item agenda southend-on-sea borough council

$iqzli10n.doc of 84 Report No: DETE07/148 - FINAL

INTRODUCTION

(i) Recommendations in capitals at the end of each report are those of the Corporate Director of Enterprise, Tourism & the Environment, are not the decision of the Committee and are subject to Member consideration.

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

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

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

AW - Anglia Water plcBLP - Borough Local PlanCAA - Civil Aviation AuthorityDCL - Director of Children and LearningDCS - Director of Community ServicesDEFRA - Department of Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDTLR - Department of Transport Local Government & The Regions EA - Environmental AgencyESRSP - Essex and Southend Replacement Structure PlanEPOA - Essex Planning Officer’s Association ODPM - Office of the Deputy Prime MinisterPPG - Planning Policy Guidance NoteSSSI - Sites of Special Scientific Interest. A national designation.

SSSIs are the country's very best wildlife and geological sites. SPA - Special Protection Area. An area designated for special

protection under the terms of the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds.

Ramsar Site – Describes sites that meet the criteria for inclusion in the list of Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. (Named after a town in Iran, the Ramsar Convention is concerned with the protection of wetlands, especially those important for migratory birds)

º

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Report of the Corporate Director of Enterprise, Tourism & the Environment

toDevelopment Control Committee

On7th November 2007

Report prepared by : Planning Officers

Report on Planning ApplicationsA Part 1 Agenda Item

Agenda Item


Milton Ward

SOS/07/01276/FULM (Application for planning permission)

ERECT 11 STOREY EXTENSION OVER EXISTING FOUR STOREY BUILDING, ERECT TWO FLOORS OVER EXISTING EIGHT STOREY OFFICE BUILDING, CONVERT EXTENDED BUILDING INTO 94 FLATS

Part Of Former Keddies Building, High Street And Maitland House, Chichester Road, Southend-on-Sea

Barratts East London and Thames Gateway CB Richard Ellis

1 The ProposalSite Area 0.276.hecHeight Total above ground: 15 Storeys

51m to highest point of roofNumber of Units residential units

18 x studio flat 30.6 – 37.1m²65 x 1 bed flats 40.9 – 53.0m²10 x 2 bed flats 57.0 – 74.1m²5 x 3 bed flats 87.0 – 90.9m²17 units affordable housing

227 bedspacesParking 10 parking spaces (off site) Cycle Parking 126 spaces (112 for residents and 14 for visitors)

Guideline = 1 per unit (residential) Amenity Space Smallest studio flats: juliette balconies

Remaining studio and 1 and 2 bed flats: balconies of 3.2m² per unit3 bed units balconies 6.5m² and 12.0m² per unit

Density1.1. The application proposes to extend Maitland House above the existing

Travelodge Hotel from the 4th to the 12th floors to provide 98 self-contained flats. At floors 13 and 14 the residential accommodation is extended above the existing office tower. Resident’s cycle parking would be provided within the basement of the building. Visitor cycle parking (14 spaces, Sheffield stands) is provided on the Chichester Road footpath. Refuse storage is shown as being provided within Leather Lane.

1.2. The proposed entrance to the development adjoins the hotel entrance on Chichester Road facing Warrior Square. A glass entrance canopy is proposed above the entrance.

1.3. This proposal includes 10% AH for the first 64 units and 30% AH for the remainder, which equates to 17 units.

1.4. Ten resident’s parking spaces are proposed within the basement car park of the adjacent building.


1.5. Planning permission was granted in 2004 (and this permission remains extant) to erect an extension within the same building envelope (footprint and mass) as that proposed here, for 24 x1 bed and 40x 2 bed flats. That application included provision of 10% affordable housing (AH).

1.6. Although the overall massing of the building remains the same as that approved previously the design has been refined by incorporating elements from the other existing buildings in the complex and the use of articulation in the form of the inset balconies, coloured panels and metal screens.

1.7. Materials used would include wall formed from composite panels with external powder coated steel panel. The east and west elevations would have light grey and blue panels, the north and south would be light grey.

1.8. The applicants have submitted supporting documentation in the form of a Planning Statement; Design Statement; Sunlight and Daylight Appraisal; Refuse collection strategy and Transport Statement, including Travel Plan.

2 Location and Description

2.1. The application site comprises the former Keddies Department Store, which is located at the junction of Chichester Road and Warrior Square Road. The site has an area of approx. 0.276 hectares.

2.2. The site is occupied by the former department store building which comprised ground, first, second and third floor accommodation together with a basement. The building is now partially occupied by a 56 bed Travelodge hotel, Varsity bar and Mayhem nightclub. The eight storey office block which forms Maitland house is located above the former department store.

2.3. The elevations to the former department store building have been improved as a result of the recent development and are now clad in a stainless steel type metal and blue and white panelling.

2.4. The building is currently serviced from Chichester Road/Laundry Lane. There is no parking provision on site.

2.5. Development surrounding the application site is mixed and comprises amongst others, residential, office, retail, cafe, restaurant and public house uses.

2.6. The site lies opposite Warrior Square Conservation Area.

3 Development Plan

3.1. Southend on Sea Core Strategy - Development Plan Document One Delivering Regeneration and Growth: Strategic Objectives - Policies SO1, SO2, SO4, SO5, SO6, SO7, S08, SO9, SO10, SO13, SO14, SO15, SO16. Key Polices: KP1: Spatial Strategy; KP2; Development Principles, KP3 Implementation and Resources, CP1; Employment Generating Development, CP2 – Town Centre and Retail Development; CP3; Transport and Accessibility; CP4; The Environment and Urban Renaissance, CP5: Minerals and Soil Resource; CP6; Community Infrastructure, CP7; Sport Recreation and Green Space; CP8: Dwelling Provision.


3.2. BLP Policies E2 (Major Office Development), E5 (Non Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self Contained Flats), U1 (Infrastructure Provision), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T10 (Town Centre Parking), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities).

3.3. SPD1 Design and Townscape Guide.

3.4. PPS1( Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS 3 (Housing); PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres).

3.5. PPG13 (Transport).

4 Relevant Planning History

4.1. There have been a number of proposals for this site, set out below are those most relevant to the current application.

4.2. 2001 – planning permission granted for renewal of planning permission SOS/96/0303, use four storey building for leisure and restaurant purposes and lay out car parking at basement level. SOS/01/00250/FUL

4.3. 2003 – planning permission withdrawn proposing to erect extension at first, second and third floors to Leather Lane for A3/D2 uses install two external lifts to front elevation, use basement as nightclub and alter elevations SOS/02/01362/FUL

4.4. November - planning permission granted for the erection of ten storey extension over the existing four storey building, convert extended building into 64 flats, 56 bedroom hotel, office, basement nightclub, A3 uses on ground floor and alter elevations. Planning permission was granted subject to completion of a S106 Agreement including provision of Affordable Housing; contributions towards bus service provision; contributions for CCTV provision, contribution towards public transport; contributions for enhancements to Warrior Square and submission and implementation of a travel plan. (SOS/03/00457/FUL)

4.5. 2004 – planning permission granted for the erection of 10 storey extension over the existing four storey building, erect two storeys over 11 storey building, convert extended building into 64 flats, 56 bedroom hotel, office, basement nightclub, A3 uses on ground floor and alter elevations (amended) (SOS/04/0085/FUL). Planning permission was granted subject to completion of a S106 Agreement including provision of Affordable Housing; contributions towards bus service provision; contributions for CCTV provision, contribution towards public transport; contributions for enhancements to Warrior Square and submission and implementation of a travel plan. This application has been partially implemented and remains extant, the only unimplemented element is that for 64 flats.

5 External Consultation

5.1. Southend Airport – to be reported.

5.2. Police Architectural Liaison Officer – to be reported.


5.3. Environment Agency – no comment.

5.4. Southend Society – to be reported.

5.5. Renaissance Southend – to be reported.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1. Highway Comment – A revised TA and TP are required. Cycle parking is shown in the basement which is not ideal but acceptable.

6.2. Housing comment - ACS welcomes the provision of AH on this site. It is understood that there is existing permission for 64 units with 10% AH (10 units) and the developer is suggesting that the AH contributions will be 10% on the 64 units and 30% on the additional units making a contribution of 17 units.

6.3. Under the Core Strategy we would expect to see 30% on this application (29 units) with a split of 10x1B, 12x2B and 7x3B to meet housing need and a tenure of 50/50 rented/shared ownership. AH has been made a council priority since the previous application was submitted and therefore ACS expects full provision. In addition some units within the application fall below the minimum size standards for AH units. ACS requests provision of 10 x 1B units, 12 x 2B units and 7x 3B units.

6.4. Environmental Health comment – to be reported.

6.5. DCL comment – The development falls within the catchment of Porters Grange Primary School, which has places and Futures College for which a contribution is requested of £40,144.13.

6.6. Town Centre Manager - No comment.

6.7. DCLAS comment – The development will have an impact on the limited public green open space and associated facilities within the area. Therefore we would ask that a contribution of no less than £73,500 should be requested. Due to its location the development does not include any landscaping. In consultation with the TCM it is considered that the developer should be asked to fund the installation of containerised trees or other horticultural features.

7 Publicity

7.1. Two Councillors have raised objections on the following grounds: overdevelopment; density, stress on existing parking

7.2. Press notice, site notice and neighbour notification – two letters of objection relating to the following issues:

♦ Blot on the landscape

♦ Will block light to the residents of Warrior Square, particularly in the late afternoons/evenings. In winter the Square will be overshadowed

♦ Will lead to an increase in on street car parking

♦ Raise doubts over the viability of a car sharing scheme


♦ The scheme states that 10 spaces will be provided in the basement of Chichester and Tolhurst House. Most residents of that building don’t have their own spaces and are prevented from purchasing them, so why are residents prevented form doing so, so that accommodation elsewhere can benefit?

♦ Security issue to residents of Chichester and Tolhurst House of others using the basement car park area.

♦ Precedent for other such schemes in the area.

♦ Southend Town Centre doesn’t need and can’t accommodate this size of residential development.

♦ Many offices in Maitland House will have to be relocated to the detriment of the economy (officer’s note – this is not so)

♦ Increased numbers of students within the town will create the need for more affordable student accommodation, not luxury flats such as proposed.

♦ Utilities unable to cope with such and influx of residents

♦ Impact on television reception

8 Appraisal

8.1. The main issues to be taken into account are the planning history of the site, whether there have been material changes in circumstances since the previous permission which effect consideration of this proposal; the principle of the proposed use, the impact of the increase in number of units, design and impact on the streetscene, educational capacity, provision of affordable housing, open space provision, parking provision, access, servicing, impact on neighbours, living standards, crime and disorder, impact on airport safety zone, S106 Agreement Contributions.

Planning History and the Principle of the Use.

8.2. It is important to set this application in the context of the extant planning permission for the site. Planning permission exists for construction of an extension to the building within the same building envelope as now proposed, for 64 units of accommodation. The permission remains extant (and will do so in perpetuity) because other elements of the development have been completed. Therefore there can be no objection in principle to the provision of residential accommodation in a building of this scale on the site. It is also recognised that development of this important Town Centre site with a good quality proposal by a nationally recognised developer may encourage other such developers to invest in the Town Centre and set a positive precedent for development.

8.3. However it is also important to note that there have been material changes in circumstances since the permission was granted which will affect consideration of this application. The Core Strategy has now been produced and found sound by the Secretary of States Inspector. In addition National Planning Guidance has been revised and updated.


8.4. PPS3 states in para 36 that “In support of its objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, the Government’s policy is to ensure that housing is developed in suitable locations which offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. This should be achieved by making effective use of land, existing infrastructure ….. The priority for development should be previously developed land….” It is considered that the application site meets the above criteria and that the development would also make a positive contribution to provision of housing within the town centre which accords with the aims of Policy KP1 of the Core Strategy. Thus there is no objection in principle to the provision of additional housing on this site, which satisfies the above criteria and is located within a very sustainable location with good transport links.

8.5. The applicant has verbally stated that the previous development scheme was not viable due to high development costs the causes of which have been detailed in submissions. Evidence has been requested to support this statement and any additional information will be reported.

Design and impact on the streetscene

8.6. The massing of the building remains the same as the extant permission; therefore there can be no objection in principal to a building of this size in this location. The applicants have reviewed the design of the approved scheme, and revised it as necessary, including reducing ceiling heights to allow additional floors to be created, to allow them to increase the number of units. The opportunity to improve the appearance of this important town centre building is welcomed. The applicants have taken a contemporary approach, which is deemed appropriate to the building itself and wider High Street frontage. The incorporation of balconies and the use of materials has helped break up the massing of the building. The revised design is considered to be an improvement and acceptable in this location.

8.7. The site is immediately adjacent to the Warrior Square Conservation Area it is considered that the alterations as proposed will not adversely impact upon the character of the Conservation Area. Indeed further regeneration of the site is considered to be a positive change in this location.

8.8. Public Art – the S106 for the previous development did not seek a contribution for Public Art provision. Since that time SPD 1 Design and Townscape Guide has been adopted and the Core Strategy has considerable weight. This is an important town centre site in a location which would benefit from an enhanced environment and thus it is considered reasonable to require a contribution in relation to the additional units.

Density

8.9. The density of the residential development equates to a net figure of approx. 355 per hectare. It is recognised within SPD1 that “development sites in town centres….generally lend themselves to higher densities” and there is no objection in principal to high density development in this location, indeed PPS3 advises that the most efficient use of land is necessary, however it is important to consider whether a development of this density can be satisfactorily accommodated in a way which satisfies wider policy objectives and also meets the needs of future occupiers.


Affordable Housing

8.10. PPS 3 refers to Affordable Housing and states that “The Government is committed to providing high quality housing for people who are unable to access or afford market housing, for example, vulnerable people and key workers as well as helping people make the step from social-rented housing to home ownership.”

8.11. In assessing the Core Strategy the Inspector set an AH requirement of 30% for development in excess of 50 units. The application proposes to provide 10% AH for the first 64 units, with a 30% provision for the remaining 34 units. This provision is based on the fact that an extant permission exists for 64 units on the site, with aS106 requirement for only 10% AH. When considering the previous application, Members accepted that applicants’ submission that the high development costs of the site justified the reduction in AH provision. Because of the existence of the extant permission for 64 units officers consider that it would be unreasonable to insist on a higher percentage of AH provision in this instance.

8.12. It is also necessary to examine the composition of AH provision, it is not possible to provide the breakdown of units requested by ACS within the development as proposed. It is possible that it may be able to be provided off site. Discussions are ongoing in respect of this aspect of the development and the outcome will be reported.

Traffic and Parking

8.13. There is no existing parking provision within the site. 10 parking spaces are proposed off site to serve the development, (the location for which has not been specified). 112 cycle parking spaces are proposed within the basement.

