and as such are recommended for approval. There are no further outstanding reserved matters.

6 Recommendation

Members are recommended to APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans S01; P106F; Q3290B Shoeburyness Junior Area.; P102 H; Q3290B Shoeburyness Wheeled Sport Area.; Q3290B Shoeburyness Toddler Play Area.; Q3290 Shoeburyness Tennis Courts; 1249/C01; 779/FC/GA/11 Revision B; 779/FC/GA/01 Revision H, 779/FC/GA/07 Revision F.

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

02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the supporting statement February 2014 Revision F, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that the appearance of the development is appropriate to character of the area, in accordance with the NPPF, policies KP2, CP4 and CP7 of the Core Strategy, policies C1, C2, C4, C11 of the Borough Local Plan.

03 The refurbishment of the two tennis courts shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Written Scheme of Investigation’ carried out by Ramboll August 2013, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.


Reason: To avoid damage to archaeological remains on site as set out in National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C1, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

04 The trees identified for removal shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Schedule BS5837 (2012) submitted on the 06.02.2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remainder of the trees shall be protected.

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.

05 All works hereby permitted in relation to the tennis courts shall be carried out in accordance with the Ecological Report 230817-ED-01 by Tim Moya Associates dated January 2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

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 National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

06 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, all works hereby permitted in relation to the MUGA and Wheeled Sports Area shall be carried out in accordance with the Ecological Report 140335-ED-01 by Tim Moya Associates dated April 2014 and the recommendations therein, together with any recommendations made in the following surveys (details of which are to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement of work on the MUGA and Wheeled Sports Area):

Reptile Survey Invertebrate survey Bird survey Great Crested Newt Survey Mitigation and management strategy



07 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Method Statement’ for the assessment and verification of potentially contaminated land associated with the development of New Gunners Park recreational areas carried out by WSP 31.01.2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 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 National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and Policy U2 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan 1994.

08 Notwithstanding the details shown on plan no. 1249 P106F and 1249 P102 H revised plans showing the car park layouts and cycle parking are to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of work on the car/cycle parking. Car parking and cycle parking shall thereafter be provided and permanently retained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off street car parking, turning provision and cycle provision is provided for the existing and new community facilities in the interests of residential amenity and highway efficiency and safety in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP3, policies T8 and T11 of the Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide.

9 Detailed drawings of Multi Use Games Area and Wheeled Sports Facility (including details of fencing, drainage, sections to show landscaping levels) to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of work on this facility. The facility shall thereafter be constructed and permanently retained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.



INFORMATIVES:

1 The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers.

2 You are advised that works in association with the tennis court refurbishment will require an application to English Heritage for Scheduled Monument Consent.

3 Any pruning or removal of trees, within the conservation area (which includes the Scheduled Monument site), which have a trunk diameter of 75mm at 1.5m above ground level or more require an application for tree work (TCA application).

http://www.southend.gov.uk/info/200416/make_a_planning_application/364/planning_application_forms_and_checklists

http://www.southend.gov.uk/info/200416/make_a_planning_application/364/planning_application_forms_and_checklists


APPENDIX 1


Ward: Shoeburyness

Proposal:

Details of New Gunners Park infrastructure/facilities including children's play area, toddlers play area, wheeled sports and multi-use games area, tennis courts, car parks, footpaths/cycleways and historic military structures (approval of reserved matters following outline permission 00/00777/OUT granted on 06/02/2004).

Address: Shoebury Garrison, Ness Road, Shoeburyness

Applicant: Country And Metropolitan Homes

Agent: OSP Architecture

Consultation Expiry: 4th March 2014

Expiry Date: 8th May 2014


Plan Nos:S01; P106D; P101 E; P102 D; P105 H; P103 F; P104 F; 1249/C01; P1016 D; P107; 779/FC/GA/11 Revision B; 779/FC/GA/01 Revision F

Recommendation:

Delegate authority to Corporate Director of Place, Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control to APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS subject to the expiry of the publicity period.



1 Background and Proposal

1.1 On 6 February 2004, the Council granted outline planning permission for a mixed use development at the Shoebury Garrison site (ref. SOS/00/00777/OUT) including up to 465 dwellings, business floorspace and various non-residential uses. An associated section 106 (S.106) agreement was entered into on the same date securing certain planning obligations to be met by the then owner, Gladedale (Rochester) Limited.

1.2 A series of reserved matters applications have now been approved by the Council and the majority of the Shoebury Garrison site has been developed and sold. The original owner/developer and signatory to the agreement was Gladedale (Rochester) Limited Group. Subsequently, in March 2005 The Gladedale Group acquired Country and Metropolitan Homes (C&M) as the residential arm of Gladedale. C&M now hold the remaining interest in the site and who are in the process of completing the development. Gladedale Holdings Ltd remains as the parent company.


1.3 This application seeks approval for reserved matters under condition 02 of the above permission, specifically for the following:

- Relocation of the multi-use games area and wheeled sports area.- Children’s play area-additional play equipment toddler play area- Tennis courts-refurbishment- West car park to be laid out with marked parking spaces.- New footpaths/cycleways to be created. - Barge Pier and listed military structures (to be made structurally

sound and watertight) within the park

1.4 Although covered in more detailed in the appraisal below, in summary the issues are as follows:

Upon further investigation by C&M and English Heritage, the location of the multi-use games area (MUGA) in the intended location on the existing tennis court area is deemed inappropriate in conservation terms as it would potentially have a detrimental effect on the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) ;

Some equipment initially specified for the play areas is no longer available;

Changes to the wheeled sports area;

Annexure 10 of the S.106 agreement refers to a report (prepared by PMP) that was approved as part of the outline permission in 2004, which includes specific details relating to the facilities, infrastructure, landscaping etc. of New Gunners Park. The report includes in its appendices various plans including the plan showing the 'land management zones' and the area that was formerly being used as tennis courts. As it is now 10 years since the outline permission was granted, the existing hard and soft tennis court area (to the west of the former Officers Mess) is now somewhat overgrown. This is the area that was agreed in 2004 to be resurfaced for use as a multi-sport and play area as part of the S106 requirements. The PMP report dated June 2001 states the following in respect of the plans approved for the provision of sports facilities, footpaths/cycleways:


Multi sport areas3.34 The existing grass tennis courts are to be converted to hard surface multi-sport courts in accordance with the following specification.

3.35 The existing grass surface is to be removed and a new brick pavior edging is to be laid around the court perimeter.

3.38 The courts are then to be coloured and lined to allow any of the following sport combinations: - 2 x basketball courts- 2 x 5 a side- 2 x tennis Tennis Courts3.70 The existing hard surface tennis courts are to be refurbished and renovated…

Wheeled sport facility provision3.79 A facility for wheeled sports (skate boarding or BMX) is to be located at a suitable site within New Gunners Park.

Footpaths and cycleways2.4 A network of new footways and cycleways is to be provided throughout the park in accordance with the Allen Tod Public Open Space proposals plan. The layout of the paths is to be such that they follow desire lines, link to existing routes and utilise existing hard surface areas.

1.5 An application to vary the S.106 agreement (14/00153/DOV) has also been submitted in conjunction with this application. Relevant extracts from the S.106 agreement dated 6th February 2004, which relate to these outstanding items, can be found under application 14/00153/DOV.

2 Site and surroundings

2.1 The Shoebury Garrison site is located to the east of the borough. The site includes residential, commercial development, together with a school and church used for community facilities.

2.2 The main access roads into the Garrison include Campfield Road to the north and Ness Road to the southwest. There are a number of cycle/footpaths that link the site to the northeast and southwest. The landscape to the south of the site leads to the Shoeburyness coastline.


3 Planning Considerations

3.1 The main consideration is one of design and impact on the listed buildings, Shoebury Garrison Conservation Area and Ancient Scheduled Monument, traffic and transportation issues and impact on residential amenity. The principle of development was agreed under application 00/00777/OUT.

4 Appraisal

Principle of development

National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 Core Strategy policies KP2, CP4, CP7; Borough Local Plan policies R1, R5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.1 The principle of the provision of the proposed facilities had been previously accepted under application 00/00777/OUT.

Design and impact on the character of the area, Conservation Area, Listed Buildings and Ancient Scheduled Monument. National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 Core Strategy policies KP2, CP4, CP7; Borough Local Plan policies C1, C4, C11, C14 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

Tennis courts

4.2 The existing tennis courts are located to the east side of the Garrison within the southern part of the ‘Danish Camp’ Scheduled Ancient Monument. They are adjacent to Grade II Listed Officers Mess and. The tennis courts are overgrown and the proposal is to refurbish the two tarmacadam tennis courts and construct a new footpath linking the existing Dane’s Avenue together with associated drainage, fencing, signage, timber picnic tables, metal benches and minor landscape works including the removal of vegetation to return the former grass courts to open grass to enhance the visibility of the earthwork and the setting of the Scheduled Monument.

4.3 Policy C1 of the Borough Local Plan states that where important archaeological sites and monuments, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by a proposed development, there will be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ. Policy C2 of the Borough Local Plan states that listed buildings will be protected from unsympathetic development and all proposals will be required to have regard to the preservation of the setting.


4.4 A ‘Written Scheme of Investigation’ accompanying this application contains a method statement for the works to the tennis courts ensuring that the archaeology of this area is safeguarded. The methodology includes a metal detection survey, ‘cleaning’ of the ground layers and an intensive watching brief by a suitable qualified archaeologist employed by the contractor. English Heritage have considered the supporting information and have raised no objection to the methodology to be used on the refurbishment works proposed at the tennis courts in conjunction with the methodology. The proposed refurbishment would not have a detrimental impact on the setting of this ancient scheduled monument or the grade II listed buildings to the north and east of the site and Shoebury Garrison Conservation Area.

Children’s play area

4.5 The existing children’s play area is located on the eastern side of New Barge Pier Road and is to be enhanced with additional play equipment in the form of 2 bay junior swings and a timber fort on top of the existing mound together with park furniture including park benches, picnic tables and bins. The additional equipment and park furniture in terms of its layout and overall design and appearance will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and enhance the usability of the existing facility.

Toddler Play Area

4.6 The toddler play area is situated to the southeast of the heritage centre on existing grass land and will include equipment designed for children aged 18 months to 6 years. The equipment proposed are alternatives to the original provision specified in the S106 agreement however, match closely to the original specification together with additional park furniture including picnic tables, benches and bins. The proposed layout and siting of the play equipment will provide a positive contribution to the area rather than a vacant grassed area and will not result in a form of development out of character with New Gunners Park.

Multi-use games area (MUGA) & Wheeled sports area

4.7 A wheeled sports area and MUGA was originally proposed to be sited on the existing grassed tennis courts. However, the MUGA is proposed to be re-sited to the western part of the park due to concerns raised by English Heritage regarding the visual and archaeological impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument. It is considered that this objection is justified and that re-siting the facility will enable the originally identified area to be returned to grass land, opening up views of the SAM and leaving any archaeological interest undisturbed. The amended location is within an area of existing hardstanding set at a lower level than the surrounding land which will help to reduce its visual impact in the landscape. The wheeled sports area is designed within a concrete sunken area either side of the footpath and a 1.2m high fence (dark green) around the western side adjacent to the existing embankments.


The proposed MUGA will provide a facility including pitches for various sports such as football, tennis and basketball, surrounded by a 2m high fence to be painted dark green. It is not considered the design and scale of the MUGA or the wheeled sports area will have a detrimental impact on the openness of the area.

Footpaths/cycleways

4.8 There is an existing network of footways and cycle ways across the Shoebury Garrison. Additional footpaths are proposed to link the various sports facilities to the residential properties within the Garrison but also the wider area including Ness Road, Campfield Road, Shoebury High Street and East Beach. A previously approved footway/cycleway between New Barge Pier Road and Campfield Road, the southern part of which ran along the east side of Ness Road, has been omitted due to health and safety reasons, given that it would be adjacent to an open watercourse. An alternative north-south route is provided by the footway/cycleway on New Barge Pier Road together with a new footway to the Heritage Centre from Magazine Road. It is considered the proposed footpaths and cycleways will make a positive contribution to the area and although additional hardstanding is proposed it will not have a detrimental impact on the overall character of the Garrison. The proposed footpaths and cycleways together with the existing network will increase the overall permeability of the Shoebury Garrison for pedestrians and cyclists which is welcomed.

Traffic and Transportation

National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP3; BLP policies T8, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.9 The facilities subject to this application are for use by residents of the Garrison houses and as such will not result in any significant impacts in terms of traffic generation on the local highway network. No objection is raised from the Council’s Highways Officer.

4.10 The existing West Car Park accessed from New Barge Pier Road can accommodate up to 93 vehicles and the Heritage Centre accessed by Warrior Square Road can accommodate 25 vehicles therefore an overall total of 118 parking spaces are available for members of the public visiting Gunners Park or the Shoebury Heritage Centre.

4.11 In addition, to the car parking spaces provision for cycle stands is proposed at all of the sports facilities. 12 cycle stand accommodating 24 cycles has already been agreed at the Shoebury Heritage Centre (12/01225/FUL) and an additional 6 cycle stands are proposed to the existing tennis courts, MUGA and existing car park which can accommodate up to 36 cycles therefore an overall total of 60 cycle spaces can be accommodated at the Shoebury Garrison serving the new sports/community facilities.



National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies CP4; BLP policies H5 and E5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.12 The existing tennis courts abut Mess Road to the east and Danes Avenue (footpath) to the north. The existing tennis courts are overgrown and are surrounded by fencing. Although the tennis courts are not currently in use, it has always been intended as part of the Garrison redevelopment to bring them back into use as a facility for residents. It is not considered the proposal will result in significant noise or disturbance to nearby residents over and above that of the scheme shown on the outline planning permission, particularly given the separation distance of 9m-38m from the Officers Mess boundary and 69m from residents at Warrior Square Road. In addition, Parks officers have stated that in their experience outdoor tennis within parks is generally a low impact activity with courts predominantly being used by people living within close proximity to the site; and due to the outdoor and unlit nature of the courts, usage is likely to be predominantly during mild dry weather and daylight hours.

4.13 The toddlers play area adjacent to the Heritage Centre is located 7.4m away from the flank elevation of plot 387 of Gunnery Hill Phase 2. The play equipment is designed to be used by children of 18 months to 6 years and given its siting will not result in noise or disturbance to the detriment of amenities of nearby residents.

4.14 In relation to the MUGA and wheeled sports area, this will be located within an area lower than the existing site levels of properties in Gunnery Hill to the east. Whilst a 2m perimeter fence is proposed to surround the MUGA, given the site levels and a separation distance of 125m from the nearest residential property, it is not considered the proposal will have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of existing occupiers at Gunnery Hill. Similar to the tennis courts it is also worth noting that the outdoor and unlit nature of the MUGA means that usage is likely to be predominantly during mild dry weather and daylight hours.

Other matters

Land contamination

4.15 A desktop study carried out by WSP on the original outline application 00/00777/OUT has been supplemented by a ‘Method Statement’ that accompanies this application verifying potentially contaminated land and associated measures required for further investigation of contamination in the areas of the community leisure facilities proposed.


Ecological issues

4.16 This application is accompanied by an Ecological Report carried out by Tim Moya Associates, which concludes that the proposed works are of a small scale and are considered unlikely to significantly impact on any of the designated nature conservation sites in the local area. There are several recommendations contained within the ecological report which are relevant to this application to ensure the ecology and biodiversity in the area is safeguarded.

5 Conclusion

In light of the above, the proposed reserved matters are considered to comply with policy and the outline planning permission (00/00777/OUT). There are no further reserved matters outstanding.

6 Planning Policy Summary

6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

6.2 Core Strategy (DPD1) Policies KP2 (Development Principles).KP3 (Implementation and Resources), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance) CP6 (Community Infrastructure) and CP7 (Sport, Recreation and Green Space).

6.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Saved Policies L5 (Entertainment and the Arts), R1 (Outdoor Sports Facilities), R5 (Parks and Gardens) and U1 (Infrastructure Provision), U2 (Pollution Control), C1 (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites), C2 (Historic Buildings), C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T8 (Highway Network), T11 (Parking Standards)

6.4 Supplementary Planning Document 1: Design and Townscape Guide 2009 (SPD1).

6.5 Supplementary Planning Document 2: Planning Obligations 2010 (SPD2).

7 Representation Summary

Design and Conservation

7.1 MUGAHas been re-sited to the western part of the park is within an area of existing hardstanding set at a lower level than the surrounding land which will help to reduce its visible impact in the landscape and it is as far from residents as it could be on the site which should minimise the noise for residents. There is no objection to the wheeled sports area location or layout and this should work well with the muga as these facilities are likely to appeal to similar age groups.


Tennis CourtsThese are an existing facility and that they are located to the side of the SAM and not directly in front as is the case with the grassed courts. The refurbishment of this facility is therefore accepted.

Toddlers play area and heritage centre car parkNo objections to the layout of these facilities although details of the fence should be clarified.

Historical StructuresThe repairs outlined by the Morton Partnership are considered to meet the requirement of the S106 to make the historic structures safe, secure and fit for purpose.

Street furnitureStreet furniture should draw reference from the Council’s Streetscape Guide which can be found on the Council’s website.

Seating There is a concern with the proposed use of furniture made of recycled plastic materials in the vicinity of the SAM and within the conservation area. In these areas metal and timber would be preferred.

Cycle standsNo objection to Sheffield stands provided they are painted or powder coated black.

BinsNo objections

Highway Engineer

7.2 With regard to the application in relation to traffic movements it is considered that there is sufficient car parking on site to accommodate any additional movements associated with the children’s play area, multi use games and tennis courts. The site also benefits from having a number of cycle routes within the Garrison which link to the wider cycle route network within the borough.

Parks

7.3 Outdoor tennis within parks is a low impact activity. Outdoor tennis courts in parks are predominantly used by people living within close proximity to the site. Due to the outdoor and unlit nature of the courts usage is predominantly during mild dry weather and only during daylight hours.

The suggested location of the MUGA is considered to be the best alternative, if not only suitable alternative location for the MUGA. All other locations would be closer to residential property or within areas of historical importance which is not practical.


If Barge Pier is not to be opened to the public the proposed measures to avoid unauthorised access and thus minimise the risk to the Council of people accessing the structure are considered to be suitable. However, consideration should be given to how the Council will manage the declining pier. Interpretation board required to explain the original use of the structure.

No further comments at the time of writing this report.

Asset Management

7.4 No response received at the time of writing this report.

English Heritage

7.5 In summary, the retention of the existing tennis courts and relocation of the previously multi-sport courts would address some of the harm which would be caused to the Scheduled Ancient Monument by the original proposals. It would be appropriate to require the drawing up and implementing of a management plan for the surviving rampart of the prehistoric enclosure as part of a S106 agreement.

Environment Agency

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

Natural England


Essex Wildlife Trust

7.8 Toddlers Play area – location, next to Heritage Centre welcomed; Children play area – improving the existing park off New Barge Pier welcomed; MUGA – welcome use of redundant concrete area away from SAM and other historic structures; proposed location by road will provide better natural surveillance and close to car park; Skate park – (see above) welcome improved facility (i.e. not just a half pipe) and location next to MUGA; Car Park – request fencing around central grass island to avoid anti-social driving/behaviour; Cycle paths – proposed locations acceptable and proposed path connecting the car park and the skate park is welcomed Historic structures – works of repair to historic structures welcomed; would like to see Barge Pier retained

Ministry of Defence


Sport England

7.10 No comment.


Police Architectural Liaison


Southend Education Trust


Shoebury Society


Shoeburyness Resident’s Association


Shoebury Archives


Public Consultation

7.16 Fifteen site notices posted around the site to cover each entry point and areas affected by the application. Two letters of objection have been received stating:

Objection to the proposed tennis courts due to the access to the courts and parking [Officer Comment: The tennis courts are existing and public car parking is available].

Mess Road is a private road and therefore cannot be used by those wishing to use the tennis courts [Officer Comment: Mess Road is a private road and management responsibilities therefore lie with Shoebury Garrison Management Company and/or frontages of the road; any issues relating to parking in this road would need to be addressed by the owners who have the authority to introduce traffic management measures (subject to planning permission for any gate and avoiding any interruption to the adopted cycle route); only the cycleway on the north side of Mess Road carriageway is dedicated to the Council and therefore the remainder of the carriageway is beyond SBC control].

The key point to outline is that the tennis court area is to be excluded from excavation due to is significant archaeological importance [Officer Comment: To avoid any detrimental effect on archaeological remains all works within the tennis court area will be carried out in accordance with the ‘Written Scheme of Investigation’ carried out by Ramboll August 2013 (archaeological method statement) submitted, which is considered acceptable by English Heritage, the Council’s Design and Conservation officer and the curator of Southend Museum].


The current tennis courts are entirely unsuitable and the development may also destroy or prevent archaeological investigation [Officer Comment: See above].

The MUGA has been relocated and placed more suitably adjacent to Barge Pier Road. This offers excellent parking facilities and access for user from the wider Shoebury Thorpe Bay residential area. The redevelopment of the tennis courts has significant issues related to its position in the conservation area, impact relating to wildlife and parking [Officer Comment: The tennis courts are existing albeit overgrown, an ecological report accompanies this application stating the proposal will have no adverse impact on ecology together with a ‘Written Scheme of Investigation’ carried out by Ramboll August 2013. No objection has been raised by English Heritage or Essex Wildlife Trust in terms of the impact on the conservation area or the archaeological remains. Furthermore, the Council’s highway officer has raised no objection given the number of public car parking spaces available at the Garrison].

The proposal breaches covenants that are in place to protect this conservation area [Officer Comment: Covenants are not a material planning consideration].

The refurbishment of the tennis courts may cause irrevocable damage to any area of such archaeological scientific and historic significance [Officer Comment: No objections have been raised by English Heritage, the Council’s Design and Conservation officer or the curator of Southend Museum].

There are safety issues associated with increasing traffic through Mess Road due to the increased use of the tennis courts. Mess Road is a private and unadopted road and the use is covered by the Highways Act 1980 [Officer Comment: Mess Road is a private road and management responsibilities therefore lie with Shoebury Garrison Management Company; any issues relating to parking in this road would need to be addressed by the owners who have the authority to introduce traffic management measures (subject to planning permission and avoiding any interruption to the adopted cycle route); only the cycleway on the north side of Mess Road carriageway is dedicated to the Council and therefore the remainder of the carriageway is beyond SBC control].

The area surrounding the tennis courts forms part of a significant area designated by the Wildlife Trust and further development will have a detrimental impact on the wild life environment [Officer Comment: An Ecological Report accompanies this application which confirms the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the wildlife. Furthermore Essex Wildlife Trust have raised no objection].


The tennis courts would be better positioned in an area where access and use is maximised and would benefit from the Barge Pier Road area. This would reduce the impact losing a unique archaeological site and ensure road safety concerns are met [Officer Comment: Improvements are proposed to the SAM site by relocating the proposed MUGA and restoring a large part of the area (excluding the existing hard tennis courts) to grass; no objection has been raised by English Heritage, Essex Wildlife Trust or the Council’s Highway Officer in relation to the refurbishment of the existing tennis courts].

One letter of support has been received stating that the proposal should be supported in light of the Olympic legacy.

8 Relevant Planning History

8.1 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 (Outline)- Granted (00/00777/OUT)

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate authority to Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control to APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS subject to the expiry of the publicity period and the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans S01; P106D; P101 E; P102 D; P105 H; P103 F; P104 F; 1249/C01; P1016 D; P107; 779/FC/GA/11 Revision B; 779/FC/GA/01 Revision F.


02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the supporting statement February 2014 Revision E.



03 The refurbishment of the two tennis courts shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Written Scheme of Investigation’ carried out by Ramboll August 2013, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid damage to archaeological remains on site as set out in National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C1, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

04 The trees identified for removal shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Schedule BS5837 (2012) submitted on the 06.02.2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remainder of the trees shall be protected.

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.

05 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Ecological Report 230817-ED-01 by Tim Moya Associates, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.


06 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in in accordance with the ‘Method Statement’ for the assessment and verification of potentially contaminated land associated with the development of New Gunners Park recreational areas carried out by WSP 31.01.2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 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 National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and Policy U2 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan 1994.


07 The car parking spaces and cycle spaces shall be provided in accordance with plan no. 1249 P106 Revision D, prior to the first use of the community facilities hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off street car parking, turning provision and cycle provision is provided for the existing and new community facilities in the interests of residential amenity and highway efficiency and safety in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP3, policies T8 and T11 of the Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide.

08 Fencing around the existing grassed tennis courts to be removed and area to be returned to grass under the supervision of Essex Wildlife Trust, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.


The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers.


APPENDIX 2

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Development Control Committee 5th March 2014

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Agenda Item 6a – Pre-Meeting Site Visits

Page 3 Shoebury Garrison, Shoeburyness13/01743/RESM

4. Appraisal

Please note amended drawings and an amended statement has been received including the following minor revisions:

Midi pipe for skating constructed from concrete rather than steel to address noise concerns.

Clarification that all existing equipment within the children’s play area has been installed by the Council not the Developer to date.

Correction to show that the children’s play area has two entrances and two anti-dog grids are to be installed with associated equipment.

Clarification that footpaths within the vicinity of the West Car Park are to be hard surfaced.

In light of the above, please refer to the conditions amended under the recommendation below.

Design and impact on the character of the area

4.5 Children’s Play Area

The play equipment already installed has been carried out by the Council. It should be noted that there are two entrances, none of which yet have anti-dog grids.

4.7 MUGA

The ‘midi pipe’ for skating was previously shown as steel – it will now be constructed from concrete to minimize noise.

The existing area of concrete to be utilised for the MUGA and Wheeled Sports facility is approximately 110m x 19m; however, only half this area will be used for the facility with the remaining eastern end will be restored to grass.

4.10 Traffic and Transportation

To be read in conjunction with the traffic and transportation section detailed on page 9 of the main agenda.


Only the location of the West Car Park was agreed as part of the outline planning permission. The only details were included within the original specification for New Gunners Park (included in Annexure 10 of the S.106 agreement), which stated that the car park would utilise an existing area of hard surface (between New Barge Pier Road and Gunners Rise) and that all other existing hard surface areas outside the route of the new footpaths would be broken up and restored to grass. Therefore, the eastern end of the car park surface (proposed to be removed, approximately 10m x 60m) was not originally intended to be used for car parking. Officers and C&M have given consideration to what is deemed to be the most suitable layout taking a number of factors into account:

- Creation of a buffer between residential properties and car park- Preventing anti-social driving (a circular layout could encourage misuse by

“boy-racers”)- Increasing green space (wildlife and drainage benefits)- Maximising number of car parking spaces whilst retaining sufficient

circulation space

It has never been intended for coaches visiting the Heritage Centre to use the West Car Park as adequate parking provision has been made at the Heritage Centre site on Warrior Square Road. DCC 14 November 2012 approved Heritage Centre application (12/01225/FUL) including 21 car parking spaces, 4 disabled bays and a coach/bus space. Access to the Heritage Centre is to be via adopted roads - Ness Road, New Barge Pier Road, Magazine Road, and Warrior Square Road – and this is to be managed by signs and Heritage Centre management (a Travel Plan has been approved under Condition 6 of the planning permission, which addresses this matter).

7. Representation Summary

7.3 ParksAdditional comments:

Location of Park facilities are the most suitable locations. Refurbishment of the tennis courts is a valuable recreational facility and

will be managed similar to other tennis courts in the borough and free to be used by the general public.

Toddlers play area equipment is acceptable and shall be installed in line with EN1176.

The additional play equipment will need to be agreed for the children’s play area and will continue to be managed in line with current standards.

MUGA and wheeled sports area acceptable - details of construction to be agreed with the Parks team.

Both facilities will be managed in the same manner as other Council MUGAs and wheeled sports facilities within the borough. The facilities will be free to use.

The facilities do not have floodlighting the usage will be affected by daylight hours.


7.5 English HeritageThe impact of the development on the visual character of the scheduled monument would be largely neutral, whilst the harm which might be caused to buried archaeological remains this can be mitigated against by a scheme of archaeological investigation.

English Heritage (EH) considers that, the development has the potential to enhance and reveal the significance of the designated heritage assets. The removal of the western set of tennis courts and return this area to grass would make a positive contribution to the significance of the monument. The impact of the refurbishment of the tennis courts to the east will be neutral. Scheduled monument consent will also be required for the proposed works.

Specifically, in relation to EWT’s concerns about removing the established scrub within the soft tennis court area, EH have stated:

“Under the original proposals for the S106 agreement the scrub would have been completely removed for new multi-sports courts. It is difficult for us to comment in detail at this late stage since no evidence for the overriding importance of the scrub had previously been flagged to us, nor is it clear what would be sustainable as a compromise management regime in terms of area and density to meet both habitat objectives without further information and dialogue. Whilst it is clearly for your council to weigh the relative impacts in line with the National Planning Policy Framework when determining the application, English Heritage would certainly be willing to participate in further discussions with all parties to consider how both monument and habitat management objectives can best be achieved in line with their relative significance.”

7.6 Environment AgencyNo objections on flood risk grounds.

A septic tank would be suitable form of foul drainage for the site if connection to mains in unfeasible.

7.7 Natural EnglandNo objections to the statutory nature conservation sites subject to the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. The local authority should have sufficient information on the local sites (wildlife related) and protected species to make an informed decision. [Officer Comment: An Ecological Report carried out by Tim Moya Associates clearly demonstrates the proposal will not have any adverse impact on the natural wildlife and includes recommendations for securing measures to enhance the biodiversity].

7.10 Sport EnglandNo objections, the proposals offer potential to meet the Sport England’s planning policy objective and fully support the proposals.

The tennis courts that are currently a redundant facility would be brought back into use to modern standards. The MUGA and wheeled facility will provide new informal sports facilities for younger people.


7.14 Shoeburyness Resident’s AssociationNo comments received.

7.16 Public Consultation

Site notices were posted 11/02/2014 at the following locations:

Junction of Rampart Street/Hospital Road Junction of Mess Road/Chapel Road Lamppost opposite Dane’s Avenue outside Officers Mess Hard Tennis Court gates South end of Mess Road On coastal path adjacent to Heavy Quick Firing Battery, and between Barge

Pier and Gog’s Berth Entrance to coastal path by Coast Guards Station Junction of New Barge Pier Road/Ness Road Fence at MUGA site Entrance to West Car Park Pedestrian crossing in front of Hinguar School Two on lampposts on Gunners Rise overlooking proposed MUGA site

20 additional letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposal since publication of the agenda:

The proposals are not at all in keeping with the area [Officer Comment: The outline masterplan always included the provision for recreational facilities as applied for].

Young people don’t want to deal with youths hanging round but be able to walk and cycle around the tranquil environment.

The sports facilities could be very noisy, as music is played, drug taking and committing crimes. Young people’s views should be considered.

A number of the site notices have been removed. Whilst the Council has advised that it is too expensive to notify neighbours the lampposts do not best serve the purpose of the notice. The notices would only be seen by dog walkers. [Officer Comment: 15 site notices were posted around the Garrison at key locations, together with a press notice published in the local free newspaper, in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement and national legislation]

An extended search of planning in September 2013 did not reveal any plans/outline plans for this skate park in the area that is now being considered.

Additional information has been added on the 17/02/14 meaning anyone who has reviewed the information will not have full facts [Officer Comment: The additional information submitted is supporting information in the form of images and further clarification – also see 4. above].

The planning office advices residents they cannot have anything other than wooden frame windows, this is due to streetscene [Officer Comment: This is not relevant to this application].

This is a nature reserve used for dog walkers, young people, families, animals and birds.


The car park is already altered due to anti-social behaviour. The level of reported crime for the existing nature reserve and secure car

park has been nil over the last 12 months. In comparison Shoebury Park which has a sport and social area has had 19 incidents, and 21 incidents have been reported at the Leigh on Sea (specifically the skate park), multi sports area in Rayleigh 12 incidents as seen on the police website for Essex.

The Council will increase the workload for the police to an area that does not have any reported crime.

The is an area of outstanding natural beauty, the original plans for this same development was to complement the tennis courts and C&M’s Managing Directors stated “the best place for it”.

SBC have pursued this location of the MUGA rather than C&M, who would rather place this out of view of houses and away from the nature reserve.

The proposals for children’s areas will be located next to a busy road Safety of children in the area, as the lake is not fenced nor has proper

equipment. The original site for the MUGA near to the tennis courts does not have

such an impact on the natural wildlife, or has any road issues [Officer Comment: English Heritage raised an objection to the original siting of the MUGA adjacent to the existing tennis courts as the location would harm the Scheduled Ancient Monument; EWT and Natural England have not raised any objections to the proposed location, which is on an existing area of hardstanding]

The Council in this revision have not considered the impact on other roads in the Garrison in particular Mess Road, which is highly utilised by the Garrison.

If the tennis courts are developed as a public leisure facility in this area, the Council must take responsibility of a narrow road with an inadequate cycle path which causes cyclists in path of on-going traffic. The tennis courts will exacerbate traffic and Mess Road is a private road. Inappropriate as public courts [Officer Comment: It has always been envisaged pursuant to the outline planning permission that the residential development will be located alongside a public park area with public recreational facilities to create a sustainable community]

The skate park will result in a target for graffiti as demonstrated by Leigh on Sea Skate Park.

Proposals do not take into account safety and security of the proposed facilities. Council must be aware of residents in the Garrison that have suffered acts of vandalism, arson.

Traffic calming and management should be proposed together with an entrance gate to Mess Road if the proposal is appropriate.

The proposal is contrary to policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy. Areas of swamp and flooding have appeared since the housing has been

developed and this should be addressed by the Developer C&M. The priority should be to enhance the natural environment and not blight

it with unsightly skate parks and wheel play areas that will be subject to graffiti and vandalism.


There is no coherent traffic management plan for the whole site. The tennis courts are remote from the car park. The proposals fail to explain how this will be controlled to conserve the character of the area.

The tennis courts should be located where the MUGA is [Officer Comment: The location of the tennis courts is existing].

An area is not supervised and will only attract youths that will create a no go area.

The area should have more trees than concrete. There is sufficient play space and parks in the vicinity The tennis courts should be managed including opening hours, whether

they will be locked. Health and safety survey needs to be carried out by the highways

department in relation to extra traffic at the Garrison. The gym at horseshoe parade is only allowed to be open to residents

only and therefore the same should apply to these tennis courts. Noise and disturbance.

A petition has been received with 167 names objecting to the ‘Wheeled sports and multi use game area’ for the following reasons:

It will spoil the tranquillity of the Essex Wildlife Trust area known for its beauty and rare animals attracting many birdwatchers from around the world.

The site is known for its historic links with regards to two Great Wars and earlier-this development would only contribute to the demise of the fact and is not in keeping with the listed buildings on this site.

Similar skate parks are blighted by graffiti, noise, smoking, drinking and worse.

The summaries of the objectors on the petition ranged from not having it at all, use the funds for Shoebury Park or East Beach, use the money for maintaining the wildlife area and develop the cricket club

7.18 Councillor Assenheim has requested this application be dealt with by Development Control Committee.

Additional Consultee Responses:

7.19 British Tennis LTA

The refurbishment of outdoor tennis courts will strengthen the Council’s ability to provide tennis to the local community. The refurbishment of facilities will notably increase the community’s capacity and amount of playing time available throughout the year. These additional playing hours would ideally be used to increase the number of local juniors and adults able to participate, enjoy and experience the game of tennis in line with British Tennis objectives.

7.20 Garrison Resident’s Association (GRA)

The GRA have supported the Heritage Centre location from the outset but we have always expressed our concerns at the failure within the Council to recognise resident’s concern at the omission of effective measures fundamental to their future enjoyment of their home.


Traffic management There is a necessity for a sustainable travel plan which considers and

responds to the needs of residents at an equal measure. Warrior Square Road is unadopted and SBC have yet to provide

detailed information in support of how things will reduce the burden on private roads.

Route 1 presumes vehicles will be directed from Ness Road via Barge Pier Road, Magazine Road to join the adopted section of Warrior Square Road [Officer Comment: This has been agreed under application 12/01225/FUL for the Shoebury Heritage Centre and directional signs will be installed by the Council to direct visitors accordingly].

It is likely visitors will take route 2 via any east or north access roads from the A127 going via unadopted roads [Details of the Heritage Centre have been agreed and are not part of this application].

The Council have still not reconciled with adopting roads but state that they are unsuitable for adoption status of principal garrison roads.

Public access: no other site supervision is indicated within the documentation and it is not clear who will be operating the facility what functions will be taken Heritage Centre [Officer Comment: Heritage Centre Board (including SBC, EWT, SET, Shoebury Society and involvement from Shoeburyness Archives) will be operating the facility].

Potential with criminal activity or unsuitable behaviour will further increase vulnerability of the Heritage Centre and possible volume of local disturbance.

Alterations to the West Car Park already cause problems and the creation of two sections is likely to cause congestion and frustration. The previous format should be reverted to and traffic calming measures installed.

Heritage centre should only be accessible during the opening hours same as East Beach.

The GRA should be deferred in light of the unanswered questions.

7.21 SMAARTThere are currently issues of anti-social behaviour in respect of congregations in and around the car park of Barge Pier Road that have been reported to both SBC and Essex Police. A request for mobile CCTV deployment was made last year to assist with identifying perpetrators.

Support the need for such facilities they are located in close vicinity of residential homes on the Garrison and believe that there will be an increase in reports of anti-social behaviour and an expectation for this to be addressed. If the facilities are to progress, a CCTV linked directly to SBC CCTV Control Room would be required, assisting in reducing residents perceptions and reality of anti-social behaviour occurring.

7.22 Shoeburyness East Locality and Extended Schools Consortium Fully support the proposal for the young people within the community that will benefit from the proposal. The Wheeled Sports and Multi Use Games Area will greatly improve lives in Shoeburyness.


7.23 Neighbour Police Inspector, Essex, PoliceFrom time to time, Southend Police do have a number of complaints of anti-social behaviour in respect of congregations in and around the car park of Barge Pier Road. In the main this has related to vehicular movements in and around the car park and not specifically the play area. However, when the gate is locked to vehicular traffic there have been incidents where motor cycles have entered over scrub land and annoyed residents.

We fully support the need for children and youth facilities but I am conscious of the close vicinity to residential homes and fully suspect that it may increase the reports of anti-social behaviour which will impact on Police and SBC services.

CCTV is recommended which is linked directly to the SBC CCTV Control Room as this will protect children from harm, increase public safety and help reduce crime, disorder and Public nuisance – it will equally provide residents with a degree of reassurance.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate authority to Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control & Building Control to APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS subject to the expiry of the publicity period, resolution of matters relating to biodiversity and historic interest in the area of the existing grass tennis courts (as outlined under 14/00153/DOV) and the following conditions:

Amended/additional conditions (all other conditions to remain as written in main report):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans S01; P106E; P101 F; P102 E; P105 K; P103 F; P104 F; P107; 779/FC/GA/07 Revision F; 779/FC/GA/01 Revision G; 779/FC/GA/11 Revision B; 230213-P-10- 01 and 02; 1249/CO1.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the supporting statement February 2014 Revision F.

7. The car parking spaces and cycle spaces shall be provided in accordance with plan no. 1249 P106 Revision E, prior to the first use of the community facilities hereby approved.

9. Detailed drawings of Multi Use Games Area and Wheeled Sports Facility (including details of fencing, drainage, sections to show landscaping levels) to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of work on this facility. The facility shall thereafter be constructed and permanently retained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.


Reference: 14/00038/BC4M

Ward: Kursaal

Proposal: Extend existing Sea Life Centre to east, alter all elevations, lay out outdoor enclosures and children's play area

Address: Sea Life Adventure Centre, Eastern Esplanade, Southend-On-Sea

Applicant: Mr M Miller

Agent: SK Architects

Consultation Expiry: 7 April 2014

Expiry Date: 15 May 2014

Case Officer: Phillip McIntosh

Plan Nos:162 P01 REV B, 162 P03 REV B, 162 P04 REV B, 162 P06 REV B,162 P08 REV B

Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION


This application was deferred at the April meeting of the Development Control Committee in order amendments were sought in respect of the scale and appearance of the proposal.

Amended plans have been received and are discussed in section 1 and section 4 below.

1 The Proposal

1.1 This application seeks planning permission to erect an eastern extension to the existing sea life centre and create an outdoor enclosure. The proposal no longer seeks to re-clad the original building.

1.2 The extension would be 42m long, 32m wide and a maximum height of 6.4m at its western end (although the majority of the extension would be approx. 5m high). The extension would be sited on land formerly used for miniature golf but is currently an open grassed area. It will consist of an enclosed building to the north which will house a number of attractions including an additional fish tank, crocodile enclosure and meerkat enclosure. The remaining part of the extension although enclosed externally will not be roofed and includes a seal pool, penguin pool, seating area, external children’s play area and space for exhibitions. The existing building will be tidied up, and the materials used on the new extension will reflect the existing.

1.3 The proposal seeks to enhance the tourism offer of Southend by providing improved attractions and a strong focal point at the eastern end of the seafront. It is the aspiration of the applicant that the extension will result in approximately 30% increase in customers which are currently around 150,000 per annum.

1.4 The applicant advises that the extension will result in an additional 20 full-time equivalent jobs (FTEs). It is proposed that the hours of operation will be from 9am-9pm Monday to Sunday, including bank holidays. The site is open all year round except Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

1.5 It is not proposed to provide any additional on-site parking.

2 Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site consists of approximately 0.3ha of land which sits between the Fairheads Green public car park and miniature golf complex to the east. This piece of land lies between Eastern Esplanade to the north and the promenade to the south consisting of the existing sea life centre and grassed area formerly used for miniature golf. The land rises up from Eastern Esplanade to the promenade with a maximum difference in levels across the site of approximately 2m.


2.2 To the north on the opposite side of Eastern Esplanade are mixed use properties which are commercial at ground floor level and predominantly residential on the upper floors. Beyond this to the east is a row of listed and locally listed fisherman’s cottages and fall within the Eastern Esplanade conservation area. To the west is the Kursaal which is a listed building and forms part of the Kursaal conservation area. Beyond this are further recreational and leisure facilities of the ‘Golden Mile’.

2.3 There is some informal parking to the east of the existing sealife centre, although this land is designated as public maintainable highway. A public car exists immediately to the west of the sealife centre and pay and display on street parking is available within Eastern Esplanade. A bus stop is also located on either side of the road outside the sealife centre.

2.4 The site is located within the Central Seafront area, as identified on the Local Plan, and in flood zone 3 (high risk). Immediately to the south of the sea life centre is the promenade and seawall. Beyond this lies the beach and inter-tidal zone of the Thames estuary which sits within the Benfleet Marshes SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site.


3.1 The main considerations in the determination of this application are the principle of development, design and impact on the character of the area including listed and locally listed buildings, ecology, flood risk, traffic and transport implications, impact on residential amenity and sustainability.

4 Appraisal

Principle of Development

NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1, KP2, CP3 and CP4 Borough Local Plan C11, C16, L1, L2, T8 and T11.

4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) promotes the delivery of sustainable development and advises there are 3 dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. These 3 roles seek to deliver new development which will build a strong responsive and competitive economy; strong, vibrant and healthy communities and contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. The NPPF calls for the planning system to ensuring land is available in the right places to support growth and innovation.


4.2 Policy KP1 (Spatial Strategy) recognises that appropriate regeneration and growth will be focussed in a number of areas including the seafront. New development should; “enhance the Seafront’s role as a successful leisure and tourist attraction and place to live, and make the best use of the River Thames, subject to the safeguarding of the biodiversity importance of the foreshore and ensuring that European and international sites for nature conservation are not adversely affected by any new development.” Policy KP2 requires new development to meet the strategic objectives of the Core Strategy which include; “SO4 – Secure sustainable regeneration and growth focused on the urban area, SO14 – Deliver high quality, well designed and attractive urban and natural environments which are safe, people friendly and distinctive, and which respect and enhance existing character and local amenity.” Policy CP4 requires new development; “to contribute to the creation of a high quality, sustainable urban environment by promoting sustainable development of the highest quality and encouraging innovation and excellence in design to create places of distinction and a sense of place, safeguarding, protecting and enhancing nature and conservation sites of international, national and local importance and protecting natural resources from inappropriate development.”

4.3 Policy L1 of the Local Plan support proposals for new tourist and visitor facilities, particularly where they create jobs and result in environmental improvements. Policy L2 states the Council will promote new leisure facilities within the Central Seafront Area, and that proposals south of the seafront road will be considered where, amongst other things, they have regard to sites of nature conservation, wider foreshore views and public parking. Policy C11 requires new extensions to respect the scale and character of surrounding development and should enhance public pedestrian areas and open spaces. Policy C16 is concerned with the protection of foreshore views. This policy limits development south of the seafront road outside the Central Seafront Area, but not within it. The application site is located within the Central Seafront Area and therefore, the restrictions set out in Policy C16 do not apply in this case.

4.4 There is also emerging policy in the form of an area action plan for the town centre and central seafront. The ambition is for this area to be a prosperous and thriving regional centre. Some of the key objectives for the SCAAP are;

“To improve and transform the economic vitality, viability and diversity of Southend Town Centre by encouraging the establishment of a wider range of homes, businesses and shops whilst providing new opportunities for culture, recreation and leisure”; “To always have regard to the significant biodiversity assets and environmental quality of the Central Area, help meet obligations on carbon emissions and adopt an approach to climate change through measures that mitigate against, or adapt to change, including managing flood risk and water efficiency.” and;


“To encourage the establishment and expansion of all businesses in the Town Centre by identifying, promoting or by actively bringing forward suitable sites for development to meet modern user and investor requirements.”

Policy DS6 seeks to support proposals which will enhance leisure and recreational facilities.

4.5 The proposal has the potential to attract visitors to the sea front out of season and has the potential to benefit other, nearby business through linked visitor trips through increased seasonality. Particularly when considered in context with other current proposals such as the lagoon (13/01411/BC4M) and additional attractions such as the indoor rides pavilion at Adventure Island (14/00069/BC4M).

4.6 The benefits in terms of improving the seafront as an area for leisure, recreation and the tourism economy must be balanced against any potential impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity, in particular, the international importance of Benfleet and Southend Marshes for migratory birds and issues regarding potential flood risk. Subject to no significant impacts being identified or any impacts being satisfactorily mitigated, the principle of the development is considered acceptable. Other material considerations are discussed below.

Ecology and Biodiversity

NPPF, Policies KP1, KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy

4.7 The NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

“if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.”


4.8 The area is in close proximity to the Southend and Benfleet Marshes SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The SPA and SSSI are afforded protection through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Ramsar sites are afforded the same level of protection through the NPPF. The Southend and Benfleet Marshes SPA and SSSI qualifies under the Council of the European Communities Birds Directive (79/409/ECC) by supporting populations of European importance of migratory species. The area regularly supports at least 20,000 waterfowl and over winter regularly supports approximately 35,000 individual waterfowl. The directive recognises that habitat loss and degradation are the most serious threats to the conservation of wild birds. It therefore places great emphasis on the protection of habitats for endangered as well as migratory species, especially through the establishment of a coherent network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) comprising all the most suitable territories for these species. Since 1994 all SPAs form an integral part of the NATURA 2000 ecological network (EUwide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive). The site also qualifies as a Ramsar site for assemblages of international importance and species populations of occurring at levels of international importance.

4.9 The Council, as the competent authority (CA) has particular duties in making the planning decision with respect to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The proposal does not relate to a project directly connected to site management therefore, the development must be screened for whether the project is likely to have a significant effect, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, on the qualifying features for which the SPA and Ramsar site are designated. Natural England (NE) have been consulted and advised that the development proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site and can therefore, be screened out from any requirement for further assessment. No objection is therefore, raised with regard to the impact on the internationally and nationally designated sites.

4.10 With regard to local biodiversity the site was formerly used as part of the adjacent miniature golf complex and consists of an area of open grass and hedge along the northern and western boundaries. The hedge has the potential to containing nesting birds. All wild birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They cannot be killed or taken except under licence. Nesting season is typically from 1st March to 31st July and therefore, it is recommended that an informative is added advising the applicant of their duty under this legislation. Other than this issue, the site is not considered to have any significant habitat value on a local scale. Furthermore, it is not considered there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present on the site particularly given the exposed nature of the site and location in the heart of the central seafront.


Design and Impact on the Character of the Area

NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policies C2, C4 and C11 and SPD1.

4.11 The NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people and reinforce local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by development plan policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and policy C11 of the Local Plan. Policies C2 and C4 of the Local Plan are concerned with impacts on the historic environment and heritage assets, ensuring new development is not detrimental to the historic or special character of such assets.

4.12 The character of the area varies within this part of Eastern Esplanade. On the corner of Southchurch Avenue and Eastern esplanade is the Grade II listed Kursaal building. With its striking dome this building forms a strong focal point for the gateway to the seafront. The buildings further to the east along Eastern esplanade are an eclectic mix of 1, 2 and 3 storey buildings many of which are in need of modernisation. These are typically commercial in character featuring amusements, cafes/restaurants and various retail outlets at ground floor with residential accommodation above. To the south of these buildings is a public car park. The sealife centre itself is a prominent building on the southern side of the esplanade with 3 distinctive pitched roofs facing the road (maximum height 11.5m) which provide an immediate presence and identification of the building within the public realm. The built form of the existing sealife centre is split into 2 components on the northern and southern side of the site. These elements are effectively ‘mirrored’ either side of an open central corridor (due to an underground gas main) running through the centre of the site. At ground floor level the façade consists of a painted brick wall on the northern side and an extensive level of glazing facing the promenade and estuary on the southern side. The building appears dated and is in need of refurbishment and revitalisation. Further to the east beyond the sealife centre is the existing miniature golf course on the southern side of the esplanade road and the promenade stretching along the seafront. On the northern side is a row of listed and locally listed former fisherman’s cottages which date from the early to mid C19. These cottages also form the Eastern Esplanade Conservation Area. The cottages are on the whole unaltered apart from some minor cosmetic changes to the exterior.

4.13 The proposed extension will project some 42m to the east of the existing access onto Eastern Esplanade. This existing vehicular access will be retained for parking although is proposed to be gated and provide a break between the extension and existing building. The extension will have a pitched roof at the west end and a flat roof for the remainder. It will be set back slightly (up to 0.5m) from the existing building line along the road frontage and be sited adjacent to the edge of the promenade. There will be no openings at street level or along the promenade, however a number of porthole-style features would break up the facade.


The applicant has advised that the ability to provide openings within the fabric of the building is limited on the advice of marine and veterinary consultants. Materials would complement those on the main building.

4.14 It is acknowledged that within the street scene on the northern side of Eastern Esplanade there is a row of 6 listed and 12 locally listed dwellings which form part of the Eastern Esplanade Conservation Area. The conservation area stretches from the first property on the eastern side of Burdett Road to the last cottage (no.57). The fisherman’s cottages remain largely unaltered and reflect the historical significance of former industry within the town. The proposed extension will not extend as far east as these cottages. Whilst some views of the conservation area will be lost from the promenade when approaching from the west, the first 5 properties within the conservation area have been assessed (conservation area appraisal 2006) as having a neutral or negative impact on the character of the area. However, views of the fisherman’s cottages will still be available once passing the miniature golf course kiosk and will remain when approaching from the east by foot or vehicle. The street scene of Eastern Esplanade opens up to the south once passing the existing sea life centre, although views of the estuary are not available from the footpath due to the level of the land rising up to the promenade and sea wall. Whilst the extension will result in the built form being positioned on the back edge of footpath, thus enclosing the street, it will not be as tall as the buildings opposite.

4.15 The separation distance between the existing buildings on the northern side of the esplanade and the proposed extension will be approximately 22m. Given this separation, it is not considered the extension would be harmful to the character of the area. Furthermore, as the proposed extension would not project as far eastwards as the listed and locally listed buildings within the conservation area, on balance, it is not considered it will harm their setting or the character of the conservation area.

4.16 It is considered whilst significantly increasing the horizontal form of the existing building the setting within the openness of the seafront allows for a larger building to be accommodated in this location, without materially impacting upon nearby local heritage assets. The amended scheme is simple and results in far less bulk than the previously proposed scheme. The proposal is considered to comply with above policies.

Traffic and Highways Issues

NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies CP3; BLP policies T8, T11, T12 and T13; EPOA Parking Standards 2001


4.17 The NPPF states that; “all developments should take into account whether the opportunities for sustainable transport models have been taken up to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure, safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved by all people and improvements can be undertaken in the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the developments are severe.”

4.18 Policy CP3 states; “improvements to transport infrastructure and services will be sought in partnership to secure a 'step change' in provision to achieve a modern integrated transport system necessary to unlock key development sites and to secure the sustainable jobs led regeneration and growth of Southend.”

4.19 The existing site currently uses as an area of hard standing at the eastern end of the building as an informal area for parking and as a servicing area. This area of land is currently designated as public highway and will require a stopping up order which is separate to this application. This area currently allows for parking of approximately 12 cars. It is proposed this will be reduced to 4 car parking spaces. With respect to customer parking, they will rely on public car parking in the locality which is current situation for existing customers. In particular, the Fairheads Green car park (213 spaces) which is immediately to the west of the site and pay and display on street parking in Eastern Esplanade. The proposal would result in 20 additional jobs being created. Furthermore, it is the aspiration of the applicant that the extension will result in approximately 30% increase in customers which are currently around 150,000 per annum. The vast majority of visitors comprise of families therefore, it would not result in a pro-rata increase in trip generation. The aim of improving the offer of the sealife centre is to increase its seasonality in Autumn, Winter and Spring. The enlargement of the sealife centre will mean that the duration of stay for visitors will be longer. Servicing will take place either through the proposed car parking area or kerbside within the existing road network. The width of the road allows for a lorry to be parked adjacent to the kerb with vehicles still able to pass in both directions.

4.20 Policy T11 requires the provision of adequate parking and servicing facilities. The Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) have been adopted by the Council and set out the requirements for each use. The parking standards are expressed as maximum standards and require a maximum of 1 space per 22m2 of floorspace for leisure facilities. The additional floorspace proposed is 1,175m2 which would require a maximum of 53 parking spaces to be provided on site.


4.21 The applicant has submitted a transport statement and contends that additional parking is not required as the sealife centre is visited as part of linked trips to other attractions along the seafront and is not a destination in its own right. It states that Southend, as a tourist destination, is at its busiest on sunny days at weekends and during school holidays when traffic generation is already at its peak. In this context, the sealife centre is an all-weather attraction but its busiest periods are during inclement weather in the summer (i.e. when visitors are already in the town). Therefore, given the aim is to provide an attraction which will seek to increase visitors during early Spring, late Autumn and winter months (i.e. outside the busiest periods of the year), the applicant’s position is that there is capacity to cater for additional traffic generation during these periods. The applicant also considers the increase in visitor numbers will be drawn from local residents and the existing 6.5 million annual visitors to the town. Therefore, in essence, these are mainly linked trips. Attempts have been made by the applicant to use the industry standard database (TRICS) to assess the potential number of additional trips the extended sea life centre could attract. However, the applicant advises there are very few comparable sites and a significant number of variables in the information that is available to allow for a sound quantitative comparison to be made. Therefore, the applicant has relied upon a qualitative assessment.

4.22 The transport statement advises there is a number of pay & display public car parks within a 10 minute walk of the site. This includes Fairheads Green (213 spaces, 1 minute walk), The Royals (450 spaces, 10 min walk), Seaways (615 spaces, 6 min walk) and there is also on street parking available in Eastern Esplanade. With respect to Seaways, there are aspirations for redevelopment of this site although no planning application has been submitted at this point. Nevertheless, it is identified in the SCAAP (consultation draft proposed submission document) that any redevelopment of Seaways will still include public parking of approximately 450 spaces. It is understood that the seafront car parks tend to be fully occupied during the day at peak season/times and that town centre car parks average 55-60% occupancy at this time. This is thought to be, at least in part, due to variable message signs (VMS) primarily directing visitors to the seafront. Other potential development in the locality also includes the Marine Plaza site opposite the Kursaal which has previously had outline planning permission for a major redevelopment.

4.23 With regard to accessibility to public transport, the site is served by the number 9 bus route which stops directly outside the site for east bound and west bound services (runs every 12 minutes Mon-Sat and every 30 min Sun). There are also a number of other services within 500m of the site including routes 7, 8, 23A, 23B and 27. The Southend Travel Centre (bus interchange) is 1km from the site. Train stations within the town are 1.1km, (Southend East), 1.3km (Southend Central) and 1.8km (Southend respectively from the application site. There are also good cycleway and footpath connections to the site from the town centre and along the seafront. Cycle parking is also available immediately adjacent to the entrance to the sealife centre.


The application is supported by a Travel Plan which will be introduced in order to encourage a reduced number of trips by car and promote more sustainable modes of transport to access the site for visitors and staff. Information promoting public transport to the site is displayed on the sealife centre website and has been encouraged through initiatives such as promotions for free travel on c2c by buying Adventure Island wristbands from the station ticket offices (these can also be used for entry at the sealife centre).

4.24 The proposal will not provide any additional on-site parking and the parking that is currently provided will be reduced. The maximum additional on-site parking requirement is for 53 spaces and the existing sealife centre already relies on public car parks for its customers. It is regrettable that trip generation from comparable sites (TRICS) has not been deemed suitable to allow for a quantitative assessment and no data is available on trip generation for the existing sealife centre. Therefore, a qualitative assessment has been carried out within the Transport Statement. However, this assessment identifies that the site is well served by existing public car parks, public transport (particularly bus routes) and cycle/footpath links. The sealife centre will increase the tourist offer on inclement summer days and is intended to increase the seasonality by providing an improved attraction during early Spring, late Autumn and Winter months. The increase in visitors is expected to come from local residents and the existing pool of 6.5 million annual visitors, in essence, from linked trips. On the basis that the proposal is also to provide a Travel Plan, on balance, it is not considered the proposal will materially impact upon the free flow of traffic in the highway network subject to the provision of a Travel Plan being required by condition.

Flood Risk and Drainage

NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1, KP2.

4.25 The NPPF sets out advice to local authorities with respect to flood risk and states; “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Core Strategy policy KP2 is concerned with flood risk and water management. Development that increases the risk of flooding should be resisted. The site is located within Flood Zone 3(a) which is classed as having a high probability of flooding (i.e. greater than 1 in 200 year) from tidal sources. On this basis the applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment.

4.26 The NPPF requires the development to meet the requirements of the sequential test (i.e. development should not be located within a high risk zone if there is land subject to less risk available). The Core Strategy identifies the seafront as an area for regeneration and growth and its formation was supported by a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA). The SFRA indicates that the defence currently provides protection to the 1:1000 year standard. The crest of the defence in the vicinity of the site is approximately 5.3m AOD.


The SFRA also includes a simulation of the likely flood depth and flood hazard in the vicinity of the site following a breach or overtopping of the existing defences. This simulation was assessed at 3 breach locations (each 20m wide over 3 tidal cycles) in close proximity to the site. The depth of flooding at the site from a breach at any one of the three locations would be 0.5m in a 1 in 200 year event and 1.5m in a 1 in 1000 year event. The flood hazard following overtopping is ‘Low’ to ‘Moderate’ for the 1 in 200 year and ‘Extreme’ for the 1 in 1000 year event (inclusive of climate change).

4.27 As the proposal is to extend an existing leisure use, it is classified as a ‘Less Vulnerable’ use. Less Vulnerable uses are considered appropriate in flood zone 3(a) according the flood risk vulnerability and flood zone compatibility matrix within the NPPF technical guidance. Therefore, it is only necessary to apply the sequential test. In this instance it is considered reasonable to apply the sequential test to the central seafront area only. There is limited potential for re-development within the central area and the proposal relates to extending the existing sealife centre. Furthermore, the land to the east of the existing sea life centre is deliverable and available. There are no other reasonably available sites within the seafront area that could support the extension. The proposal is therefore considered to meet the requirements of the sequential test.

4.28 It is proposed to build in flood defence mechanisms to the design of the building. The building will be designed to withstand the loading of an external water level of 5.4m AOD. Demountable defences will provided for all external doors and openings and a demountable wall will be provided across the western ‘open’ side of the centre. Demountable defences are only as effective where there is adequate warning of an impending flood. Tidal surges can be forecast several days in advance as evidence by events in November 2007 and December 2013. In both cases sufficient warning was given to enable necessary evacuations. Flood repairable options could also be built into the development such as tile/stone flooring, plastic surfaced materials, non-return valves to be fitted to drains and water inlet/outlet pipes and raising electricity supply boxes, wall sockets 300mm-600mm above floor level.

4.29 The site falls within the EA’s ‘Floodline’ flood warning system. This service aims to provide a minimum 2 hour warning of an impending flood. It is recommended that the operator subscribes to this service as part of a flood emergency plan for the site. A flood emergency plan should also be prepared and implemented in the event of a flood and this can be imposed by condition. Subject to appropriate conditions it is therefore, considered the risks of tidal flooding can be satisfactorily mitigated.


4.30 With respect to surface water runoff, the proposed development will result in an increase in surface water run off without appropriate mitigation. The NPPF recommends that ‘post development’ run off rates should be restricted to those rates generated by the ‘pre-developed’ site, or less, for up to and including the 1:100 annual probability storm event and taking into account climate change. The FRA advises that based on local geology and the scale of the development the use of infiltration systems and soakaways would appear to be untenable in this location. It is therefore, recommended that a direct, attenuated, connection is made to an existing outfall as this will enable surface water runoff from the site to be discharged immediately to the River Thames before peak flows in the sewer system develop from the remainder of the catchment. The applicant has confirmed that an attenuation tank will be installed on site therefore, this is considered to be an acceptable solution to manage surface water drainage subject to Anglian Water approval. Impact on residential amenity

NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy CP4, Policy C11 Borough Local Plan

4.31 The proposal will extend further to the east which will be in front of properties on the northern side of Eastern Esplanade and be generally 5m high. The separation distance between the proposed extension and the front wall of the existing buildings is 22m. The majority of residential dwellings in this location immediately opposite the extension are flats therefore, they are located at first floor level or above. Given this separation distance, it is not considered the proposed extension would be overbearing or cause an unreasonable sense of enclosure. Furthermore, it is not considered the proposal would result in a material loss of light to these properties.

Sustainability

NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2

4.32 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy states; “All development proposals should demonstrate how they will maximise the use of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources” and that “at least 10% of the energy needs of a new development should come from on-site renewable options (and/or decentralised renewable or low carbon energy sources)”.

4.33 The provision of renewable energy resources should be considered at the earliest opportunity to ensure an intrinsic design in this instance. The applicant has indicated in the Planning, Design and Access Statement that photovoltaics can be provided on the flat roof. No calculations have been provided through an energy statement to demonstrate the number required to meet the 10% requirement however, given the scale of the roof, it is considered this is achievable. Therefore, it is reasonable to impose a condition requiring details to be agreed.


4.34

Ecology

NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2

A habitat regulations assessment has been carried out by the Council, as required by the Habitat Regulations 2010, in consultation with Natural England and the RSPB. It has been concluded that an Appropriate Assessment is not required as the proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on the conservation objectives of the designated sites.

Summary and Conclusion

4.35 The proposed development would improve the tourist/visitor offer on the seafront, particularly in early Spring, late Autumn and the Winter months and is acceptable in principle. The amended scheme would not detract from the character of the area or harm the setting of the nearby listed buildings and conservation area.

4.36 Whilst the extension will attract additional visitors (circa 30%) it is not considered this will result in a pro-rata increase in trip generation, particularly as the majority of visitors are families. Although no off street parking is proposed impacts on parking, subject to the implementation of a Travel Plan, would not be significant. The potential for flood risk can be managed through a flood emergency plan and flood defence measures for the building. Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with the NPPF and development plan policies.


5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Technical Guidance

Development Plan Document 1 Core Strategy (2007); Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility); CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance)

Borough Local Plan (1994); Policies C2 (Historic Buildings), C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C16 (Foreshore Views), L1 (Tourism), L2 (Central Seafront Area), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities) and T13 (Cycling and Walking)

SPD1 Design & Townscape Guide (2009)



6.1 Design and Regeneration

While the development would certainly have a visual impact an approach that also seeks to reinforce the leisure offer and ‘update’ existing buildings is encouraging. It is considered that an approach that sympathetically responds to the setting, and improves the appearance of the existing buildings could be achievable, although this will likely necessitate some enhancements to the design. Given the nature of the use, a contemporary approach to the design would seem appropriate, marking the eastern extent of the central seafront promenade, and not unnecessarily competing with the nearby heritage assets, although close attention to detail will be needed to ensure old integrates successfully with new (if a comprehensive redevelopment of the site is not to be progressed).