8.14. The applicants have not submitted a full Transport Assessment in support of their application; however they have submitted a Transport Statement (TS). This is supplemented with a draft Travel Plan.

8.15. The TS concludes that the site is highly accessible by means of Transport other than the private car. Officers concur with this conclusion. The site is in the Town Centre and there are two rail stations, numerous bus routes and cycle routes within close walking distance.

8.16. The TS also concludes that as the number of bedspaces is only marginally greater than that already granted consent the number of vehicle trips associated with it would not be proportionately greater and that the relatively modest increase in trip generation would not be perceptible within the local highway network.

8.17. In terms of parking demand, the applicants state that the development will be marketed with an emphasis on the close links with rail and bus services and that the units will predominantly be attractive to first time buyers who are less likely to own a car. The TS concludes that the proposed development would result in a peak demand for an additional 17 or 18 parking spaces in the peak period of demand (overnight). The applicants have undertaken parking surveys which indicate that there is a capacity to accommodate additional parking demand within local streets. Officers concur with these conclusions based on


the submitted evidence. A recent appeal decision at a nearby site has supported the principle of nil parking provision in this Town Centre location.

8.18. The proposals include a satisfactory level of cycle parking, including visitor cycle parking.

8.19. In order to enhance accessibility of the site for non car forms of transport a contribution for improvements within the surrounding area is requested and would form part of a S106 agreement.

8.20. The impact of the development on traffic generation and parking within the town centre is therefore considered acceptable.

8.21. This proposal includes provision of 10 car parking spaces within the “adjacent building.” The building has not been specifically been identified although it is believed to be the adjacent Chichester and Tolhurst House. Clarification of this matter is being sought. It is not normally considered to be acceptable to provide parking spaces which are not conveniently located to serve the occupiers of a development. In this instance officers are not satisfied that the provision of parking is such a location would be beneficial to the development.

Servicing

8.22. The application shows that servicing for the facility will remain as existing, being accessed from Leather Lane. Waste storage is shown on the northern side of Leather Lane. This space has previously been allocated for waste arising from the existing development as well as the associated residential development. Recycling facilities are to be located within the basement area. The proposal is still being assessed in terms of waste and recycling storage and the outcome will be reported. Although it is normally possible to ensure that waste storage and recycling facilities are properly provided and waste collected in an acceptable manner, by virtue of implementation of a suitable waste strategy, in this particular case the space for such storage within the site is very limited. It was difficult to achieve an adequate facility for the commercial uses and residential units that were approved in 2004 and this proposal significantly increases the level of residential accommodation.

Education provision

8.23. The development is one that is expected to attract some families with children. When the previous application was considered there was considered to be to be sufficient capacity within surrounding schools to accommodate future requirements. However this situation has now changed and places are scarcer, thus a contribution of £40,144.13 is sought to meet the needs of the development. The Core Strategy endorses this approach.

Impact on neighbours

8.24. Sunlight and Daylight - The building envelope of the extended building is the same as that which was previously approved and remains extant and therefore it would be unreasonable to raise objections in relation to the impact on neighbours at this stage.

8.25. The activity generated by the increased occupancy of the development would not be significant enough to result in undue noise or disturbance to nearby residents.


Living standards

8.26. Turning to the details of the flats, as a result of the proposal to increase the number of units within the same building envelope, and notwithstanding reduced ceiling heights to accommodate additional floors, the size of the units has necessarily reduced. The size of a significant number of the units falls below the minimum size requirements for affordable housing units which are made by RSL’s, and would not be acceptable as AH. However at a recent appeal decision for flats in North Road, where the small size of units was considered to be an issue by officers, the Inspector considered that except for the AH units, unit size was a matter for the developer and the market. It is therefore considered unreasonable to object to the size of the open market units.

8.27. The previous scheme did not include any actual amenity space provision. This remains the case. The 2004 proposals did include balconies and some had small terraces. The current proposal also includes small balconies. The site is adjacent to the public amenity space in Warrior Square, which could be utilised by occupiers.

8.28. Government guidance recognises that the provision of amenity space is largely a matter for the developer and both PPS3 and PPS6 seek flexibility regarding amenity space provision. The application provides for a substantial number of units. However in light of progressive Policy changes at Government level, the emphasis on increasingly dense development and the need to make best use of brownfield sites and to increase the vitality of the Town Centre, in this particular instance no objections are raised in relation to lack of amenity space.

8.29. However the increased density of the development and lack of amenity space for the units will result in greater demand on nearby open space. The previous consent included provision for a payment to be used to contribute to improvements to Warrior Square to make it more attractive to potential users. It is considered reasonable to require a further contribution as a result of this development. Furthermore since the previous permission the additional strain that such development puts on local parks and play facilities has also been recognised and a further contribution is considered necessary to address this issue. A total contribution of £25,500 is requested (this takes into account the existence of the extant permission). DCLAS has also noted that the development does not include any landscaping and requests a contribution to fund provision of some form of horticultural feature. This approach is supported by the Core Strategy which has considerable weight. These contributions are considered to be reasonable and can be incorporated into a suitable S106 Agreement.


Southend Airport

8.30. Comments from the Airport are awaited, however they did not raise objections to the extant scheme and as this proposal maintains the same building envelope it is not expected to give rise to objection.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended DELEGATE TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to no objections being raised by the airport and resolution of AH and waste issues together with completion of a S106 Agreement requiring:

♦ provision of a total of 17 affordable housing units either within the development or at a location agreed with the Council and in a tenure and of a size to be agreed

♦ a contribution of £40,144.13 for education

♦ a financial contribution towards the improvement/enhancement of the accessibility of the site by non car modes of transport, to be undertaken prior to first occupation of the development

♦ development and implementation of a Travel Plan

♦ a financial contribution of £25,500 towards enhancement of Warrior Square public open space and a further financial contribution towards provision of other horticultural features within the vicinity of the site

♦ provision of public art

♦ submission of and implementation of a waste strategy

and subject to the following conditions: 01 Time limit 02 Submission of materials 03 Servicing/loading areas to be provided04 Servicing/loading areas to be retained05 Cycle parking to be provided (126 spaces)06 Cycle parking to be retained07 Refuse storage arrangements to be provided and retained 08 Scheme of acoustic insulation to be installed between all

commercial and residential units 09 Details of ventilation/air conditioning equipment to be installed 10 Removal of permitted development rights – Part 24 Class A


Milton Ward

SOS/07/01275/FULM

DEMOLISH PART OF TOP FLOOR, CONSTRUCT NEW TOP FLOOR, ERECT EXTENSIONS TO FORM ENCLOSED ESCAPE STAIRCASE AND GOODS LIFT, REFURBISH AND ALTER BUILDING INCLUDING RE-CLADDING ALL ELEVATIONS TO FORM CULTURAL CENTRE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX

Former Prudential Office Building, Elmer Approach, Southend On Sea

Squarestone Ltd and University of Essex RH Partnership Architects

1 The Proposal

1.1. The proposal is essentially to refurbish the tower element of the building complex and create a Cultural Centre and teaching space for use by the University of Essex and SEECAT. The existing top storey of the building would be demolished and rebuilt, slightly articulated from the main building, with increased floor to ceiling height and uninterrupted floor plate to create a new multi functional events/exhibition space. The external cladding would be removed to north and south elevations and the metal cladding to the existing staircase is to be removed. A new staircase and goods lift would be constructed to the western elevation. Servicing will generally be located externally and concealed by cladding.

1.2. The palette of materials to be used includes:

♦ Curtain walling to north and south elevations including coloured panels to conceal services

♦ Silver grey polyester powder coated rain screen cladding to new level 9 space, with integrated flush louver panels

♦ Silver aluminium solar shading louvers to south facade

♦ Windows and doors pre finished aluminium

♦ Glazed entrance with glass canopy over

♦ Render to existing and proposed stair cores

1.3. A sustainable heating, power and drainage systems will be incorporated into the construction of the building. Waste storage capacity will be increased to meet the needs of the development and waste facilities located within the delivery bay at the rear of the building. The applicants state that there is an opportunity to consider a sculptural lighting element as the projects’ contribution to public art.


1.4. The detailed internal fit out proposals for the building are still in development, however it is intended that the building be used as follows:

Floor level and net floor area Proposed use

Ground/1st 628m² Entrance and staircase areas

2nd 640m² Studio and rehearsal rooms and staff offices

3rd 640m² Studio and rehearsal rooms and ancillary facilities

4th 640m² University of Essex lecture and seminar rooms

5th 640m² University of Essex lecture and seminar rooms and staff offices

6th 640m² SEECAT teaching space

7th 640m² SEECAT teaching space

8th 640m² Cultural Business Incubation units

9th 680m² Multifunctional social/events space

1.5. There is currently no parking to serve the existing building complex and no car parking is proposed as part of this development. As a result of the proposals to construct a new escape stair on the western elevation of the building it is necessary to alter the alignment of the curb around the junction between Elmer Approach and The Farringdon Service Road.

1.6. The application includes proposals to provide 40 additional covered cycle parking spaces “within the vicinity of the building at a location to be agreed with Council”.

1.7. This development represents Phase 1 of a wider refurbishment of the building which would include the podium area and retail elements at ground floor, and forms part of the University’s wider aspirations for creation of a “University Quarter” within this part of the town centre.

1.8. The applicants have submitted a planning and design statement and Transport Statement and Travel Plan in support of the proposals.


2.1. This is a centrally located town centre site, flanked by Elmer Approach to the south, the pedestrianised High Street to the east and Farringdon Service Road to the north and west. The entrance to the tower of the building is located on Elmer Approach. The new University of Essex main campus building lies opposite on the southern side of Elmer Approach and Farringdon car park lies to the north west of the site.

2.2. The building is a 1960’s ten storey concrete framed structure. The ground and first floors form a podium which contains a number of retail units at ground floor and a nightclub entrance at ground floor and nightclub proper at first floor. The tower is constructed on an east west axis. It is clad in brick on the east and


west elevations, with timber windows and precast concrete cladding panels to north and south. The podium has profiled metal cladding and glazed shop facades. The building is generally in poor condition and currently creates a negative environment at ground floor level, particularly adjacent to the entrance.

3 Development Plan

3.1. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), E1 (Employment Promotion), E2 (Major Office Development), U7 (Existing Education Facilities), U8 (Provision of New Education Facilities), U10 (Provision of Other Community Facilities), T1 (Priorities), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), (Town Centre Parking (Off–street)), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities), T13 (Cycling and Walking), T14 (Public Transport).

3.2. Southend on Sea Core Strategy - Development Plan Document One Delivering Regeneration and Growth: Strategic Objectives - Policies SO1, SO2, SO4, SO5, , S08, SO9, SO13, SO14, SO15, Key Polices: KP1: Spatial Strategy; KP2; Development Principles, CP1; Employment Generating Development, CP2 – Town Centre and Retail Development; CP3; Transport and Accessibility; CP4; The Environment and Urban Renaissance, CP6; Community Infrastructure.

3.3. PPS1 – General Policy and Principles, PPS6 – Town Centres and Retail Developments, PPG13 - Transport A Guide to Better Practice.

3.4. The site is within the Central Business District and a Defined Shopping Centre, and has both primary and secondary shopping frontage within it.

4 Planning History.

4.1. There is no history of applications on the application site which are directly relevant to this application.

4.2. 2004 – permission granted to erect part four/part six storey college campus building, comprising university floorspace, business innovation centre, medical training centre, retail space, entrance lobby and loading bay and associated works. Former Odeon Cinema 127 High Street Southend on Sea. (SOS/04/01561/FUL).


5.1. Environment Agency – No comment.

5.2. Renaissance Southend – to be reported.

5.3. Police Architectural Liaison Officer – to be reported.


5.5. Southend Society – to be reported.



6.1. Highway Comment – There are no objections in principle to this proposal, although there are some concerns with the way the TA has been produced which may have resulted in an underestimation of the car journey resulting from this proposal. However these issues can be addressed through the Travel Plan once the new facility is fully operational. The travel plan should be secured by condition requiring it being agreed prior to occupation. It will also be necessary to secure the road alterations to the Farringdon Service Road, with final design and detail to be agreed. It would normally be appropriate to seek the improvements of Elmer Approach in association with this development work by means of a financial contribution for carrying out pedestrianisation.

6.2. Environmental Health Comment – to be reported.

6.3. Property Services – to be reported.

6.4. DCL – The project will further enhance the Higher Education offer in Southend and give its young people better opportunities for and achieve their full earning potential.

6.5. Town Centre Management and Economic Development – Support these proposals which provide an important next phase in the continued development of the town’s educational facilities. Expect to see the re-cladding of the exterior to a high quality specification. Improvements to the public realm surrounding the development should be encouraged as part of a S106 Agreement


7 Publicity

7.1. Press notice, site notice and neighbour notification – no comments received.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The issues to be considered are the loss of the existing office use and the principle of provision of educational floorspace in this town centre location; design, including landscaping; traffic impact and parking; cycle parking, servicing and waste management.

Principle

8.2. The increased presence of the University and SEECAT within the town centre is welcomed in principle and will help meet the Boroughs’ aspirations as a centre for educational excellence. These aspirations are set out in within the Core Strategy and its supporting policies, in particular SO2, SO4, and SO8. This development will focus the new educational development within the existing urban area, in a highly sustainable location and will help to deliver a high quality urban experience. It forms part of a town centre renewal package and will promote the expansion of education/’lifelong learning’ within the Borough, strengthening of Southend’s position as a ‘University Town’ as promoted by Policy KP1.


8.3. The proposed change of use of the existing office building will however result in the loss of employment floorspace. In its broadest terms this goes against the aims of the Core Strategy which seeks to retain and promote employment within the Borough and in particular within the Town Centre. However the Core Strategy also recognises that Development proposals involving employment must contribute to the creation and retention of a wide range of jobs, educational and re-skilling opportunities. Policy CP1 states that “permission will not normally be granted for development proposals that involve the loss of existing employment premises unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposal will contribute to the objective for job-led regeneration in other ways…..and that… to promote economic regeneration, development will be expected to enhance the town’s role as a cultural and intellectual hub, a higher education centre of excellence.” The existing building has remained empty for a number of years, whilst this in itself is not reason to accept the loss of employment floorspace, the new use will clearly lead to the direct creation of many jobs and indirectly lead to further jobs and skill development by virtue of its educational status. It is therefore considered that the development complies with BLP and Core Strategy Policies.


8.4. The existing building is prominent within the wider skyline of Southend town centre. Its current neglected condition is considered to be detrimental to the appearance of the area and has a negative impact on the regeneration objectives for the town. The proposed physical alterations to the building, whilst largely cosmetic will help create a building with a contemporary appearance, using good quality materials. The visual impact of the proposals will greatly enhance this part of the town centre and will be apparent within the wider townscape. The uppermost 9th floor glazed extension will when lit be visible from some distance and will help define the University presence within this part of the town centre.