The plans seek to introduce a significant built form into the (enclosed) open space of the former miniature golf course, and create a longer and inactive street frontage onto Eastern Esplanade. While it would be desirable to see opportunity for visibility through the building exploited (or indeed a reduction in scale), there is scope to better articulate the building, particularly at ground floor to all elevations, to mitigate against the associated impacts of this at street level.

Interestingly, the design incorporates some ‘bubble’ style windows which it is considered should add interest and therefore could be further utilised, in a range of sizes, across all elevations to provide activity.

The design approach has sought to respond to the opportunity to enhance the existing buildings on the site, which are relatively ‘tired’, by wrapping a contemporary cladding around old and new. The principles behind this approach are understood, and although an alternative approach for example could be to provide a simple extension to the rear with a subservient link between the two buildings, this would not necessarily incorporate improvements to the existing buildings. Nonetheless, enhancements may be possible that provide a more sensitive approach to the extension of this building, considering the impact on the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings (and wider conservation area) addressing scale and massing (particularly through a reduction in the scale of cladding proposed), materials and colour, and successfully articulating ground floor frontages.

6.2 Environment Agency

No objection subject to a flood emergency plan being conditioned.


6.3 Natural England

No objection. The proposal is not likely to have significant effects on the conservation objectives of the designated sites. Recommended conditions;

1. No concrete-breaking, percussive pile-driving, or other particularly noisy demolition or construction activities are to be carried out during periods of freezing weather (ie when the ground or air temperature is at or below 0ºC, or the ground is snow covered).

Reason: In order to minimise the risk of disturbance to over-wintering wildfowl and waders using the nearby foreshore during periods when they are already subject to additional stress due to the weather conditions.

2. No security or other exterior lighting shall be illuminated, unless such lights are so arranged as to prevent any light spill onto the Benfleet and Southend Marshes SSSI, and to minimise direct glare when viewed from the foreshore.

Reason: To minimise the risk of disturbance to wintering birds whilst feeding on the SSSI, or of disorientation of birds whilst in flight.

6.4 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

No objection but would request due to the proximity of the development to the SPA a condition is imposed to prevent construction work taking place during the period October–March inclusive. [Officer comment: Natural England are the statutory consultee and they have recommended a condition regarding limiting certain construction work during periods of freezing weather only rather than a blanket exclusion on construction work for 5 months of the year]

6.5 Essex Wildlife Trust

No comments


6.6 Highways

Transport StatementA Transport Statement has now been provided for the Sealife Centre application, which includes more information compared to the initial TS that was supplied. No trip information to the site has been provided as the TS states the following: “There is insufficient TRICS data to enable a sound assessment to be undertaken of the potential number of trips that could be attracted to the proposed Sealife Adventure extension by this method; due to variations due to different site locations influencing travel modes, the age of the data, the days of the week surveyed, weather conditions on the day(s) surveyed and seasonality factors. A qualitative rather than quantitative approach has therefore been adopted.” Data from TRICS has been supplied and it is accepted this is not comparable. However some base line data is required as part of the Travel Plan. Monitoring of the site shall need to be undertaken and the results agreed with the Council. The monitoring shall need to be undertaken on the current site during the summer months to give a baseline, then after the new indoor fun park has been open after 3 months, then yearly for three years. If the visitor numbers increase during any of the monitoring periods by more than 25% compared to the baseline data then further evidence of the sites impacts on the highway network and the surrounding parking capacity shall need to be provided to the council.

Travel PlanOverall the Travel Plan submitted still needs to give more consideration to providing the relevant information. Organisations that are expanding need to provide information regarding their current business and then this can be used for the baseline data.

Both the transport statement and travel plan still lack factual information regarding the numbers of visitors to the centre, age of visitors, when they travel there, from where and by what mode. There is also no clear indication of how many additional visitors they may receive. This makes it very hard to comment on the Travel Plan.


7.1 Interests parties notified of amended scheme – no comments received at time of writing.


7.2 Original Scheme: Press notice, site notices posted and 41 neighbouring properties notified by letter. The public consultation period expires on 7 April therefore, any additional objections will be reported via the supplementary report. 14 representations have been received raising the following issues;

Obstruction/loss of views of the estuary and pier from the fisherman’s cottages

Increase in volume of traffic and impact on parking along the seafront due to scale of the extension. Parking is already inadequate for residents who pay annual parking fees.

Will result in further cruelty to animals (enclosures are too small and unnatural for animals in captivity)

Existing building is unattractive and this is worse in terms of its proposed appearance

Proposal is in complete contrast to the current neighbourhood of seafront cottages and small local businesses and will detract from the heritage of this important area

Proposal is a backward step in the context of the historical preservation of the area and is obtrusive to conservation area

Blueprint was designed to protect and enhance the last remaining part of the original fishing village of Southend which was backed by Cabinet. What happened to the policy of protecting the area?

Aspiration to extend the City Beach development would be preferable to this proposal

Loss of green space/grassy area of the site is used for leisure/recreation by locals and visitors and is one of the few non concreted areas remaining on the seafront

Noise impact from public announcements within the centre Concerns with construction and potential issues with the gas main

under the site The road immediately adjacent to the existing sea life centre on the

eastern side is classified as public highway Negative impact on the foreshore which is a SSSI Will block off a public thoroughfare which was put in place after a public

children’s playground was demolished for the existing sealife centre Issues with drainage last summer when existing systems could not

cope. Proposal will increase chances of a repeat of a similar event. Similar to a previous proposal which was rejected.

One (1) letter of support has been received stating a bigger and better sealife centre will attract more tourists particularly in the winter months. Will complement the City Beach scheme. Seafront Traders Association/BID considers the proposal is vital in improving the seafront.



8.1 2007 – Application withdrawn to erect two storey building with basement (2770sqm) comprising children’s play centre, restaurant and party rooms as extension to sea life centre; layout outdoor childrens play area (Sea Life Centre And Miniature Golf Course) (07/00719/FULM).

8.2 December 2009 – Planning permission granted to install new windows, door and erect fire escape staircase to first floor on North elevation; alter and install new windows and doors to South, East and West elevations; re-clad and install awnings to South elevation (09/01934/FUL).

8.3 April 2010 – Planning permission granted to replace existing metal cladding on north elevation with weatherboard cladding (10/00456/FUL).

9 Recommendation

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

1 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.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 162 P01 REV B, 162 P03 REV B, 162 P04 REV B, 162 P06 REV B,162 P08 REV B

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan.

3 No development shall take place until details of the materials 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 C4, C11 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.


4 Prior to first use of the development a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability, accessibility, highways efficiency and safety, residential amenity and general environmental quality in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, CP3 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policies T8 and T11

5 Prior to first use of the development a flood emergency plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the safety of customers and staff in the event of a flood in accordance with the NPPF and policy KP2 of the Core Strategy.

6 Prior to commencement of development an energy statement demonstrating that 10% of the energy requirements of the development can be provided through on site renewable sources, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The renewable energy sources shall then be implemented prior to first use of the building in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability in accordance with the NPPF and policy KP2 of the Core Strategy.

7 No concrete-breaking, percussive pile-driving, or other particularly noisy demolition or construction activities are to be carried out during periods of freezing weather (ie when the ground or air temperature is at or below 0ºC, or the ground is snow covered).

Reason: In order to minimise the risk of disturbance to over-wintering wildfowl and waders using the nearby foreshore during periods when they are already subject to additional stress due to the weather conditions in accordance with the NPPF and policy CP4 of the Core Strategy.

8 No security or other exterior lighting shall be illuminated, unless such lights are so arranged as to prevent any light spill onto the Benfleet and Southend Marshes SSSI, and to minimise direct glare when viewed from the foreshore.

Reason: to minimise the risk of disturbance to wintering birds whilst feeding on the SSSI, or of disorientation of birds whilst in flight in accordance with the NPPF and policy CP4 of the Core Strategy.


Informative

1 When you carry out the work, you must avoid taking, damaging or destroying the nest of any wild bird while it is being built or used, and avoid taking or destroying the egg of any wild bird. These would be offences (with certain exceptions) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Habitats Regulations 1994 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

2 The applicant is advised to subscribe to ‘Floodline’ the Environment Agency’s flood warning system.



Ward: Victoria

Proposal:Demolish existing custody suite, erect two storey side extension to form replacement custody suite and plant room, install solar panels to roof, replace existing windows and doors and alter elevations

Address: Police Station, Victoria Avenue, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, SS2 6ES

Applicant: Police & Crime Commissioner for Essex

Agent: Essex Police

Consultation Expiry: 5 May 2014

Expiry Date: 3 June 2014

Case Officer: Sophie Glendinning

Plan Nos: L115A, L139 Rev A, L140 Rev A, L130 Rev A, L113 Rev A, GC.115783.201, GC. 11578.101, L116



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing custody suite and erect a two storey side extension to form a replacement custody suite and plant room, install solar panels to roof, replace existing windows and doors and alter the elevations. The extension would have a flat roof at ground floor and a shallow pitched roof to the plant room at first floor level. The extension would have a maximum height of 7.4m a maximum width 42m and a maximum depth of 24.4m.

1.2 The proposed custody suite and plant room would be located in place of the existing custody wing adjoining the south facing elevation of the main police station building, and would extend to the southern boundary of the site in line with the front building line of the existing custody wing. The extension would accommodate additional cells, and associated additional accommodation such as a charge area, consultation rooms, interview rooms, staff rooms, photo, and DNA rooms etc. The plant room which would be at first floor level, would contain air handling plant and associated equipment.

1.3 The proposal also includes replacement of the existing single glazed crittal windows with powder coated aluminium double glazed windows.

1.4 Materials to be used on the external elevations include stone composite panels to the ground floor, grey powder coated louver and metallic cladding to the plant room, insulated roof panels to the roof of the plant room. PV panels would be located to the rear roofslope, and to an area of flat roof on the existing building.

1.5 The applicant has submitted supporting information with regard to the need for the extension as follows:

“Although the existing operational custody facilities are considered safe they are dated and deficient in a number of key areas when compared to the latest Home Office Police Buildings Design Guide for custody design standards. At Southend custody:

There is inadequate provision to meet reasonable Disabled Access needs for detainees, solicitors and other official visitors. Custody now comes within the Disability Discrimination Act.

There are inadequate ‘Booking In’ facilities, Consultation Rooms, Interview Rooms, Photo, Fingerprint and DNA rooms leading to ‘bottlenecks’ in busy periods.

In overall terms the existing custody facilities are beyond their useful life and need full upgrade and refurbishment to provide the safest environment possible (as defined under the custody design guide) for both Police Officers and detainees.


The project will include key improvements which will speed detainee processing thereby freeing up valuable police officer time.

The existing building is situated near the busy town centre and operates continuously, including the Custody Suite.

Access for the public, who are escorted when in custody, is via the front entrance at ground floor level and is fully compliant with DDA requirements. Access for detainees under escort of police officers is via the rear car park at ground floor level. The existing suite does not currently meet the needs for disabled access as recommended by the Home Office, although the staff manages the situation to minimise and negate impacts.”


2.1 The application site includes Southend Police Station which consists of a three storey flat roofed building located on Victoria Avenue that forms part of the 1960s civic quarter alongside the Magistrates Court, library and Civic Centre. The building features extensive glazing to the front and rear elevations which are currently in a generally poor state of repair. In front of the Court buildings is an open pedestrian area.

2.2 To the east of the site is the railway. To the west of the site is the Magistrates Court and the Civic Centre and public open space. Further to the west is Victoria Avenue with multi storey office buildings.


3.1 The main planning considerations are the principle of the development, design and impact on the streetscene, impact on residential amenity and traffic and transportation issues.

4 Appraisal

Principle of the Development

National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4 and CP6, BLP Policies C11, H5, Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.1 This proposal is considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4 and CP6. Specifically Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy DPD (Community Infrastructure) states that crime, education and health and wellbeing are key topics in creating sustainable communities and that reducing the level of and the fear of crime is key to achieving sustainable development and social inclusion. Also of relevance include Borough Local Plan Policies relating to design.


These policies and guidance support extensions to existing buildings in most cases but require that such alterations and extensions respect the existing character and appearance of the building.

4.2 In addition to this, Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy DPD (Community Infrastructure) states that addressing crime, education and health and well-being are key to creating sustainable communities and that reducing the level of and the fear of crime is key to achieving sustainable development and social inclusion.

4.3 Subject to detailed considerations set out below, the proposed extension of the existing Police Station is considered acceptable in principle.

Design and Impact on the Streetscene

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C14, C11 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.4 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states; “the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

4.5 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. .

4.6 The existing custody wing is surrounded by a single storey perimeter wall of varying heights along its length. Whilst this is of limited architectural merit, it is noted that due to the scale, a relative sense of openness is retained to this area, which adjoins a public walkway extending from the car park at the rear of the Courthouse, to the Civic Centre. The proposed extension, whilst two storeys in height is considered to be of an acceptable scale. This is achieved by the second storey (containing the plant room) being set back behind the front building line of the ground floor custody suite by 6.8m to align with the front building line of the main Police Station building. The plant room would also be set in from the south side elevation by 3.2m. The ground floor custody suite would have a flat roof which takes reference from and integrates with the flat roof of the existing building. The roof of the plant room would have a very shallow pitch and as such would have limited visibility from the street. On balance therefore, the extension is considered to be of an appropriate scale and appearance.


4.7 With regard to detailed design, the materials would reference the surrounding buildings. Stone composite panels are proposed to the front elevation in a neutral and grey colour, which has a positive relationship to the stone cladding on the existing building and the adjacent Courthouse building. This material continues onto the north elevation near the main entrance to the Police Station where it is proposed to locate some signage. Whilst there are no openings to the front elevation, this is comparable to the existing custody suite and would appear more as a boundary wall rather than a building in the streetscene. The elevation to the south will be white render; however this elevation will be largely screened by the adjacent trees. The plant room would be clad largely with grey louvre style cladding, with a strip of grey metallic cladding to the top, which would be appropriate for a building of this character.

4.8 With regard to the replacement windows, the existing crittal frames are generally are in a poor state of repair and their replacement is welcomed. Given that these windows have no special features it is not considered that there is a good case for their retention. The proposed replacement powder coated aluminium windows would be of a comparable profile to the existing windows. Subject to further details being provided in relation to the appearance of the windows it is considered that the proposed windows will update the appearance of the existing building.

4.9 The proposed extension adjoins the southern boundary of the site. Directly adjacent to this boundary are two large London plane trees which make a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area. The applicant has submitted an arboricultural report which shows that the proposal would encroach into the Root Protection Area however it recommends that measures such as hand digging, pile and beam foundations, careful root pruning and protective barriers are used, the impact on the trees and their roots will not be detrimental and therefore would not affect their health or long term retention. The Councils Arboricultural Officer has confirmed that subject to conditions being imposed to ensure the works are carried out in accordance with the details of the Arboricultural report, there would be no objections to the proposed extension in this location.

Highways and Parking Implications

National Planning Policy Framework, BLP policies T8, T11, T13; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.10 The extension will extend over an area which currently provides 12 parking spaces. The applicant has confirmed that these spaces form part of the old car compound, and are not formal staff car parking spaces, and that any vehicles requiring a compound are now sent to alternative Essex Police sites outside of the Borough. The Station also has a staff parking policy which states that on-site parking provision cannot be guaranteed for staff, and can only be allocated as available.


Reference is also made to the close proximity of the site to Southend Victoria train station, bus stops and the Cycle2Work scheme to encourage staff to use sustainable modes of transport. It is noted that there are also public car parks within walking distance of the site. Furthermore the proposed extension would not result in any additional staff being employed. Given the above the proposed extension would not result in a detrimental impact on the local highway network or off street parking demand.

Impact on Residential Amenity

National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP Policies C11, H5, E5

4.11 Paragraph 343 of SPD1 states that extensions must respect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and ensure not to adversely affect light, outlook or privacy of the habitable rooms in adjacent properties. Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan requires that development respect existing residential amenities,

4.12 The surrounding buildings are commercial in character and as such there are no residential properties adjoining the site which would be affected as a result of the extension. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with BLP Policy C11.

Conclusion

4.13 The proposal is considered acceptable in principle, and would be in accordance with relevant Development Plan policies.


5.1 National Planning Policy Framework

5.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP6 (Community Infrastructure).

5.3 Borough Local Plan Polices C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety) and T11 (Parking Standards.), C14 (Trees Planted Areas and Landscaping).

5.4 EPOA Parking Standards 2001

5.5 Design & Townscape Guide, 2009 (SPD1).



Design and Regeneration

6.1 The proposed new custody suite and plant room will be a significant addition to the building, which would see it extended over 2 storeys. As existing, the custody area is surrounded by a perimeter wall, single storey, varying in height along its length. While this creates an inactive ground floor frontage, and would benefit from articulation and enhancement, a relative sense of openness is retained given its current scale.

The design and access statement notes that the standards for ventilation, heating and cooling have changed substantially since the building was built and that there is a home office requirement for major air handling plant to support the custody suite. This, it seems, has necessitated to an extent the proposed arrangements which would see a large area of plant added at second floor, creating a two storey building in the area formerly occupied by a smaller single storey custody suite and open car park. The plans show the area of the first floor plant room is set back behind the existing building line of the main police station on the front elevation and set away from the boundary on the south elevation. The design of the roof of this element also would appear as flat and this has reduced the bulk of the building and improved its form. This reduces the impact that this part of the proposal has on the streetscene and is considered on balance acceptable.

In terms of design detail the materials at ground floor draw reference to the surrounding townscape. Stone composite panels in buff and grey slate are proposed to the principle frontage (west elevation). These colours and materials have a positive relationship to the stone cladding on the existing building and that on the adjacent court house and this is welcomed. Although this elevation remains without openings, the significant setback of the upper floor will mean that it will appear more as a boundary/feature wall rather than a building in the streetscene. This material continues onto the north elevation near the entrance to the Police Station where it is proposed to locate some signage. This would seem to work well in principle although the details may need to be conditioned. The lighting proposed here will also add some interest. It will be important that elements such as guttering for this section (the west and north elevation at ground floor ) are contained within the building rather than running down the front of the cladding as this will compromise its visual integrity and clean lines of this part of the proposal.

To the south the elevation is much more utilitarian but this is not so prominent and will be screened by the adjacent trees to some extent.

At first floor the materials consist of louvered cladding. This section is considered to integrate appropriately with the existing building. Overall the proposed design is considered acceptable subject to appropriate tree protection measures.


Highways and Transport

6.2 Having considered the proposal in terms of the reduction in on-site parking by 12 spaces which are removed to provide cell block accommodation. It is not considered this will have an adverse effect on the public highway network in the local area. Information has been supplied in the design and access statement which redistributes the squad car vehicles which currently use the 12 spaces to other local police station. The internal layout of the site has been reconfigured to maximise the remaining space effectively, the site also benefits from being in sustainable location with regard to public transport. Therefore no highway objections are raised.

Parks

6.3 Having now read the survey I can confirm that it has been completed to BS5837 standard and is appropriate for this project. No further arb surveying is required. The report has been completed to a very high standard and covers all relevant issues.

I recommend that the majority of its recommendations be implemented and adherence to them a matter of planning condition. These trees are of very amenity value and in a locally sensitive area with regards to arboricultural issues generally. My only additional recommendations would be that the ‘Project Arboriculturist’ should be (given the proximity of the site to the Civic Centre) a member of the SBC arb team. Also that any Access Facilitation Pruning must be pre-approved by the project Arboriculturist.

Network Rail

6.4 No objections


7.1 Neighbours notified and site notice displayed – no representations received.


8.1 11/01182/FUL – Install replacement windows to all elevations. Approved.


9 Recommendation

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

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


02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: L115A, L139 Rev A, L140 Rev A, L130 Rev A, L113 Rev A, GC.115783.201, GC. 11578.101


03 No development shall take place until details including samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations including doors and windows 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 1) Any site clearance, preparatory work or development shall only be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s GC.115783.101, GC.115783.201 and the measures described in the Arboricultural Report dated May 2014

2) All tree work shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard BS3998 - Recommendations for Tree Work.

3) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.

4) If any retained tree is cut down, uprooted or destroyed or dies another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species and planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

5) No fires shall be lit within 10 metres of the nearest point of the canopy of any retained tree.


6) No equipment, machinery or structure shall be attached to or supported by a retained tree.

7) No mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or substances shall take place within, or close enough to, a root protection area that seepage or displacement could cause them to enter a root protection area.

8) No alterations or variations to the approved works or tree protection schemes shall be made without prior written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers.



Ward: Blenheim Park

Proposal: Erect single-storey extension to existing building

Address: Darlinghurst Primary and Nursery School, Pavilion Drive, Leigh-On-Sea, Essex, SS9 3JS

Applicant: Darlinghurst School Academy Trust

Agent: Munday and Cramer

Consultation Expiry: 11th June 2014

Expiry Date: 17th July 2014

Case Officer: Patricia Coyle

Plan Nos: F244/01A; F244/02; F244-01C

Recommendation:

Delegate to Corporate Director of Place, Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control and Building Control to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the expiry of the publicity period


1 The Proposal

1.1 The proposed development is for a single-storey extension to the nursery building to provide three additional classrooms. Each classroom would have an approximate size of 63sq.m and have their own WC facilities, kitchen sink/counter and hand-basin. An air handling unit would be provided outside the proposed eastern classroom. The extension would be the same width as the existing building extending its overall maximum length by a further 7m infilling the existing L-shape section to provide a fully rectangular building.

1.2 The proposal extension is required to increase pupil capacity to suit local area and Local Education Authority needs. This is in addition to one new classroom (the subject of a separate planning application- 14/00462/BC4M) which is an infill extension to the main building.


2.1 The application site comprises a school with the main buildings to the west and playing fields to the east.

2.2 The surrounding area comprises residential properties to Manchester Drive, Pavilion Drive, Glenbervie Drive and Darlinghurst Grove with the main buildings of the school to the west and the playing fields to the north and east.


3.1 The key considerations are the principle of the development, design and impact on the character of the area, impact on residential amenity and highway/parking implications.

4 Appraisal


The National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4, CP8; BLP policies H5, U7 (extension of education facilities).

4.1 Policy U7 states that the Council will normally support the improvement or extension of existing education facilities.

4.2 The proposal is for additional classrooms at an existing school in the Borough. It would not encroach onto the main playing fields or formal sports pitches. Officers consider that the use of the building for this purpose would accord with Policy U7 and therefore that the proposal would be acceptable in principle.


Design and Impact on the Character of the Area:

The National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policy C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.3 Good design is fundamental to achieving high quality development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF as well as Policies C11 and H5 of the Local Plan and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy. The Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) also states that the Council is committed to good design and will seek to create attractive, high-quality living environments.

4.4 The NPPF states that:

“The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”.

4.5 The proposed single-storey extension would be to the side of the existing building which lies to the rear of the main school buildings which front onto Pavilion Drive. The extension would be located to the north of the existing building, away from the nearest residential properties in Glenbervie Drive.

4.6 The extension would match the height and provide 3 additional classrooms in the same vernacular as the existing building. It would be of relatively simple design. The site contains a mix of buildings and structures, some of design merit and others of functional or utilitarian appearance. The proposed building would not be readily visible from a public vantage point. It would not interfere with any space used as playing fields (although see comment below).

4.7 It is considered that the development would not result in any material impact on the building to which it would be attached or the character and appearance of the area. The proposed extension is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of size and design to the existing property in accordance with Policies C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and SPD1.

Traffic and Transport Issues

The National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; BLP policies T8 and T11.


4.8 The proposal would require one parking space for each 5 staff members. While no details have been provided of existing or proposed staffing levels, it is likely that there would be a teacher and a classroom assistant for each of the three classrooms. Other staff, such as cleaners, dinner supervisors etc. do not normally increase significantly in relating to additional pupil numbers etc. It is therefore likely that there would be at least 6 additional staff meaning that an additional one/two parking spaces should be provided. Highways comments will be reported at the committee meeting, nonetheless it is considered that if additional spaces are required, that these could be provided within the application site without interfering with the marked out pitches/playing-fields. If needed, a condition requiring additional parking spaces can be attached to any planning approval. There are no proposed changes to vehicle accesses at the application site.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The National Planning Policy Framework; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.9 Paragraph 343 of SPD1 (under the heading of Alterations and Additions to Existing Residential Buildings) states, amongst other criteria, that extensions must respect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and ensure that they do not adversely affect light, outlook or privacy of the habitable rooms in adjacent properties. Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan requires that development respect existing residential amenities, and Policy C11 requires that new extensions create a satisfactory relationship with surroundings.

4.10 It is not considered the proposed extension would provide for opportunities for adverse overlooking as it would be single-storey and there would be no access to the flat roof. Given that the proposed extension would be over 81m from the rear boundary of the nearest residential property in Manchester Drive and approximately 55m from the rear boundary of properties fronting onto Glenbervie Drive, it is not considered there would be any adverse overshadowing or overbearing impacts.

4.11 It is not considered that the proposal would result in any material harm to this occupiers’ residential amenity.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle and have an acceptable impact on visual amenity in the streetscene. It is not considered that the proposal would result in material harm to residential amenity and there are no highways/parking issues arising.




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

6.3 Borough Local Plan: C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H3 (retention of small homes), H5, U7 (Existing Education Facilities), T8 (Traffic Maintenance and Highway Safety) and T11 (Parking Standards).

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

6.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Representation Summary

Highway Authority

7.1 At the time of drafting the report no highway comments had been received.


7.2 No objections to the proposed extensions. Materials to match existing.

Education

7.3 The proposal is supported.

Parks

7.4 At the time of drafting the report no comments had been received.

Asset Management

7.5 At the time of drafting the report no comments had been received.

Sport England

7.3 The proposal would infill an area between the building and the hard play area and a grassed area would be displaced. This grassed area is too small for formal sports use. The extension would also encroach onto an existing hard play area nonetheless space would exist for the marking our of games courts on this area. The main body of the playing fields to the east would not be affected. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with exception E3 and Sport England raise no objection to the proposal.


Public Consultation

7.4 At the time of writing the report no neighbour responses raising comments/objections had been received.


8.1 14/00462/BC4M – infill extension to provide additional classroom – currently under consideration

13/00684/BC4 – single storey extension – approved 17/7/13

10/01734/BC3 – erect single-storey building to south-east of existing school buildings for use as a classroom and nursery, alterations and refurbishment of existing classrooms – approved 8/11/2010

9 Recommendation

9.1 Delegate to Corporate Director of Place, Head of Planning and Transport or Group Manager of Development Control and Building Control to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the expiry of the publicity period and subject to the following conditions:01 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: F244/01A; F244/02; F244-03C (C01D)Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the development plan.

03 Materials to be used on the external elevations of the proposed extension are to match the existing building. 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 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).





Ward: Leigh

Proposal:

Demolish garage and storage buildings, erect 3 blocks comprising two, part 3, part 4 and one 3 storey block totalling 15 flats, with balconies, amenity terrace, basement parking and refuse storage, refurbish former Bell Hotel and convert into five self-contained flats with conservatory at rear, lay out access road, cycle and motorcycle storage, amenity area, retaining walls and landscaping (Approval of reserved matters following outline planning permission 13/00396/OUTM dated 25/06/2013)

Address: Bell Hotel, 20 Leigh Hill, Leigh-On-Sea, Essex, SS9 2DN

Applicant: R Levy

Agent: The Planning and Design Bureau




Plan Nos: 14-26-01; 14-26-02

Recommendation: APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS


1 The Proposal

1.1 Permission is sought for the approval of the sole Reserved Matter following outline permission for demolition of a garage and storage buildings, and erect 3 blocks, comprising two, part 3, part 4 storey block and one 3 storey block totalling 15 flats and the refurbishment of the former Bell Hotel to convert into five self-contained flats application reference 13/00396/OUTM. This application solely relates to the landscaping details of the proposed development

1.2 Access, appearance, layout and scale have already been agreed under application 13/00396/OUTM. Therefore only reserved matter for consideration at this time is landscaping.

1.3 It should be noted there is an extensive planning history relating to the site which is set out in section 7.1 below.


2.1 The site is within a mixed commercial/residential section of Leigh Hill, opposite the junction of Leigh Park Road. The buildings fronting Leigh Hill on its south side are 3-4 storeys high. The building was last in use as a hotel during the early 1970’s.

2.2 The railway lies to the south, with a footbridge to the southwest of the site, giving open views thereto. A public car park lies immediately to the west of the site.

2.3 The site is accessed off Leigh Hill down a sloping driveway, with the site opening up to the south. The Leigh-on-Sea sailing club building lies to the south of the railway line. The land slopes down markedly from north to south and, at a lesser gradient, from east to west.

2.4 The site lies within the Leigh Conservation Area but just outside the area covered by an Article 4 Direction. A two storey Grade II Listed Building lies adjacent to the site, at no. 28 Leigh Hill.

2.5 In terms of the previous use it appears from Council records when the hotel was last occupied it was as part administration offices, part storage and part residential.


3.1 The only consideration in relation to this application is whether the proposed landscaping scheme is acceptable.

4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1,


KP2, CP4, CP8; BLP policies C4, C11, H6, L1, L6, L7 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.1 Extant permission 13/00396/OUTM has established the principle of residential development on the site.


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan policies C4, C11 and C14 and Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.2 Policy C14 of the Borough Local Plan states that the Council will seek to preserve those trees and planting areas which contribute to the townscape of an area and will require additional planting in appropriate locations. All development should respect the existing townscape of the area and planting should be integral to any new development.

4.3 Drawings 14-26-01 and 14-26-02 have been submitted for consideration. The proposed hard landscaping materials include a Marshalls Tegula ‘Harvest’; Marshalls Tegula ‘Burnt Ochre’, Marshalls standard grey paving flags, ‘Westmoor Crest’ Yorkstone to sharing surfaces, silver grey colour paving to kerbs and edges and other hardsurfaces will include blue brick steps, planters, wooden benches, tactile hazard warning flags and linear drain. Boundary treatments will include brick piers and low boundary walls to be constructed from yellow stock brick and railings together with low brick planters. The proposed hard landscaping in terms of its appearance, design will provide a positive contribution to the overall character and appearance of this new housing development. The hardsurfaces includes the forecourt, vehicle access to the site and the footpaths around the landscaped amenity area to the eastern boundary. The hard surfaces will provide a positive contribution to the overall character and appearance of the Leigh Conservation Area in accordance with policies C4 and C14 of the Borough Local Plan.

4.4 The proposed soft landscaping plan accompanying this applications provide a fully detailed planting schedule with a range of species including various trees, shrubs, conifers, climbers, herbaceous species and bulbs which are considered to enhance the overall character and appearance of this development and provide a positive contribution to the wider Leigh Conservation Area. The soft landscaping will compliment the area and provide an attractive amenity area for the future occupiers of the flatted development to the south eastern side of the development. The planting scheme proposed is integral to the overall design and will enhance the townscape of the area.

4.5 The landscaping plans submitted are accompanied by a maintenance strategy were measures will be employed on a monthly intervals to ensure the landscaping implemented is preserved and safeguarded.




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

5.3 Borough Local Plan Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations, C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations)

5.4 SPD1 Design & Townscape Guide 2009



6.1 No objections.

Parks and Open Spaces

6.2 No comments.

Leigh Town Council

6.3 No comments received at the time of writing this report and will be reported in the supplementary report.

Leigh Society

6.4 No comments received at the time of writing this report and will be reported in the supplementary report.

Public Consultation

6.5 A site notice displayed on the 13.05.2014 and 85 neighbours notified of the proposal. No letters of representation have been received at the time of writing this report.

6.6 Councillor Norman has requested this application be dealt with by Development Control Committee.


7.1 Replace drawings 0509/206, 0509/207, 0509/208 and 0509/209 elevational changes (variation of condition 02 of planning permission 13/00396/OUTM dated 25/06/2013)- Pending consideration (14/00473/AMDT)


7.2 Application for Approval of Details pursuant to condition 06 (details of cycle parking and storage) condition 07 (details of landscaping) and condition 15 (details of land levels) of planning permission 13/00396/OUTM dated 25/06/2014- Pending consideration.

7.3 Demolish garage and storage buildings, erect 3 blocks comprising two, part 3, part 4 and one 3 storey block totalling 15 flats, with balconies, amenity terrace, basement parking and refuse storage, refurbish former Bell Hotel and convert into five self-contained flats with conservatory at rear, lay out access road, cycle and motorcycle storage, amenity area, retaining walls and landscaping (outline)- Granted (13/00396/OUTM) dated 25/06/2013.

7.4 Demolish garage and store buildings (conservation area consent)- Granted (13/00513/CAC) dated 25/06/2013

7.5 Demolish garage and storage buildings, erect 3 blocks comprising two, part 3, part 4 and one 3 storey block totalling 15 flats, with balconies, amenity terrace, basement parking and refuse storage, refurbish former Bell Hotel and convert into five self-contained flats with conservatory at rear, lay out access road, cycle and motorcycle storage, amenity area, retaining walls and landscaping (outline)- Granted (11/01079/OUTM) 4th October 2013

7.6 Demolish garage and store buildings (conservation area consent)- Granted (11/01080/CAC) 4th October 2012

7.7 Modification of planning obligation dated 14 October 2009 pursuant to application 08/00449/FULM to remove the requirement to provide affordable housing- Pending Consideration (11/01074/DOV)

7.8 Erect dormers to sides and extension at rear, alter west and south elevations, use building as 12 bedroom hotel and change use of basement floor to use as restaurant/ bar (Sui Generis) lay out terrace at rear- Granted 14th October 2010 (10/00994/FUL)

7.9 Non material amendment to flats 1,2,5 and 11, access path to west is to be omitted, refuse store on level 1 to be increased and erect staircase access from level 1 to level 2 (Non Material Amendment to Planning Permission 08/00449/FULM and 08/00430/CAC dated 30/10/09)- Agreed 13th August 2010 (10/00998/NON)

7.10 Demolish garage and storage buildings, erect 3 blocks comprising two part 3, part 4 and one 3 storey blocks totally 15 flats, with balconies and amenity terrace and basement parking and refuse storage, refurbish former bell hotel, lay out access road, cycle and motorcycle storage, amenity area, retaining walls and landscaping ( Amended Proposal)- Granted 30th October 2009 (08/00430/CAC)


7.11 Demolish garage and storage buildings, erect 3 blocks comprising two part 3, part 4 and one 3 storey blocks totalling 15 flats, with balconies and amenity terrace and basement parking and refuse storage, refurbish former bell hotel, lay out access road, cycle and motorcycle storage, amenity area, retaining walls and landscaping (Amended Proposal) - Granted planning permission 30th October 2009 subject to conditions (08/00449/FULM)

7.12 Demolish garage and storage building, erect 3 blocks comprising two 4 storey blocks and one 5 storey block totalling 16 flats, with balconies and amenity terrace, and basement parking and refuse storage, refurbish former Bell Hotel and convert into one live/ work unit and 5 self- contained flats, lay out access road, cycle and motorcycle storage, amenity area, retaining walls and landscaping (Amended Proposal)- Refused 15th March 2007 (06/01717/CAC)

7.13 Demolish garage and storage buildings, erect 3 blocks comprising two 4 storey blocks and one 5 storey block totally 16 flats, with balconies and amenity terrace and basement parking and refuse storage, refurbish former bell hotel and convert into one live/work unit and 5 self- contained flats, lay out access road, cycle and motorcycle storage, amenity area, retaining walls and landscaping ( Amended Proposal)- Refused planning permission 15th March 2007 on the following grounds:

Appeal lodged and dismissed on design grounds only. (06/01716/FUL)

7.14 Demolish garage and store buildings (Conservation Area Consent- Refused 16th November 2006. (06/01028/CAC)

7.15 Refurbish Bell Hotel to resume use as 12 bedroom hotel with associated facilities, management suite and terrace and decking to rear, demolish garages and storage buildings, erect part 3/part 4/part 5 storey block with roof terraces and balconies comprising basement parking and 20 flats, lay out access road and pavement, cycle and refuse stores, amenity areas, retaining wall, boundary treatment and landscaping (Amended proposal)- Refused 16th November 2006

Appeal lodged and dismissed on design grounds only. (06/01027/FUL)

7.16 15th July 1986 (86/0659)- Use Former Hotel As Part Administration Offices, Part storage And Part Residential- Refused and allowed on appeal.

7.17 23rd May 1982 (SOS/606/83)- To continue to use of use former hotel, yard and buildings to part administration, offices and part storage in connection with business of retail plumbing and builders merchant and formation of non-self-contained flat (retrospective)- Granted

7.18 9th April 1980 (738/80)- To continue to use of use former hotel, yard and buildings to part administration, offices and part storage in connection with business of retail plumbing and builders merchant and formation of non-self-contained flat (retrospective)- Granted


7.19 9th November 1976 (1020/76)- Change of use of hotel, yard and buildings to part administration, offices and part storage in connection with business of retail plumbing and builders merchant and formation of non-self-contained flat (retrospective)- Granted

8 Recommendation

Members are recommended to Delegate authority to the Group Manager of Development Control and Building Control, Head of Planning and Transport or Corporate Director of Place to APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS subject to the expiry of the publicity period:

1 The soft and hard landscaping drawings 14-26-01 and 14-26-02 hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with 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 Leigh Conservation Area. This is as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policies C11 and C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).




Ward: Southchurch

Proposal: Erect temporary multi-purpose hall

Address: Hamstel Infant School, Hamstel Road, Southend-On-Sea, Essex, SS2 4PQ

Applicant: Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Agent: Letts Wheeler Architects

Consultation Expiry: 2 June 2014



Plan Nos: 115, 102, 101, 108,109, 103, 110, 104, 107, 106



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a multi-use hall. The hall would be located within the playing field immediately adjoining the swimming pool and the infant playground and would be modular in nature with a maximum height of 4.9m a maximum depth of 13m, and a width of 24m. The proposed hall would be temporary in nature and permission is sought for a period of 3 years.

1.2 The proposed hall would be undertaken as Phase 2 of a wider scheme to address the immediate needs of the September 2014 intake of students. It is proposed that the existing school hall will be reconfigured to permit sufficient space for two classrooms which are required before August 2015. The infant hall will then be re-provided in the form of the proposed temporary building. The proposed hall would be used primarily for student dining, assemblies or PE.

1.3 The application is being bought before committee as it is a major application and the site is owned by the Council.


2.1 Hamstel School is a collection of single storey infant, nursery and junior school buildings situated on the east side of Hamstel Road between Poynings Avenue to the south and Philpott Avenue to the north. The school buildings are constructed from red stock bricks with brick and stone decorative details, slate roofs and decorative dutch gables. It is a good example of traditional school architecture dating back to the early 20th Century, although the school has been extended in more recent years with more modern additions. An extensive playing field lies to the east and north-east of the school buildings.

2.2 The main vehicular and pedestrian access to the school is from Hamstel Road although there is a second pedestrian access from Poynings Avenue to the south.

2.3 Adjoining the north-west of the school grounds are the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Hamstel Road. Directly opposite the main entrance to the school is a parade of shops. To the south of the school are residential properties along Poynings Avenue and along the north boundary of the school are residential properties fronting Philpott Avenue.



3.1 The main issues for consideration include the principle of the development including the loss of the area of playing field, design and impact on the character of the area, impact on residential amenity and traffic and transportation issues.


National Planning Policy Framework DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4 and CP6; Borough Local Plan Policies U7, C15 and R1 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

3.2 Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy advocates the need to improve educational facilities to ensure that support is made to meet the needs of the local community. Policy R1 of the Borough Local Plan states that:

“The Borough Council will encourage and promote the retention of existing and the provision of additional, outdoor sports facilities, both public and private”.

Policy U7 of the Borough Local Plan states that subject to the maintenance of satisfactory environmental conditions and residential amenities, the Borough Council will support the improvement or extension of existing public and private education establishments and will encourage the use of their facilities for community purpose where this would meet identified requirements.

3.3 The proposed development will facilitate the provision of a hall which would be used for indoor sports/PE and would provide additional education facilities for which there is a need. As such in principle is consistent with Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy and BLP Policies U7 and R1.

Loss of Playing Area

3.4 An additional material consideration as to whether the development is acceptable is the loss of the area of playing field. The proposed hall would be located on the western edge of the playing field immediately adjacent the infant school playground. Policy C15 of the Borough Local Plan states the Council will normally refuse permission for proposals involving the complete or partial loss of school playing fields. Sport England have been consulted and have made the following comments in relation to the proposal:


“While the area where the temporary hall would be sited would be capable of forming part of a small playing pitch, the siting of the recently built artificial grass surface to the west and the close proximity to buildings and the playground would reduce the likelihood that this area would be used in the short term for formal sports. Furthermore, the proposal is intended to be temporary in the interim of a permanent new school hall being provided which would offer potential sport related benefits. It is also noted that the siting of the temporary hall would not affect any existing playing pitches”.

On this basis Sport England has not raised an objection. They have confirmed that a period of 3 years would be acceptable subject to reinstatement of the playing field within 3 months of the building being removed. Subject to a condition requiring the removal of the building after 3 years and reinstatement of the playing field, the siting of the hall in the location proposed is considered acceptable in principle.

Design and Impact on the Streetscene

National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP4; Borough Local Plan Policy C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

3.5 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.

3.6 Given the location of the hall to the rear of the school buildings it will have a limited visibly from the streetscene and as such there is no objection in relation to the visual impact on the public realm.

3.7 The building will be constructed of an aluminium frame system and will be fitted with a flat, solid roof. In terms of detailed design, the building will be modular in nature in order to ensure that the building is fully demountable. IT will be assembled on site. Some reference has been drawn from the existing nursery and changing room buildings that are in close proximity in terms of the use of materials/finish, which would include white wall panels. A large picture window is also proposed to the southern elevation to provide some articulation and provide daylight. The overall design is considered acceptable as a temporary structure.



National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP Policies C11, H5.

3.8 Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan 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.

3.9 The school site adjoins the rear gardens of residential properties which front Philpott Avenue, Hamstel Road and Poynings Avenue and as such it is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on the occupiers of those properties. The proposed hall would be in excess of 56m from the boundary of the closest residential property to the south of the school fronting Poynings Avenue. This would be sufficient to avoid any impact in terms of loss of light or outlook, or overshadowing, or a material increase in noise and disturbance.



3.10 The car park currently on site contains a total of 12 visitor spaces and 85 staff spaces. The proposed hall would not itself result in additional staff or pupil numbers, however the proposed hall would allow for the provision of two classrooms within the existing school hall building and as such the impact on this on parking and highways should be considered.

3.11 The car park currently on site contains a total of 12 visitor spaces and 85 staff spaces. The EPOA parking standards 2001 require a maximum provision of 1 space per 2 daytime teaching staff. The junior and infant schools currently have a total of 117 full time equivalent staff members and it is proposed that the additional two classrooms will require 1 full time staff and 9 part time staff. This would equate to a total parking demand of 62 spaces. The existing car park is therefore sufficient to accommodate the additional expected staff numbers in policy terms.

3.12 The school also has a travel plan which is currently implemented in order to limit heavy traffic and inconsiderate parking in the roads around the school. This includes various actions and sets out monitoring and evaluation methods in relation to these. This together with the level of on-site car parking proposed are considered sufficient to prevent a detrimental impact on the local highway network as a result of the two additional classrooms.


3.13 It is noted that a MUGA has also recently been installed at the school however this is only available for public use outside of school hours when staff and pupils are not at the school and thus additional parking demand is minimal.



4.2 Core Strategy Development Plan Document 1 (2007) (DPD1) Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP3 (Transport & Accessibility), CP4 (The Environment & Urban Renaissance), CP6 (Community Infrastructure).

4.3 Borough Local Plan (BLP) Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees and Landscaping), C15 (Retention of Open Spaces), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), U7 (Existing Educational Facilities), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing). R1 (Outdoor Sports Faculties).




Public Consultation

5.1 Neighbours notified and site notice displayed – no representations received at time of writing this report.

Sport England

5.2 The proposal is for a temporary school hall for Hamstel Infants School which would be sited on the western edge of the playing field adjoining the infant playground. This is proposed to facilitate the conversion of the school’s existing hall into additional classrooms. A temporary prefabricated hall is proposed because it is anticipated that a planning application may be submitted later this year for a permanent sports hall in the same broad location once there is greater clarity about the school’s future expansion requirements. However, a temporary hall is required by September 2014 to ensure continuity of hall provision for the school in the interim of a permanent proposal being progressed.


While the area where the temporary hall would be sited would be capable of forming part of a small playing pitch, the siting of the recently built artificial grass surface to the west and the close proximity to buildings and the playground would reduce the likelihood that this area would be used in the short term for formal sports. Furthermore, the proposal is intended to be temporary in the interim of a permanent new school hall being provided which would offer potential sport related benefits. It is also noted that the siting of the temporary hall would not affect any existing playing pitches. This being the case, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application, subject to the following condition being attached to the decision notice (if the Council are minded to approve the application): Removal of the Temporary School Hall at end of the Temporary Period: A condition requiring the proposed temporary school hall to be removed at the end of the temporary period (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) and for the area to be subsequently reinstated to playing field use (within 3 months of the removal of the building). The temporary period has not been specified in the planning application but Sport England would expect the temporary hall to be removed by September 2015 as it is expected that a permanent hall (if progressed) would be implemented by then in time for the start of the 2015/16 academic year if planning permission is forthcoming. Such a condition is justified to ensure that the hall is removed in practice at the end of the temporary period and reinstated to playing field use (if a permanent school hall proposal in this location is not progressed). This would help ensure that the length of time that this part of the playing field is unavailable is minimised and to ensure that the potential that this area offers for meeting future school sports use is not permanently prejudiced. Sport England has had experience of ‘temporary’ buildings sited on playing fields not being removed as originally proposed in planning applications where such conditions have not been imposed on planning permissions which has often resulted in permanent or long term losses of playing field.

Officer Comment: It is noted that Sport England has confirmed that a temporary time period of 3 years would be acceptable.


5.3 The proposed multi-purpose hall and associated staff will not have a detrimental impact upon the public highway. The school has approximately 85 car park spaces and 12 additional visitor spaces this brings the total to 97, 35 more than is required by the EPOA car parking standard. The school has increased cycle parking recently to 62 cycle spaces. The school also benefits from being in a sustainable location with regard to public transport. Therefore no highway objections are raised in relation to the proposal.


Children and Learning

5.4 No response received at time of writing this report.


5.5 Temporary planning permission is required for a new multi-purpose hall. It is noted that this is a temporary solution and it would be desirable to see a more permanent design solution brought forward in due course. Given the location of the hall, to the rear of the existing building, it is likely that visual impact from the public realm would be limited and there are no objections in this respect.

In regard to the detailed design, the building creates a rather dominant form, although it is noted that reference has been drawn from the existing nursery and changing room buildings, particularly in terms of the use of materials/finish, which seems an appropriate response. However it is recognised that this is a temporary solution for the school only, and this would not be considered acceptable as a long term solution, which should seek to provide stronger integration with the existing buildings, further refining the treatment of elevations and use of materials.


6.1 There is an extensive history relating to the site however, the applications detailed below are most relevant:

6.2 17th November 2003- Permission was granted for the erection of a single storey extension to PE store (03/01564/BC3).

6.3 18th October 2004- Permission was granted for the erection of two infill extensions and alterations of elevations (04/01526/BC3).

6.4 13th July 2009 – Demolish existing infant school entrance, classbase and offices, erect children's centre building with new main entrance, erect classroom building adjoining existing infant school, demolish temporary classrooms and erect classroom building adjoining playground, lay out two play areas, alter elevations, form new car parking area and lay out landscaping to main entrance fronting Hamstel Road (SOS/09/00877/BC3).

6.5 14th November 2012 – Permission granted to erect single storey classroom block and lay out external play area (12/01079/BC3M).

6.6 13/00275/BC3M – Form multi use games areas (MUGA) to rear of schools. Approved.


7 Recommendation

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



02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:


03 The hall building to be erected shall be removed and the land reinstated to the approval of the local planning authority on or before three years from the date on this decision notice.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the provision of playing field and due to the nature of the buildings, in accordance with Policy C11 and C15 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

04 The hall shall only be used in association with the existing school premises and not for any other use.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and general environmental quality and in light of the parking facilities at the site, in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policies T8 and H5.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers


Reference: 14/00536/BC3

Ward: Milton

Proposal:Change of use from storage (Class B8) to waste disposal depot (sui generis) with associated external alterations, layout bin stores and alterations to parking layout

Address:Storage Facility, Western Esplanade, Westcliff-On-SeaEssex

Applicant: Southend on Sea Borough Council

Agent: N/A


Expiry Date: 27th June 2014

Case Officer: Charlotte Galforg

Plan Nos: AST/P001, AST/P002, AST/P003



1 The Proposal

1.0 The site is currently used by the Pier and Foreshore team, who operate from this location, for staff car parking, for overflow storage of materials and as a base for Pier contractors. It contains a workshop building. The proposal is to use the existing yard as a depot and waste storage area and to reconfigure the site layout. It is proposed to erect a number of bin stores to the north elevation of the existing workshop, and a storage shed to the south. The bin storage would be a total of 14.6m in length and a maximum of 3.06m in height. The storage would be constructed from timber with metal supports and a shallow monopitch roof. The reconfiguration of the car park area would result in the loss of 7 car parking spaces. This would allow for sufficient waste vehicle manoeuvring space to be accommodated.

1.1 It is proposed that car parking spaces will be reorganised and a bin storage building be erected to facilitate storage of 10 x 1100 litre Eurobins. The Cory Environmental team will undertake the emptying of bins along Marine Parade through the use of electric “walk along” waste collection vehicles which would return to the pier depot when full of rubbish. These would be emptied into the eurobins, which would themselves be emptied on a daily basis (and more often when necessary), by a larger collection vehicle.

1.2 The proposed hours of operation are between 0900 – 2300hrs 364 days a year.

2.0 Site and Surroundings

2.1 The Pier is located south of Western Esplanade, central to Southend seafront, and south of the main High Street shopping area.

2.2 The Pier is a Grade II Listed Building. The current cast iron pier was completed in 1889 and then extended in 1897, with the upper deck added in 1907 and further extensions were completed in 1927. At the head of the Pier there is currently a lifeboat station incorporating two boathouses, crew accommodation and offices, an RNLI shop and viewing gallery. A train runs the length of the Pier to the Pier head.

2.3 The Pier Head projects 1.34miles into the Thames Estuary and the site lies adjacent to a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The estuary is an internationally important site for wildlife and in particular provides a wide range of feeding and roosting opportunities for birds.

2.4 The application site is located at the land end of the Pier, and lies on the western side of the listed structure but is separate from it. The site is at a lower level than the main Pier structure and sited at slightly higher level than the adjacent adventure island to the north. The site currently contains a large storage building. Parking spaces are provided to the west of the storage building. Access to the site is gained from Marine Gardens to the south.

2.5 The site lies within Flood Zone 3 and within the Central Seafront Area.


3.0 Planning Considerations

3.1 The main issues when considering this application are: the principle of the proposed use and new buildings in this location, design and the impact on the character of the area; impact on the adjacent listed building, traffic and transport issues, ecology issues, and flood risk.

4.0 Background to the application

4.1 The applicant has stated that the application is made to facilitate the move from the existing Cory Depot on Lucy Road to and alternative location, which the applicant states will aid the continued service of emptying the public bins that are located along Marine Parade. In choosing the replacement location, the applicant gave consideration to the size of the proposed alternative and to proximity of the site to the current waste hub, in order to maintain the same level of service that currently exists.

Appraisal

Planning Policies: NPPF, Joint Essex County Council and Southend on Sea Borough Council saved and adopted Waste Local Plan 2001; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies: KP1; KP2; CP4; BLP Policies; L2, U2.

5.1 The “Joint Essex County Council and Southend on Sea Borough Council saved and adopted Waste Local Plan 2001” is the currently approved policy document to guide waste development and determine waste-related planning applications within Southend. This document sets out waste planning policies and proposals to guide waste related development in accordance with the government’s principles of sustainability. The Plans sets out which issues should be considered when assessing a planning application. In addition Policy W10A applies and states: “W10a when granting planning permission for waste Management facilities, the WPA will impose conditions and/or enter into legal agreements as appropriate to Ensure that the site is operated in a manner acceptable To the WPA and that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details.”

5.2 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy requires all new development to contribute to economic, social, physical and environmental regeneration is a sustainable manner and to contribute to the achievement of the Council’s strategic objectives. Policy CP4 requires development proposals to contribute to a high quality, sustainable urban environment by safeguarding and enhancing the historic environment, heritage and archaeological assets, including Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.


5.3 Policy L2 deals specifically with the Central Seafront Area and seeks to promote new leisure facilities and the environment for visitors. However, this is qualified in that it also states that; “Development proposals south of the seafront road will be considered where they are predominantly visitor orientated and contribute to the leisure and tourism facilities of the town, having regard in particular to their impact, if any, on the following: the tidal regime of the Thames Estuary; sites of value to Nature Conservation; the availability of visitor parking facilities, public beaches and moorings; the long-term future of the Pier ; wider foreshore views; the environment of the Central Seafront Area itself; and the highway network”.

5.4 Thus there is no objection in principle to use of the site for the proposed use, providing other detailed considerations are satisfied.

Design and Impact on the Character of the Area, Impact on the Listed Building.

Planning Policy: NPPF Sections 7 and 12, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1, KP2, KP3, CP4; BLP policies; C2, C11.

5.5 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy states that development should: “Make the best use of previously developed land” and “respect, conserve and enhance the natural and historic environment”.

5.6 This approach is reiterated in Policy CP4 which states: “Development proposals will be expected to contribute to the creation of a high quality, sustainable urban environment which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend.” This will be achieved by: “safeguarding and enhancing the historic environment, heritage and archaeological assets, including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Ancient Monuments”

5.7 Policy C2 of the Borough Local Plan (BLP) seeks to protect the character and setting of Locally Listed and Listed Buildings

5.8 It should also be noted that good design is fundamentally important and this is reflected in the NPPF as well as Polices C11, C2 and H5 of the Local Plan, and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 2009 which states that the Council is committed to good design and will seek to create attractive, high-quality living environments. As the site is located adjacent to Listed Building special attention should be paid to the protecting the character and appearance of the Listed Building in accordance with guidance set out in the NPPF.


5.9 The application includes the erection of a bin store. This would be located on the northern side of the existing workshop building which is much larger in scale and is constructed from corrugated metal and has limited visual merit. The stores would be smaller scale and appear ancillary to the workshop building and would be constructed from timber with metal supports and shallow monopitch roof. The buildings will appear subservient to the existing Pier structure at this point. They will be visible within the wider context from within Adventure Island and beyond due to the changes in ground level. However given the limited scale and the appearance in relation to the existing workshop, the bin stores will appear acceptable in context and will not detract from the character or appearance of the adjacent Pier structure.

5.10 The reconfiguration of the car park will have very limited visual impact and is considered acceptable in principle.

5.11 The use of the site for waste transfer will take place against the backdrop of the activity that take place within the Adventure Island theme park and the activity that takes place on and around the Pier. It is considered that taking into account those existing uses, the impact of the additional activity will be limited and it is not considered that the activity associated with the use will detract from the character of the Listed Pier or surrounding area.

5.12 The built development is considered to be a well-designed, good quality development, sympathetic to the listed building and its character. The application is considered to accord with Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and C2, and C11 of the Borough Local Plan, however the details of the proposed materials will need to be agreed.

Traffic and Transport issues

Planning Policies: NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies: KP1, KP2, KP3, CP3; BLP Policies; T8, T11, T12.

Traffic Generation and parking

5.13 The development would result in the loss of 7 car parking spaces. However, the site is considered to be highly accessible; it is located within walking distance of Southend Central Station and the town centre. It is close to cycle and bus routes. Therefore there is ample opportunity to take advantage of sustainable forms of transport. Given the sustainable location, no objections are raised to the loss of the existing car parking spaces.

5.14 The development would, by its nature result in additional vehicles using the access road to the site. However this is not a through access and adequate turning space is available within the site to allow vehicles to turn and exit in forward gear. Highway officers have raised no objections to the development.


5.15 Therefore, the proposed development is considered to meet with policies T8, T11 and T13 of the BLP and CP3 of the Core Strategy with regard to traffic generation, parking and servicing.

Impact on amenities of adjacent properties

Planning Policies: NPPF: Core Planning Principles, Section 11, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies, KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan Policy E5.

5.16 The surrounding properties are in commercial use. The adjacent Adventure Island theme park currently generates a considerable amount of noise and activity. It is considered that the additional activity generated by the proposed use will have a minimal impact on neighbouring occupiers and will not be detrimental to amenity. Ecology

Planning Policies: NPPF; DPD1 (Core Strategy) KP1, KP2, Policy CP4.

5.17 The application site is located adjacent to an internationally important area for wildlife and in particular for birds. The relevant wildlife groups and authorities have been consulted in relation to the application. Consultation responses are awaited and will be reported in the Supplementary agenda. However given the location and scale of the works and the limited increase in activity associated with the site, it is not considered that the proposed use would result in harm to the over wintering birds or other interest features in the designated site (Estuary). Flood Risk

Planning Policies: NPPF, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies: KP1, KP2, KP3, CP4, BLP policies, U1, U2.

5.18 The site falls within Flood Zone 3 risk area as identified on the Environment Agency’s (EA) indicative flood map. The applicant has submitted a statement in relation to flood risk with the application and the Environment Agency has been consulted. The applicant has stated that the development will be managed by ensuring there is a flood emergency plan for on site employees and is within an area covered by the EA’s “Floodline” warning system. Both the existing and proposed uses are classified as “Less vulnerable” uses and therefore are considered to be appropriate in this zone.

5.19 The Environment Agency guidance states that “The Sequential Test can be considered adequately demonstrated if both of the following criteria are met:· The Sequential Test has already been carried out for the site (for the same development type) at the strategic level (Local Plan); and· The development vulnerability is appropriate to the Flood Zone (see table 3 of technical guidance to the NPPF).


5.20 The objective of the Sequential Test is to direct new development to the least flood- prone areas. However, the NPPF at para 102 states:“If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed:• it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared”

5.21 As part of the Core Strategy the Council has also had to have regard to the following considerations inter alia :i. “excluding such areas from consideration for regeneration and growth would further limit the already limited spatial options available to the Borough to achieve such regeneration and growth, and would require other important sustainability considerations, as set out above, to be compromised;ii. the overwhelming community support for the Council’s ‘preferred option’ (on which the spatial strategy in this Development Plan Document is very strongly based) indicated through the pre-submission consultation and public participation stages.”

5.22 The spatial strategy set out within the Core Strategy is considered to represent an appropriate balance between these considerations. Equally, it sets out what is considered to be the most appropriate way forward for Southend, seeking to maximise the town’s strengths and opportunities by focusing the majority of growth and regeneration on key regeneration areas, including the Seafront. The proposed use is one for which the seafront location is key and that location is in line with key Core Strategy Policy. The application is therefore, considered to meet the Exception test.

As noted above, the development vulnerability is appropriate to the Flood Zone. The application is therefore considered to meet the Sequential test.

5.23 The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposals.

Biodiversity

5.24 The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. The application site is in close proximity to the Benfleet and Southend Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) which is a European site. The site is also listed as the Benfleet and Southend Marshes Ramsar site and also notified at a national level as the Benfleet and Southend Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).


5.25 Based on the assessment of Officers and the advice from Natural England Officers consider that:

the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site; and

the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment

5.26 However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on the SSSI as a result of the proposal being carried out. The site is currently hardsurfaced and except as set out in para 5.24 is not otherwise close to local sites of biodiversity or geo diversity importance, would not affect local landscape character, and would not otherwise adversely affect local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species outside the sites set out in para 5.24. The applicant has been advised by way of an informative that they should consider ways to enhance the biodiversity of the site, in accordance with Natural England’s Advice.

Conclusion

5.27 The proposed development will provide a replacement for services that area currently housed within Seaway car park. The use is needed to service waste collection within the central seafront area. The design of the proposed bin store building is acceptable and provided suitable materials are used, it will not adversely affect the character of the adjacent Listed Building. The development will not result traffic congestion or give rise to highway safety issues and the level of parking remaining is considered to be acceptable. The development would not have a detrimental impact on ecology and the development has been designed to take into account flood risk issues. The development is therefore, considered to be acceptable.

6.0 Planning Policy Summary


6.2 DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies- Key Policies, KP1 (Spatial Strategy); KP2 (Development Principles); KP3 (Implementation and Resources); CP3 (Transport and Accessibility); CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance); CP6 (Community Infrastructure).

6.3 BLP Policies; Policy C2 – (Historic Buildings), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), U2 Pollution Control; T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities).

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

6.2 EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.


7. Representation Summary

7.1 The Environment Agency – No objection to the proposal subject to our detailed comments below:Tidal Flood Risk The site is currently used for parking and storage, it is intended to rearrange the site so that it can also be used to provide a sheltered storage area for 10 x 1100 litre Eurobins. We have no concerns relating to this on flood risk grounds. The supporting statement confirms that there will be a flood emergency plan for onsite employees resulting in closure of the depot upon receipt of a flood alert. Please note that it is not within our remit to comment on or approve the adequacy of site flood plans and procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupants/users. In all circumstances where warning and evacuation are significant measures in contributing to managing flood risk, we will expect you to formally consider the emergency planning and rescue implications of new developments in making your decisions. We therefore recommend that you are satisfied that any evacuation plan is fit for purpose before planning permission is granted/development commences. [Officer comment: A condition relating to a flood evacuation plan has been added. [Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. The proposed operation of the Marine Gardens site as a waste storage depot, with a maximum of 10 x 1100L Eurobins stored at any one time and with waste consisting of mixed general waste arising from bins on the immediate seafront and the pier, would be covered the Non-Waste Framework Directive (NWFD) Exemption. It is important to note that no deviation from the proposed activities should occur; specifically bringing in waste from beyond the immediate pier/seafront area, as this will constitute a waste management activity and will require an environmental permit.

7.2 Essex Wildlife Trust – No comments received

7.3 Natural England – European site – No objectionThe consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment.In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided, Natural England offers the following advice: the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site; and the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessmentWhen recording your HRA we recommend you refer to the following information to justify your conclusions regarding the likelihood of significant effects.


In about 2003 your authority commissioned a study from Halcrow in relation to the beach recharge scheme. This study included information about the distribution of foreshore habitats and the bird usage density of different areas of the foreshore. Although now rather dated, this study would nonetheless form a very good starting point for your evidence base.As background context, you should also consider the negative trends for the extent of the mud/sandflat areas and for wintering numbers of several of the bird species for which the site is designated. In addition, you should consider your authority’s capacity to actively address incremental habitat losses through the creation of new habitat areas.SSSI – No objection – no conditions requestedThis application is in close proximity to the Benfleet and Southend Marshes SSSI. However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.Other adviceWe would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application: local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity) local landscape character local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, your local wildlife trust or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation document) in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to understand fully the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. A more comprehensive list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and Countryside link.If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the authority should request surveyinformation from the applicant before determining the application. The Government has provided advice3 on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system.


Natural England Standing Advice for Protected Species is available on our website to help local planning authorities better understand the impact of development on protected or BAP species should they be identified as an issue at particular developments. This also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation with Natural England.Biodiversity enhancementsThis application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

7.4 Design and Regeneration – no comments received

7.5 Highways - There are no highway objections to this proposal. Property Services have liaised with highways to ensure that the number of vehicles that will be using the waste disposal depot will not have a detrimental impact on the public highway. Along the service road are traffic calming features that will help reduce traffic speed and ensure effect pedestrian safety. The loss of car parking spaces as a result of the development will not have a negative impact upon the public highway as the site benefits from being in a sustainable location with regard to public transport and also has a number of public car parks in close proximity.

7.6 Parks – no comments received

7.7 Pier and Foreshore – no comments received

8.0 Public Consultation

8.1 Site Notice displayed. One neighbour notified. No comments received to date.

9.0 Relevant Planning History

9.1 09/01386/FULM – Planning permission granted to install sprinkler system and fire hydrants and erect pump room on pier, erect temporary building adjacent to workshop and excavate underground valve room and water store.