8.5. Whilst is it regrettable that the ground and first floor units are not incorporated into this project, they represent Phase 2 of planned enhancements to the site.

Landscaping and townscape enhancements

8.6. There is no scope within the building envelope to provide soft landscaping. However as part of the initial University development to the south, improvements to the adjacent highway were sought in the form of pedestrianisation of Luker Road and Elmer Approach. The alterations to Elmer Approach have recently been completed. Unfortunately at the stage of the initial campus development the University were unable to fund the works to Elmer Approach. This was accepted by Members and the original S106 details revised to reflect this. At the time it was made clear that when the next phases of the development came forward the University/developers would be expected to fund the outstanding improvements to the highway. These changes would not only improve the quality of the built environment but would improve pedestrian linkages between the High Street and the campus. The applicants have made no reference to any such financial contributions as part of these proposals, further discussions will be undertaken with the applicant and the outcome reported.


Public Art

8.7. The applicant has suggested that illumination of the building could the constitute the developments’ contribution to Public Art and this may be the case, however insufficient details have been submitted to allow a full assessment to the made and furthermore illumination may conflict with the airport safeguarding requirements. Thus it is considered that an unspecified element of Public Art provision should be required as part of the S106 Agreement.

Traffic Impact and Parking

8.8. When considering the traffic impact of these proposals it is important to recognise that the existing building has the potential to generate a substantial amount of car borne traffic if it were to be reoccupied for B1 purposes. There are no parking spaces to serve the existing building and none are proposed as part of this development.

8.9. The submitted Traffic Statement (TS) however makes the assumption that there were no trips resulting from the previous use of the building, in order to assess the “worse case scenario” resulting from this development. Despite this the TS concludes that the number of additional vehicle trips (which would be a combination of “drop offs” or would result in vehicles being parked in existing local car parks) would not have a significant effect on the operation of the local highway network and could be accommodated within local car parks within the area. Officers consider that the TS is robust and accept its findings.

8.10. The TS also establishes that the local bus and rail services could accommodate the increased number of passengers that would result from the proposal.

8.11. The applicants have submitted a first draft Travel Plan with the application which sets out how users of the development would be encouraged to use alternative forms of transport than the car. This document is also considered to be robust (albeit in draft form only) and would need to link with the University’s existing TP. The TP can be refined and implemented either by use of a suitable condition or as part of the S106 Agreement.

Cycle parking

8.12. The applicants have stated that additional cycle parking will be provided in the in the vicinity of the site in a location to be agreed. Such provision would need to be guaranteed by use of a suitable condition. There is no space to provide cycle parking within the site and given the increasing “campus” like nature of the University and SEECATs presence within the town centre such provision is considered to be reasonable.

Servicing and Waste Management

8.13. Servicing of the site will remain from the Farringdon Service Road and this is considered to be a reasonable approach. The servicing implications for the building are unlikely to be significantly greater than that of the existing B1 use.


8.14. Waste storage is shown to be within an area to the rear of the building (in the same location as existing). The applicants have not submitted any details of this storage. Waste storage/disposal and recycling requirements are increasing in complexity and this often results in increased space being required to make adequate provision. This issue is currently being assessed by officers and the outcome will be reported. It is normally possible to address such issues through the implementation of a waste strategy that specifies frequency of collection etc. This issue needs to be addressed prior to any permission being granted.


8.15. The application site is located well away from any residential properties. It will have no direct physical impact on residential properties. In terms of the activity associated with the proposals, this will not be significantly different than that associated with extant B1 use. It is therefore considered that there would be no material harm to nearby residents.

8.16. To conclude, this development proposal will result in the regeneration of an existing dilapidated building and will visually enhance this part of the town centre. The vitality of the use and the enhanced University presence will continue to stimulate regeneration in the area and the creation of further high quality educational facilities will go further to realising the Boroughs aspirations to become a major cultural and education hub.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to resolution of waste storage and recycling issues and subject to subject to completion of a S106 Agreement relating to the following issues:

♦ Submission, Implementation and Monitoring of a Travel Plan linked to University’s existing TP

♦ Provision of, or financial contributions to, provision of public art (to a value of 1% of development costs)

♦ Provision of CCTV to public areas

♦ Financial contribution for pedestrianisation of Elmer Approach

♦ Submission and Implementation of a Waste Strategy

♦ Highways works to realign the curb

and subject to the following conditions: 01 Start within three years 02 Submission of materials 03 Refuse store provision 04 Details of ventilation equipment to be submitted05 Delivery time restriction 06 Details of levels to be submitted 07 Use of the building restricted to D1 Education and B1 08 Permitted development restrictions on antennae telecoms

equipment


Chalkwell Ward

SOS/07/01291/RESM (Application for Reserved Matters)

ERECT TWO 3 STOREY BLOCKS COMPRISING 18 FLATS WITH BASEMENT PARKING, LAY OUT AMENITY AREA, REFUSE STORAGE AND LANDSCAPING AND FORM VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO PEMBURY ROAD

7–9 Pembury Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, , SS0 8DU

Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd. LAP Architects Ltd.

1 The Proposal

Site Area (Net) 1410m² (net)

Height 8.0–13.3m (to ridge line of gabled roofs)

Number of Units 16 x 2 bed flats 2 x 1 bed flats

Parking 21 spaces (117%)

Cycle Parking 21 spaces in secure storage area in basement

Amenity Space Communal 526m² + private balconies/patios

Density 128 dwellings per hectare

1.1. The application is for reserved matters following Outline approval granted in October 2006. An application was also submitted in June of this year which was refused and this application is effectively an amended proposal, albeit linked to the previous Outline permission.


1.2. The main difference is that 1 storey has been removed from the building and now proposes two 3 storey blocks of flats. The design detail remains the same as the previous scheme as does the number of off street parking spaces. Communal amenity space is proposed at the rear of the buildings.


2.1. The site is located on the western side of Pembury Road and is occupied by the Cumberland Dining Suite and Function Rooms and associated car parking. The site is not currently in use.

2.2. There is a distinct cross-fall in levels across the site: Pembury Road and the site slope upwards in a northward direction. There is also a considerable upward slope from the footpath adjacent Pembury Road westward into the site.

2.3. The Leas Conservation Area lies to the south and east of the site.

3 Development Plan

3.1. National Guidance: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3: Housing, PPG 13: Transport.

3.2. ESRSP Policies: CS1 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS4 - Sustainable New Development, BE1 - Urban Intensification, H2 - Housing Development - The Sequential Approach, H4 - Development Form of New Residential Developments, H5 - Affordable Housing, T6 - Walking and Cycling, T12 - Vehicle Parking - not saved policies.

3.3. DPD1 Core Strategy Policies: KP2 (Development Principles), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance), CP8 (Dwelling Provision).

3.4. BLP Policies: C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), H1 (Housing Provision), H2 (Future Housing Needs), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats), T8 (Traffic Maintenance and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), T13 (Cycling and Walking).

3.5. SPD1 Design and Townscape Guide

3.6. EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards

4 Planning History

4.1. June 2005 – Outline permission refused for part three/part four storey block of 24 flats with vehicular access onto Pembury Road (SOS/05/00416/OUT).

4.2. October 2006 – Outline permission granted for three storey block of 18 flats with basement parking and vehicular access onto Pembury Road (SOS/05/01638/OUT).

4.3. February 2007 – Application to demolish buildings, erect two 4 storey blocks comprising 21 flats with basement parking, layout amenity area, refuse storage and landscaping and form vehicular access onto Pembury Road (SOS/06/01709/FUL). WITHDRAWN following officer advice about Design concerns.


4.4. June 2007 – Planning permission refused to demolish buildings, erect two 4 storey blocks comprising 21 flats with basement parking, layout amenity area, refuse storage and landscaping and form vehicular access onto Pembury Road (Amended Proposal) (SOS/07/00525/FULM).


5.1. Environment Agency Comment – no comments


6.1. Highway Comment – no objections

6.2. Environmental Health Comment – no objections

6.3. Education Comment – contribution of £34,186.76 already secured through the Outline planning permission (SOS/05/01638/OUT).

7 Publicity

7.1. Press, site notice and neighbourhood notification. Four objections on the following grounds:♦ Height is not acceptable, particularly at the rear♦ Loss of daylight to living area of adjoining residential property♦ Depth of the new proposal is deeper than previous plans♦ Side elevation is not acceptable due to proposed dark colouring of

materials♦ Ventilation vent for underground parking is facing onto patio living area♦ Lack of off street parking♦ The design is not in keeping with the character of the area (particular

concern is raised with regard to the height of the central gables and boarding)

♦ Noise and light pollution from cars accessing the car park and noise from the substation

♦ Loss of sea views♦ Loss of privacy through overlooking♦ Additional flats will cause traffic congestion in an area of parking stress

8 Appraisal

8.1. The application is for reserved matters relating to outline planning permission granted in October 2006 for 18 flats. A full application was also submitted earlier this year for 21 flats and was recommended for approval by officers but was refused on design grounds and lack of off street parking by members of the development control committee. This application is effectively an amended application to the most recently refused scheme (June 2007), although is linked to the original outline permission. Although all matters were reserved with the outline application, the main considerations are whether the proposal overcomes the previous reasons for refusal.

Principle

8.2. Outline planning permission was granted for 18 flats in October 2006 and therefore the principle of residential re-development has been accepted.


Scale and Design

8.3. Concerns were raised with the previously refused scheme, particularly with regard to the height of the building. The previous scheme proposed a four storey building, however this has now been reduced to three storeys. The design detail is the same as the previous scheme and therefore the reduction in height is considered to resolve the design concerns previously raised.

Off Street Parking

8.4. The level of off street parking was also considered unacceptable with the previously refused scheme. The scheme proposed a parking ratio of one space per dwelling, thus providing 21 car parking spaces. This level of off street parking has been maintained and therefore 21 spaces are now proposed for a development of 18 flats. This site is approximately 400m walking distance from Westcliff train station and within close proximity to local services within Hamlet Court Road. The level of off street parking is therefore considered acceptable and overcomes the previous reason for refusal.

Impact on Neighbours

8.5. The relationship of the proposed development with the surrounding neighbours is not considered materially different to the previous scheme, indeed the footprint of the building is the same. As no concerns were raised with regard to material harm on residential amenities with the previous application, the same view is taken with this application.

Amenity space and landscaping

8.6. No previous concerns were raised with regard to the level of amenity space and proposed landscaping within the scheme. Communal space is proposed to the rear of the site and private balconies and patios are also designed into the scheme.

Refuse storage and utilities

8.7. Refuse storage is provided the basement, with provision for bins to be moved to a small hardstanding area at the front of the property for collection. Compliance with these arrangements can be secured by condition. This collection area has been combined with the access to an electricity sub-station that is designed into the front of the building. Again, no concerns were raised with regard to these details with the previous application.

Planning Obligations

Education

8.8. The applicants have already committed to an education contribution (£34,186.76), that has been secured through a Section 106 agreement.

Affordable Housing

8.9. The current threshold for provision of affordable housing has altered since the Outline permission was granted in 2006. However as this application is for reserved matters associated with a previous Outline application, it is not reasonable to seek an affordable housing contribution from the applicant.


9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to Approve Reserved Matters subject to the following conditions:01 Car and cycle parking to be provided and retained02 Reinstatement of redundant vehicular crossing before first

occupation


Blenheim Park Ward

SOS/07/01365/BC3 (Borough Council internal application for full planning permission)

ERECT SINGLE STOREY DETACHED BUILDING TO SOUTH BOUNDARY TO USE AS ADVICE/SUPPORT CENTRE FOR PARENTS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FULL DAY CARE CENTRE (CLASS D1), LAY OUT PARKING, PLAY AREAS AND CYCLE STORAGE

Blenheim County Primary School, School Way, Leigh-on-Sea

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council – Children & Learning

1 The Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought to erect a new building for the purposes of a Surestart Children’s Centre. The school has undertaken a comprehensive stakeholder consultation in 2005 with the aim of ensuring the development of extended services that match the needs of parents/carers, pupils and the wider community. This centre is crucial to the implementation of the Government’s strategy for the wellbeing of children, ‘Every Child Matters’. The centre will offer integrated services for young children and families depending on local needs which includes (but not limited to); integrated early learning for children aged 0-5 years, child care for working parents, support for childminders, identification and support for children with special needs, family support services, links with Jobcentre Plus. The scheme also proposes to relocate the existing nursery into the new building.


1.2. The proposed building is a single storey structure and will be sited at the southern end of the school site on the corner of School Way and Blenheim Chase. The building will be accessed off School Way and will provide off street parking.

1.3. It is proposed that the centre will cater for up to 68 children and have 21 full time staff.


2.1. The school is located on the northern side of Blenheim Chase and is accessed from School Way. The school buildings are set back from Blenheim Chase with the school playing fields forming the southern part of the site thus creating an open setting for the entrance to the school and public realm generally. Immediately to the east of the school is Blenheim Park which also contributes to the open and ‘green’ character of this location.

3 Development Plan

3.1. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C15 (Retention of Open Spaces), R1 (Outdoor Sports Facilities, U10 (Provision of Other Community Facilities).

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

3.3. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006).

3.4. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.

4 Planning History

4.1. Various applications for extensions.


5.1. Airport Director – Initial objection raised, however further consultation with the CAA has removed the objection subject to a condition regarding the existing school buildings remaining in situ.

5.2. Sport England – to be reported.


6.1. Highways – Parking bays 1-5 only have 5m to manoeuvre. This should be 6m or the area of soft landscaping will become damaged. Plans indicate gates are to be installed (are they to be open during the day or electronic?). If the latter then need to be setback 1 car length from footway. No waste store indicated on the plans.

6.2. Early Years and Under 8’s Development – Children’s Centre is a national provision for all families. This phase 2 development targets deprived areas with the local area of Blenheim school.


6.3. Children and Learning – As part of the Government’s initiative to ensure good health and child care for all, Children’s centres are being funded throughout the country. The proposed project at Blenheim school is to give a full service centre to that area of Southend Borough. It is a Children and Learning sponsored project and will expand and improve the nursery provision currently available and add access to health care and training. The café area is designed to give an open welcoming access to the centre and also opportunities for parents to socialise and back to work training, especially those that can become isolated by circumstances.

7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice – two objections received:

♦ Loss of playing field which is used quite extensively by pupils and other organisations and should be preserved for future generations

♦ If this is allowed then the remainder of the playing field should not be built upon

♦ Lack of off street parking and additional traffic congestion

♦ Safety concerns regarding conflict between pedestrian movement (children) to the school and vehicles accessing the site

♦ Also concerns regarding disruption to vehicles accessing the school and the new centre (conflicting vehicular movements)

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations with this application are the principle of the use including the loss of part of the existing playing field, design and its impact within the public realm, the impact on nearby residents’ living conditions and access and parking implications.

Principle

8.2. The Children’s Centre will offer integrated services for young children and families depending on local needs which includes (but not limited to); integrated early learning for children aged 0-5 years, child care for working parents, support for childminders, identification and support for children with special needs, family support services, links with Jobcentre Plus. This proposal aims to meet needs for local parents, particularly with young children. The principle per se is therefore supported. The area of school land proposed to be developed currently forms part of the school’s playing field. The playing field is marked out with two football pitches. Currently the part of the playing field which is proposed to be utilised for the Surestart facility is not marked out with a playing pitch, however this area has been utilised as a football pitch in the past. Although this area is not currently marked as a playing pitch, Policy C15 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will normally be refused for proposals resulting in the loss of key open spaces, which includes school playing fields. This is reiterated in Policy R1 of the Local Plan which encourages the retention of existing outdoor sports facilities, both public and private. Policy R1 does allow for special circumstances however this is only where it is clearly demonstrated that improved alternative facilities are being provided in a convenient and appropriate location before the existing facilities


are lost and are in accordance with Policy C15. The ethos of Policy R1 is supported in Policy CP7 (Sport, Recreation and Green Space) of the Core Strategy which also identifies a need of approximately 10 hectares of additional grass playing pitch space and ancillary facilities within the Borough over the next 15 years.

8.3. The scheme has not indicated there will be replacement facilities, however does state that the school has been identified to be re-built as part of central Government’s ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme. It is envisaged that a total redevelopment of the school proposes buildings to the front of the site thereby freeing up the northern part of the site for playing fields and sports facilities. The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is a new approach to capital investment in school buildings. It is intended to provide all secondary schools with 21st century facilities over 10-15 years from 2005. The building needs of primary schools and secondary schools in areas not receiving early investment from BSF will continue to be met from existing successful capital programmes. However it is unclear of the proposed timeframe for delivery of such a project. Furthermore, based on comments from the airport, a total redevelopment of the school may cause major concerns with regard to airport safety guidelines, therefore such a proposal is no guarantee, despite any potential for funding.

8.4. Notwithstanding comments from Sport England which are yet to be provided, there are concerns with the proposed loss of playing fields, although the benefits of the scheme to other areas of the community are also recognised. The key consideration is whether the provision of such a facility outweighs the loss of existing playing fields. The building will result in the permanent loss of a playing field which contributes to the amenity of the locality characterised by areas of open space, as well as providing a valuable outdoor sport and recreation facility. It has not been demonstrated that the Surestart facility could not be sited elsewhere within the school grounds nor does it form part of any future comprehensive redevelopment of the school. Therefore at this stage it is considered that the loss of part of the playing fields outweighs the benefits of such a community facility.

8.5. Southend airport initially raised an objection to the proposal on airport safety grounds, however further consultation with the CAA has resulted in removal of the objection, provided the existing school buildings remain in place. Such a condition cannot be guaranteed for the life of this development and therefore it is considered unreasonable and does not satisfy the relevant planning tests for applying conditions to planning permissions.

Design

8.6. The proposed building is a low level understated building of functional design. The material pallet includes facing blocks with recessed feature, textured panels between windows to break the horizontal emphasis of the elevations and provide relief detail. The café area is emphasised by floor to ceiling glazing to provide a focal point and encourage visitors to the building. The low overhanging eaves provide sheltered areas for children to play as well as providing solar shading to the glazed areas. The children’s areas including the external play areas have been located to the north, rear of the building, to provide a secure sheltered area away from the road. This also allows for an engaging area within the public realm to the south. No objections are raised with regard to the design approach.


Impact on nearby residential properties

8.7. There are residential properties to the west of the site which are accessed off School Way. It is not considered that the scheme would be visually obtrusive nor cause any concerns with regard to loss of privacy or daylight. The proposed facility will result in additional vehicular activity within School Way, however this is already well used by vehicles accessing the school. Therefore it is not considered that the additional activity would be so harmful to have detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjacent residents. As such no concerns are raised.

Access, parking and traffic

8.8. It is proposed to provide access from within School Way. No objections have been raised with regard to the proposed access point. This will involve crossing an existing pedestrian footpath within the school leading from Blenheim Chase. It is understood this pathway is particularly well utilised in the morning and afternoon peak periods and may therefore result in some conflict with pedestrian movement within the school grounds. However it would be up to the school to manage any potential conflict and as such no objections are raised in this regard. The scheme proposes 15 off street parking spaces (including two disabled spaces) and two drop off spaces. Additional manoeuvring space is required for some of the parking spaces and this can be sought via amended plans. The parking standards indicate as a maximum for day care centres, one space per full time staff plus one space per four persons attending plus an area reserved for picking up and dropping off. Based on the figures provided, the facility would require a maximum of 38 spaces (not including drop off facilities). The scheme proposes 15 car parking spaces. The site is well served by public transport with a bus stop located immediately outside the school and furthermore as the facility is for the local community it is expected that a number of customers will walk to the site. On balance it is therefore considered that the level of parking is acceptable.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION on the following grounds;

01 The proposed development will result in the permanent loss of school playing fields and in particular an area which can be utilised as a playing pitch to the detriment of the character of the area and active recreational facilities of the community contrary to Policies R1 and C15 of the BLP and Policy CP7 of the Core Strategy.


Chalkwell Ward

SOS/07/01433/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

DEMOLISH EXISTING GARAGE, ERECT SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND SIDE PROJECTION TO SOUTH, ERECT TWO STOREY EXTENSION AND DORMERS TO REAR, ALTER AND EXTEND EXISTING DORMERS TO SOUTH, ALTER NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE ELEVATIONS AND CONVERT PROPERTY FROM EDUCATIONAL USE (CLASS D1) TO FIVE SELF-CONTAINED FLATS (CLASS C3), ERECT 1.2M HIGH BOUNDARY WALL AND LAY OUT FIVE PARKING SPACES TO FRONT, LAY OUT AMENITY AREA AND ERECT REFUSE STORE AT REAR (AMENDED PROPOSAL).

100 Crowstone Road, Westcliff on Sea, SS0 8LQ

Mrs Hassan & Mrs More Bernard Gooding Associates agent

1 The Proposal

1.1. This amended application seeks to extend the property in order to convert it into five self-contained two bedroom flats. The site would have a density of approximately 50 units per hectare (including the proposed new backland dwelling under application SOS/07/01434/FUL).


1.2. The property’s existing side projection would be removed, and the building would be extended to the rear at two storey level, but project no further than the extreme rear of the property. Dormers are proposed to the rear roofslope and the existing flank dormer would be removed and replaced with two flat roof dormers.

1.3. A parking area would be laid on the property’s frontage, served by the existing vehicle access. Amenity space and a refuse store would be laid out to the rear, with cycle parking on the northern boundary.

1.4. This application is a resubmission of SOS/07/00837/FUL, which was similar to this application in all respects other than the layout of the frontage. The previous application was refused planning permission at committee due to the affect the changes to the frontage would have on the character of the area.


2.1. The site consists of a sizable detached Edwardian Property on a plot some 85m deep. The site was previously used as a private school and includes a flank garage and deep frontage.

2.2. Crowstone Road is residential in character and consists of sizable detached and semi-detached properties, some of which have been converted to flats.

3 Development Plan

3.1. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations) & H10 (Backland development).

3.2. Core Strategy DPD (‘Sound’ September 2007).



3.5. ESRSP Policies – ESRSP policies that may have been relevant have not been saved.

4 Planning History

4.1. SOS/05/00751/OUT - Demolish school premises and erect three storey block of 12 flats with parking (refused)

4.2. SOS/07/00836/FUL - Demolish garage and side projection, erect two storey rear extension with accommodation in roof served by dormer windows to rear, erect roof extension to side and convert building into five self contained flats, lay out five parking spaces to front and amenity area to rear (refused – appeal pending)

4.3. SOS/07/00837/FUL - Erect detached bungalow to rear, lay out two parking spaces and amenity area (refused – appeal pending).

4.4. SOS/07/01434/FUL - Erect detached bungalow on land at rear, lay out two parking spaces, amenity area, refuse and cycle store (amended proposal) – application pending.



5.1. None.


6.1. Environmental Health comment – No objections.

6.2. Highway Comment – To be reported.

7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification and Site notice – Two responses received concerning:

♦ The car park would be detrimental to the appearance of the area

♦ Proposals are not sympathetic to neighbourhood

♦ Nuisance from building work and potential fly-tipping

7.2. Members should note that the notification period does not expire until 1 day after the meeting.

7.3. A Ward Councillor is concerned about over-development.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations for this application are the principle of conversion to self-contained flats, design, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

Principle

8.2. Local Plan policy H6 seeks to prevent more than 10% of properties in street-frontages such as Crowstone Road, to be converted into flats. This is to safeguard the character of the street and retain a stock of family housing. No.100 Crowstone Road’s accepted use is as a private school (use class D1), and so Policy H6 is not relevant here. The principle of conversion has been accepted under the previous application.

Design

8.3. The proposed rear extension would be two storeys with accommodation in a pitched roof, this is considered a suitable design solution. It would have little impact other than being viewed from surrounding houses, however it is considered that it would have a satisfactory visual relationship with the host building. The two proposed flank dormers would replace an existing dormer, and not be particularly visible in the streetscene. The design has been accepted under previous application SOS/07/00836/FUL.

8.4. The proposal includes using the frontage for parking. It would be surfaced in a SUDS material, which has the appearance of the grass. This would be screened by a new boundary wall with Beech hedge behind. The existing hedging which flanks the frontage is to be retained. The Design and Townscape Guide states that open frontages and total loss of front gardens to parking will not be considered acceptable. However, the surfacing here will resemble grass and be screened to some extent by hedging and a wall. This will soften the impact of the parking area. It is recognised that the presence of


cars on the frontage will affect the appearance, however the amended proposals are considered to go some way to overcome the previous reason for refusal. It is also noted that a similar parking layout was granted planning permission as part of a flat conversion at No.110 Crowstone Road in 2003. The application is considered to comply with Policies H5 and C11.

Impact on Neighbours’ Amenity

8.5. The proposed extension of the building to the rear, to the depth of the existing conservatory, given the detached nature of the properties in the area and the relatively generous plot sizes, is not considered to adversely affect the light to or amenity of the adjoining properties. The reduced rear garden would be of sufficient depth that overlooking to the rear would not be an issue.

8.6. The proposed floor plans show a number of instances where bedroom windows have their sole light sources to the side elevations, which is not normally considered a suitable arrangement, however the existing building has rooms with windows to the side elevations that are used as a dining room, games room, office and bedrooms, so on balance it is not considered that there would be a noticeable difference in the level of overlooking of adjacent properties.

Parking Provision

8.7. Five off-street parking spaces would be provided on the frontage along with adequate reversing and turning space, allowing egress from the site in forward gear. Vehicular access is via an existing crossover. It is unlikely that there would be any significant change in highway conditions or levels of on-street parking as a result.

Other Issues

8.8. Amenity space meets required standard at approximately 290sq metres, and would be adequately screened. This is considered acceptable.

8.9. A refuse store would be provided to the immediate rear of the building. The store is considered to be conveniently located for future residents (should be within 22m of each dwelling) and just complies with the accepted maximum guidelines for distance from highway, for collection purposes. Southend on Sea Waste & Recycling guidelines state that wheeled containers must be within 40m of the highway.

8.10. The nuisance of building work and possible fly-tipping (as raised by neighbours) are not material considerations in respect of this planning application.

Conclusion

8.11. This proposal is the same as a previously refused scheme on this site, albeit for refuse collection arrangements and the layout of the frontage. The previous scheme here was refused purely due to the loss of visual amenity that would result if the frontage was to be given over to parking and refuse storage. The current proposal shows the refuse store relocated to the rear, and the parking area screened, with a SUDS surface resembling grass. The proposal is considered to comply with policies C11 and H5.


9 Recommendation

Members are recommended delegate subject to expiry of publicity period to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:01 Commence within three years02 Materials to match existing building03 Parking and turning areas to be laid out as approved plan04 Details of boundary treatments to be submitted and agreed05 Landscaping to be carried out in accordance with details to be

submitted and agreed.06 Details of refuse store to be submitted and agreed. 07 Cycle parking to be provided and retained.


Chalkwell Ward


ERECT DETACHED BUNGALOW ON LAND AT REAR, LAY OUT TWO PARKING SPACES, AMENITY AREA, REFUSE AND CYCLE STORE (AMENDED PROPOSAL).

100 Crowstone Road, Westcliff on Sea, SS0 8LQ

Mrs Hassan & Mrs More Bernard Gooding Associates agent

1 The Proposal

1.1. This amended application seeks permission for a new single storey dwelling to the rear of No.100 Crowstone Road. The dwelling would have access to the highway via a shared driveway to the side of the existing dwelling which would extend from the existing crossover and driveway at the site.

1.2. The new dwelling would be single storey and include three bedrooms, and be set approximately 8-11m from the rear boundary of the site. This would result in a private amenity area of around 150m² to serve the proposed dwelling. Two parking bays and a refuse store are also proposed to serve the dwelling.

1.3. This application is a resubmission of SOS/07/00837/FUL following a previous refusal on grounds of insufficient facilities for refuse collection. The only difference between that and the present application is the refuse collection provisions. The applicant’s agent has sought to overcome the previous reason for refusal, which related to: the lack of satisfactory facilities for the storage and


collection of refuse materials within a reasonable distance of the highway and dwelling itself. This was considered likely to lead to an accumulation of uncollected refuse materials or refuse being left on the public highway to the detriment of the amenity of the area.


2.1. The site consists of part of the rear garden of No.100 Crowstone Road, which is a sizable detached Edwardian Property on a plot some 85m deep.

2.2. Crowstone Road is residential in character and consists of sizable detached and semi-detached properties, some of which have been converted to flats.

3 Development Plan

3.1. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations) and H10 (Backland Development).

3.2. Core Strategy DPD (‘Sound’ September 2007).



3.5. ESRSP Policies – ESRSP policies that may have been relevant have not been saved.

4 Planning History

4.1. SOS/05/00751/OUT - Demolish school premises and erect three storey block of 12 flats with parking (refused)

4.2. SOS/07/00836/FUL - Demolish garage and side projection, erect two storey rear extension with accommodation in roof served by dormer windows to rear, erect roof extension to side and convert building into five self-contained flats, lay out five parking spaces to front and amenity area to rear (refused – appeal pending).