10.0 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out 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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: AST/P001, AST/P002, AST/P003Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan

03 No development shall take place until samples of the facing materials to be used, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved materials 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, and the listed building to which it is adjacent. This is as set out in the DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP1, KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C2, C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

04 Prior to the commencement of development, a Flood Evacuation Plan, including provisions for flood warnings, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to reduce risk to users during flooding in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2.Informative: The applicant should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF.



Reference: 14/00540/BC4

Ward: Milton

Proposal:Use shelter as Cafe (class A3), erect refuse and plant room to side, alter elevations and erect railings to southern boundary and layout hard and soft landscaping

Address: Shelter, Western Esplanade, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex

Applicant: Seaside Rocks

Agent: SKArchitects Ltd




Plan Nos:Existing Plans and Elevations, Block and Site Plans, Proposed Section and Elevations, Proposed Plans 103 Rev E



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to use the existing shelter as a cafe, erect a refuse and plant room to the side, alter the elevations, erect railings to the southern boundary and layout hard and soft landscaping.

1.2 The shelter will largely remain unaltered in terms of the existing footprint with the exception of the plant room extension to the side which will measure 4m wide x 2.5m deep x 2m high and will have a flat roof. Other alterations to the external elevations include repair of the existing crittal windows, installation of a glazed entrance lobby, formation of a new entrance door, various canopies to the front elevation, a new ramp and steps to the entrance doors, and a new boundary enclosure, together with hard and soft landscaping to the front.

1.3 The proposed cafe would accommodate approximately 42 covers internally, and would be operate from 08:00 – 23:00 Monday – Saturday and 08:00 – 22:00 Sundays and Bank Holidays. It is proposed to employ 12.5 full time equivalent staff.


2.1 The application site contains the building known as the Leas Sun Shelter and is located on the northern side of Western Esplanade. The existing shelter dates from the 1930’s and is constructed of materials which fit in with the local building style which includes red brick with white stonework and small paned metal window frames. The shelter has a net internal area of approximately 514sqm.

2.2 The shelter forms a retaining structure to the hill slope behind. The roof level extends approximately half way up the cliff embankment behind, above which the residential properties are fronting Clifton Drive. To the east and west of the site are areas of public open space and to the south is the estuary.

2.3 The shelter is within the Clifftown Conservation Area and is locally listed


3.1 The main planning issues in the consideration of the application are the principle of the development, design and impact on the streetscene and conservation area, impact on residential amenity and traffic and transportation issues.

4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2, CP4, BLP Policies C11, H5, C4, C2; L1 Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)


4.1 The NPPF promotes the economic role of sustainable development, and calls for the planning system to ensuring land is available in the right places to support growth and innovation. The NPPF requires that alterations within designated conservation areas preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation areas.

4.2 Policy C2 of the Local Plan requires that in relation to buildings on the local list, Development proposals will be required to pay special regard to the preservation and restoration of internal and external features which contribute to their character, to the maintenance of their scale and proportions, to the preservation of their setting and to the use of appropriate materials.

Policy C4 of the Local Plan states that the Council will endeavour to protect and enhance the historic character of the Borough, particularly in Conservation Areas and those buildings of architectural and historic importance.

Policy L1 of the Local Plan and KP1 of the Core Strategy support proposals for new tourist and visitor facilities, particularly where they create jobs and result in environmental improvements

4.3 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy seeks that new development contributes to economic, social, physical and environmental regeneration in a sustainable way through securing improvements to the urban environment through quality design, and respecting the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood, and that development should “make the best use of previously developed land” and “respect, conserve and enhance the natural and historic environment”.

Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy seeks development that contributes to the creation of a high quality, sustainable urban environment which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend through maintaining and enhancing the amenities, appeal and character of residential areas, securing good relationships with existing development, and respecting the nature and scale of that development. Particularly with regards to the historic environment, CP4 seeks to safeguard and enhance the historic environment, heritage and archaeological assets, including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Ancient Monuments.

4.4 A Development Brief has also been published in relation to the shelter. This sets out the development potential, planning and conservation objectives for this building, and advises that the re-use of this attractive building for restaurant/café/ice cream parlour, plus retaining an element of the Shelter for public use, is considered to have the potential to contribute towards the continued regeneration and growth of Southend.


4.5 In relation to the retention of the shelter for public use the applicant has stated the following in the Design and Access Statement:

“Whilst the shelter cannot provide a duality of commercial use and public shelter, the external green space to the frontage will be fully accessible to all members of the public and non-paying customers during performances in summer months”.

4.6 The proposed development would contribute to the visitor and tourist-related facilities at the seafront, and would enhance the attraction of the seafront. The proposal would retain an element of public use and is of a use which is considered to be appropriate in this location. Subject to detailed considerations set out below, the proposed use of the shelter as an A3 use would therefore be acceptable in principle.

Design and Impact on the Streetscene and Conservation Area

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C4, C11, C2 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.7 The NPPF requires that alterations within designated conservation areas preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation areas. Policy C4 of the Borough Local Plan requires development in conservation areas should preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area and Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy requires development to safeguard and enhance the historic environment. The Development Brief states that development in a conservation area will be required to respect its character by preserving or reinstating traditional features and materials, respecting the grain and massing of buildings in the locality and its townscape quality and enhancing the area with good quality design.

4.8 The existing shelter would remain largely unaltered and as such this approach means that the historic character of the existing building and the wider conservation area would be preserved. Various alterations are proposed

4.9 It is proposed to repair the existing steel crittal windows and install new glazing with traditional putty fixings which would ensure that the contribution the existing windows make to the building will not be lost. The proposed glass entrance doors would be lightweight and would integrate appropriately with the traditional character of the building. A box-like fully glazed entrance lobby is proposed to the main front entrance which similarly due to its transparency and lightweight design would not compete with the historic character of the building, however further details of this would need to be required by condition. A new central access door is proposed within the semi-circle projection to the front. This would be of a traditional style and would have crittal glazing thereby helping to integrate the new door with the existing building.


With regard to the canopies which would be located above the entrance doors and to the windows at either end of the shelter, these would be fabric and would fix to the top of the glazing via a small stainless steel box section.

Such canopies are part of the surrounding seaside character and therefore there would be no objection in principle, however further details of these are required which could be controlled by condition. An access ramp is also proposed to part of the frontage. The applicant has confirmed that the ramp would have a maximum height of 300mm. It is proposed to splay the edges and incorporate soft landscaping to avoid the need for handrails.

4.10 With regard to the proposed plant room, this would be of a modest scale and would have a flat roof and appear to be ‘sunken into’ the cliff embankment behind, similarly to the existing shelter. A landscaped wall will adjoin the highway which will limit the visual impact this has on the streetscene It is proposed that the plant room would be constructed of brick to match the existing shelter however further details of materials can be required by condition. It is noted that ventilation grilles are proposed to match the colour of the brick. As such the proposed plant room would integrate appropriately with the existing building.

4.11 Boundary treatments to the front include recycled cast iron railings. These would be sympathetic to the traditional character of the building and would allow visibility through to the frontage.

4.12 Soft landscaping is proposed to the frontage which would include a grassed area together with two palm trees. The remainder of the frontage would be hardsurfaced including resin fixed shingle. Such details can be controlled by condition.

4.13 Subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, the above alterations are considered to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing shelter and as such the historic character of would be preserved. It is however recommended that a condition be imposed removing any permitted development rights to prevent inappropriate development.



4.14 The site itself offers no parking, however Western Esplanade runs immediately to the south of the site and is a main artery road providing access along the seafront. Seafront business typically do not have on-site parking, and the area is served by large public car parks and on-street pay and display parking, all of which is within walking distance of the application site. The Council’s Highways officer notes the proposal is not likely to be a destination in its own right, and will attract visitors already visiting the seafront, or combining their visits with trips to other seafront attractions. As such the parking situation is considered acceptable.


4.15 The applicant has advised that staff cycle parking spaces could be accommodated within the plant room. In relation to visitor cycle parking, whilst not shown on the application plans, it is considered reasonable to require additional cycle parking stands to the highway. The number and location of cycle spaces could be controlled by way of a condition.


National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP Policies C11, H5, E5

4.16 Paragraph 343 of SPD1 states that extensions must respect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and ensure not to adversely affect light, outlook or privacy of the habitable rooms in adjacent properties. Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan requires that development respect existing residential amenities. Policy E5 of the Borough Local Plan requires that the character and amenities of residential streets be safeguarded from overlooking, noise, smell, parking, traffic and other activities.

4.17 Immediately adjoining the site to the east and west are areas of public open space. To the north of the site, above the shelter, is Clifton Drive which is residential. There would be a distance of approximately 23m from the site to the front boundaries of these properties. Given the separation distance and the lower ground level in relation to Clifton Drive, there would not be a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of these properties. The proposed plant equipment will be internalised and as such would limit any noise or odour nuisance. Whilst it is accepted that there would be an increase in levels of activity at the site, given the separation distance it is not considered that this would result in an undue level of noise. The proposed use would operate between the hours of 08:00 – 23:00 which is outside of noise sensitive hours. It is however recommended that a condition be imposed restricting the use of the flat roof to safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

Waste

BLP Policy U2 (Pollution Control)

4.18 The proposed plant room would accommodate sufficient waste storage. This would be within close proximity to the highway to allow for collection.

Conclusion

4.19 The proposal is considered acceptable in principle, and would be in accordance with relevant Development Plan policies.




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

5.3 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), L1 (Tourism), T11 (Parking Standards), C4 (Conservation Areas), C2 (Historic Buildings), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), E5 (Non Residential Uses Located Close to Housing)



5.6 Development Brief: The Leas Sun Shelter, Western Esplanade, Southend-on-Sea.


Southend Society

No representations received at time of writing report


6.1 This proposal to convert the existing seafront shelter into a cafe and should provide a renewed lease of life for this historic building and is welcomed in principle. Generally the design approach is a ‘light touch’ and this is considered to be the right solution and will ensure that the historic character of the existing building and the wider conservation area are preserved and enhanced. There are however, a few issue of detail that would need to be clarified or conditioned.

It is pleasing to see that the existing crittal steel windows are to be overhauled, repaired and glazed with traditional putty fixings and this should help to ensure that this key feature of the building survives and continues to play and important role in the character of the building. The proposal to infill the existing opening with simple glass doors should help to maintain the integrity of the original elevation and is welcomed in principle although it is unclear how the proposed box like glazed porch will integrate with the canopy and further details of this should be sought/conditioned

There is no objection to the creation of a central door with crittall glazing provided it matches the design and detailing of the existing glazing bars


There is no objection in principle to the proposed canopies which will provide a location for the signage, providing that they integrate with the existing building. However further details should be sought or conditioned. It is important the detailing of these elements is appropriate and of a high quality. How this integrates with the proposed porch is also important.

It seems that the plant and refuse store have been well integrated into the proposal and this is welcomed. Powder coating the proposed grilles to match the colour of the brickwork and constructing a separate adjacent plant room seems to be an appropriate solution for this requirement and is therefore considered acceptable subject to appropriate materials and landscaping screen.

It is noted that the planting will be reduced to the frontage but that a significant area has been retained and this should achieve an acceptable balance. The landscaping should be retained to the ends of the building. The hard surfacing in this area should be conditioned to ensure its suitability in this historic context. It is noted that there is a disabled access ramp proposed to the west side of this area. This is not objected to in principle but details will need to be conditioned. The materials should match that of the existing building and the proposed boundary railings to ensure that it is well integrated. The proposed simple boundary railing fixed to the existing wall is acceptable in principle but again detailed design and materials should be conditioned.


6.2 The application does not have capacity to accommodate car parking on site, however this is similar to other seafront business within the town. The seafront is well served by on-street pay and display parking all of which are in close proximity to the application site. It is not considered that the application will become a destination in its own right and will attract visitors already visiting the town. Staff cycle parking is proposed to be accommodated within the plant room. Visitor cycle parking is proposed on the public highway, although the exact location of this will be agreed by way of a condition. This would provide an alternative travel option for potential customers.

Environmental Health

6.3 No objections

Asset Management

6.4 The proposals as set out in the application are generally in line with the development brief as set out by the Council as Landlord and supported in principle.



7.1 Neighbours notified and site notice displayed – one letter of representation received at the time of writing this report in support of the application.


8.1 None relevant

9 Recommendation




02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Plans and Elevations, Block and Site Plans, Proposed Section and Elevations, Proposed Plans 103 Rev E.


03 The premises shall not be open for use other than between the hours of 0800 – 2300 Monday – Saturday and between 0800 – 2200 on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential and business properties, in accordance with Policies H5 and U2 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.

04 No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used on the external elevations of the existing shelter building and the plant room including doors, porches, canopies (including materials and fixture details), external lighting, ventilation and boundary treatments 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 approved 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 this part of the Leas Conservation Area. This is as set out in DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C4 and C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

05 No development shall take place until details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include:-

iii. planting including size, species and numbers of plantsiv. vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; v. hard surfacing materials; iv landscape management plan

The landscaping and planting details must be carried out prior to commencement of the use hereby permitted.

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 this part of the Leas Conservation Area. This is as set out in DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C4 and C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

06 Prior to commencement of the proposed use, cycle stands shall be installed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

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 DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

07 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Order 2008, or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no development shall be carried out within Schedule 2, Part 3 Classes A-G of that Order.

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 this part of the Leas Conservation Area. This is as set out in DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C4 and C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).


08 The roof of the existing shelter building/extension shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden, outdoor seating area or similar area or for any other purpose unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential and business properties, in accordance with Policies H5 and U2 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan

09 Prior to commencement of the proposed use, separate stores for waste and materials for recycling must be provided as shown on drawing Proposed Plans P03 Revision E. These stores must be clearly marked and made available at all times. Waste must be stored inside the designated store area only. The stores must not be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To protect the environment and provide suitable storage for waste and materials for recycling in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4.


INFORMATIVES

01 You are advised that this permission does not grant consent for any advertisements which require separate advertisement consent.

02 You may need separate licensing approval for the premises. Your approved licensing hours may differ from those given above but you must not have any customers on the premises outside the hours set out in this planning permission.

03 Please contact the Council’s Waste Service on 01702 215006 about your arrangements for storing and collecting waste and recyclable materials.

04 Under the Highways Act 1980 you must get a licence from us before you put skips or scaffolding etc. on the road or pavement. It is an offence to break the conditions of that licence. You may also have to send us a programme of work so that the Council can tell your neighbours the likely timing of building activities. For more advice, please phone our Highway and Traffic Management Service on 01702 215003.


Reference: 14/00111/FULH

Ward: Eastwood Park

Proposal: Erect conservatory at rear (Retrospective)

Address: 8 Hylands Grove, Eastwood, Southend-on-Sea, SS9 5FN

Applicant: Mr Albert Hamblin

Agent: Not Available

Consultation Expiry: 21st May 2014


Case Officer: Anna Tastsoglou

Plan Nos: 21/14/A



1 The Proposal

1.1 The proposed development is retrospective in nature and it involves the erection of single storey pitched roofed conservatory to the rear of the dwelling.

1.2 The proposed conservatory would measure 3.8m wide x 3.3m deep x 2.4m high to the eaves, with a maximum height of 3m.


2.1 The site is located on the western side of Hylands Grove, north of Rayleigh Road and it is occupied by a detached bungalow. Three garages are located on the north-east of the property. The property has a small rear garden, relative to the area. Neighbouring properties on the west of Hylands Grove have conservatories to the rear of the dwellings.

2.2 The character of Hylands Grove is residential and it is consist of detached and semi-detached bungalows of similar style and design. The natural ground level of the site slopes from the north to the south part of Hylands Grove.


3.1 The key considerations of this application are the principle of the development, design and impact on the character of the area, any traffic and transport issues and impact on residential amenity.

4 Appraisal

Background to the application

4.1 An enforcement complaint was received in December 2013 in relation to the construction of a conservatory. This was investigated and this application has been submitted in an attempt to regularise the development.


NPPF; DPD 1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP4; Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5.

4.2 The dwelling is located within a residential area and an extension to the property is considered acceptable in principle. Other material planning considerations are discussed below.


NPPF; DPD 1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP4; Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5; SPD 1 (Design & Townscape Guide (2009)


4.3 It should be mentioned that good design is a fundamental requirement of new development to achieve high quality living environments. Its importance is reflected in the NPPF, in the Policies C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and in the Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy. The Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) also states that “the Borough Council is committed to good design and will seek to create attractive, high-quality living environments.”

4.4 In the NPPF it is stated that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

4.5 In the Borough Local Plan it is stated 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.” (Policy C11) and also 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 H5)

4.6 Policy KP2 of Core Strategy (CS) states that new development should “respect the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood where appropriate”. Policy CP4 of CS requires that development proposals should “maintain and enhance the amenities, appeal and character of residential areas, securing good relationships with existing development, and respecting the scale and nature of that development”.

4.7 On paragraph 384 of The Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) under the heading of the Rear Extensions it is stated that “whether or not there are any public views, the design of the rear extensions is still important and every effort should be made to integrate them with the character of the parent building, particularly in terms of scale, materials and the relationship with existing fenestration and roof form.”

4.8 The proposed development is a pitched roofed single storey conservatory to rear. The appearance of the extension is typical of household scale conservatories. The proposed extension is considered acceptable in terms of size, style and design in relation to the existing dwelling. The development has limited visibility from the public realm and therefore it is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene and the character of the area.


NPPF; Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies 8 and T11; EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards 2001


4.9 According to the Borough Local Plan – Policy T11 the provision of off-street car parking spaces is required. In the Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) Parking Standards it is set out that the maximum off-street parking provision is 1.5 spaces per dwelling. However, this provision can be reduced to the maximum of 1 space per dwelling for the main urban areas, which have good access to public transport. Moreover, with respect to NPPF the use of public transport is encouraged instead of the car use.

4.10 An allocated car parking space is provided for the occupiers of the dwelling. The existing development does not have any impact upon car parking requirements and therefore, no objection is raised in relation to car parking space provision.


NPPF; DPD 1 (Core Strategy) Policies KP2 and CP4; Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5; SPD 1 (Design & Townscape Guide (2009))

4.11 The Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) states that “extensions must respect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and ensure not to adversely affect light, outlook or privacy of the habitable rooms in adjacent properties.” (Paragraph 343 - Alterations and Additions to Existing Residential Buildings).

4.12 With regard the impact on the properties to the south, No’s 240 and 242 Rayleigh Road, the rear extension is located approximately one metre from the southern boundary. Although the rear extension is sited one metre from the southern boundary the separation distance between the properties is much further. Whilst the natural ground level of the application site is set higher than the adjoining properties to the south, the rear extension is of single storey height and it is not considered that the development has a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbours to the south due to overshadowing or domination. As the floor level is set higher than the neighbours there is a potential for overlooking from the conservatory. On this basis the windows to the south have been glazed in obscure glass to prevent material overlooking. A condition will be added requiring retention of the obscure glass. Moreover, given the orientation of the site and the sunlight path, it is not considered that the existing conservatory has a harmful impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties to the south.

4.13 The proposed extension is located 3.5m from the boundary of the adjoining property No. 7 to the north. Moreover, taking into account the topographical change between the site and the adjoining dwelling (the natural ground level of the neighbouring property is higher that the application site) and the fact that the existing rear development is of single storey, it is not considered that the development has a harmful impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential property due to overshadowing or domination.


4.14 Whilst it is accepted that the rear garden of the property is small in size and the proposed development has reduce the rear garden amenity space provision, it is considered that the rear extension would still provide a rear garden amenity space capable of meeting the outdoor requirements of the occupiers.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The development, subject to appropriate condition, is considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan.


6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6.2 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), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), and T11 (Parking Standards).

6.5 Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.


Public Consultation

7.1 Three neighbours were consulted and no letters have been received.

7.2 Councillor Walker has requested that this planning application go before the Development Control Committee for consideration.


8.1 09/02132/FUL - Demolish existing dwelling and outbuildings and erect 9No. bungalows, associated garages, lay out new footpath/cycleway and extend existing vehicular access onto Rayleigh Road (amended proposal) - Refused planning permission. A subsequent appeal was allowed and a condition was imposed that removed Classes A-E of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the General Permitted Development Order.

14/00108/FULH (7 Hylands Grove) - Erect conservatory at rear (Retrospective). Planning permission granted.

14/00110/FULH (4 Hylands Grove) - Erect conservatory to rear (Retrospective). Planning permission granted.


9 Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following condition:

01 The windows glazed in obscure glass on the southern (side) elevation of the conservatory shall be permanently retained. (U59519)

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). (R17A)



Reference: 14/00151/FUL

Ward: Thorpe

Proposal:Erect roof extension to rear, erect single storey rear extension, install balconies to dormer windows to front, remove external staircase and alter elevations

Address: Beaches Hotel, 192 Eastern Esplanade, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, SS1 3AA

Applicant: Mr B Mather

Agent: Stockplace Investments Ltd

Consultation Expiry: 2 June 2014

Expiry Date: 25 April 2014


Plan No’s:

Location and Site Plan, Plan 1, Plan 2, Plan 3, Proposed alterations and additions Sections 1, Proposed alterations and additions Sections 2, Proposed Elevations, Roof Plan, Existing Elevations, Existing basement and ground floor, Existing first and second floor



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a roof extension to the rear at second floor level, erect a single storey rear extension, install balconies to the existing front dormers, remove the existing fire escape staircase and alter the elevations. The proposed extensions would provide managers accommodation in association with the guest house use, and would result in the existing guest bedrooms being enlarged to accommodate en-suites however there would not be an increase in the existing total guest bedroom numbers.

1.2 The proposed ground floor rear extension would measure 3.2m deep x 5.5m high x 4.8m wide and would have a flat roof. The second floor roof extension would measure 3.8m deep x 3.5m wide x 2.8m high and would also have a flat roof. The proposed balconies to the front would be formed by installing balustrades 1.2m high to the two front dormer windows. It is also proposed to remove an existing door to the first floor rear elevation and form a window to the eastern side elevation at ground floor level.

1.3 Materials to be used on the external elevations include white render, UPVC windows and doors and roof tiles to match the existing property.

1.4 It is noted that amended plan have been submitted during the course of the application, which has removed the roof terrace previously proposed at second floor level.


2.1 The application site is located on the northern side of Eastern Esplanade and contains a two storey end of terrace property known as Beaches Guest House. The property benefits from a front and rear garden however there is no off street parking associated with the property. It is located within the Visitor Accommodation Area as defined on the Borough Local Plan proposals map. The property is also within Flood Zone 3.

2.2 The surrounding area is characterised by similar hotel and guest house uses, and residential dwellings.


3.1 The main considerations in relation to this application are the principle of the development, design and impact on the streetscene, any impact on neighbouring properties, highways considerations and floodrisk.


4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, L6 and H5 and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.1 This proposal is considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4. Also of relevance include Borough Local Plan Policies relating to design and local design guidance. 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. Policy L6 (Hotels and Guest Houses) states that proposals for the improvement of hotel and guest house accommodation will be encouraged subject to the requirement of Policy H5. Subject to detailed considerations therefore, the extension of the existing guest house is considered acceptable in principle.

Design

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

4.2 Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan (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.

4.3 With regard to the roof extension to the existing outrigger, it is noted there is a character for outriggers to the rear of these terrace properties, many of which benefit from dormers/rooms in the roof. Most of these properties have been extended to the rear. The application property has a pitched roof (gabled) outrigger to the rear, together with two dormers (pitched/cat slide). It is noted that the adjoining property has also been extended to the rear, benefitting from an outrigger. The extension would extend out from the exiting pitched roof however would be set in from the end of the gable by 3.3m and would be set down from the ridge by 450mm. Given its location to the rear, the extension would have a limited visibility from the street.

4.4 With regard to the ground floor rear extension, this would incorporate managers accommodation at ground and basement level. It is noted that the ground level appears to slope down at the rear of the site and as such this extension would appear as one and a half storeys when viewed from the rear elevation. The extension would project an additional 3m from the existing ground floor rear wall. It is considered that this would be of an appropriate scale in relation to the existing building. The flat roof of the extension would be in keeping with the flat roof of the proposed roof extension. This element of the proposal would also have limited visibility from the street.


4.5 The proposed balconies to the front dormer windows would be of a comparable design and appearance to the balconies to the front of the neighbouring property and as such are considered acceptable in design terms.

4.6 Given this, and the limited visual impact this would have from the streetscene, the roof extension is considered acceptable in design terms.

Impact on Neighbouring Properties

Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5, and SPD1

4.7 The proposed roof extension would not result in any additional impact in terms of overlooking as this will be set back behind the rear wall of the gable projection and only one window is proposed within the side elevation, which would not be any worse than the existing situation which includes windows within the side elevation at first floor level. As the roof extension would be set back from the main rear wall of the outrigger and down from the ridge, there would not be any additional impact in terms of overshadowing or loss of light.

4.8 With regard to the ground floor rear extension, this would project 3m beyond the rear wall of the adjoining property at No. 191 Eastern Esplanade. It is noted that there is a ground floor window within the rear wall of this property, however this is not the sole source of light to this room and as such would not be detrimental to the residential amenity of this property.

4.9 It is noted that a ground floor window (serving a dining area) is proposed to the main side wall, which forms the side boundary. Adjoining this is the garden area which extends in front of No.193 Eastern Esplanade. This window would open inwards only, and it is noted that the adjoining garden area is some way from the associated dwelling, and as such this does not form the main amenity area to this property. It is however recommended that this window is obscure glazed to safeguard the privacy of the neighbouring property.

4.10 The balconies to the front would overlook Eastern Esplanade and the public side of neighbouring properties. As such they would not materially affect any residential properties.

Traffic and Highways

Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11, and SPD1

4.11 The existing guest house does not appear to currently benefit from off street parking. EPOA Parking Standards require 1 space per bedroom (guest or staff), although it is noted that a lower provision may be appropriate in town centre locations where there is good access to alternative forms of transport and existing parking facilities. The premises is considered to be within a sustainable location close to public transport links and on street parking is available along Eastern Esplanade.


The proposal does not include any additional guest rooms and the manager accommodation would replace the existing manager accommodation. Therefore, given the location, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a material increase in off street parking demand.

Flood Risk

4.12 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment stating that the ground floor levels of the extension will be no lower than existing floor levels which is consistent with the Environment Agency’s advice.

Conclusion

4.13 The proposal is acceptable in principle and is in accordance with relevant Development Plan policies.


5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

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

5.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), L6 (Hotels and Guest Houses).

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


Public Consultation

6.1 Neighbours notified of the application. Three objections received raising the following issues:- Terrace at second floor would result in overlooking, noise and disturbance and

loss of privacy [Officer Comment: This element has been removed from the proposal].

- Balcony and staircase to first floor would cause overlooking [Officer Comment: This element has been removed from the proposal]

- Proposed window on boundary wall would overlook front garden- Increase in on street parking demand

6.2 Cllr. Woodley has requested that this application go before the Development Control Committee for consideration.



6.3 The plans have been amended and the scale of the roof extension is now considered acceptable. The ground/first floor extension has incorporated a flat roof which matches that of the roof extension to help integrate with other elements of the rear of the building and avoid competing with the conservatory.

There are no objections to the front balustrade detail to the windows within the roof, however the details should be agreed by condition to ensure the design of the existing balustrade, materials and finish, are matched.

All materials and fenestration, including all balustrades, to match existing, to be agreed by condition. Traffic and Highways

.4 No objections.

Environment Agency

6.5 As there are no bedrooms proposed within the basement, no objections are raised.


7.1 00/00203/FUL - Demolish existing extension and erect rear extension and conservatory. Approved.

8 Recommendation




02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location and Site Plan, Plan 1, Plan 2, Plan 3, Proposed alterations and additions Sections 1, Proposed alterations and additions Sections 2, Proposed Elevations, Roof Plan, Existing Elevations, Existing basement and ground floor, Existing first and second floor.



03 The ground floor windows in the east 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.

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

04 No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used on the external elevations (including balustrading) of the buildings 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 approved 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 DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 Policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

05 No part of the roof of the existing building or extension hereby approved shall be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area or for any other purpose unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The roof can however be used for the purposes of maintenance or to escape in an emergency.


06 The occupation of the managers accommodation shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in the business occupying the plot edged red in drawing titled Location and Site Plan, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and that this would not provide suitable residential accommodation in accordance with BLP Policies C11, H5.


The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The detailed analysis is set out in a report prepared by officers. In the circumstances the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the Applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.



Ward: West Shoebury

Proposal:Erect single storey building at 99 Ness Road to form a retail unit linking with 101 Ness Road, and layout car parking spaces to rear (Amended Proposal)

Address: 99 Ness Road, Shoeburyness, Southend-On-Sea, Essex, SS3 9DA

Applicant: Mr. D. Nyman

Agent: APS Design Associates Ltd.




Plan No: 01; 02; 03; 04; 05



This application was deferred from Development Control Committee on the 7th May 2014 pending further investigations into the impact of the proposed development on the highway network. The applicant has since provided a transport assessment which has taken into account the proposed development including the off street parking provision proposed (11 spaces) and impact on the highway network with particular reference to the junction with Ness Road and Campfield Road.

The detailed transport assessment carried out by Waterman dated 19th May 2014 demonstrates the 11 on-site parking spaces for the retail element is sufficient and due to the vehicle trips based on TRICS data the proposal is likely to reach only 45% of the car parking capacity at any one time and will therefore not result in queuing traffic backing onto the highway. Furthermore, the Councils Highway Officer has raised no objection to this proposal.

1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect single storey building at 99 Ness Road to form part of a larger retail unit linking with 101 Ness Road, and layout car parking spaces to rear. The proposed building to adjoin no. 101 Ness Road is 6m wide x 1.4m deep x 3.7m high (footprint matches the previous building on site that has been demolished) and will create 121sqm of retail space. The proposal is intended as an extension to the ground floor of 101 Ness Road.

1.2 Materials proposed include render and windows to match those at 101 Ness Road in terms of their materials and proportions.

1.3 It should be noted planning permission has been recently refused under reference 13/01496/FUL to ‘Demolish existing single storey building and erect new ground floor retail unit with 2 self-contained flats above and layout car parking spaces’. The application was refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1. “The proposal development is located within in a high flood risk zone and the information submitted has failed to satisfy the exceptions test as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. It has therefore, not been demonstrated that the development would be safe for future occupiers in terms of flood risk. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy KP1 and KP2 of the Core Strategy”.

2. “The proposed development by reason of design would result in an incongruous and unsympathetic feature that does not relate satisfactorily to the existing building at 101 Ness Road which is a locally listed building, to the detriment of the appearance and character of the building and the area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy; Policies C11 and H5 the Borough Local Plan and advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)”.


1.4 The main amendments to this proposal include the omission of the upper floors (flats). A flood risk report has also been submitted for consideration.


2.1 The application site is located on the East side of Ness Road and near the junction of Ness Road with Campfield Road. The last use was as a motor components shop. There is access to the rear via Grove Walk and there is space to park several vehicles.

2.2 Adjoining buildings surrounding the site vary in terms of scale, form and use. Nearby buildings on Ness Road and predominantly two storeys in height and in use for commercial purposes at ground level and residential purposes above. A three storey building is to the immediate south of the site (No.101 – the former Cinema) and incorporates a retail unit at ground level and flats above. Lands to the north and east are primarily occupied by commercial buildings.

2.3 The surrounding area is generally mixed use in nature. Land in the area is relatively flat. On-street parking is available on nearby streets including Ness Road. The site is within flood zone 3 (high risk).


3.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the development, flood risk, design and relationship with adjacent development and the streetscene, any impact on neighbours, use of on-site renewables, and parking implications. The recent planning history of the site is a material consideration.

4 Appraisal

Principle of Development National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, S5, S9 and SPD1

4.1 National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 (NPPF) has, as one of its core principles, to:

“Encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value” (paragraph 17).

4.2 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy seeks that new development contributes to economic, social, physical and environmental regeneration in a sustainable way through securing improvements to the urban environment through quality design, respecting the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood.


4.3 Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy seeks development which contributes to the creation of a high quality, sustainable urban environment which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend through maintaining and enhancing the amenities, appeal and character of residential areas, securing good relationships with existing development, and respecting the nature and scale of that development.