4.3. SOS/07/00837/FUL - Erect detached bungalow to rear, lay out two parking spaces and amenity area (refused – appeal pending)

4.4. SOS/07/01433/FUL – Application for alterations and conversion of No.100 Crowstone Road to five flats (application pending).


5.1. None.


6.1. Environmental Health comment – No objections.

6.2. Highway Comment – To be reported.


7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification and Site notice – No comments received at time of writing, however notification period does not expire until one day after the meeting.

7.2. Ward Councillor – Concerned with overdevelopment

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations are the principle of backland development, design, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

Principle

8.2. Under the previous application (07/00837/FUL) the principle of backland development was accepted. There has been some infill and backland development on Crowstone Road, and there is similar development in close proximity to the site. Backland development here is not considered to result in harm to the character of the area, in principle.

Design

8.3. The design of the dwelling is identical to that submitted previously. The dwelling would include a hipped roof, not be of significant bulk, being only single storey, and would have minimal impact on the appearance of the streetscene. Finishing materials would match the main house. This is considered acceptable, as previously.

8.4. The internal living space and circulation would provide for a good level of amenity for future occupiers.

Impact on Neighbours’ Amenity

8.5. The proposed dwelling would be some 30m from the rear of No.100 and approximately 26m from the rear of dwellings behind the site, in Ailsa Road. Considering the proposed dwelling would be single storey, with boundary fencing to intercept views through to other properties, the distance between dwellings here is considered sufficient so as not to result in a loss of privacy or outlook to adjacent dwellings.

8.6. The proposed dwelling does have the potential to have its loftspace used for habitable purposes in the future (although this is not part of this proposal). Windows in the roofslopes may raise additional overlooking issues, thus a condition removing certain permitted rights is recommended.

8.7. The proposed vehicle access to the dwelling would run along the south flank boundary of the site, and the north flank boundary of the adjacent dwellinghouse, No.102. The existing driveway at No.100 runs some way along this boundary, and it is considered that the additional movement would not result in a significantly greater impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents, due to the existing use and limited number of vehicles movements that would be likely generated by one additional dwelling.


Parking Provision

8.8. Two off-street spaces would be provided to serve the dwelling. This is considered sufficient and meets EPOA standards.

8.9. Access would be off the existing crossover and turning would be provided on-site enabling egress in forward gear. Should Highways Officers raise any concerns these will be reported to the Planning Committee.

Other Issues

8.10. Amenity space meets required standard at approximately 150m², and would be adequately screened.

8.11. A refuse store would be provided approximately 24m from the front door of the dwelling and approximately 40m from the highway. The store is considered to be conveniently located for future residents (should be within 22m of the dwelling) and complies with the accepted maximum guidelines for distance from highway, for collection purposes. Southend on Sea Waste and Recycling guidelines state that wheeled containers must be within 40m of the highway.

Conclusion

8.12. This proposal is the same as a previously refused scheme on this site, albeit for refuse collection arrangements. The previous scheme here was refused purely due to inadequate refuse collection facilities. The current proposal is considered to include adequate refuse collection arrangements and is considered to comply with policies C11, H5 and H10 of the Local Plan.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate subject to expiry of publicity period and GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:01 Commence within three years02 Materials to be submitted and agreed03 Parking and turning areas to be carried out04 Details of boundary treatments to be submitted and agreed05 Landscaping to be carried out06 Removal of permitted development for alterations to roof (classed B

and C)07 Details of refuse store to be submitted and agreed.


Milton Ward


CONVERT FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS INTO FIVE SELF-CONTAINED FLATS AND ALTER REAR ELEVATION

119 High Street, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1LH

Omnitrade Ltd. Reeks Sinclair

1 The Proposal

1.1. To convert first and second floor office accommodation into self-contained residential accommodation.

1.2. The accommodation proposed is one studio unit, two one-bedroom flats and two two-bedroom flats.

1.3. The site will be accessed from a pedestrianised area between High Street and Elmer Approach. There is an emergency exit stair to the rear of the property.

1.4. There is no parking proposed as part of the scheme.


2.1. The site is located on the first and second floors of a commercial property that fronts High Street. The unit was previously used by an employment and training company but is currently vacant.


2.2. To the rear of the site is O’Neills public house and Reflex nightclub. The entrance to Reflex is directly adjacent to the proposed front access.

2.3. To the west of the site is the High Street and to the east is South East Essex College/University of Essex. The site is also directly adjacent to Southend Central Station.

2.4. The ground floor commercial units in the block include Jessops, Body Shop, George and Starbucks. There are offices at first floor level.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies CS1 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, (not saved), BE1 - Urban Intensification (not saved), H4 - Development Form of New Residential Developments, (not saved), BIW4 - Safeguarding Employment Land, (not saved), TCR3 - Town Centres, (not saved), T12 - Vehicle Parking, (not saved).

3.1 BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations - saved), E1 (Employment Promotion - saved), E3 (Secondary Offices - saved), E4 (Industrial and Warehousing - saved), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations - saved), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats - saved), T11 (Parking Standards - saved).

3.2 Core Strategy DPD CP1 (Employment Generating Development), KP2 (Development Principles)

3.3 Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.

3.4 EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.

4 Planning History

4.1 None relevant to current application.


5.1 None undertaken.


6.1. Highway comment- no parking but located in town centre, no cycle store, no waste store.


7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbours notified of application – no responses received.

7.2. A Councillor has raised concerns of this being an inappropriate location for residential development as it is adjacent to a bar and night club and will result in poor quality of life and cause tensions between uses. Restricted vehicular access, inappropriate use as fronting regional shopping centre. Unable to provide DDA compliance, loss of employment space in an area of commercial and educational uses. Lack of amenity space and waste storage.


8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations are the principle of the change of use, proposed layout, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

8.2. The change of use to residential would result in the loss of employment generating uses within the town centre that provide a important role in reinforcing Southend as an employment area and underpinning the economic viability of the town centre. There is a limited amount of employment land within the Borough, especially with such strong public transport links, and it is the policy of the Council to protect such uses unless evidence can be provided that the business use has been marketed but has been found to be no longer viable. No such evidence has been produced by the applicant.

8.3. The proposed internal layout of the flats raises some concerns; the main entrance is directly adjacent to the entrance to Reflex nightclub, and this would produce a conflict at times when the nightclub is in operation with access to the premises being obstructed. The studio flat is smaller than would normally be permitted and its main source of light and ventilation is at the rear of the property in very close proximity to the ducting equipment that serves O’Neills and Reflex, this is both unattractive thus providing a poor outlook for the occupant and results in continuous noise during the opening hours of the adjoining premises. The layout of the four flats is somewhat awkward but not unacceptable. There is no waste storage, cycle storage or amenity space proposed and there is no area within the proposed layout that would allow for these facilities to be added at a later date.

8.4. There will be no visual impact on the High Street as there are no external alterations to the building.

8.5. It is considered that the impact on adjoining properties would be minimal as the level of activity that could be expected to be produced by the proposed use would not be harmful to the nearby commercial operations.

8.6. There is no parking provision for this development, however in a town centre location adjacent to mainline rail services and in close proximity to bus services, and in the interests of sustainability and compliance with central government guidance aimed at reducing reliance on private vehicles it is considered that this should not be a reason for refusal.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:01 The applicant has not demonstrated that the office use at first and

second floors is no longer viable and as such the proposal would result in a loss of accommodation for employment generating uses within the Borough of which there is a limited supply, contrary to Policy E4 of the Borough Local Plan and Policy CP1 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy DPD.


02 The proposed studio unit would result in a poor quality of environment detrimental to the residential amenities of future occupiers by reason of its inadequate size, poor outlook and proximity to the ducting and ventilation equipment of the adjoining commercial use, contrary to Policy H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan.

03 The location of the proposed residential conversion and the main entrance to the units being adjacent to licensed premises would result in a conflict between the two uses and would result in a poor quality of environment for future occupiers, contrary to Policies H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan.


Chalkwell Ward


DEMOLISH BUILDING, ERECT TWO STOREY BLOCK OF FOUR FLATS WITH ACCOMMODATION IN ROOFSPACE AND LOWER GROUND FLOOR, LAY OUT FOUR CAR PARKING SPACES WITH AMENITY AREAS (AMENDED PROPOSAL)

46 Galton Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 8LA

Finstore Ltd. Graham Jolley Ltd.

1 The Proposal

1.1. To erect a block of four self-contained flats. The proposed block would be two storeys in height when viewed from Galton Road with additional accommodation in the roofspace and lower ground floor levels.

1.2. Parking is proposed to be on two separate hardstandings, each containing two cars, and would utilise the existing vehicle crossovers.


1.3. Flats 1 and 2 are split level over the lower ground and ground floor levels, flats 3 and 4 are split level over the first floor and roof area. Site Area Net 0.114 haHeight 9.8 m (2 storey)Number of Units

Total

0 x 1 bedx 2 bed0 x 3 bed4 units

Parking 4 spaces (100%)Cycle Parking None shown on the drawingsAmenity Space Approx 700m² (175m² per unit)Density 35 dwellings/ha (net)


2.1. The application site currently contains a detached dwellinghouse. The property is two storeys at the front with an additional lower ground floor level at the rear that appears to be used for storage. The existing dwelling is set well away from the site boundaries and is set back from the main building line of the street. The property has an integral garage and has an ‘in and out’ drive necessitating two accesses to Galton road. The front garden is heavily planted. The rear garden is large and has mature planting around the boundary.

2.2. The south side of Galton Road contains detached dwellings, none of which have been redeveloped or converted away from single family use. There are reasonably generous separations between properties.

2.3. The north side of Galton Road contains detached and semi-detached dwellings. None of these have been redeveloped or converted away from single family use. The separation between dwellings on this side of the road is less than on the south side with approximately 2m between dwellings.

2.4. The street is characterised by street trees and lines of planting separating the pavement and road.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 - Urban Intensification, (not saved), CS2 - Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, (not saved), H2 - Housing Development - The Sequential Approach, (not saved), H3 - Location of Residential Development, (not saved), H4 - Development Form of New Residential Developments, (not saved), T12 - Vehicle Parking, (not saved)

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

3.3. Core Strategy DPD Policy KP2.

3.4. Supplementary Planning Document: Design & Townscape Guide.



4 Planning History

4.1. 2006 (SOS/06/00966/FUL) Planning permission refused to demolish building, erect two storey block of six flats with accommodation in roofspace and lower ground floor, lay out six car parking spaces and amenity area. There were four reasons for refusal based on the physical bulk, form and height of the proposed building, the visual impact of the parking area and the impact on the neighbouring properties. The application was not refused on the grounds of the principle of redevelopment. This is the subject of an appeal w hich is to be heard at a Public Inquiry.

4.2. 2006 (SOS/06/01434/FUL) Planning permission granted to demolish dwelling, erect a pair of semi-detached dwellinghouses with accommodation in roofspace and lower ground floor, and lay out four parking spaces.


5.1. None undertaken.


6.1. Highways comment – no waste or cycle storage, parking meets standards

7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbours notified of application and site notice displayed – 32 letters received nearby residents objecting on the following grounds:♦ Size of proposed building out of keeping in particular in terms of height,

width and bulk, the height of the block would interrupt the established character of the street

♦ Sets precedent of demolition and redevelopment in the street ♦ Insufficient off-street parking exacerbated by restricted amounts of on-street

parking available♦ Design similar but still out of place♦ Building is four storeys not two♦ Impact to adjacent properties from excessive projection beyond the rear

building line♦ Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties resulting from number of units,

excessive height and inclusion of rear balconies/terraces♦ Loss of landscaping♦ Increased traffic and associated increase in traffic hazard♦ Loss of single family dwellinghouse♦ Increase in noise and light pollution ♦ Increase in activity♦ Street is characterised by single family dwellings and there are no purpose

built flats within the street♦ Application does not overcome reasons for refusal for previous block of flats♦ Density would be above the norm for the area♦ Scheme benefits only the developer ♦ Possibility that six flats would be constructed and then retrospective

permission applied to retain them♦ Building would be closer to the street than the existing thereby increasing

the visual bulk♦ Proposal is contrary to planning policy as it would be detrimental to the

character and residential amenities of the area


♦ Proposal is not the same as previously approved scheme as stated in planning statement as there are four units, not two

♦ Disruption during construction and potential impact on neighbouring properties from excavation of lower ground floor level

♦ Not an appropriate site for redevelopment ♦ Lower ground floor level may be liable to flooding♦ Loss of sea views to properties opposite♦ Overdevelopment of site♦ Devaluing of nearby properties♦ Restrictive covenants exist at the site

7.2. Letter received from Chalkwell Hall Properties, the company that administrates the covenants on the Chalkwell Hall Estate. They advise in their letter that they will not relax the covenant to allow a block of flats to be constructed.

7.3. A Ward Councillor has expressed concerns regarding overdevelopment, especially with regard to height and bulk, overlooking, detrimental impact on street scene and residential amenities, and insufficient parking.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations are the principle of redevelopment, design, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours, parking implications and publicity responses.

8.2. The principle of redevelopment was investigated at the time of the 2006 application for flats; it was concluded that there was no policy reason to refuse planning permission. Policy H6 looks at the proportion of street frontage that has been given over to redevelopment and seeks to protect the character of the road. The proposal would result in 10.5% of the measured street frontage from Chadwick Road to Chalkwell Avenue being given over to redevelopment. The 10% figure quoted in Policy H6 is not an absolute, and a wider consideration of the character of the area and the impact that the development would have is necessary in a case where policy compliance of otherwise is so marginal.

8.3. Policy H3 of the Borough Local Plan does not apply as the floor area of the original dwellinghouse exceeds 125m² and houses above that size are not specifically protected by policy.

8.4. The design of the block proposed is virtually identical to the design of the two semi-detached houses that were approved in 2006, the height, depth and projection of the terrace are unchanged. There are minor elevation changes such as the changing of the entrance door and the removal of the two windows above and the insertion of a window centrally. At the rear there are fewer windows than were approved as part of the application for houses. Whilst significant objections have been received regarding the height and bulk of the scheme it is the same as the previously approved and so it would not be reasonable to refuse the scheme on those grounds.

8.5. The impact on the street scene while significant will not be detrimental, the scheme has been designed to match the properties either side and while the bulk is greater than the existing house it is considered that it will not be visually detrimental. It must also be borne in mind that the height and massing are the same as the previously approved pair of semi-detached houses.


8.6. There will be an impact on the neighbouring properties, however this is not considered to be s o detrimental to warrant refusal of the application. The rear projection, boundary separation and location of windows have previously been considered and found to be acceptable, it is undeniable that the levels of activity at the site will increase but the site is a large, double width plot and the proposed density will not be out of character with the area.