4.4 The site is located in a secondary shopping frontage as designated by the Borough Local Plan. Policy S9 seeks to protect the character and value of retail frontages where they contribute to the retail function of an area. Within defined Secondary Frontages Policy S5 recommends that non-retail uses would be permitted except where this would be likely to isolate other shops from the bulk of the shopping frontages or from the main pedestrian flows, would adversely affect residential amenities by way of noise, disturbance or the emission of smells and fumes. Whilst the building has been demolished the proposal would not result in the loss of retail within this defined shopping frontage. The development would not involve the loss of retail to the ground floor and it is in an area close to shops, services and public transport routes. Other material considerations are discussed below.

Flood Risk

National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) Policy KP2

4.5 The site lies within Flood Zone 3 (high risk zone). The National Planning Policy Framework requires the proposed development to meet the requirements of the sequential test and exceptions tests (in order to identify whether the site is suitable for development). The site is within the centre of Shoeburyness, as identified under Policy KP1 of the adopted Southend on Sea Core Strategy; an area for regeneration and growth. Based on the Core Strategy allocation, an assessment of available sites within the area, and the proposed use, the proposal is considered to pass the sequential test. It would be on previously developed land and as such it is considered the proposal meets the sequential test and Part A and B of the exceptions test, which is required by the National Planning Policy Framework. Part C of the exceptions test requires development to be safe in the event of a flood. The flood risk assessment (FRA) submitted carried out by GLNK Ltd, dated 22 January 2014 meets the requirement of the exceptions test and therefore no objection has been raised by the Environment Agency to the planning application.

4.6 The FRA advises that the floor levels for the ground level should be approximately 4.0mAOD for the commercial ground floor. Based on these levels, flood depths within the ground floor could range from 1.5 – 2m during the 1 in 200 year climate change event and 2 – 2.5m for the 1 in 1000 year event.

4.7 In light of the above, the proposal in terms of flood risk is acceptable and neither the Council nor the Environment Agency raises any objection to the proposed development subject to relevant planning conditions associated with flood risk.


Design

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, H5, H7 and SPD1

4.8 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states:


4.9 Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and Policy C11 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan advocate the need for development to secure good relationships with the existing development and respect the existing scale. The Design and Townscape Guide states that alterations to existing buildings with particular reference to extensions should appear subservient and must be respectful of the scale of the present building.

4.10 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. 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.

4.11 This proposal includes a new shopfront whereby the fascia and glazing panels to the front of no. 99 matches that of 101 Ness Road as the retail unit will be one unit with the main entrance from 101 Ness Road and relates in size and design to no. 99 and 101 Ness Road. The existing entrance door to the flats of the upper floors of 101 Ness Road will be retained. The proposed development by reason of its design, scale and appearance relates satisfactorily to no. 97 and 101 Ness Road and due to its limited scale will not detract from No.101, which acts as a local landmark. A condition will be imposed to ensure full details of the materials are submitted and agreed to ensure the fenestration particularly relates to the existing building of 101 Ness Road. The proposal is considered to provide a positive addition to the streetscene and overcomes the previously refused application 13/01496/FUL, as the proposed single storey building will not detract away from the character and appearance of this locally listed building at 101 Ness Road in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, policy C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.12 The proposed layout to the rear of the site will include the formation of 11 additional parking spaces to be used in conjunction with the retail use together with cycle storage and refuse accessed via Grove Walk. Boundary treatments including fencing and landscaping are proposed and further information will be sought to ensure the proposal complies with Policy C14 of the Borough Local Plan



National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policy CP4 Borough Local Plan Policy E5 and SPD1

4.13 Policy E5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan states that in order to retain an adequate housing stock proposals to establish, continue, intensify or expand a business will not be permitted if the development adversely affects residential amenity in terms of appearance, overlooking, noise, small, parking, traffic or other activity. The principle of a retail use at 101 Ness Road and 99 Ness Road has been previously accepted following approval of 11/01336/FUL and 12/00626/FUL respectively. It is considered in this instance, whilst the floorspace has increased to create a larger retail unit at 101 Ness, it will not materially increase impacts, and potentially reduce the noise and disturbance caused by having two retail units in such close proximity in terms of deliveries, traffic and general noise. With respect to increased traffic movements and parking associated with the proposed use; given the existing location of the site on a main distributor road of Ness Road and existing traffic movements together with the proximity of the site to Campfield Road it is not considered that the proposal will exacerbate the impact any further, thus no objection is raised. Furthermore, any associated traffic generation and parking will be mitigated against as Ness Road is a busy distributor road and any additional traffic movements will not result in any demonstrable harm, furthermore 11 car parking spaces are proposed to the rear of the site which will reduce the need for on street parking associated with the unit.

4.14 In terms of noise and disturbance, whilst residential flats are located above the retail unit (at No.101) this is an existing situation (albeit it is currently vacant). The proposed opening and delivery hours are between 0700-2300 which is similar to that of other shops in the area. Given the existing retail and non retail uses along Ness Road including fast food cafe and takeaways it is not considered the proposal will result in any significant harm to the nearby residents in terms of noise and disturbance.

4.15 It is not considered that the proposed single storey building would result in any adverse impact to the residential amenities enjoyed by existing residents at no. 97 or 101 Ness Road in terms of being overbearing or resulting in the loss of privacy or overlooking due to the nature of the building being single storey.

4.16 In light of the above, the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy and Policy E5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.


Traffic and Transport

National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy DPD1 Borough Local Plan Policy T11, EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards

4.17 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.

4.18 The proposed parking layout will provide 11 additional spaces to be used for the retail use at no. 99-101 Ness Road (the previous application at 101 Ness Road provided no parking spaces for the retail use). The existing car park serving 101 Ness Road will not be affected by this proposal and will still maintain 9 spaces to the existing flats. Open cycles racks are to the front and rear are proposed and refuse storage to the rear. The position of the cycle storage and refuse storage has been previously accepted under application 12/00626/FUL at the rear of the site. Whilst the combined retail unit will equate to 353sqm, the principle of a retail unit at 99 Ness Road has been accepted under reference 12/00626/FUL and 13/01496/FUL and no highway objections have been raised previously to the need for a loading bay. It is therefore, considered that the proposed development will not result in any harm to the highway network and the Council’s Highway Officer has raised no objection. The site is located in a commercial/mixed use area with good access to shops, services and public transport.

4.19 The proposed level of off street parking and cycle storage is considered acceptable in accordance with the EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001).


5.1 National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

5.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP2 (Development Principles) CP4 (Environment & Urban Renaissance), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility)

5.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), T11 (Parking Standards), T8 (Highway Network), S9 (Retention of Secondary Frontages)





6.1 The current plans see the ground floor units at 101 and 99 Ness Road joined by means of a subservient link, set back from the front building line, to create a larger, single retail unit at ground floor.

In terms of the detailed design of the shopfront, the fenestration appears to have drawn reference to 101 Ness Road however it is noted that the application form states that upvc windows are proposed and there are concerns with the use of upvc at ground floor in particular. Details of all fenestration should therefore be agreed by condition to ensure an appropriate finish is achieved to complement the adjacent buildings (particularly the setting of 101 Ness Road) [Officer Comment: This can be dealt with by condition to ensure materials are submitted for consideration].

The elevational plans show that the design of the fascia has been amended so that it no longer extends continuously across both frontages. Details of any signage would need to be agreed - presumably a separate application will be made that includes 101 Ness Road - including materials (e.g. timber fascia), finish, and any illumination proposed, and should be designed to sensitively incorporate existing architectural features (refer to SPD1 paragraph 399).

Highways

6.3 Additional customer and resident parking has been provided which is acceptable in highway terms. The proposed layout allows vehicles to manoeuvre efficiently within the site. The site also benefits from being in a sustainable location with regard to public transport with good links in close proximity. Waste storage and the provision of cycle storage are also acceptable. Therefore no highway objections are raised.

Environment Agency

6.4 No objection.

Public Consultation

6.1 7 neighbours notified of the application and a site notice displayed on the 11th April 2014. No letters of representation have been received.

6.2 Councillor Cox and Councillor Assenheim have requested this application be dealt with by Development Control Committee.



7.1 Demolish existing single storey building and erect new ground floor retail unit with 2 self-contained flats above and layout car parking spaces at 99 Ness Road-Refused planning permission (13/01496/FUL).

7.2 Erect first and second floor incorporating 2 self-contained flats at 99 Ness Road- Granted planning permission (12/00626/FUL)

7.3 Demolish outbuildings, erect 3 storey rear extension and erect new second and third floor and alter elevations. Use ground floor as retail unit (Class A1) and 8 self-contained flats at first, second and third floor, lay out 9 car parking spaces, cycle and bin store (amended proposal) at 101 Ness Road- Granted planning permission (11/01336/FUL)

8 Recommendation

Members recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION 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.


02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans 01; 02; 03; 04; 05.


03 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations including walls, roof, windows, fascia sign, hard surfacing and boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved materials 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 National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).


04 The 11 car parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store shall be carried out in accordance with plan no. 01 prior to occupation of the retail use hereby approved and shall thereafter be permanently retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off-street car parking and turning provision is provided for proposed retail use(s) and in the interests of residential amenity and highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

05 The unit hereby approved shall only be used as an A1 use. It must not be used for any other purpose, including any other use within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended April 2005 (or any statutory modification or re-enactment or replacement thereof (as the case may be) for the time being in force).

Reason: To ensure that the development is completed and used as agreed, and to ensure that it meets DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4 Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

06 The premises shall not be open for customers outside the following hours: - 0700 hours to 2300 hours Monday - Saturdays including Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and general environmental quality in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, E5 and U2.

07 All servicing must take place between 0700-2300 Monday to Sunday. Servicing includes loading and unloading goods from vehicles and transferring rubbish outside the building.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and general environmental quality in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, E5 and U2.

08 Prior to commencement of the development full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be 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. Permeable paving shall be used for the hardstanding area to the rear unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.


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 the National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11 and C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers.



Ward: Eastwood Park

Proposal: Demolish outbuildings and erect detached bungalow on land at rear and layout parking spaces and amenity area

Address: Land Rear 0f 553 - 555 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood, Essex

Applicant: Mr. Ottey

Agent: New World Designers




Plan No’s: A101, 1102

Recommendation: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION


1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to demolish outbuildings and construct a detached bungalow, with a parking area to the front and garden area to the south. The dwelling would have an overall depth of approximately 12m, width of 8m-9m, and height of 5.9m. The dwelling would have a hipped roof and face onto a rear access road which leads off Belgrave Road.

1.2 The details are as follows:

Internal StandardsBedroom 1 10.8sqm²Bedroom 2 8.5 sqm²Lounge/diner/kitchen area 46sqm²Bathroom 3.6sqm²Garden area including patio In excess of 77.3sqm²

1.2 Materials to be used on the external elevations would include rendered walls and brick plinth, tiled roof, double glazed windows and doors, 1.8m high close boarded fencing, and permeable driveway/forecourt.

1.3 It should be noted this application has been submitted following a recent refusal, whereby application 13/00769/FUL was refused for the following reasons:

“The proposed dwelling by reason of its proximity to neighbouring properties to the north, is considered to be overlooked by an unacceptable degree with a resulting loss in privacy to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers of the dwelling contrary to Policies H5 and H10 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, the policies and principles contained within the Design & Townscape Guide SPD1, and all other material considerations”.

“The existing extraction flue at rear of No. 555 Rayleigh Road has its discharge point in close proximity to the proposed dwelling. The smell, fume and other particles discharged from this extraction flue would, it is considered, adversely affect the amenities of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling contrary to Policies H5, H10 and U2 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, the policies and principles contained within the Design & Townscape Guide SPD1, and all other material considerations”.

1.4 The main amendments to this application are the following:

Repositioned dwellinghouse which is now set 1m-1.5m off the northern boundary to address the existing position of the extract flue (reason 2 of 13/00769/FUL).

Amenity area now to the south of the new dwellinghouse to address reason 1 of 13/00769/FUL).



2.1 According to the Design and Access Statement, the application site is presently used as a recycling/storage yard (although it is noted that no planning permission exists for such a use). There is an existing make-shift storage building on the site which is surrounded by mounds of materials in a disorganised manner. The site is to the rear of No’s 553-55 Rayleigh Road but is accessed separately from a rear access road which leads off Belgrave Road. The site itself is largely flat, but land rises gently to the north and slopes gently down to the south.

2.2 The site is in a predominantly mixed use area. To the north lies No. 553-555 Rayleigh Road which is in use as separate tattoo studio and worktops premises at ground floor level, and as two flats at first floor level. To the east, the neighbouring building is use as a Chinese takeaway at ground level and a flat at first floor level. To the west, the neighbouring building is in use as a pet care premises. Directly to the south are residential dwellings along Belgrave Road and Langley Close, and also nearby to the south is a brook.


3.1 The main issues for consideration are in relation to the principle of the development, design and relationship with adjacent development and the streetscene, any impact on neighbours, living conditions for future occupiers, parking implications, flood risk, and use of on-site renewables and whether the proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal under application 13/00769/FUL.

4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H10 and H5, and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.1 Amongst the core planning principles of the NPPF include:

“Encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value” (paragraph 17).


4.2 Policy H10 of the Borough Local Plan states that development will only be permitted where proposals respect the character of the area, residential amenities of adjoining dwellings and adequate distances between buildings and areas of private amenity space is maintained. Furthermore, the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) advises that whether a backland site is suitable for development will be decided on a site by site basis. In some cases the site may be too constrained or the principle of development may be out of character. Where backland development is considered acceptable in principle, one of the key considerations in the design process must be protecting the privacy of adjoining residents. This means that new backland development should not give rise to any overlooking (or realistically perceived overlooking) of neighbouring properties or their private gardens. In addition, the site itself must be of a sufficient size and shape to accommodate practical internal space, usable amenity space and sufficient off street parking for the new occupants. Access will also be of key importance and should be designed to be safe and avoid creating unreasonable noise disturbance or inconvenience to neighbouring properties. All development must ensure that sufficient access is provided for the emergency services and that appropriate provisions are made for waste collection. No objections have been previously been raised to the principle of development.

4.3 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy requires that new development contributes to economic, social, physical and environmental regeneration in a sustainable way through securing improvements to the urban environment through quality design, and respecting the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood. Policy CP4 requires that new development be of appropriate design and have a satisfactory relationship with surrounding development. Policy CP8 requires that development proposals contribute to local housing needs.

4.4 The principle of a dwellinghouse in this location has been previously accepted under application 13/00769/FUL and therefore subject to more detailed considerations of design, impacts to neighbours and future occupants, and access, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle.

Flood Risk

National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Core Strategy Policies KP1 and KP2

4.5 A large section of the site lies within flood zone 2. The National Planning Policy Framework requires new residential development within flood zones to satisfy the flooding sequential test and exceptions test. The proposal is for a new residential dwellinghouse which itself is outside of the flood risk zone as only the vehicle access and garden area to the south would be within the flood risk zone. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and it is stated that the development will be safe for its lifetime as the finished floor level in the dwelling would be 32.45mAOD which is 0.3m higher than existing ground levels to the north of the dwelling, and higher than the predicted 1 in 1000 year flood level of 31.68mAOD. The Environment Agency has been consulted on the proposal and has responded to note that the proposal is covered by their Flood Risk Standing Advice and there is therefore no further comment to make. As part of the vehicle access is located within Flood Risk Zone 2 it is considered a condition will be imposed to ensure a flood warning and evacuation plan is submitted to and agreed with the local planning authority to meet requirements of the


Environment Agency’s Flood Warning Service.

Design

National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5, and H10, and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.6 The proposed dwelling would be of a typical bungalow design and would be reasonably well articulated with fenestration and use of differing materials. It would not be dissimilar to neighbouring bungalows on Belgrave Road. Landscaping to the front curtilage area would also be provided for and this would help soften the visual impact of the development. Accordingly the proposed development is considered acceptable in design and layout terms.


Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policies U2, C11 and H5, and SPD1

4.7 Given the orientation of the site, any overshadowing would primarily be to properties in Rayleigh Road. However the dwelling would have a modest height (with hipped roof) and there do not appear to be any habitable room windows or amenity space that would be affected in the property directly to the north. This is similarly the case for properties to the east and west. Given the scale of the dwelling (which is not considered excessive), relationship to surrounding built form, and separation distances to neighbouring buildings, it is not considered there would be any adverse overbearing impacts.

4.8 It is not considered the proposed dwelling itself would give rise to any adverse overlooking opportunities, as it would be single storey and would be bounded to the north and side by 1.8m high close boarded fencing. The previous concerns regarding overlooking from first floor flats to the north has now been mitigated against whereby any windows to the north elevation have been omitted and amenity area has been resited from the north to the east and south. The revised layout appears to have addressed reason 1 of the previous refusal as there is sufficient distance 16m now between the proposed amenity space and first floor flats to the north to mitigate against any potential overlooking or loss of privacy. The patio area proposed to the east will also be screened due to the design of the dwellinghouse enclosing this area. Therefore the previous reason for refusal has been addressed.


4.9 The proposed dwelling would be sited 1m-1.5m away from the northern boundary. There are existing extract flues to a Chinese takeaway premises and another property to the north. The previous application had considered that the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the point of discharge of the flues would likely result in adverse impacts in terms of smells and fumes to future occupants of the dwelling. This concern was a reason for refusal in two previous schemes on the site when the Councils Environment Health team raised objections. Given the revised layout whereby the point of discharge will now be set at least 16m from the private amenity space to be used by future occupiers of the dwellinghouse. Furthermore, the Councils Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the dwellinghouse as no complaints have been received by existing occupiers of the first floor flats which are directly adjacent to the flue. It is considered that the existing flue would have adversely affect the amenities of existing occupiers before those of the proposed development. In light of this, the proposed development is considered to overcome the 2nd reason for refusal of application 13/00769/FUL.

Living Conditions for Future Occupiers

Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5, and SPD1

4.10 The new dwelling would have acceptable room sizes and it is considered these sizes are sufficient to provide for adequate living conditions for future occupiers. No specific provision has been made for waste storage or bicycle storage however this could be provided for informally to the rear and can be dealt with by condition.

4.11 The dwelling would have an amenity space of approximately 103m², which is considered acceptable for a dwelling of this size. However as referred to previously, this amenity area would be directly overlooked and would have little if any privacy.

Parking Implications

Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11, EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards

4.12 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 state that a maximum of 1.5 spaces is appropriate for a dwelling in an urban location. Two parking spaces would be provided for the proposed dwelling and this is considered acceptable.

4.13 In terms of waste management, whilst the refuse storage is located outside of the current collection guidance, it is considered this matter can be dealt with by condition include details of the refuse storage and a waste management plan.

Use of On Site Renewable Energy Resources

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policy KP2


4.14 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. The Design and Townscape Guide advises that options for renewable power must be considered at the beginning of the design process so that they are an integral part of the design scheme. The plans indicate solar panels incorporated on the front roofslope. Whilst no details have been provided of whether this would meet the 10% requirement, such details could be requested by way of condition.


6.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

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

6.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H10 (Backland Development), U2 (Pollution Control), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), and T11 (Parking Standards).

6.4 Supplementary Planning Document 1: Design & Townscape Guide, 2009, and EPOA parking standards.


Public Consultation

7.1 Twenty four neighbours notified of the application and a site notice displayed on the 1st May 2014. No letters of representation have been received at the time of writing this report.

7.2 Councillor Walker has requested this application be dealt with by Development Control Committee.



7.3 There is no objection in principle to a bungalow on this site.

This is an amended application. A previous application was refused on this site because of overlooking from the flats to the north (and proximity to a flue at the rear of 555). In response to the overlooking concern the building footprint has been shifted northwards with the garden area located to the front of the building rather than the rear. The proposed boundary treatment to the front is a low fence. Whilst this is not an ideal arrangement in terms of privacy and security of amenity it is noted that this is an isolated backland site there will be no direct overlooking of the front garden area from neighbouring dwellings. This arrangement is therefore not objected to providing the boundary details and landscaping is conditioned.

In terms of layout the space seems adequate although it is considered that the outlook for the main living area would be improved if it faced onto the garden. The external design is considered to be acceptable in this location.

Sustainability The energy reduction measures and PV panels are welcomed and this should meet the requirements of policy KP2.


7.4 There are no highway objections to this proposal, parking has been provided in accordance with guidance, and the refuse storage area is outside of current collection guidance of 18m therefore alternative arrangement will have to be made on the day of collection [Officer Comment: Full details of waste storage and a plan will be required to be dealt with by condition].

Environmental Health

7.5 No adverse observations from Environmental Health as no complaints by the existing occupiers have been received in relation to the location of the existing flues.

Environment Agency

7.6 Subject to the Flood Risk Standing Advice. [Officer Comment: No objections were previously raised to the previous application relating to a dwellinghouse 13/00769/FUL].


8.1 Planning permission refused in September 2013 to ‘Demolish outbuildings and erect a single dwellinghouse’- 13/00769/FUL. There were two reasons for refusal unacceptable overlooking from flats and location of existing extract flue.


8.2 Planning permission refused in March 2010 to ‘Demolish outbuildings and erect pair of semi- detached dwellings and lay out 2 parking spaces’ - 09/01951/FUL. There were four reasons for refusal relating to: unacceptable overlooking from neighbouring flats; adverse impacts to future occupants from neighbouring extract flue; failure to demonstrate how sustainable construction would be incorporated into development; and, unsuitable location by virtue of being located within a flood risk zone.

8.3 Planning permission refused in May 2009 to ‘Demolish buildings, erect 2 storey block of three self-contained dwellings, lay out parking, cycle bays, refuse store and amenity area (Amended Proposal)’ - 09/00412/FUL. There were five reasons for refusal relating to: poor design and layout; unacceptable overlooking from neighbouring flats; adverse impacts to future occupants from neighbouring extract flue; failure to demonstrate how sustainable construction would be incorporated into development and, unsuitable location by virtue of being located within a flood risk zone.

8.4 Planning permission refused in January 2009 to ‘Demolish buildings, erect two storey block of four self-contained flats and lay out parking spaces’ - 08/00949/FUL. There were six reasons for refusal relating to: poor design and layout and excessive bulk; insufficient parking and turning area; limited and inaccessible amenity space provision; unacceptable overlooking from neighbouring flats; failure to demonstrate how sustainable construction would be incorporated into development and, unsuitable location by virtue of being located within a flood risk zone.

9 Recommendation

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



2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans A101, 1102.


3 Details of materials including samples of the facing material to be used, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved materials 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 National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1


(Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

4 Two car parking space and a satisfactory vehicle access to the dwelling shall be provided in accordance with plan no. A101 prior to occupation of the dwelling 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.

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 the National Planning Policy Framework, policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

5 Prior to commencement of the dwellinghouse full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be 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. Permeable paving shall be used for the hardstanding area to the front unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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 the National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11 and C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

6 Prior to commencement of the dwellinghouse a scheme for generating not less than 10% of the predicted energy requirement of the development from decentralised renewable and/or low carbon sources shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is first occupied.

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 the National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

8 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the refuse storage together with a waste management plan have been submitted to and agreed with the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory refuse storage is provided in the interests of the environment and sustainability in accordance with NPPF, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8


and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

9 No development shall commence until a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan has been submitted to and agreed with the local planning authority unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan meets with the requirements of the Environment Agency's Flood Warning Service.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (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 Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B, C, D, E.


The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The detailed analysis is set out in a report prepared by officers. In the circumstances the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority is willing to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development, should the applicant wish to exercise this option in accordance with the Council's pre-application advice service.



Ward: Leigh

Proposal:Demolish existing dwelling and erect two dwelling houses and layout associate parking and amenity space

Address: 30 Chalkwell Park Drive, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, SS9 1NJ

Applicant: Mr Bloxham

Agent: Trudy’s Architectural Consultants

Consultation Expiry: 21 April 2014

Expiry Date: 28 April 2014


Plan Nos: Location Plan, 3/14/A Rev 1, 3/14/C/1 Rev 1, 3/14/B, Existing Plans, Proposed Streetscene



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a pair of two storey semi-detached properties. The proposal would also include the formation of hardstandings to the front to provide an off street parking space to each of the dwellings. Each of the dwellings would have a rear garden.

1.2 Each dwelling would have a maximum height of 9.4m, a width of 7.3m and would have a maximum depth of 14.3m. Each of the dwellings would include a lounge, utility, kitchen/dining and hallway entrance at ground floor and four bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor. The proposed dwellings would have a gable roof with a projecting front gable.

1.3 The hardstanding would be constructed of permeable paving.

1.4 Materials to be used on the external elevations include red brick, grey tiles, white UPVC windows and doors.


2.1 The site is located on the western side of Chalkwell Park Drive and contains a detached chalet bungalow. The dwelling currently contains no off street parking but has a reasonable sized rear garden. It includes living accommodation at ground floor and four bedrooms at first floor. There is a street tree immediately to the front of the property.

2.2 The surrounding area is residential, and is of a mixed character with dwellings of varying styles and designs. The property to the north contains flats whilst the property to the south contains a two storey semi-detached dwelling. Front building lines of the dwellings vary along the length of Chalkwell Park Drive.


3.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the development, design and impact on the streetscene, any impact on neighbours, living conditions for future occupiers, parking implications, and use of on-site renewables.

4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP1, CP4 and CP8 and Borough Local Plan Policies H3, H5, C11


4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 (NPPF) has, as one of its core principles, to:

“encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value” (paragraph 17).

4.2 Regarding infill development, the Design and Townscape Guide advises that the size of a site together with an analysis of local character and grain will determine whether sites are suitable for development. Where considered acceptable in principle, the key to successful integration of infill sites into the existing character is to draw strong references from the surrounding buildings such as maintaining the scale, materials, frontage lines and rooflines of the neighbouring properties which reinforce the rhythm and enclosure of the street. The existing dwelling is not considered a “small family house” and thus there is no policy objection to its redevelopment. Having regard to the above, the proposed development is considered acceptable in principle.

Design and Impact on the Street Scene

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)


4.4 It is considered the proposed dwellings are of an appropriate design and would not be out of character with the streetscene. Taking into account the predominant style of dwellings within the street, a two storey development as is considered acceptable in principle. A streetscene drawing has been provided showing that the height of the dwellings would be consistent with the neighbouring properties either side of the application property and that there would be alignment with the eaves and windows of No. 28. With regard to detailed design, the proposed dwellings take reference from neighbouring properties by replicating the window height and gables to the front which would help integrate the development into the street. Red brick is also to be used to the external elevations together with grey roof tiles. As there are other dwellings in the street which use these materials this is considered acceptable.

4.5 It is noted that houses are set back behind the neighbouring properties. Whilst a forward building is more characteristic of the street it is noted that there some properties in the vicinity which are set further back and therefore this considered acceptable, in order to accommodate off street parking.


4.6 With regard to the front boundary a low brick boundary wall with railings above is proposed which would be appropriate.

Standard of Accommodation for Future Occupiers

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.7 The proposed dwellings would have an internal floor area of approximately 175sqm and would have one single and three double bedrooms, and separate kitchen and lounge. The proposed internal layout would allow for acceptable internal circulation and storage areas. The habitable rooms would be served by sufficient windows which would provide acceptable light and outlook. The dwellings would have an amenity area of approximately 114sqm to the rear which would be sufficient for dwellings of this size.

Impact on Neighbouring Occupiers

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies H5 and H7 and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.8 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.

4.9 With regard to the property to the north which contains Newbury Court flats, the rear building line of the proposed dwelling (at two storey level) would align project slightly beyond the rear building line of this building. The ground floor extension would project a further 3m. The flats within Newbury Court have windows within the rear and side elevations (although the windows within the side elevation are obscure glazed). There would be a separation distance of 1m to the northern elevation. Whilst the proposed dwellings would be closer to the northern boundary than the existing dwelling, given the side windows are obscure glazed and are therefore not protected, and that the development would not conflict with a 45 degree angle line taken from the windows within the rear elevation, it is not considered that there would be a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupants of Newbury Court.

4.10 With regard to the property to the south at No. 28 Chalkwell Park Drive, the proposed dwellings would extend 2.8m beyond the first floor main rear wall of this property. To the north facing side elevation this dwelling contains obscure glazed windows at first floor (which are not protected windows) and two ground floor windows, with the upper section of these windows being obscure glazed. Both of these windows serve the kitchen however this room is also served by a conservatory at the rear, and as such these windows are not the sole source of light to this room. There would be a total separation distance of 2m between the side elevation of the proposed dwelling and the side wall of No. 28.


Given this and that the proposed dwellings would be to the north of No. 28 in relation to the ground floor windows are partially obscured, it is not considered that the proposed dwellings would result in a materially harmful loss of light or outlook to these windows.

4.11 The only windows proposed within the side walls serve bathrooms and as such could be obscure glazed, were permission to be granted. The proposed dormer windows to the rear would also not worsen the existing situation in terms of overlooking and would be at a height comparable to other neighbouring properties.

4.12 Given the above the proposed dwelling is consistent with BLP Policy H5.


National Planning Policy Framework Section 4, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies T8 and T11 and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.13 Policy T8 of the BLP is concerned with Highway Safety. Policy T11 of the BLP states that the Council will require the provision of off-street parking spaces and permission will not normally be granted for any development which would give rise to additional demand for on-street parking, particularly within residential areas. The adopted EPOA standards (2001) advocate 1.5 spaces as an average maximum with an average of 1 space where access to public transport is good and 2 spaces where a location has poor off peak public transport services.

4.14 One off street parking space is proposed to the front of each of the properties. The site plan shows that each hardstanding area (accommodating one space) would measure 5.2m deep x 2.5m wide. This would be of a sufficient size and it is noted that the vehicle crossovers are existing and as such there is no requirement to extend these. One parking space per dwelling is considered to be sufficient in this location.

4.15 Cycle storage could be accommodated within the rear gardens.

Use of On Site Renewable Energy Resources

Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policy C11, H5 and SPD1

4.16 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. No details have been provided regarding energy saving technologies however further information could be sought by way of a condition in this respect, were permission to be granted.



5.1 National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.

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

5.3 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H3 (Small Family Houses) H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety) and T11 (Parking Standards).



Highways

6.1 The existing crossovers will be utilised and will therefore not encroach on the root protection zone of the street tree to the front. Two parking spaces will be provided. No objections.


6.2 Chalkwell Park Drive is characterised by mainly two storey houses arranged as semi-detached pairs or short terraces. There are a few detached and semi-detached bungalows in the street and a small flatted development adjacent to the site but these types of property are uncommon. The dwellings are generally traditional in their form with generous floor heights and feature bay windows with gabled tops. There are both hipped and gabled roofs, mostly of red tile and the walls are either red brick or render.

The proposal to redevelop this site for a pair of two storey semi-detached houses would therefore not be out of character in the wider streetscene. The key issue will be to ensure that the proposal is appropriately scaled in relation to its neighbours, items such as eaves; ridge and window alignments should correspond with those of the surrounding properties. The streetscene diagram shows this to be acceptable.

It is noted that the houses are set back behind the neighbouring properties. Whilst a forward building is more characteristic of the street it is noted that there some properties in the vicinity which are set further back and therefore this considered acceptable and will allow an off street parking space to the front.

In terms of materials it is considered that red brick and grey tile would be appropriate given that there are examples within the street.


With regard to the frontage a low brick boundary wall topped with railings, is proposed which would be appropriate.

This proposal will be required to provide 10% of its energy requirements from renewable sources and this should be integrated into the design.

Public Consultation

6.3 Neighbours notified and site notice displayed – 3 letters received objecting on the following grounds:

Loss of light and view Increase in height excessive Will affect mains drainage system There are bats roosting in roof of dwelling Not sufficient justification for demolition Excessive number of bedrooms Increase in demand for parking Overdevelopment Reduce property value Disruption from building works

6.4 Cllr. Crystall has requested that this application go before the Development Control Committee for consideration.


7.1 None relevant

8 Recommendation




02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans Location Plan, 3/14/A Rev 1, 3/14/C/1 Rev 1, 3/14/B, Existing Plans, Proposed Streetscene



03 No development shall take place until details including samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations including walls, roof, windows, in addition to any hard surfacing and boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved materials unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.


04 Two (2) car parking space(s) shall be provided in accordance with plan no. 3/141C1 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.

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).

05 The first floor windows in the north and south elevations 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.


06 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (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 Class A to those Orders.


Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers



Ward: Blenheim Park

Proposal:

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a mixed use as non-residential institution (Use Class D1)/Residential Institution (Use Class C2) and erect single-storey side and rear extension and form juliet balcony to front elevation.