8.7. There are four car parking spaces proposed for the development, this is a provision of one per residential unit and complies with the EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards. Responses to the publicity indicate a high level of concern regarding the parking provision but the Council’s parking standards are maxima in accordance with Central Government planning guidance and given the proximity to public transport services an increased requirement cannot be justified.

8.8. The parking area seeks to retain at least some of the street landscaping and does not resort to a frontage wholly hard surfaced for parking. Any grant of planning permission should be conditioned to ensure that the landscaped areas within the curtilage are retained and not used as an extension to the parking area.

8.9. There are some issues raised by the publicity responses that have not been addressed in the above appraisal. Views across another persons’ property cannot be protected and the devaluing of property, as it relies on numerous variables independent of the planning system, cannot be taken into account. The existence of restrictive covenants at the site is a private legal matter and not one that can inform a planning decision or be taken into consideration.

8.10. The issue of flooding has been raised, the site is within the lowest classification of risk and the Environment Agency requires no flood proofing or flood risk assessment for this type of development in this location.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:01 Commence within three years 02 Materials to be agreed03 Parking to be provided04 Parking to be retained05 Landscaping at front to be retained 06 Details of waste storage to be submitted and approved07 Details of cycle storage to be submitted and approved08 No windows to be formed other than those on the approved plans


Milton Ward


CONVERT DWELLING INTO THREE SELF-CONTAINED FLATS, ALTER ELEVATIONS AND LAY OUT FOUR PARKING SPACES AT REAR.

11 Anerley Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 7HJ

AJV Investments Neville Baldwin Ltd

1 The Proposal

1.1. To convert a single family dwellinghouse to form three self-contained flats.

1.2. The proposal includes parking at the rear of the site for four cars.


2.1. The application site is an end-of-terrace dwellinghouse on Anerley Road opposite the junction with Ceylon Road. There is a vehicle access 2.45m² wide leading to the rear of the property and located between number 9 and 11.

2.2. Of the 26 properties on the street block that were constructed as dwellinghouses, 14 have been converted to form self-contained flats, a proportion of 54%.

2.3. Anerley Road runs between Hamlet Court Road and Valkyrie Road, there is a restricted amount of on-street parking available.


3 Development Plan

3.1. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations - saved), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations - saved), H6 (Protecting Residential Character - saved), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats - saved), T11 (Parking Standards - saved)




4 Planning History

4.1. 2002 (SOS/02/01575/FUL) Planning permission was refused to install dormer windows to front and rear, rooflights to front, convert dwellinghouse into four self contained flats and lay out parking and amenity areas. The application was refused on the grounds of the design of the dormer windows, the proportion of properties already converted within the street, the appearance of the parking area and the intensification of activity at the site.

4.2. 2003 (SOS/03/01037/FUL) Planning permission was refused for an amended proposal to install dormer windows to rear, rooflights to front, convert dwellinghouse into four self contained flats and lay out parking, amenity areas and form vehicular access onto Anerley Road. The reasons for refusal were as before but with no reference to the parking area. This decision was appealed and the appeal dismissed in October 2004.





7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbours notified of application and site notice displayed – no responses received.

7.2. A Councillor has raised issues of loss of a single family dwelling, too many flat conversions already, parking and amenity.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations are the principle of conversion, internal layout, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

8.2. The previous two applications at the site were refused on the principle of conversion due to the number of single dwellinghouses that had already been converted, the policies against which the previous schemes were assessed are still current and there has been no change in the way in which they are interpreted. The applicant has submitted a supporting statement saying that the new units will reduce the pressure on housing supply in the area and will contribute to the supply of low cost housing within the Borough; however the


proposal is not for sub-market price housing nor is it affordable housing within any accepted definition of that term. The report further states that the property is not suitable for use as a single dwellinghouse, but no marketing information has been provided to indicate that the house has been offered for sale as a single unit without success. Policy H6 can be overcome if there is proof that a residential property is no longer viable, but it is considered that no such proof has been supplied. Were planning permission to be granted the proportion of units within the street block that are converted away from single family use would rise to 57% which is a level that is considered to be unacceptably high and that would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and the residential amenities of nearby dwellings.

8.3. Policy H3 that seeks to protect small dwellinghouses does not apply in this case as the original floor area exceeds the maximum 125m² requirement for that policy.

8.4. The internal layout proposed would result in the sole source of light and ventilation to the second bedroom of flat 2 opening directly onto the access between numbers 9 and 11. This would result in a poor quality of environment in that room as the access is only 2.45m wide and the window would face a two storey wall, this provides not only a poor outlook but raises issues of disturbance as the vehicles for the property would have to drive past this window to gain access to the parking area. There is a window in the side elevation at first floor level that also serves a bedroom but as this is higher there is less risk of disturbance, however the poor outlook is still a matter of concern. It is considered that the internal layout necessitating the inclusion of widows in the flank wall is indicative of an excessive number of units. No waste storage has been proposed, this fails to meet with the Council’s guidelines.

8.5. There would be no detrimental visual impact on the street scene as the front elevation of the building would remain largely unaltered; however the character of the area needs consideration. The number of properties that have been converted away from dwellinghouses to form flats has resulted in high levels of activity and a very intensive use in the area and the difference between areas that are predominantly single dwellinghouses and those areas that are predominantly flatted development is marked. Sustainability is not just related to transport, it also refers to mixed communities and this requires a mixture of tenures and housing types. To allow large numbers of properties to be converted away from single family use undermines, rather than promotes sustainable communities.

8.6. The impact on the neighbouring properties not only arises from the intensity of the use and the increased levels of activity as previously discussed but also from the location of the car parking. Having the parking at the rear does mean that the front garden can be retained, however it also means that the cars will be parked adjacent to the rear amenity area of 13 Anerley Road which could result in a loss of amenity arising from noise and activity.

8.7. The parking implications of the scheme are minor as the level of parking proposed exceeds the one space per residential unit required by the EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards. The width of the access between numbers 9 and 11 is sufficient to meet the minimum standards set out in Appendix 12 of the Design and Townscape SPD.


9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:01 The proposed conversion of the dwelling house into flats would

unreasonably increase the proportion of dwelling houses converted away from single family dwellinghouse use in the street block thus causing a further detrimental erosion in the character of the street, leading to an unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area generally and its ability to remain attractive for single family use, contrary to Policy H6 of the Borough Local Plan.

02 The proposed layout with specific reference to the inclusion of windows in the flank wall is indicative of an excessive number of units resulting in an inadequate quality of environment and poor outlook from habitable rooms to the detriment of the residential amenities of future occupiers and contrary to Policies H5 and H7 of the Borough Local Plan.

03 No provision has been made for the storage and collection of waste and the development would be likely to result in refuse being kept either within the street or loose on site, to the detrimental of visual and residential amenity, and contrary to Policy C11 of the Borough Local Plan.

04 The proposed parking area would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the adjoining property by reason of its proximity to a private amenity space and the increased levels of noise and activity associated with the use, contrary to Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan.


Chalkwell Ward


ALTER ALL ELEVATIONS AND ERECT TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO CONVERT HOUSE OF MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (CLASS SUI GENERIS) INTO FOUR SELF-CONTAINED FLATS (CLASS C3), LAY OUT AMENITY AREAS AND PARKING AND ERECT BIN AND CYCLE STORES TO REAR.

57 Cranley Road, Westciff on Sea

Mr M Chittenden Stone Me! Design

1 The Proposal

1.1. The details are as follows:Site Area (Net) 272m²Height 2 Storey (as existing)No. of units 4 (3no 1 bed and 1no 2 bed)Parking 75% (guideline 100-150%)Cycle parking Cycle store providedRefuse storage Provided to rearAmenity space 88m²Density (Net) 146dph


1.2. This application seeks to erect a two storey extension to the north flank of the building, in order to convert it to four self-contained flats. The building is currently a house of multiple occupation, and was previously a guest house. There would be minimal changes to the front of the building. The only additions would be to the north flank, which faces onto Cranley Avenue.

1.3. The proposed extension would be 2 storey and project little further than the main flank wall of the building. It would include a projecting gable with a pitched roof, to match existing, and a small flat roofed element. A new entrance and canopy is included in these works. The extensions equates to an additional 43sq metres gross floorspace.

1.4. The proposal includes the laying out of 3 spaces to the rear of the building, and accessed off Cranley Avenue. The proposed amenity space would be behind these, separated from the parking area by a 1.5m close boarded fence. Amenity areas would be set out on both road frontages, with a more private area to the rear.


2.1. The site includes an end terraced Edwardian property, which sits on a corner plot. The building has been extended to the rear, as is common on properties built in this period, and has both front and rear dormer windows. The building includes an interesting corner bay window, with decorative parapet detailing and sash windows.

2.2. Cranley Road is a typical early 20th Century street of terraced dwellings, some of which have been converted to flats. The street is purely residential.

3 Development Plan

3.1. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats) and T11 (Parking Standards).

3.2. Core Strategy DPD (‘Sound’ September 2007)

3.3. Design and Townscape Guide SPD (adopted June 2006)


3.5. ESRSP policies that may have been relevant have not been saved.

4 Planning History

4.1. SOS/82/01090/FUL – permission granted for change of use to guesthouse (retrospective).

4.2. Enforcement history concerning the use as a house of multiple occupation.


5.1. None



6.1. Environmental Health – To be reported.

7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification and Site notice – No comments received at time of writing, however notification period does not expire until after the meeting.

7.2. Ward Councillor – Overdevelopment; too many flats in this road; parking in road already congested.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations in respect of this application are the principle of a change of use to flats, design, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

8.2. Policy H6 seeks to limit the number of flat conversions in streets such as this to no more than 10% of the frontage. There are 61 ‘dwellinghouses’ in this street, 13 of which have been converted to self-contained flats. This equates to approximately 21% of the frontage. The proposal would therefore appear to be contrary to policy H6 in proposing another flat conversion. However, policy H6 seeks to retain family housing and protect the character and amenity of streets of family housing. It must be noted that this property has long been used as a guesthouse and house of multiple occupation and not as a single house. Thus, no family housing will be lost as a result of this application, and a guesthouse or house of multiple occupation would draw more parallels with a small block of flats than a single family house. The conversion to flats is therefore considered acceptable in principle.

8.3. The four flats would each include reasonable room sizes and good circulation, with all rooms benefiting from natural light. The proposal is considered to provide an adequate internal arrangement and level of internal amenity for residents.

8.4. The design of the two storey flank extension would integrate well with the existing building, although the bulk of the building would increase. A small section would include a flat roof, however there are existing flat roofed elements to this building, and the proposed extension is not considered to detract from visual amenity. All materials are to match existing, which is acceptable.

8.5. Other than a small bay window to the rear (which replaces a small rear single storey projection), the extensions would not project any further rearward than the existing rear elevation. The impact of the extension on the adjoining neighbour would therefore be minimal. The extension would be some 16m from the front of dwellings in Cranley Avenue, and thus have minimal impact on those dwellings.

8.6. In terms of amenity space, a small private area would be provided to the rear, with additional areas to the front and side. The private area would equate to approximately 21m², and provide a usable, if not large garden area. This is considered acceptable to serve the proposed development.


8.7. Three off-street parking spaces are proposed to the rear. These would replace the existing garage and driveway at the site. Site visit evidence suggests there is a parking problem on Cranley Road and Cranley Avenue, probably because few dwellings have driveways or garages. However, the site currently only has one garage and one space, and could potentially house six individuals under its existing use. It should also be noted that Westcliff Railway Station is within an 800m walk of the site, and other amenities such as shops and bus services are also within walking distance of the site. A good sized cycle store will also be provided on the site. In terms of PPG13 and EPOA guidance the site is considered a sustainable one. In light of the above, it is considered parking provision of 0.75 spaces per unit is acceptable here, and would not exacerbate on street parking.

8.8. Adequate refuse storage and cycle provision is indicated on the plans. The layout is not considered to result any significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate, subject to expiry of publicity period, to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions;01 Time commencement 02 Materials to match existing03 Lay out parking with crossover 04 Provide cycle stores05 Provide refuse store06 Landscaping as per plan07 Provision of boundary walls, fences etc. Informative

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


Kursaal Ward


CONVERT DWELLING INTO TWO SELF-CONTAINED FLATS

130 Hamstel Road, Southend-on-Sea, SS2 4PQ

AJV Investments Citi Design

1 The Proposal

1.1. To convert an end-of-terrace dwellinghouse to form two self-contained flats. Each flat would have a private amenity area accessed from a shared path to the side of the house.

1.2. The proposal includes a waste store proposed at the front of the property adjacent to the vehicular access to Hamstel School.

1.3. At the rear of the premises a cycle store is proposed with off-street parking for two cars on a hardstanding accessed from Hamstel Road.


2.1. The property is an end-of-terrace dwellinghouse located on Hamstel Road opposite North Avenue. The property has a vehicular access and hardstanding at the front.

2.2. The house is at the end of a terrace of ten properties, all of which are still in use as single dwellinghouses.


2.3. Directly to the north of the site is the vehicle access to Hamstel School. To the north of the access are two sets of semi-detached dwellinghouses.

3 Development Plan

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

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




4 Planning History

4.1. 1992 (SOS/92/0584) Planning permission granted for a single storey rear extension.





7 Publicity

7.1. Neighbours notified of application and site notice displayed, at the time of writing one response had been received objecting on the grounds that there are enough flats in the town and the house should be kept as a family home. Any further responses will be reported to Members.

7.2. A Councillor has raised concerns of loss of a single family dwelling, the number of flat conversions in the area, parking and amenity.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations are the principle of conversion, design and internal layout, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

8.2. The principle of the conversion of a dwellinghouse to self-contained flats is determined mainly through saved Policies H3 and H6 of the Borough Local Plan. Policy H3 seeks to protect small single dwellinghouses with an original floor area less than 125m2, this property has a floor area of approximately 100m2 and as such falls within Policy H3. The purpose of Policy H3 is to protect the supply of small dwellinghouses within the Borough and no justification has been put forward to justify a relaxation of this standard and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H3.


8.3. Policy H6 advises that within a street block a proportion of 10% conversions of properties that were originally constructed as single dwellinghouses should not be exceeded. In the case of this street block there are 17 units, two were converted to flats prior to 1948 and so are not counted for the purposes of the Policy and the remaining 15 are all single dwellinghouses. If permission is granted for the conversion the percentage of the street block converted away from use as a single dwellinghouse would be 6.7%. There is a further consideration of character and amenity as a conversion, even if it does not breach the 10% identified in Policy H6, can result in a loss of amenity. Given the location of his property on a busy thoroughfare with high levels of activity it is considered that an additional residential unit would not alter the character or amenities of the immediate area.

8.4. The external appearance of the building would remain largely unchanged as a result of the proposal and would result in only minor changes to the ground floor windows at the rear.

8.5. The internal layout of the flats is considered to be acceptable with each unit having an individual door behind the main front door and with adequate room sizes. The inclusion of a waste storage facility would ensure that waste can be safely stored outside the property with no loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

8.6. The impact on the street scene would not be detrimental; the way in which the conversion is proposed would result in a property that appeared externally to be a single dwellinghouse and the additional activity that could be expected to be associated with the site would not be sufficient to be detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents or the character of the area.

8.7. Impact on neighbours would be minimal, there are no building works proposed and the additional activity that resulted would not be of a degree such as to result in harm to the attached or adjacent properties.

8.8. The proposal includes provision of parking for two vehicles on the hardstanding at the front of the property, as Hamstel Road is a classified road Policy T8 requires that parking areas include a space sufficient to turn a vehicle so that cars are not required to access or egress the site in reverse gear. The parking layout as shown does not allow for vehicles to turn and as such would result in disruption to the traffic flows and potential traffic hazard. The proposal includes cycle storage and the site is located on a bus route.


9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to DELEGATE TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the expiry of the publicity period and for the following reasons:01 The proposal would result in the loss of a small family

dwellinghouse, a form of accommodation that the Borough Council seeks to safeguard and for which there is viable demand and as such the proposal would be detrimental to the supply of family housing in the Borough and contrary to Policy H3 of the Borough Local Plan.

02 There is insufficient space within the curtilage of the site to manoeuvre two vehicles independently to enable them to access and egress the site in a forward gear. Consequently it is likely that vehicles would be reversed into and from the site, thereby introducing new hazards and inconvenience to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic using the adjoining classified highway, to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Policy T8 of the Borough Local Plan.


Southchurch Ward

SOS/07/01201/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

USE BUILDING AS MOT TESTING STATION AND CAR WORKSHOP (CLASS SUI GENERIS)

Wick Farm, Wakering Road, Great Wakering, Southend-on-Sea SS3 0QA

Essex Demolition & Plant Hire Ltd M G Napper

1 The Proposal

1.1. It is proposed to change the use of the existing building which has permission for the storage and maintenance of contractor’s vehicles to an MOT test station and workshop.


2.1. The site consists of a large barn type building of over 550m2, which is set back some 60m from Wakering Road. It is in a rural setting within the green belt, although there are several houses immediately to the east, between the barn and the road. The building is prominent in views from all directions except the north (because of the high and dense hedge along the northern boundary). On the south side of the building there is a walled compound, and there is a fenced compound on the northern side which is much less exposed to view. The premises were originally used for agricultural purposes- storage, maintenance of machinery and the keeping of livestock. The building has previously been used for storage of documents. The previous use of the building, granted on


appeal, was for storage and repair of equipment and maintenance of vehicles, with ancillary office space at first floor level. The enclosed compounds were used for storage of equipment and reclaimed materials.

3 Development Plan

3.1. PPG2 (Green belts), PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas)

3.2. ESRSP Policies C2 - Development Within the Metropolitan Green Belt, BE1 - Urban Intensification, CS1 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS2 - Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, CS4 - Sustainable New Development, RE2 - Re-Use of Rural Buildings, T3 - Promoting Accessibility, T6 - Walking and Cycling, T11 - Traffic Management, T12 - Vehicle Parking.

3.3. LDF Policies: Core Strategy Development Plan Document – KP2 (Development Principles), CP3 (Transport and Accessibility), CP4 (The Environment and Urban Renaissance).

3.4. BLP Policies: G1 (Development within the Green Belt), E5 (Non Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), C14 (Trees, Planting and Landscaping), T1 (Priorities), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards).

3.5. EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards.

4 Planning History

4.1. July 2001 – Planning permission refused to use agricultural building and land for storage/maintenance of demolition contractors vehicles (Sui Generis); retain roller shutters to north, east, west elevations; erect 1.8 m high security fencing; reposition public footpath (Part Retrospective) (SOS/01/00135/FUL).

4.2. January 2002 – Planning permission refused to use agricultural building and land for storage/maintenance of demolition contractors vehicles (Sui Generis), retain roller shutters, erect 1.8m high security fencing and reposition public footpath (Part Retrospective) (Amended Proposal) (SOS/01/01261/FUL).

4.3. Enforcement Action authorised to cease unauthorised use, storage of equipment and remove containers.

4.4. Appeal lodged against the enforcement notice. Appeal allowed subject to conditions.


5.1. Environmental Health Comment – No objection to the car repair use subject to conditions. No data submitted regarding noise levels. There is concern regarding the gradual change of the use/use class of these premises to a use that could have adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential property.

5.2. Suggested conditions:♦ Use to be restricted to the use applied for and no other purpose. There is no

consent for any other use class activity to take place.♦ Approval to be limited to the area currently used for the purpose and to be

shown on a plan issued with the decision notice


♦ No bodywork or paint spraying activities to be carried out at the premises.♦ Hours of working to be restricted to hours in application Mon-Fri 0800 to

1800 and Sat 0800 to 1300.♦ Apply condition 5 of the Inspector’s report dated 29/08/02 to this application

ie. “no commercial vehicles shall use the access road outside the following times: 0800-1800 Mondays to Fridays, 0800-1300 on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.”

♦ No activities other than vehicle parking to take place in the open yard area.♦ Vehicle repairs to be confined to within the building only.♦ Noise control measures shall ensure that the LAeq of each repair activity is at

least 5dB below the L90,1hour background noise at the boundary of the nearest residential property. LAeq being the equivalent continuous A weighted sound pressure level, measured over the duration of the activity.

♦ No plant or machinery to be installed without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority. Application for such approval to include full details of the design, siting and predicted acoustic performance, including noise levels at the nearest residential property boundary.

6 Publicity

6.1. Site notice and neighbour notification. No replies received.

7 Appraisal

7.1. The main issues to be considered are the principle of the development in the Green Belt and impact on neighbouring residential properties.

7.2. The site has had an extensive history of land uses with the most recently lawful use the subject of an appeal in 2002. This is summarised below;

7.2.1. In the appeal the Inspector considered there were two main issues; the first was whether the change of use was inappropriate development in the Green Belt – in essence was it more likely to harm openness than the previous lawful use? Secondly were the traffic implications serious enough to warrant rejection of the use?

7.2.2. The evidence brought before the Inspector lead him to conclude that the use of the site was relatively low key where the principle use was for storage. Vehicles came to the premises as and when they needed to; there were few employees permanently in place at the premises and the Inspector gained the impression that, for much of the time, there was only one office worker on the site. The Inspector was reluctant to refuse permission on the supposition that the use may intensify and therefore in the absence of clear evidence regarding the affect on the openness of the area or the likelihood of matters getting worse, did not consider that the use was inappropriate development in the Green Belt.


7.2.3. With regard to the parking and movement of vehicles the Inspector was not convinced that either of these factors has been on such a scale as to have materially worsened the situation compared to previous uses of the premises. Furthermore the Inspector concluded that as Wakering Road was not a heavily trafficked road or main thoroughfare the free flow of traffic and highway safety would not be prejudiced by commercial vehicles entering or leaving the site. The Council also raised the issue with regard to noise associated with additional traffic and the harm this would cause adjoining houses. The Inspector concluded that an hours of use restriction and prevention of repairs and maintenance out in the open would satisfactorily mitigate any undue noise and disturbance.

7.3. PPG2 states that the re-use of buildings inside a Green Belt is not inappropriate development providing:

♦ it does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it;

♦ strict control is exercised over the extension of re-used buildings, and over any associated uses of land surrounding the building which might conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it (eg: because they involve extensive external storage, or extensive hardstanding, car parking, boundary walling or fencing);

♦ the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction; and

♦ the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings. (Conversion proposals may be more acceptable if they respect local building styles and materials, though the use of equivalent natural materials that are not local should not be ruled out).

7.4. It is not proposed to extend the existing building, nor carry our any works to the external yard or the building itself which are likely to affect the openness of the area. Furthermore the building is of a permanent and substantial construction and as it has been in existence for some time, is in keeping with its surroundings. In principle it is therefore considered that the proposal meets the criteria for re-use of buildings within the Green Belt. As the scheme meets the relevant criteria it is not considered that use of the building per se is materially harmful to the Green Belt.

7.5. There are residential properties immediately to the east of the application site between the building and the road. With regard to the impact on their amenities this has been assessed on appeal and it was found that the previous use would not be materially harmful subject to conditions. However it is recognised that the proposal will result in an intensification of the use on the site and that this may have implications for affecting residential amenity. Specifically, there will be a significantly greater number of staff, an increase in customer numbers and therefore a greater level of traffic generation, noise levels, potential impact on air quality through fumes etc. Comments from Environmental Health indicate from a statutory nuisance perspective issues such as noise, the type and location of activity associated with the use and hours of operation could be satisfactorily mitigated through specific conditions, although do note that no noise assessment has been submitted with the application. The internal layout of the building indicates that works to vehicles


would be sited away from the adjoining residential properties which would assist with the containment of noise and limit any works to vehicles away from residential properties. A restriction on the hours of use and works to be undertaken only within the building would also assist in maintaining residential amenity. This was considered reasonable in the previous appeal case, although this did relate to a different use. Notwithstanding the comments from Environmental Health, there are still planning concerns with regard to the impact on residential amenity and the impact the intensification of use will bring with regard to general noise and disturbance to the adjoining neighbours. In addition to this there is a concern relating to traffic generation associated with the increase in the level of activity and general intensification and whether this is reasonable in this location. The Inspector noted in the appeal decision that the previous use was low-key and mainly for storage purposes, only one person appeared to be employed at the site and that vehicles came and went as they needed to. It was also noted that the adjacent residential properties shared the access way and that no concerns were raised from residents in terms of traffic noise. However the Inspector did surmise that this was likely to be because of the low key nature of the use. It is proposed that the new use will employ 12 staff; three MOT testers, six mechanics and three clerical. This in itself will create a much greater level of vehicular movements. Furthermore, the type of use proposed will result in much greater traffic generation from customers. A customer will drop off a vehicle to be repaired or serviced. They will then require transportation from the site after leaving the vehicle and also transportation to be taken back to collect the vehicle once work is completed. This site is on the fringe of the Borough and is not well served by public transport nor is it within convenient walking distance. Although the road serves two schools, it is reasonable to describe the character of the area as rural and is therefore reasonable to expect a lower level of traffic, particularly within a residential environment. It is therefore considered that the proposed use will result in a significant increase in traffic generation to the detriment of the amenities of the adjoining residents.

8 Recommendation

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

01 The development as a result of the intensification of use of the site and increase in activity particularly with regard to general noise and disturbance and the level of traffic generation will result in material harm to the amenities of the adjoining residential properties to the detriment of the rural character of the area contrary to Policy BE1 of the ESRSP, Policy E5 and of the BLP, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the DPD1 (Core Strategy) and PPS 7.


Chalkwell Ward

SOS/06/01539/LBC (Application for listed building consent)

RETAIN RELOCATED LADIES’ AND GENT’S TOILETS, INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO RELOCATE BOX OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FIRE ESCAPE TO GROUND FLOOR (RETROSPECTIVE)

Palace Theatre, 430 London Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 9LA

HQ Theatres Ltd


1 The Proposal

1.1. Retrospective application for listed building consent for works to the Council owned Palace Theatre, as follows:

♦ Relocation and enlargement of the ladies’ toilets by incorporating an area that used to be a store. An internal door has been blocked in and part of an internal wall has been opened up to provide this larger space. New cubicles have been created and the plumbing altered to suit, new non-slip floor over the old floor;

♦ The gent’s toilets are now where the ladies’ were and the urinals and wash basins have been swapped over and again a non-slip floor over the old floor;

♦ Box office (use) has been moved from the position in the central foyer, to it’s old (1999) position adjacent to the central staircase, where the refreshment booth use was – the refreshment booth is now in the ex-box office;

♦ At the rear of the building, in the newer section, a sloping floor has been created over the old floor and a ramped fire egress has been created out to the west side of the building. This has only involved part of the previous floorspace and the rest has become a store and office, with a set of stairs up to the office space. A suspended ceiling has also been installed in these areas due to the high ceilings otherwise – the original ceiling has been retained;

♦ Various new studwork walls have been installed, e.g. between the aforementioned office and fire escape, and within the new refreshments booth;

♦ First floor ladies’ toilet is to be refurbished but these works are de minimus and do not affect the fabric of the building so are not considered further here.

1.2. The applicant has written that the previous arrangement caused health and safety problems and problems with customers – which would affect bookings at the theatre. The external envelope of the building was not altered


2.1. Up to four storeys high Grade II Listed Building in use as a theatre, located on the south side of London Road close to the junction with West Road and Brightwell Avenue. The Plough public house lies to the east and commercial properties otherwise along London Road. Properties to the south are mainly in residential use.

2.2. The Listing of this theatre draws attention to the ornamental exterior façade and interior which is a good example of its period. The front façade bears the date 1912. The façade is of red brick with stucco dressings and ornamentation. A large central semi-circular arch with stucco ornamented bulls eye window in the tympanum and surmounted by a balustraded parapet with side scrolls is flanked by towers with stucco cornices and ornamentation and ‘Dutch’ gables to the parapets, with ball finials. The ground storey has two side doorways with semi-circular arched heads and stucco cartouche in the tympanum. The interior has two curved balconies with paired boxes with semi-circular fronts


and domed recesses. The balconies and boxes are ornamented with stucco cartouche. The ceiling and proscenium arch are panelled, with stucco ornamentation.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies CS2 - Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, HC3 - Protection of Listed Buildings.

3.2 BLP Policies C2 (Historic Buildings).

3.3 Design and Townscape Guide.

4 Planning History

4.1 1999 – planning permission and Listed Building Consent granted to roof over courtyard and erect enclosure to fire escape staircase to provide extension to foyer (SOS/99/0530 and SOS/00/0531).


5.1 English Heritage – should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of specialist conservation advice.

5.2 EDF Energy – no response.


6.1 Property comment – no comment.

7 Publicity

7.1 Press and site notice and neighbour notification – no representations received.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The issue to be considered is whether the alterations already made have detrimentally affected the fabric of the Listed Building, in particular focussing in the important features mentioned in the Listing. The test is that attention should be paid to the special interest of the building and the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of historic interest which it possesses.

8.2 The special features of the theatre have been identified as the front and side external elevations (only part of the latter) and the internal balconies, boxes and ceiling, within the theatre room itself.

8.3 None of the alterations made have affected any of these special features and in fact the work has involved little or no ‘removal’ at all – e.g floors have been covered rather than removed and where a door has been blocked in, the frame remains – as such, the areas could be returned to their state pre-work with very little change.