Address: 97 Mountdale Gardens, Leigh-On-Sea, Essex, SS9 4AJ

Applicant: The St. Christopher School Academy Trust

Agent: The Livemore Partnership



Case Officer: Patricia Coyle

Plan Nos: 13633-01 (c); -02(d); -03(-); -04(b)



1 The Proposal

1.1 The proposed development is for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a mixed use as non-residential institution (Use Class D1)/ Residential Institution (Use Class C2) and erect a single-storey side/rear extension and form a juliet balcony to front elevation. The extension to the rear would be 3.1m deep and have a parapet wall which would be between 3.25m and 3.9m above ground level on the boundary with No. 95 Mountdale Gardens. To the side the extension would be set back by 0.65m and be 2.25m wide and 11.65m deep such that it would wraparound the rear corner of the existing property. A raised deck area 0.75m above ground level would be provided to the rear; this would be 2.5m deep with a ramp down to garden level; screen fencing would be provided 2.65m high (one panel).

1.2 The applicants have stated that the proposal is in connection with the St Christopher School opposite the application site and is to enable older children/young adults in their care to experience life in a more domestic scale setting than can be provided on school grounds. This is specifically to enable young people with varying disabilities to become more capable of looking after themselves by developing their personal, social and independent living skills together with their basic academic skills. This will including domestic chores and prepare for activities such as going to the cinema, shopping, cooking etc. The proposal would involve some element of overnight accommodation for small “family-sized” groups of 2/3 students and 2/3 staff.

1.3 Letters of support have been submitted by the applicants from David Amess M.P. and Simon Leftley, Director of Department for People.


2.1 The application site comprises a detached two-storey house with rooms in the roof and with parking to the front garden area on hardstanding just to the west of the junction with Sandhurst Crescent (east). A garage to the rear is accessed from Sandhurst Crescent.

2.2 The surrounding area comprises similar residential properties to this side of Mountdale Gardens and Sandhurst Crescent with the buildings and playing fields of St Christopher’s School opposite.


3.1 The key considerations are the principle of the development, design and impact on the character of the area, impact on residential amenity and highway implications.

4 Appraisal



The National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4, CP6, CP8; BLP Policies C11, H3, H4, H5, H8, U7 and U8.

4.1 Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy relates to the provision of community infrastructure and indicates that new development should demonstrate that it will not jeopardise the Borough’s ability to improve the education attainment, health and well-being of local residents by, among others, supporting improvements to existing, and the provision of new, facilities to support the needs of education, skills and lifelong learning strategies. Policy CP8 resists development proposals which involve the loss of existing dwellings. Policy U7 states that the Council will normally support the improvement or extension of existing education facilities and U8 states that there would be support for new education facilities. Policy H4 looks to prevent the loss of small family homes, nonetheless loss of housing is acceptable in special circumstances where a relaxation to this policy would be acceptable providing it meets the following criteria:

1. No separate access to the residential part of the premises exists or can be readily provided, and the living accommodation can, therefore, only be occupied by the business tenant; or

2. The access to the living accommodation is clearly unsatisfactory, for example through rear yards and alleyways; or

3. The premises have been neglected for many years and the likelihood of their return to residential use is remote without excessive expenditure; or

4. The premises are required for:a) Office purposes b) Visitor accommodation in identified areas

5. No suitable premises in non-residential use exist in reasonably close proximity, anda) The premises are required for a community use which meets an

identified local need and the provisions of Policies U6, U8, U9 or U10; orb) The premises are required for visitor accommodation outside identified

areasc) The premises are required for an employment generating use

Policy H8 enables the provision of residential institutions in certain circumstances.

4.2 The LPA is sympathetic to the needs of the school and recognises that this development would be to the benefit of students with varying disabilities, and would seek to support this provision within the Borough. This has to be balanced against the requirement to provide the necessary number of residential dwellings within the Borough.


4.3 The proposal is for a mixed use of education/residential and it is considered that it would be partly a residential institution and partly an educational facility. This would reduce the need for full-time residential schooling within the local area as it would enable such skills training to be provided in close proximity to the existing special School. It is considered that the use of the building for this purpose would be supported by the education policies and that the retention of an element of residential use would mean that the character of use would be similar to that of a larger family unit.

4.4 Policy H4 would allow the loss of a dwelling to a community use, such as educational use which meets an identified need. The Director of People indicates his support for the proposal. It is considered that the proposal would meet an identified need.

4.5 Policy H8 enables residential institutions providing they meet the requirements of Policy H5, are suitable for conversion (i.e., are not less than 160 sq.m), are proposed for detached houses and are limited to purely long-stay residential in character, for example care homes for the elderly or those with disabilities. Where regular attendance is required by outside staff, this will only be acceptable where the proposal is not appropriate for single-family use and residential amenity would not be adversely affected. The proposal would be partly residential institution but mostly for education. As such, the proposal for loss of a single-family dwelling is acceptable and the need is identified. It is not intended to provide a large residential institution but to provide an adapted/extended existing house for the learning of mainly household-type skills.

4.6 It is considered, on balance, that the provision of a specialist domestic environment for the learning of life skills for young adults with disabilities would be acceptable. It is nonetheless considered that if St Christopher’s School no longer require the property for their use, then it would be appropriate that the property returns to residential use and a suitable condition would therefore be attached to ensure that this would happen in the event that St Christopher’s no longer need the facility.


The National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policy C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.7 Good design is fundamental to achieving high quality development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF as well as Policies C11 and H5 of the Local Plan and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy. The Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) also states that the Council is committed to good design and will seek to create attractive, high-quality living environments.


4.8 The NPPF states that:


4.9 The proposed single-storey extension would be to the rear and side, behind the existing side boundary and a juliet balcony would be formed to the front of the property. It is considered that the development would not have any undue impact on the character and appearance of the area.


The National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; BLP policies T8 and T11.

4.10 In accordance with the EPOA Standards, the proposal would require a maximum of one parking space for each 5 staff members. It is proposed that there would be a maximum of 3 staff at the house and therefore the existing parking provision of one – two spaces would meet the EPOA Parking Standard. There would be no change to the vehicular accesses or garage at the rear of the application site.


The National Planning Policy Framework; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.11 The use of the site for the mixed use as education/residential institution would result in up to 12 people at the detached house at any one time but this would be limited to between 9am - 3pm in term-time. In respect of overnight stays these would be limited to groups of 4-6 people. While the day time use would be greater than most domestic properties, it is considered that if access to the garden is limited to a maximum of 6 people at any one time, then Staff consider that with limited numbers of children and high levels of staff supervision there would not be any material increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. It would be necessary to attach a condition restricting the numbers using the facility overnight.

4.12 The proposed extension to the rear would be 3.1m deep and have a parapet wall which would be between 3.25m and 3.9m above ground level on the boundary with No. 95 Mountdale Gardens. There would also be a decked area with ramp down to the garden to enable those students in wheelchairs to have level access directly to the rear of the property. It is considered that as No.95 has itself been extended and as the highest point of the parapet wall adjoins the existing building, that there would be no material harm arising in the form of visual intrusion or loss of privacy.


4.13 No. 2 Sandhurst Crescent is a chalet bungalow to the rear of the application site which is on a slightly lower ground level and has ground floor windows facing the application site. Given the distance away of the proposed deck area and rear extension, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any material harm to this occupiers’ residential amenity.

5 Conclusion

5.1 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle and have an acceptable impact on visual amenity in the streetscene. It is not considered that the proposal would result in material harm to residential amenity and there are no highways/parking issues arising.



6.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles) and CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance), CP6 (Community Infrastructure) and CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

6.3 Borough Local Plan: C11 (new buildings, extensions and alterations), H3 (retention of small homes), H4 (preservation of residential uses), H5 (extensions, alterations etc.), H8 (residential institutions), U7 (existing education facilities), U8 (provision of new education facilities), T8 (traffic maintenance and highway safety) and T11 (parking standards).


6.5 EPOA Parking Standards.

Representation Summary

Highway Authority

7.1 At the time of writing no comments had been made.


7.2 No objections to the proposed extensions or front alterations. Materials to be agreed.

Education

7.3 The proposal is supported.


Public Consultation

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


8.1 No relevant planning history.

9 Recommendation

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

01 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 (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 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plan number(s): 13633-01 (c); -02(d); -03(-); -04(b) (C04A)

Reason: To ensure that the development is compatible with its setting in a mainly residential area and that the works are to a high standard of design in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP1, KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide)

03 Unless otherwise agreed in writing, no more than 6 people shall reside at the property over-night at any one time.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity to ensure compliance with, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy K2, CP4, CP8; Borough Local Plan 1994 policies U7 and H4 and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

04 The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by St Christopher School Academy Trust. When the premises cease to be occupied, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all materials and equipment brought on to the premises in connection with the use shall be removed. (C07A)

Reason: Permission has been granted taking into consideration the special circumstances of this case. The local planning authority needs to control future use of the premises if St Christopher School Academy Trust leaves to ensure compliance with, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy K2, CP4, CP8; Borough Local Plan 1994 policies U7 and H4 and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide). (R07A)


05 Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside 08.00 hours to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. (C09A)

Reason: To protect residential amenity and general environmental quality in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5 and U2. (R09A)

06 Prior to first use of the facility, the additional height fencing to the side boundary which forms a screen to the proposed decked area shall be erected as shown on the approved plans

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity to ensure compliance with, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy K2, CP4, CP8; Borough Local Plan 1994 policies U7 and H4 and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

07 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 13633-01 (c); -02(d); -03(-); -04(b)


08 All new work to the outside of the building must match existing original work in terms of the choice of materials and finished appearance. This applies unless differences are shown on the drawings hereby approved or are required by conditions to this permission.

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, as set out in the NPPF, DPD1 Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policy C11 and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).




Ward: Thorpe Bay

Proposal:

Two storey front extension including habitable accommodation in the roof, single storey side extension with a first floor balcony above, two storey side extension and erect roof extension to the side including balcony, alterations to elevations and erect double garage accessed from Burges Road

Address: 4 Burges Road, Thorpe Bay, Essex, SS1 3AY

Applicant: Dr Prasad

Agent: Knight Gratrix Architects




Plan Nos: 015 B; 016 B

Recommendation: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION


1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a two storey front extension (fronting Burges Road) including alterations for the creation of habitable accommodation in the roof, a single storey side extension with a first floor balcony above a two storey side extension and roof extension to the side including the formation of a balcony facing Burges Terrace), alterations to elevations and erect a double garage accessed from Burges Road. The various extensions cumulatively would result in remodelling the existing property to approximately 24m wide, 9.7m deep x 10.3m high incorporating a predominantly gabled roof design. The detached garage is 8.2m wide x 6.1m deep x 5.7m high including gable roof design to the front.


2.1 The site is a large detached two storey dwellinghouse, located on the southern side of Burges Road on the junction with Burges Terrace to the east and opposite is Thorpe Hall Golf Course. To the south of the site are two storey properties on Lynton Road. The streetscene is typified by large, often detached dwellings of an arts and crafts character reflective of the wider area. Properties are generally well set back from the street within front gardens, often planted with numerous trees, and there is a consistent palette of materials including white/cream render, red roof tiles, white windows frames, some properties benefit from balconies, often white painted timber. There are several trees surrounding the site.


3.1 The main considerations are in relation to the principle of the development, design and impact on the character of the area, traffic and transportation issues and impact on residential amenity and large trees.

4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP8; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.1 Given its residential location It is considered the principle of extensions on this site is acceptable subject to other material planning considerations.




4.2 The plans are to erect a two storey front extension which would facilitate the creation of rooms in the roof, a single storey side extension, two storey side extension and roof extension, together with alterations to elevations. There are some concerns with the proposed approach, as the development has not successfully picked up on local character and distinctiveness.

4.3 Two of these gables, to the Burges Road and Burges Terrace frontages, would be three storey, creating a particularly dominant feature on the corner. Although it is recognised that, owing to the nature and size of the plot (and given that the property opposite has a small three storey element), the overall design and scale of the extensions do not appear subservient and would appear over scaled within the streetscene. Furthermore, it is noted that, to the Burges Terrace frontage, the existing curved bay, which is a common and consistent feature of the run of properties along Burges Terrace and provided a link between number 4 and these neighbouring dwellings is to be lost. The proposed alterations to number 4 would create a distinctly more angular building which would appear out of keeping. Furthermore, the existing variation in the ridge line would be lost where the property is extended creating a more dominant form, and a plethora of uncharacteristic roof lights added to the front and rear roof slopes.

4.4 In terms of materials, the plans propose to introduce a slate roof and grey aluminium window frames, together with aluminium fascias. As noted, a sense of uniformity is currently found in the street through the application of a consistent palette of materials. The uncharacteristic use of slate and aluminium would be further highlighted, it is considered, by the proposed extensions and alterations to the dwelling, which would see four gables introduced to the front (Burges Road) elevations.

4.5 It is therefore considered, the proposed development, by reason of its design, appearance, scale, bulk and choice of materials would result in a form of development that does not satisfactorily relate to the existing dwelling and would be out of keeping in the streetscene. The proposed development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, policies C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide.

4.6 The detached garage proposed will be located to the west of the site, set back well away from the street frontage. The garage by reason of its design, scale and siting fails to identify the local character and due to its overall height and design would result in a an incongruous form of development contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy, policies C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and the Design and Townscape Guide.


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy CP3; BLP policies T8, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.7 The site does not benefit from a forecourt for off street parking; however to the east


of the site is an existing garage which is proposed to be demolished. The proposal will include the erection of a double garage sufficient to accommodate two cars and the creation larger driveway to enable at least two more vehicles to park off street. It is not considered the proposal will result in on street parking nor will the development have an impact on the highway network. Furthermore, the Councils Highway Officer has raised no objection to the proposal.


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.8 In terms of impact on neighbours, the front extensions facing Burges Road (north elevation) will not result in any overlooking or loss of privacy as they face onto Thorpe Hall Golf Club. The front extensions to the north elevation facing Burges Road will not result in any overlooking or loss of privacy as they face onto Thorpe Hall Golf Club.

4.9 It is not considered the various extensions proposed to the eastern elevation including a first floor balcony and roof accommodation will result in an overbearing form of development to the amenities enjoyed by residents at no. 9 Burges Terrace with particular reference to the their existing windows fronting Burges Terrace to the east and the rear of the site to the west.

4.10 In terms of the impact of the extensions to the rear (west) the single storey extension will project 2.8m beyond the rear wall. The two storey element will project 1.4m further than existing, any windows proposed are to obscure glazed. No. 9 Burges Terraces has a two storey rearward projection; the first floor window serves a habitable room. Whilst the proposed extensions will increase the overall bulk and scale of the existing roof and the overall increase in bulk and scale to the roof it is not considered to be overbearing on the existing amenities enjoyed by residents at no. 9 Burges Terrace. Whilst the single to storey rear extension to the west elevation will project 2.8m beyond the rear wall, given its overall height it is not considered the proposal will result in a harmful impact in terms of being overbearing or resulting in loss of light. The balcony proposed to the side elevation to the west at second floor is recessed and therefore any potential overlooking to the west and south will be mitigated against together with the 26m separation distance to the western boundary.

4.11 With respect to impact on residents at no. 12 Burges Road to the east (on the corner of Burges Terrace and Burges Road), whilst the alterations will result in a large expanse of roof there is considered sufficient separation distance to mitigate against any potential overlooking or loss of privacy.


4.12 The proposed garage is located to the west of the site and will be to the rear of the gardens of no. 9, 8 Burges Terrace and 24 Lynton Road. It is considered in this instance the overall scale of the outbuilding with particular reference to the overall height will result in an overbearing form of development to the detriment of the amenities enjoyed by existing neighbouring occupiers. The garage is overscaled and will harm the amenities enjoyed by residents most notably given the limited separation distance from no. 24 Lynton Road particularly but the overall scale, up to 5.7m high and siting will affect the immediate residents.

Other matters

4.13 There are a significant number of trees surrounding the site which contribute the overall character and appearance of the streetscene. In order to preserve the trees a condition could be imposed to ensure tree protection measures are submitted to ensure the construction methods will not affect the overall amenity of the trees should the development be approved.



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

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




6.1 The plans propose to erect a two storey front extension together with rooms in the roof, a single storey side extension, two storey side extension and roof extension, together with alterations to elevations. The property is situated in a large corner plot, which affords it some prominence in the streetscene, and as such there may be scope to extend it. There are some concerns with the proposed approach however, which it is considered has not successfully picked up on local character and distinctiveness. The streetscene is typified by large, often detached dwellings of an arts and crafts character reflective of the wider area. Properties are generally well set back from the street within front gardens, often planted with numerous trees, and there is a consistent palette of materials including white/cream render, red roof tiles, white windows frames, some properties benefit from balconies, often white painted timber. A strong sense of rhythm is introduced by the front projecting gables, typically a single gable to the front of each dwelling, many with curved bays (particularly adjacent dwellings on Burges Terrace), roofs are in the main hipped and properties two storey, some with rooms in the roof.


It is noted that the property on the opposite corner has a three storey element to the Burges Terrace elevation, although this is relatively modest and in the main reads as two storeys. In terms of materials, the plans propose to introduce a slate roof and grey aluminium window frames, together with aluminium fascias. As noted, a sense of uniformity is currently found in the street through the application of a consistent palette of materials. The uncharacteristic use of slate and aluminium would be further highlighted, it is considered, by the proposed extensions and alterations to the dwelling, which would see four gables introduced to the front (Burges Road) elevations, variation in the ridge line lost where the property is extended creating a more dominant form, and a plethora of uncharacteristic roof lights added to the front and rear roof slopes. Two of these gables, to the Burges Road and Burges Terrace frontages, would be three storey, creating a particularly dominant feature on the corner. Although it is recognised that, owing to the nature and size of the plot (and given that the property opposite has a small three storey element), this part of the site offers more potential for this, it would be desirable to see this balanced by reducing the scale of the property along the Burges Road elevation; this could be achieved for example by a reduction in scale, or removing the second large gable, which is of a similar scale, and would also be of benefit in terms of simplifying the design and picking up on local character. It is noted that, to the Burges Terrace frontage, the existing curved bay is to be lost, which is regrettable. This is a common and consistent feature of the run of properties along Burges Terrace and provided a link between number 4 and these neighbouring dwellings. The proposed alterations to number 4 would create a distinctly more angular building. In summary, while this large plot may offer scope to extend the existing property, it is considered that the proposed design does not sufficiently reinforce local distinctiveness, introducing a dominant built form onto the site particularly owing to the addition of three prominent (3 storey) gables to the frontages.

Highways

6.2 No objections.


Public Consultation

6.3 6 neighbours consulted and 2 letters of representation received.

Design of property out of keeping with surrounding area appears as a new ultra modern ‘new build’ and not an extension.

Design of garage not acceptable and will engulf the property and small garden of residents in Lynton Road.

The garage will result in loss of light. Removal of foliage is unacceptable as it’s an area for wildlife. Security will be jeopardised from the proposals by opening up the existing

gated entrance on Burges Road. The development will devalue surrounding properties.

6.4 Councillor Woodley has requested this application be dealt with by Development Control Committee.


7.1 None.

8 Recommendation

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

1 The proposed extensions and detached garage by reason of their design, scale, appearance, materials and bulk would be overly dominant, out of keeping with and to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing building and the streetscene in general. This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C11 and H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide, 2009 (SPD1).

2 The detached garage by reason of its siting, height and overall scale would result in an overbearing dominant form of development to the detriment of amenities of nearby residential occupiers contrary to National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policy H5 of the Council's Adopted Local Plan and guidance contained within the Design and Townscape Guide.


The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The detailed analysis is set out in a report prepared by officers. In the circumstances the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority is willing to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development, should the applicant wish to exercise this option in accordance with the Council's pre-application advice service.



Ward: Blenheim Park

Proposal:Erect additional storey incorporating five flats, layout six car parking spaces, covered cycle store, fencing and landscaping (Amended proposal)

Address: Grove Court, 191 Southbourne Grove, Westcliff-On-Sea, Essex, SS0 0AW

Applicant: Alderman Stone Chartered Surveyors

Agent: Alderman Stone




Plan No’s: 41280-09; 41280-04C; 41280-05J; 41280-01B; 41280-2C; 41280-03C; 41280-06J



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a fourth floor roof extension incorporating five flats, layout six additional car parking spaces, erect a covered cycle store, erect security hoop steel fencing, and carry out landscaping.

1.2 This is an amended application from a previously refused scheme of 8 flats reference 13/01391/FUL refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its height, roof form, scale and massing would result in an incongruous and discordant feature within the streetscene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), policies C11 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan, and advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

2. The proposed development would give rise to actual and perceived overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy to the adjoining property to the North and therefore be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of this property contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the provisions of policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), Policies C11 and H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, and advice contained within and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

3. It has not been demonstrated that the development would not result in a material loss of daylight and sunlight to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring property to the North, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the provisions of policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), Policies C11 and H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, and advice contained within and the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

4. The reduction and intensification of the existing amenity space is considered inadequate to cater for occupants of the existing and proposed flats. This would result in a poor quality residential environment contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the provisions of policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (DPD1), policies C11 and H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, and advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

5. The proposed development has failed to demonstrate how at least 10% of its energy needs would come from on site renewable energy resources, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy, and advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).


1.2 The new fourth floor would increase the maximum height of the building from 8.5m to 11.2m. No new building footprint would be formed. Five 2 bedroom flats are proposed, all of which would be dual aspect. The average gross internal floor area would be approximately 54m²-69m². Each flat would have a separate kitchen, living/dining room, and storage area.

1.3 Five parking spaces are proposed whereby one is to the rear of the site, one to be laid on existing amenity area using grasscrete within the amenity area and four to the front of the site. Each parking space would be approximately 2.5m wide and 4.8m deep.

1.4 A brick wall including piers is proposed along the front of the site. It is also proposed to re-landscape the shared amenity area through laying a new flower garden with archway and new stone pavers together with additional planting to the southern boundary and benches.

1.5 The main amendments following the refusal of application 13/01391/FUL include the following:

Number of flats reduced from 8 to 5. The extension has been set back from the west and northern edges of the

building. Set back of 6.5m from the north facade. Parking layout arrangement has altered whereby 1 space to be located at

rear of building, 1 to the amenity space and four to the front near the entrance and exit.

Details of 15 photovoltaic panels to be installed have been provided.


2.1 The application property is a three storey flat roofed detached building located on the eastern side of Southbourne Grove and just north of Prittle Brook. The building was constructed in the 1960s and contains twenty four flats. There are twenty four garages along the boundaries of the site to the east, north and north west. A shared grassed amenity area is laid out to the north of the main building. A hard surfaced path runs along the south of the building providing access to flats. Access is also available from the northern side. Vehicular access to the site is from Southbourne Grove.

2.2 The surrounding area is residential in character. Whilst dwellings vary in terms of architectural style and form, they are similar in terms of scale/massing, setback and height. Land in the area slopes down to the South. Limited parking is available on Southbourne Grove. Prittle Brook runs along the southern boundary of the site and there is a pedestrian/cycle path alongside the brook.



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), impact on neighbouring properties, living conditions for existing/future occupiers, traffic and parking issues, and renewable energy and whether the proposal has addressed the previous reasons for refusal.

4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5 and H7, and SPD1

4.1 This proposal is considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4, and CP8. Also of relevance include Borough Local Plan (BLP) Policies relating to design. These policies and guidance support extensions to properties in most cases and further residential development, but require that such alterations and extensions respect the existing character and appearance of the building. The principle of an extension on this building is acceptable subject to detailed considerations.

Design

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4, and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5 and H7, and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)


4.3 Section 10.2.11 of the Design and Townscape Guide sets out design guidance for additional storeys. It is specifically stated that additional storeys to flatted and commercial buildings will, in the main, be unacceptable as the increase in scale is normally a significant issue. In instances where such additions will have an acceptable and limited visual impact, the design should have maximum transparency and a lightweight structure and complementary to the existing building.


4.4 It is considered the proposed additional floor is a modern approach in terms of its design as a flat roofed extension which is set back 6.5m from the front of the building. The windows and doors are similar to the previously refused scheme and the materials have altered to a lightweight steel frame clad in a rainscreen system using Marley Eternit Calico (neutral colour) cladding, stainless steel handrail and frameless glass balustrade to balconies. The proposal appears more transparent and given the set back from the front and north of the existing building it is considered in this instance the overall reduction in scale has significantly reduced its visual impact and overshadowing within the streetscene. In light of this, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of design and scale within the streetscene. The design of the proposal takes reference from the fenestration pattern of the existing buildings but in a more lightweight and contemporary materials and this is considered to be an acceptable design approach.

4.5 In light of the above, the proposed development by reason of its design and scale will not have a detrimental impact on the overall character on the existing building nor the streetscene and thus, the proposal is considered to overcome reason 1 of the previous refusal (13/01391/FUL).

4.6 In terms of landscaping, the proposal includes additional planting to the southern boundary including benches and a new footpath. The existing amenity area will include a new flower garden and a circular walk archway with climbing flowers and additional benches. To the front of the site where the new pedestrian footpath is proposed there is an existing Ash tree which adds significant amenity value to the character and appearance of the streetscene. An Arboricultural Assessment accompanies this application stating that the tree can be retained and equally protected from the installation of a new footpath and can be dealt with by condition. The landscaping proposals are considered to comply with Policy C14 of the Borough Local Plan.


National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5 and H7, and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)

4.7 Paragraph 343 of SPD1 (under the heading of Alterations and Additions to Existing Residential Buildings) states, amongst other criteria, that extensions must respect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and ensure not to adversely affect light, outlook or privacy of the habitable rooms in adjacent properties. Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan requires that development respect existing residential amenities, and Policy C11 requires that new extensions create a satisfactory relationship with surroundings.


4.8 In relation to overlooking, there would be views from the flats towards properties on Fairfax Drive and their rear gardens. However it is considered there is sufficient separation distances to avoid adverse overlooking (i.e. between 16m – 20m from Grove Court to northern edge of rear gardens, and between 36m – 54m to northern elevations of properties). In relation to neighbouring properties to the north east, there would be a separation distance of approximately 43m from Grove Court to the rear elevation of the neighbouring dwelling. (No. 213 Westbourne Grove). This property is presently screened from overlooking through mature trees and shrubs on the boundary, and the proposed additional floor would rise above this screening. The eastern elevation facing no. 213 Westbourne Grove will include only one window which is now a secondary window to one of the bedrooms serving a two bedroom flat. It is considered given the separation distance and one additional window will not give rise to material harm the amenities of no. 213 Westbourne Grove. Previous concerns had been raised in relation to adverse overlooking towards the rear garden area of the neighbouring property to the north (No. 193 Southbourne Grove, particularly from the two bedroom flat nearest no. 193 has now been set 6.5m from the north elevation and only secondary windows are proposed serving a bedroom and office area. Therefore the proposal will not result in overlooking or loss of privacy to the amenities of no. 193 Southbourne Grove.

4.9 In relation to overshadowing, the reduction in number of flats and overall set back from no. 193 Southbourne Grove to the north by 6.5m has minimal impacts. The applicant contends within the Design and Access Statement that the proposed development has addressed the second reason for refusal of application 13/01391/FUL whereby with the 6.5m setback from no. 193 Southbourne Grove together with reduction of units the proposal will not result in any overshadowing. Whilst no specific overshadowing analysis from the applicant has been provided to demonstrate this, given the reduction in accommodation and set back on balance, it is not considered the potential for overshadowing is significant to justify a refusal on this basis. The proposal thus, overcomes the second reason for refusal of 13/01391/FUL.

4.10 It is not considered the extension would be overbearing to any neighbouring property. No. 193 Southbourne Grove is the nearest dwelling to the site, and there would be a separation distance of approximately 6.4m between it and the application building. Living Conditions for Future Occupiers

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies C11, H5 and H7, and Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1)


4.11 There are no internal space standards set out within the Core Strategy, however the NPPF and the Council’s Core Strategy set out the Government’s aspirations with regards to quality of life and high quality residential environments. The average gross internal floor area for the flats would be approximately between 54m²-69m² for the two bedroom flats. The emerging Development Plan Management Document suggests that for 45m² for 2 occupants and 57m² for 3 occupants. Given the level of accommodation proposed there is considered sufficient floorspace for future occupiers.

4.12 In relation to amenity space, the 5 flats to the south and west would have balconies (to the north no balconies are provided to avoid any potential overlooking). The flats would also have use of a semi-private communal space within the site. At present this grassed amenity space has an area of approximately 441m² which equates to approximately 18m² per flat. As part of the proposed development this amenity space would be reduced to 435m² equating to approximately 15m² per flat due to the location of the additional parking space. The balconies serving the proposed flats range from 5sqm to 45sqm which is considered on the whole, to be sufficient space to be useable. The existing grassed communal amenity area is already poorly positioned in terms of receiving direct sunlight, is directly overlooked by a number of flats, and is surrounded on three sides by vehicular access roads. Taking into account the proposed balconies and the existing amenity space available and the level of accommodation, on balance the amenity space and balconies will provide adequate provision to cater for occupants of the existing and proposed flats and overcome the 3rd reason for refusal of application 13/01391/FUL.

4.13 The Councils’ Design and Townscape Guide requires that safe, secure, weatherproof and convenient cycle parking be provided as part of developments. It is also required that refuse storage and recycling should be integral to development, and should be: accessible within reasonable carrying distance from the highway; not dominate the frontage, and to be well screened and ventilated. An existing refuse area which is well screened and ventilated would be used. Provision has been made for a cycle store to the east of the site where it would be accessible to occupants. Whilst exact details have not been provided for this store, this could be requested by way of condition.

Traffic and Parking

National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, SPD1

4.14 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.


4.15 Five flats are proposed and 6 new parking spaces would be provided thereby providing one visitor space. The additional parking is welcomed and the proposal will not likely give rise to adverse additional demand for on-street parking. A cycle store is proposed and the site is within walking distance of a bus route on Fairfax Drive, in addition to being within walking distance of nearby commercial areas on Fairfax Drive and further afield on London Road. Schools and a hospital are also within walking distance. The site is therefore considered to be in a sustainable location with regards to using alternative modes of transport. It is also noted that the NPPF encourages sustainable transport, and advises on a number of factors to take into account when assessing parking standards, furthermore the Councils Highways Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development on highway grounds as sufficient parking has been provided and the proposal will have no impact on the highway network.

Renewable Energy

NPPF, Core Strategy Policy KP2, and SPD1

4.16 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. The Design and Townscape Guide advises that options for renewable power must be considered at the beginning of the design process so that they are an integral part of the design scheme. This application is accompanied by details of 15 photovoltaic panels which will be installed to the roof and will be set at a 15 degree pitch. The panels will have no adverse impact on the overall character and appearance of the building. Specific calculations have now been confirmed to demonstrate the proposed panels can meet the 10% requirement.

Other matters

Trees

4.17 In order to safeguard the trees to the front of the site a condition will be imposed for the development to be carried out in accordance with the arboricultural report accompanying this application.

Flood Risk

4.18 The site falls outside of the flood risk area of the Prittle Brook to the south.



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


6.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), and H7 (The Formation of Self Contained Flats).



Public Consultation

7.1 A site notice displayed on the 1st May 2014 and 78 neighbours notified of the application and 17 letters of representation have been received stating:

Insufficient parking provided. More flats would attract more visitors. Flats may have more than one vehicle. There is insufficient parking on Southbourne Grove where permit parking is in place. The developer rents out the garages on the site and they are not used by tenants [Officer Comment: The applicant has confirmed that it is prohibited under the lease for any leaseholder to sub-let a garage without freeholder’s permission. No such permission has been or would be granted for a garage to be sub-let. Action would be taken against the leaseholder(s) concerned for breach of covenant and hence put a stop to the situation because the garages can only be used for residents of Grove Court].

Design not acceptable. Overlooking. Deplete existing occupiers standard of living. Balconies will result in loss of privacy and overlooking. Increased potential for accidents amongst children. Building will be 25% taller than the current building. Dominant and overbearing. Overdevelopment. Front access should be for emergency vehicles only. Existing foundations may not be sufficient. Services infrastructure impacted on. Noise, dust and general pollution. Lightweight cladding is out of character with the existing streetscene. Landscaping will be removed due to the proposed development. Increase in vehicles would cause more disturbance, noise and pollution. Unacceptable to reduce existing amenity space which is used by existing

residents. Flats could be occupied by families and shortage in parking spaces and amenity space is unsuitable for families.

Disturbance during construction. When Grove Court was originally planned, assurances were given that three

storeys would be the maximum height. Reduction in sunlight to surrounding gardens and amenity area on site,

particularly during winter.


Increase in height will dominate views to all sides and not be in keeping with two storey houses in area. It would be overbearing.

Design is disproportionate and not in keeping with original building. Building another floor would block light from existing roof lights on building.

These lights benefit from a ‘right to light’ having existed for over 20 years. [Officer Comment: Such rights would have to be asserted through legal recourse, and are not a material planning consideration.]

It is unclear how existing drainage, electric warm air heating, and other infrastructure in the building would be affected. There are already cracks in the building and there is concern regarding subsidence.

Applicant has already sold the right of use of the proposed parking area as amenity area for the leaseholders. [Officer Comment: The granting of planning permission does not override property rights].

Development would devalue properties [Officer Comment: The value of properties is not a material planning consideration].

The area is overpopulated and densely developed. Development would serve as a precedent for further similar developments. The set back of the additional floor will not result in a reduction of the overall

scale of the development.

7.2 Councillor Longley has requested this application be dealt with by Development Control Committee.


7.3 This is an amended proposal. An application for 8 flats was refused because of scale and impact on the streetscene and loss of light to the property to the north. In response to this the proposal has been reduced from 8 to 5 units and set back significantly from the front and north side of the existing building. This has significantly reduced its visual impact and overshadowing and the proposal is now considered to be acceptable in terms of scale in the streetscene. The design of the proposal takes reference from the fenestration pattern of the existing buildings but in a more lightweight and contemporary materials and this is considered to be an acceptable design approach.

The proposal also involves some reconfiguration of the site to accommodate 6 additional car parking spaces, a new boundary wall to the front and some enhancements to the landscaping of the amenity space. It is pleasing to see that the parking spaces have been accommodated without having and significant impact on the amount or usability of the amenity areas and the enhanced planting scheme is welcomed. It is important the these ground works do not have a detrimental impact on the ash tree located adjacent to the front SW boundary of the site which makes a positive contribution to the streetscene, the setting of the existing building and prittlebrook. The arboricultural report shows that the realignment of the footpath can be achieved without significant impact on the tree. Protection of this tree and a requirement to follow the construction advice in relation to the footpath reconfiguration contained within this report should therefore be conditioned.


The proposed new front boundary wall is welcomed and will help to screen the proposed new parking in this location and provide enclosure to the streetscene. The proposal for matching brick and piers seems acceptable but the design has not been shown and this should therefore be conditioned.

SustainabilityIt is proposed to install 15x 250w pv panels to meet the requirements to provide 10% of energy via on site renewables. Whilst this seems acceptable in principle the information has not shown that the predicted 3187.5kwh from this system is sufficient for 10% of the energy needs as the predicated energy needs has not been calculated. This can be dealt with by condition [Officer Comment: Additional information has now been provided to demonstrate the proposal will meet the 10% requirement of Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy].


7.3 There are no highway objections to the additional parking provided to the front and rear which continues to enable vehicles to manoeuvre within the site effectively.


8.1 Erect Additional Storey Incorporating Eight Flats, layout Six Car Parking Spaces, Covered Cycle Store, Fencing And Landscaping (amended proposal)- Refused (13/01391/FUL)

8.2 Erect fourth floor mansard roof extension incorporating eight flats, layout six car parking spaces, covered cycle store for 12 No. bikes, security hoop steel fencing and landscaping- Refused (13/00143/FUL)

9 Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSOIN subject to the following conditions:



02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans 41280-09; 41280-04C; 41280-05J; 41280-01B; 41280-2C; 41280-03C; 41280-06J.



03 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external elevations including walls, roof, windows, hard surfacing and boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved materials 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 National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

04 The car parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store shall be carried out in accordance with plan no. 41280-04C prior to occupation of the retail use hereby approved and shall thereafter be permanently retained for the occupants of the flats and their visitors unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason:To ensure that satisfactory off-street car parking and turning provision is provided for proposed retail use(s) and in the interests of residential amenity and highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policy T8, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

05 Prior to commencement of the development full details of both hard and soft landscape works including the boundary wall to the front of the site shall be 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. Permeable paving shall be used for the hardstanding area to the rear unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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 the National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11 and C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

06 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Report carried out by Tamla Trees reference 02029R with particular reference to the tree protection plan and the method statement.


Reason: To make sure that the trees on the site are adequately protected during building works in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

07 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the renewable energy details of 15 photovoltaic panels on drawing 41280-06J and details submitted on the 20th May 2014. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is first occupied.

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 the National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).




Ward: Victoria

Proposal:

Part demolish existing ground floor side extension, convert house into three self-contained flats, erect first floor side and rear extension, install roof lights to front elevation, form balcony to rear, erect roof extension to rear, alter elevations, layout parking, refuse and cycle storage (Amended Proposal)

Address: 14 Avebury Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, SS0 7AE

Applicant: Chignal Properties

Agent: PGT Associated Ltd


Expiry Date: 30 May 2014


Plan No’s: Site Location Plan, 1280/01, 1280/02 Rev D



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to part demolish the existing ground floor side extension, convert the existing dwelling into three self-contained flats, erect a first floor side and rear extension, form a balcony and roof extension to the rear and alter the elevations. Two car parking spaces are also proposed to be formed within the rear garden to serve flats 1 and 2, together with provision of cycle storage and waste storage to the rear. The proposed flats would consist of 2no. 1 bed and 1no 2 bed flats

1.2 The proposed first floor side extension would be built over the existing ground floor, and would incorporate a garage door at ground floor which would allow for vehicles to pass underneath. The proposed first floor side and rear extension would have a total depth of 8.7m, a maximum width of 2.7m to the front, a width of 2.8m to the rear and would have a height of 8.5m which would be consistent with the main ridge of the existing dwelling. The proposed rear dormer would be located on the rear roofslope and would measure 1.6m high x 3.8m wide x 2.4m deep. The proposed balcony would be positioned above the existing ground floor lean to and would have a platform 1.1m deep x 3.2m wide and would include 1.8m obscure glazed screens to the eastern side.

1.3 All flats would be accessed through a ground floor shared entrance to be formed to the front elevation. Other external alterations include rooflights to the front and rear and a flat roof infill extension within the ‘valley’ of the roof.

1.4 The application is an amended proposal following application Ref: 14/00051/FUL which was refused for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of its poor design including the first floor side extension and resultant void at ground floor, the lack of alignment of the proposed first floor windows and the design and size of the rear dormer and the conflict with the existing outrigger projection would be detrimental to the appearance and character of the building, contrary to Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy; Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan, advice contained within the adopted Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1) 2009 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.


2.1 The application site contains a two storey end of terrace dwelling located on the northern side of Avebury Road. The site is of an unusual shape being wider to the front and narrowing toward the rear of the property. The site also includes an area of land to the rear which extends along the rear of the neighbouring properties to the east of the site which front Avebury Road. The property has an existing vehicle crossover with a driveway extending along the western side boundary.


2.2 The surrounding area is residential and is characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings.


3.1 The main considerations of this application are the principle of the development, design and impact on the streetscene, any impact on neighbouring properties, living conditions for future occupiers, parking implications and waste storage.

4 Appraisal


The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2, CP4 and CP8, Borough Local Plan Policies H6 and H7

4.1 This proposal is considered in the context of national planning policy and Borough Council policies relating to residential accommodation.

4.2 Policy H3 of the Borough local Plan seeks to retain an adequate stock of small single family dwelling houses and permission will normally be refused for the redevelopment or conversion of such properties having a gross floor area, as originally constructed, of 125m² or less. The existing dwelling has a gross floor area of approximately 133.4m2.and as such the proposed conversion would therefore be consistent with BLP Policy H3.

4.3 BLP Policy H6 states that conversions to flats will normally be refused where the number of properties originally constructed as single family dwellinghouses which have already been converted to such uses (in addition to non-self-contained accommodation) represents more than 10% of the total residential frontage in the street block. A review of records and a street survey has shown that of the 7 properties in this street block on the southern side of the street, none of these have been converted to flats. The proposed conversion of this property would therefore be consistent with BLP Policy H6.

4.4 Subject to detailed considerations below the proposal is considered acceptable in principle.

Design

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

4.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 is aimed at guiding local authorities in the delivery of sustainable development and housing. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states; “the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”


4.6 It is proposed to demolish part of the ground floor and erect a two storey side and rear extension. This would result in the first floor side extension being built on supports, over the part of the ground floor which will be demolished to provide a vehicle access through to the rear of the site. The amended scheme has however included a garage door to the front elevation at ground floor level, which prevents a void being created and would achieve a more resolved appearance to the extension. This would be sufficient to overcome the previous reason for refusal in relation to the side extension.

4.7 The revised scheme has also addressed the previous concerns in relation to the new and replacement windows which would be of matching sizes and proportions which would help to integrate the extension with the existing dwelling and help to retain the existing character of the building.

4.8 With regard to the proposed rear dormer, Part 366 of the Design and Townscape Guide states that ”dormer windows, where appropriate should appear incidental in the roof slope (i.e. set in from both side walls, set well below the ridgeline and well above the eaves)”. It also states that “the space around the window must be kept to a minimum and large box style dormers should be avoided, especially where they have public impact, as they appear bulky and unsightly.” The size of the rear dormer has been reduced and would now appear incidental within the roofslope. The dormer has also been moved away from the projecting outrigger. The dormer is now considered to be acceptable in design terms.


Borough Local Plan Policies H5 and H7, and SPD1

4.9 Paragraph 343 of SPD1 states, amongst other criteria, that extensions must respect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and ensure not to adversely affect light, outlook or privacy of the habitable rooms in adjacent properties. Policy H5 of the Borough local Plan requires that development respect existing residential amenities, and Policy C11 requires that new extensions create a satisfactory relationship with surroundings.

4.10 With regard to the proposed first floor side and rear extension, this would extend to the western boundary of the site. This adjoins the rear gardens of the properties fronting Tudor Road and as such given the separation distance from the rear building line of these properties, there would not be any impact in terms of loss of light or enclosure. No first floor windows are proposed within the side elevation. There would be a separation distance of 15m between the proposed balcony and the rear building line of the properties to the west fronting Salisbury Avenue. It is considered that this, together with an obscure glazed screen to the western side of the balcony would prevent overlooking.


4.11 With regard to the impact on the neighbouring property to the east at No. 12 Avebury Road, the proposed extensions would be located to the western side of the dwelling and as such would not have any additional impact on No. 12 due to the separation distance. A 1.8m obscure screen is proposed to the eastern side of the balcony which will avoid overlooking of the rear garden.

4.12 Given the above and subject to a condition in relation to obscure screens, he proposal would therefore be consistent with BLP Policy H5

Living Conditions for Future Occupiers

National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan Policies H5 and H7, and SPD1

4.13 The internal sizes of the proposed flats are as follows:

Flat 1 (1 bed): 49.5sqmFlat 2 (2 bed): 59.6sqmFlat 3 (1 bed): 37sqm

4.14 The Council is currently consulting on its draft Development Management Development Plan Document. In this document minimum dwelling and room sizes are set out as per the below table:

Policy Table 4: Indicative Residential Space Standards

(a) 1 bedroom (2 bed spaces) 45 (b) 2 bedroom (3 bed spaces) 57 (c) 2 bedroom (4 bed spaces) 67

The following is also prescribed:

- Provision of a storage cupboard with a minimum floor area of 1.25m2 should be provided for 1-2 person dwellings. A minimum of 0.5m2 storage area should be provided for each additional bedspace.

- Amenity: Suitable space should be provided for a washing machine and for drying clothes, as well as private outdoor amenity, where feasible and appropriate to the scheme.

- Bedroom Sizes : The minimum floor area for bedrooms to be no less than 7m2 for a single bedroom with a minimum width of 2.15m2 ; and 12m2 for a double/twin bedroom with a minimum width of 2.55m2

- Storage: Suitable, safe cycle storage with convenient access to the street frontage.


- Refuse Facilities: Non-recyclable waste storage facilities should be provided in new residential development in accordance with the Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide and any local standards. Suitable space should be provided for and recycling bins within the home. Refuse stores should be located to limit the nuisance caused by noise and smells and should be provided with a means for cleaning, such as a water supply.

- Working: Provide suitable space which provides occupiers with the opportunity to work from home. This space must be able to accommodate a desk and filing/storage cupboards.

The proposed flats would be generally comply with the above standards.

4.15 Each bedroom in the flats at ground and first floors would include a window. Lounge/kitchen/dining areas in the flats would also have windows. Accordingly, it is considered that outlook, ventilation and light would be adequate to the flats at ground and first floors.

4.16 A rear garden is proposed which would be available for shared use although only the ground floor unit would have direct access. The occupants of the remaining flats would have to access this area via the driveway along the side of the site. One of these flats would be one bedroom and as such would not provide family accommodation and the 2 bedroom flat (over first and second floor) would have a small balcony. On balance therefore this arrangement is considered to be acceptable.

Parking Implications

Borough Local Plan Policy T11, EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards

4.17 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 state that a maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling should be provided in urban locations. It is proposed that two car parking spaces would be provided at the rear of the site for flats 1 and 2. These spaces would be of an acceptable size and would be accessed via the extended vehicular crossover. No off street parking is proposed for flat 3 (one bedroom) however given the area of land at the rear of the site, this could be achieved should Members require 3 parking spaces to be provided.

4.18 Cycle storage is proposed within the rear garden adjacent the eastern boundary. This would be an acceptable location, and subject to secure storage being provided would be considered acceptable.


Waste

4.19 Waste storage is proposed within the rear garden adjacent the eastern boundary also. Whilst this would be to the rear, it is not unreasonable to expect that bins could be brought to the front of the site for kerbside waste collection, given the existing residential use of the property. As such the proposed bin store is considered to be acceptable.



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

5.3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan Policies H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), and H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats).

5.4 Supplementary Planning Document 1: Design & Townscape Guide, 2009. Essex Planning Officer Association Vehicle Parking Standards 2001.


Public Consultation

6.1 Neighbours notified of the application and site notice displayed – one representation received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

Insufficient parking Loss of privacy Additional impact on waste and drainage services Garage door not in keeping Vacant property not secure Insufficient neighbour notification [Officer Comment: Adjoining land

owners notified and site notice displayed]


6.2 2 car parking spaces have been provided. No parking has been provided for one of the 1 bedroom flats which is considered acceptable given the sustainable location of the site and good transport links in close proximity. Cycle parking and refuse storage has been provided. Refuse would need to be brought to the front for kerbside collection. Given the above there are no highway objection to this proposal.



6.3 The amendments to the front elevation of this building are a significant improvement and are now considered to be acceptable subject to matching materials and detailing as shown on the plans. There is no objection to the proposed alterations at the rear or the dormer. Internally the flats are rather small but just about adequate for the number of persons proposed. The amenity space is rather remote from the units but of a good size and should be useable subject to good quality landscaping which should be conditioned.


7.1 14/00051/FUL – Part demolish existing ground floor side extension, convert house into three self-contained flats, erect first floor side and rear extension, install roof lights to front elevation, form balcony to rear, erect roof extension to rear, alter elevations, layout parking, refuse and cycle storage and extend existing vehicular access. Refused.

8 Recommendation

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



02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans Site Location Plan, 1280/01, 1280/02 Rev D.


03 All new work to the outside of the building must match existing original work in terms of the choice of materials, method of construction and finished appearance. This applies unless differences are shown on the drawings hereby approved or are required by conditions to this permission.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).


04 The side elevation of the rear balcony at first floor level 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.

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 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

05 Prior to first occupation of the development separate stores for waste and materials for recycling must be provided as shown on drawing1280/02 Rev D. These stores must be clearly marked and made available at all times to everyone using the flats. Waste must be stored inside the property and only put outside just before it is to be collected. The stores must not be used for any other purpose

Reason: To protect the environment and provide suitable storage for waste and materials for recycling in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4.

06 None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the plan attached for 3; bicycles 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 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

07 The parking area shall be provided in accordance with the drawing no. 1280/02 Rev D prior to occupation of the dwellings 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 of which it forms part and their visitors and for no other purpose unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory off-street car parking is provided in the interests of residential amenity and highways efficiency and safety, in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy T8 and T11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).


08 The soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 1280/02 Rev D prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved.

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 DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11 and C14, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide)

09 The area to the rear of the adjacent the car parking area shall remain available for use at all times as an amenity area to all occupants of the flats hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure the flats are afforded a sufficient amount of outdoor amenity space in accordance with BLP Policy H7 and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).




Ward: Leigh

Proposal: Erect single storey rear extension with a balcony at first floor

Address: 8 Glen Road, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, SS9 1EU

Applicant: Mr Daniels

Agent: SK Architects




Plan Nos: Site & Block Plans; Existing Plans; Proposed Plans



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a single storey rear extension and an alteration to the existing balcony at first floor including balustrading and 1.8m high screen together with replacing existing window and doors with bi-folding doors.

1.2 The single storey rear extension is 3.7m wide x 4m deep x 4.2m high. The enlarged extension would facilitate a new dining area. The proposed materials include render and glazing of a contemporary nature to be constructed from powder coated aluminium. To the first floor existing windows and a door will be replaced with bi-folding doors constructed from aluminium to the existing balcony and a new glazed balustrade.

1.3 This application is to be dealt with by Development Control Committee as the applicant is a member of staff at Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.


2.1 The application site is a two storey terraced property located on the southern side of Glen Road. The property has a long narrow garden which is bounded to the side by a fence and vegetation. Land in the area slopes down to the south. To the rear of the property is a raised balcony at ground floor and existing balcony to the first floor, which is characteristic of the attached terraced properties.

2.2 The surrounding area is residential and is characterised by dense terraces of dwellings and by larger properties to the south. Glen Road has a uniform character, with the application site forming part of a terrace of dwellings of similar design and size.


3.1 The main considerations are in relation to this application area the principle of the development, design and impact on the character of the area, traffic and transportation and impact on residential amenity.

4 Appraisal




4.1 This proposal is considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and Borough Council policies relating to design. 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. The principle of a single storey rear extension is acceptable subject to the detailed design considerations below.


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4; Borough Local Plan policies C11, C14, H5 and Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people”.

4.3 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy advocates the need for all new development to respect the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood where appropriate and secure urban improvements through quality design. Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy states that development proposals will be expected to contribute to the creation of a high quality, sustainable, urban environment which enhances and complements the natural and built assets of Southend by maintaining and enhancing the amenities, appeal and character of residential areas, securing good relationships with existing development, and respecting the scale and nature of that development.

4.4 The proposed single storey rear extension will not be visible from the streetscene and will therefore have limited impact on public amenity. In terms of its design and scale, the extension would project 4m beyond the existing rear wall and have an overall height of 3.5m-4.2m due to the varying site levels. Whilst the proposal external elevations in terms of the openings will add a contemporary feel to the property, it is not considered the extension or alterations to the elevations which includes increased glazing will detract from the character and appearance of this dwelling together with the first floor glazing alterations including new opening for bi-folding doors and balustrade to the existing balcony.

4.5 In light of the above, the proposal by reason of its design and scale will provide a positive addition and the proposed alterations to the first floor will complement the existing building complying with the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy DPD, Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, and the Design and Townscape Guide.



National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policy CP3; BLP policies T8, T11; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.6 It is not considered the proposal will result in any parking implications as there is an existing garage to the rear of the site.


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2 and CP4; BLP policies C11, H5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.7 In terms of impact on neighbouring properties, it should be noted that permission has been granted at no. 10 Glen Road to the east (13/01864/FULH) for a 3m deep extension which will be sited 2m away from this development. It is not considered the extension will be overbearing or result in loss of light to the existing occupiers at no. 10 Glen Road. With respect to impact on the adjoining occupiers at no. 6 to the west, the extension will project 4m beyond the rear wall and have an overall height of 3.5m-4.2m due to the varying site levels. No. 6 has not been previously extended to the rear. Whilst the extension will project 4m and taken into account the overall scale and sloping levels to the south, on balance it is not considered the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the amenities enjoyed by residents at no. 6 particularly in terms of being overbearing or resulting in loss of light.

4.8 In relation to the alterations to the first floor, whilst it is acknowledged a large expanse of flat roof will be created from the single storey rear extension a condition will be imposed to ensure this is not used for this purpose. The proposed privacy screens to the west and east of the existing balcony will provide positive additions reducing the perception of overlooking or loss of privacy thus, improving an existing situation.

4.9 In light of the above, the proposed development will not result in any overlooking or loss of privacy nor will it result in an overbearing feature on immediate residential occupiers. The proposal therefore accords with Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy and Policy H5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan.



5.2 Development Plan Document 1: CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance) KP2 (Development Principles)

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





6.1 No objections.

Public Consultation

6.2 2 neighbours have been notified but no letters of representation have been received.


7.1 None

9 Recommendation

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



2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans Site & Block Plans; Existing Plans; Proposed Plans.


3 All new work to the outside of the building must match existing original work in terms of the choice of materials, method of construction and finished appearance. This applies unless differences are shown on the drawings hereby approved or are required by conditions to this permission.

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 set out in National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy C11, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).


4 The roof of the single storey rear extension hereby approved shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area or for any other purpose unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The roof can however be used for the purposes of maintenance or to escape in an emergency.

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring residential properties, DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy CP4, Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, and SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guide).

Informatives

1 You are advised that the development hereby approved is likely to require approval under Building Regulations. Our Building Control Service can be contacted on 01702 215004 or alternatively visit our website http://www.southend.gov.uk/info/200011/building_control for further information.



Reference: 14/00736/TCA

Ward: Milton

Proposal: Fell One Ash Tree (Works to a trees within a Conservation Area)

Address: 121 Alexandra Road, Southend-on-Sea Essex SS1 1HN

Applicant: Sorrel Estate Agents

Agent: Ms Sharon Furnell, Tree Fella Ltd



Case Officer: Abbie Greenwood

Plan No’s: Application Form

Recommendation: RAISE NO OBJECTION


1 The Proposal

1.1 Permission is sought on behalf of the managing agents of the flats at 121 Alexandra Road to fell an ash tree at the rear of the property. No reason has been given for this work.


2.1 The tree is located within a group of trees to the rear of the property on the southern boundary of the parking area. It is one of two relatively small ash trees in the middle of the group. The other trees, including a large horse chestnut, two sycamores, a large evergreen oak and a weeping ash are already covered by Tree Preservation Orders. These trees are significantly larger and are located in positions where they can be seen from the street between the properties in Alexandra Road and Clifftown Parade. The smaller ash trees, including the one which relates to this application, cannot be seen from the street and consequently do not impact on the character of the conservation area.

2.2 The ash tree in question is covered in ivy and appears to be of poor form and condition.


3.1 The only consideration of this application is whether the tree warrants protection with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) or whether the Council should allow it to be felled. This will depend on the amenity value of the tree, its condition and the contribution it makes to the character and setting of Clifftown Conservation Area.

4 Appraisal

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012, Core Strategy Policies KP2 and CP4, Saved Borough Local Plan (BLP) Policies C4 and C14 and the Design and Townscape Guide 2009 (SPD1).

4.1 Policy C4 states that ‘All buildings, open spaces, gardens, trees, views from public places and other aspects of the environment which contribute to the character of Conservation Areas will be protected and enhanced’ and policy C14 states that ‘The Borough Council will seek to preserve those trees and planting areas which contribute to the townscape of an area.’

4.2 The tree cannot be seen from either Alexandra Road or Clifftown Parade because it is to the rear of the property and views are screened by buildings from both sides. It can only be seen from within the car park or from the flats that face onto it. It therefore has no public amenity value and does not make a contribution to the character of Clifftown Conservation Area.


4.3 The tree does not appear to be in good condition but the consultation response from the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has not yet been received so this cannot be confirmed at this stage. This should, however, be reported in the Committee Supplementary Information.

Conclusion

4.4 The ash tree has no public amenity value and does not make a positive contribution to the character of Clifftown Conservation Area. Consequently, regardless of the condition of the tree, which is also questioned, a Tree Preservation Order cannot be justified. It is therefore recommended that no objections are raised to the felling of this tree.

5 Representations Summary

5.1 23 neighbours were individually consulted on this application and a site notice was displayed. No responses were received at the time of writing.

Parks/Trees

5.2 To be reported.

Southend Society

5.3 No response received.

Councillors

5.4 Cllr. Walker has requested that this application go before Development Control Committee.



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

6.3 Saved Borough Local Plan Policies C4 (Conservation Areas) and (C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping)




7.1 No relevant planning history.

Recommendation

Members are recommended to RAISE NO OBJECTION to the felling of this tree.




Ward: Kursaal

Proposal: Change of use of ground floor from car showroom/garage to taxi office call centre (Sui Generis).

Address:Belle Vue Motors, 50 Chase Road, Southend-on-Sea, EssexSS1 2RA

Agent A.C Radio Cars Ltd

Applicant: N/A




Plan Nos: Location Plan; MJO1599



1 The Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought to change the use of a car showroom/garage to a 24 hour taxi office call centre (Sui Generis).

1.2 The applicant has provided supporting information confirming the office will be solely used for the general administration and day to day running of the business. Twenty-seven employees will be employed on the site. The basic shift patterns of the members of staff are as follows:

There are three shifts per day 7 days per week,

Morning:7am – 3pm Average Employees on site 7

Day Shift:3pm – 11pmAverage Employees on site 7

Night Shift:11pm – 7amAverage Employees on site 2

In addition to above, a maximum management team of 4 will be on site between 7am and 7pm 5 days a week (on a rota basis).

1.3 The applicant contends due to the relocation of the site members of staff will now be in walking distance of the site and there are 10 parking spaces also available on site for staff. Furthermore, the applicant states that taxis do not operate from the offices and a rule is in place whereby no drivers are allowed in the offices between 5pm to 9am which is a similar practice that has been in place at the business’ current base at 206 Hamlet Court.


2.1 The site is located on the corner of Riviera Drive and Chase Road junction. The streetscene is characterised by a flatted development to the west of the site. To the north of the site is a commercial premise currently vacant and to the east of the site are residential properties. Opposite the site to the south is the railway and Southend East station is located 0.2 miles away.


3.1 The main considerations in relation to this application are the principle of the development, impact on residential amenity and traffic and transportation and design.


4 Appraisal


National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1, KP2, CP1, CP4; BLP policies C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.1 The current site is occupied as a car showroom. The Borough Local Plan allocates the land to be redeveloped for residential use as the commercial unit is poorly located for industrial uses and seeks to resist proposals for the intensification of an existing industrial use. The proposal is to use the existing building and change the use from a car showroom to a taxi office call centre. It is not considered the proposed use would necessarily intensify the commercial use and thus the principle of the change of use is considered acceptable subject to the material planning considerations detailed below.


National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies CP4; BLP policies H5, E5 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009).

4.2 Policy E5 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan states that in order to safeguard the character and amenities of residential streets any commercial development would not adversely affect residential amenity by noise, parking or activity. Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan states all development within residential streets will be required to respect neighbouring development, existing residential amenities and the overall character of the locality.

4.3 The nearest residential properties are located 10m to the west Chase Court Gardens (3 storey flatted block), to the east no. 2 Riviera Drive is located 0.6m away from the boundary with no. 50 Chase Road, to the north is a commercial premises.

4.4 The proposal is to operate a 24 hour taxi/call centre office with 27 members of staff working at the premises. The applicant has suggested that no taxis will be visiting the site between the 5pm and 9am on any day. Furthermore, the Councils licensing team have confirmed as AC Cabs are a hackney taxi operator and not private hire they can park in any taxi ranks in the borough and are not required to go to the office proposed on Chase Road. In addition, the Councils Regulatory Team have confirmed that with respect to the current trading address of AC’s taxis (Hamlet Court Road / junction of Osborne Road) which is the residential part of Hamlet Court Road, Regulatory Services (Licensing / Trading Standards / Environmental Health) has not received any complaints about activities relating to the business. Taking into account the shift patterns as detailed above in paragraph 1.2 whereby the highest number of employees will be 7 between 7am-11pm together with 4 management staff between 7am-7pm. It is not considered the vehicle movements associated with the members of staff and noise and disturbance will have a detrimental impact on the amenities enjoyed by local residents surrounding the site. Furthermore, a condition will be attached to prevent taxis visiting the site between 5pm-9am on any day.


4.5 On balance, the proposed use associated with the numbers of staff and vehicle movements together with condition 3 below is not considered the proposal will have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of nearby residents.

Traffic and transportation

National Planning Policy Framework; DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP2, CP4, CP3; BLP policies T8, T11, T13; EPOA Parking Standards and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1.

4.6 The existing vehicle access is from Riviera Drive whereby the site can accommodate up to 10 vehicles off street. The site is located 70m away from Southchurch Road to the north which is well served by public transport and Southend East railway station is located 0.2 miles away to the south. Given the location of the site and taking into account the sustainable location it is not considered the proposal will give rise to on street parking or have a harmful impact on the


National Planning Policy Framework, DPD1 (Core Strategy) policies KP1, KP2, CP1, CP4; BLP policies C11 and the Design and Townscape Guide SPD1 (2009)

4.7 The proposed change of use will not result in any alterations to the existing layout or external appearance.



5.2 Development Plan Document 1: Core Strategy Policies KP1 (Spatial Strategy), KP2 (Development Principles), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance), CP6 (Community Infrastructure)

5.3 Borough Local Plan Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations, T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), T13 (Cycling and Walking), E5 (Non Residential Uses Close to Housing).


5.6 EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001)

5.7 Waste Management Guide



6.1 No comments.


Traffic and Transport

6.2 There are no highway objections to this proposal the change of use would represent a reduction in vehicle movements within the local area. Adequate parking is available on site for staff.

Regulatory Services

6.3 No adverse observations from the Environmental Protection aspect of Environmental Health in terms of noise or disturbance. In respect of the current trading address of AC’s (Hamlet Court Road / junction of Osborne Road) which is the residential part of Hamlet Court Road, Regulatory Services (Licensing / Trading Standards / Environmental Health) has not received any complaints about activities relating to the business.

Public Consultation

6.4 A site notice displayed on the 13th May 2014 and 35 neighbours notified of the proposal.

20 pro-forma letters of objection have been received objecting to the following: Not enough time to assess the site notice as only seen one day before the end

date of the consultation [Officer Comment: The site notice was displayed on the 13th May for 21 days and therefore expires on the 3rd June 2014].

The change of use to a taxi office call centre is not complete as taxis and customers could visit the premises.

The application would increase foot traffic, parking, swapping an existing scenario with the Belle Vue cars, which would not disturb the surrounding neighbours.

No detail has been provided on the increase in number of vehicles on the site and operating from the site.

Harm public safety. Public nuisance. Harm to children Crime and disorder. Residents and young children will be affected by the proposal. Increased night use of the site will result in a public nuisance with car lights,

doors shutting, traffic being started up and night traffic of people visiting the building.

Site is already congested during the day due to the station car parking all along the road.

The existing junction is already a hazard and drivers cannot see oncoming traffic and a recent accident on the 15th.

Two further letters of objection:

Not sufficient information to determine the application.


An office will not disturb residents but with drivers going out all day and night this will have a harmful impact on residents.

If taxis are starting up all night this would seriously affect residents.

Nature of the business would be detrimental to the police operation of trying to reduce anti-social behaviour in the area.

Traffic congestion. School route. Residents from sheltered accommodation live in close proximity to the site. Adverse impact on health.

6.5 Councillor Jones has requested this application be dealt with by Development Control Committee.


7.1 None.

8 Recommendation

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

1 The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with theapproved plans: Location Plan; MJO1599.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the development plan.

2 No taxis shall visit the premises in connection with the use of the site between the hours of 1700 and 0900 on any day.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and general environmental quality in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, E5 and U2.

4 The change of use hereby permitted shall only be for a taxi call centre/office and no other use.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and general environmental quality in accordance with DPD1 (Core Strategy) 2007 policy KP2 and CP4, and Borough Local Plan 1994 policy H5, E5 and U2.


The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers.

Date post:	25-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Item Agenda Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Council... · Southend-on-Sea foreshore LNR is located...

Documents