8.4 It is not considered that the changes made have compromised the interest of the building and the changes made have improved the longevity of the theatre in terms of health and safety and fire regulations and have improved the facility, thus ensuring the future of the theatre is ensured for some time to come.


8.5 As the building is Council owned and Listed, a final decision will have to be made by the Secretary of State. As the works have been carried out, there is no necessity for any time limiting condition.

9 Recommendation

MEMBERS ARE RECOMMENDED TO REFER THE DECISION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, indicating that they have no objections.


Leigh Ward


DEMOLISH FRONT AND SIDE WALL AND REPLACE WITH 0.85M HIGH WALL WITH RAILINGS OF 0.35M ABOVE AND 1.4M HIGH PIERS AT BOTH ENDS. LAY OUT HARDSTANDING TO FRONT, WITH PLANTED AREAS.

11 Avenue Road, Leigh-on-Sea SS9 1AX

Mr I Fletcher

1 The Proposal

1.1. Full planning application to demolish the front and side walls (does not require Conservation Area consent due to the height) and replace the front wall with a stock brick wall, topped with iron railings, with brick piers either side. The front garden would become hardstanding, with cobble setts for the main part but also with planting to the borders, to a width of up to 250mm, and also a planted bed centrally on the forecourt – 800mm diameter. The path to the front door would also have its hardsurface replaced – black and white Victorian tiles are proposed for this part.

1.2. The hardstanding requires consent due to the Article 4 Direction.

1.3. The applicant’s statement says that the materials will be in keeping with the rest of the street.



2.1. Semi detached house located on the east side of Avenue Road, north of the junction with Queens Road. The site lies within an attractive area of modest dwellinghouses and whilst the character of the houses is similar, the front boundary walls and forecourts are extremely varied in treatment and materials. Very few of the old burr-brick walls remain and a mixture of colours of brick, blocks and rendered walls are now apparent. Most of the forecourts remain as garden on Avenue Road however the adjacent Queens Road displays many examples of hardstanding – some of which cover the whole width, with no front boundary wall etc.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies (none saved under recent changes) CS2 - Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, HC2 - Conservation Areas.

3.2. BLP Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping).

3.3. Design and Townscape Guide

4 Planning History

4.1. May 2007 – permission refused for demolition and replacement of boundary wall and laying out of hardstanding to front (SOS/07/00408/FUL). Reason: The proposed hardstanding to the front will harm the appearance of the property, erode the character of the streetscene through the loss of a traditional front boundary and neither preserve nor enhance the Leigh Cliff Conservation Area contrary to Policies C4 and H5 of the Borough Local Plan and Policies BE1 and HC2 of the Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Structure Plan. This application had a much larger area of hardstanding, which was proposed to be block paved, with a smaller planted area.


5.1. Leigh Town Council – oppose – loss of front garden in a Conservation Area, and loss of the traditional Leigh Wall which contributes to the character of the Leigh Cliff Conservation Area.

5.2. Leigh Society – no response.


6.1. None.

7 Publicity

7.1. Press and site notice and neighbour notification – 14 letters of objection, on the following grounds:♦ No objection as long as front garden is not a parking space;♦ Existing wall is more in keeping with the row of houses than the brickwork

and railings♦ Concerned that planting may not be carried out♦ Avenue Road does not have any hardstandings and the gardens are well

tended;


♦ They should rebuild both the walls;♦ Don’t want parking extended into the front garden;♦ Will impair residential quality of Avenue Road;♦ Should comply with PPG15 and BLP policy C4 – should be a good balance

between visual hardness of buildings and softness of gardens and planted open areas should be maintained – in particular the front gardens should be maintained as planted gardens where possible;

♦ Contravenes Article 4 Direction;♦ Property has alternative off-street parking;♦ Inadequate size garden to allow good design – vehicle would detract from

streetscene;♦ Sets precedent and may lose historical character of street.

7.2. A Councillor has concerns about protecting and enhancing the Conservation Area and feels this would not be supported.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The issues to be considered are whether the amended scheme has overcome the previous reason for refusal and issues of visual and residential amenity and the impact on parking facilities and the Conservation Area.

8.2. The previous application was refused for being harmful to the streetscene in terms of losing the traditional front boundary wall and having a hardstanding, detrimental to the Conservation Area. However, the loss of the existing wall cannot be resisted since consent is not required for its removal. The applicant has now stated that he is willing to negotiate if necessary over the precise materials details for the hardstanding and wall/railings – even to the extent, for example, of not having railings. However, as the materials proposed here are in keeping with the period of property locally and stock brick has been used quite recently at the site fronting Avenue Road on the junction with Cliff Parade, the use of this material is considered to be acceptable, particularly bearing in mind the varied wall design in the vicinity. The railings are not a common feature of the locality but are not considered to cause harm or detract from the character of the Conservation Area.

8.3. The loss of the side wall cannot be resisted.

8.4. The application has been improved compared to the previous application regarding the forecourt. The garden is overgrown and unkempt at the moment and it is considered that a well landscaped and hardsurfaced forecourt would benefit the local streetscene and Conservation Area. The applicant is now willing to plant beds on the front, north side and in front of the house, in order to soften the hard landscaping. The details of the planting and the cobbles can be subject to a condition, although the brochure submitted with the application shows small granite setts in grey, with an uneven and ‘old’ appearance, which Officers consider acceptable.

8.5. Whilst the ‘need’ for the space is not a consideration of significance, the Design and Townscape Guide says that parking on the frontage will normally be discouraged unless there are no viable alternatives, the character of the area is not harmed and criteria are met – open frontages and total loss of front gardens/forecourts are unacceptable – at least part of the boundary should be retailed, there should still be clear access to the main entrance, good quality surfacing should be used. The applicant has suggested that he would be likely to use this area to park his motorcycle – the garage is already used by his other


vehicle and the ‘change over’ of the vehicles if he leaves the motorcycle in front of the garage has become impractical. The hardstanding is not of sufficient size to park a car – nor would the Council wish this area to be totally hardsurfaced - however, due to the proposal still having a front wall and part-planted forecourt (the provision of which can be controlled by condition), the proposal is now considered to be acceptable and to overcome the reservation about the previous scheme. In fact, this scheme proposes all the elements that Council guidance requests of applications for forecourts – a front wall, planting and sympathetic hardsurfacing. There are examples of large areas of open hardsurfacing both in Avenue Road and Queens Road and this current scheme is actually a significant improvement on those and is felt to set an acceptable precedent. It is not considered that the proposal would detract from the character of the Conservation Area.

8.6. Residential amenity would not be harmed by the proposal.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION, subject to the following conditions:01 Start within three years02 Material samples to be submitted and approved – scheme to be

implemented in line with agreed details03 details of planting in areas shown on approved plans to be

submitted and approved04 Agreed planting to be installed before first use of forecourt and

retained thereafter


West Leigh Ward


ALTER HIPPED ROOF TO FORM GABLE END, ERECT ROOF EXTENSION AT REAR AND DORMER WINDOW TO FRONT

47 Braemar Crescent, Leigh on Sea, SS9 3RJ

Mr M J Jordan

1 The Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought to alter the hipped roof to form a gable end, erect a roof extension to the rear and dormer window to the front. A bedroom and en-suite will be created by the proposed extensions.


2.1. The application property is a two storey semi detached dwelling on the western side of Braemar Cresent. The velux window to the front would suggest the roof is used for storage as there is currently no stairwell access to this area. The pair of semis is largely unaltered when viewed from the street with single storey extensions to these properties at the rear.

2.2. Braemar Cresent is typified by a mixture of detached and semi detached dwellings many of which have had extensions. Of the semi detached dwellings most of these have retained their hipped roofs aside from 7 Braemar Crescent which received permission to alter the hip to form a gable in August 2001 due to the fact that the attached semi was altered so that the pair of semis were


already unbalanced (SOS/01/00633/FUL). While many of the other semi detached properties have retained their hipped roofs, there are many examples of side extensions at ground and first floor level.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policy BE1 - Urban Intensification, not a saved Policy

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

3.3. SPD 1 – Southend on Sea Borough Council Design and Townscape Guide.

4 Planning History

4.1. 2002 – Single storey rear extension constructed under Permitted Development as this is just under the 70m3.


5.1. Leigh-on-Sea Town Council – Oppose: The proposal changes the roof from a hip to a gable on a semi-detached house, not respecting the style, scale and form of the existing roof design and unbalancing a pair of semi-detached houses. The front dormer is out of character damaging the streetscene and the rear dormer is too large and bulky.



7 Publicity

7.1. A Councillor is concerned about overdevelopment, out of character and overlooking.

7.2. Neighbours notified of the application with one response received with no objection however the publicity period does not expire on the 6/11/07. Any further responses will be reported.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The main considerations with the application are the design and impact on the streetscene, impact on the neighbouring properties and traffic and parking implications.

8.2. The proposal will create one additional bedroom with an en-suite therefore converting this from a three bedroom to a four bedroom house which, given the large rear garden and availability of off street parking is not considered to constitute overdevelopment of the site.



8.3. The pair of semis is largely unaltered and because it is on the outside of the bend on Braemar Cresent the property does have some prominence in the street when approaching from either the east or south. This pair of semis has a strong bay window gable feature to the front which dominates the front of the property drawing attention away from the roof form and therefore it is not considered that extending the hip to a gable would give the appearance of unbalancing the pair of semis.

8.4. If Braemar Cresent did not have a mixture of housing types and styles and was dominated by pairs of semis that maintained their original appearance then the extension of a hip to form a gable end may be inappropriate in principle however this is not the case.

8.5. The dormer window to the front is considered to be small and unobtrusive and whilst the attached semi has a roof light to the front rather than a dormer window it is not considered in this mixed street that this would look out of place or unduly unbalance the pair of semis.

8.6. The rear roof extension maintains significant margins above and below and whilst further articulation to the sides would usually be expected it is not considered that this would be reason alone to refuse the application particularly when this will not be visible from the street.


8.7. The proposed extensions are sufficiently removed from the boundaries of the neighbouring properties so that these will not be obtrusive, result in loss of light or breach the 45 degree rule of thumb.

8.8. The new window in the roof to the side is to a landing and will be 5 metres from the boundary and facing the roof of the neighbouring property 51 Braemar Cresent, which has no protected windows in the side. The new windows facing the rear are at least 21 metres from the rear boundary. It is considered that the distances to the boundary would be sufficient to prevent against overlooking.

8.9. Overall it is not considered that the proposal will be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

Traffic and parking implications

8.10. The proposed extension will create only one additional bedroom however two vehicles can be parked in tandem clear of the highway and one additional vehicle parking space in the garage and with this being a four bedroom house this is considered sufficient to cater for the needs of the property.


8.11. For the reasons above Members are recommended to grant planning permission.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION and subject to the following conditions:01 Start within three years02 Materials to match existing


1 The Proposal

1.1. Permission is sought to site a mobile catering unit covering three parking spaces which covers an area measuring 7.2m wide by 4.8m deep within the B&Q car park at Fossetts Way adjacent to a trolley storage area. The proposed mobile catering unit is 4.5m wide, 2.2m deep and 2.4m high with a door to the front which opens out to form a canopy. It is proposed that the unit will face towards the footpath so that customers will not be served on the highway. The mobile catering unit was located on the site for no more than 24 hours after the opening of the B&Q store as one of Council’s Enforcement Officers following a complaint secured its removal from the site.

1.2. Planning permission was granted for the retail warehouse on the site with a builders yard and garden centre in December 2004 (SOS/04/01239/FUL). There were conditions on this permission which required the provision of 550 parking spaces which were to be permanently reserved for the parking of vehicles. It is for this reason that while the catering unit is mobile because the parking spaces were conditioned to be permanently reserved that planning permission is required.

1.3. This permission (SOS/04/01239/FUL) was accompanied by an Environmental Assessment and under Circular 2/99 (Environmental Impact Assessment) “changes or extensions to existing or approved development” would require a revised EIA only if the proposed changes are likely to have a significant effect. It is considered that the relaxation of the parking conditions to allow the siting of the mobile catering unit are minor and therefore a revised Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.


2.1. The site is located on the eastern side of Fossetts Way with open space and vacant land to the north and east. Immediately to the south of the site is two new retail units one of which is vacant and the other occupied by Comet and vacant land with allotments and Wellesley Hospital further to the south. To the south west of the site is Waitrose supermarket and its associated petrol filling station. Immediately to the west is the Iron Age Camp which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

2.2. It is proposed to locate the mobile catering unit in the middle of the car park nearer the trade entrance rather than the public entrance covering three parking spaces. At a site meeting the applicants explained that the proposed location of the mobile catering unit adjacent to the trades entrance was

St Lukes Ward


SITING OF MOBILE CATERING UNIT

B&Q, Fossetts Way, Southend-on-Sea

Mrs M Rose Retail Concession Catering Ltd


because the trades persons using this area were the predominant customers and could park in this area and collect their materials and other supplies as well as some food and drink, as well as offering a commercially viable location with prominence in the site and giving sufficient distance to the surrounding uses to mitigate any potential impacts.

2.3. Within the B&Q store there is a café with seating area that serves sandwiches, cakes, cold drinks and coffee which would be different to the hot food and drinks proposed to be sold by the mobile catering unit.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies CS3 - Encouraging Economic Success, BE1 - Urban Intensification, – none of which are saved policies.

3.2. BLP Policies C1 (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations).

3.3. Core Strategy DPD Policies KP2 (Development Principles)

3.4. SPD One: Southend on Sea Design & Townscape Guide.


4 Planning History

4.1. The main applications relating to the retail warehousing use with implications for this application:

4.2. 2002 (SOS/02/00070/FUL) Permission granted on appeal (APP/D1590/V/03/1113372) to lay out access road with roundabout at junction onto Fossetts Way, erect DIY retail warehouse (14,808m²) with builders yard, garden centre, parking for 550 cars at front and service yard and sub-station at rear

4.3. 2004 (SOS/04/01239/FUL) Permission was granted to lay out access road with roundabout at junction onto Fossetts Way, erect DIY retail warehouse (14,808m²) with builders yard, garden centre, lay out 550 parking spaces at front and service yard and sub-station at rear (Amended Proposal).




6.1. Traffic comment – No perceived adverse impact on the highway.

6.2. Environmental Health comment – No objection.


7 Publicity

7.1. A Councillor has requested that this application go to committee to ensure that the following issues are satisfactorily dealt with:- hours of operation, litter, loss of parking, management of odour and crime prevention. It has also been commented that it would be preferred if the mobile catering unit were to be properly landscaped and located to the eastern side of the car park so as not to become an eyesore.

7.2. Neighbours notified of application with no responses received.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations are design and impact on the character and appearance of the retail park and the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), impact on the amenities of the surrounding properties, refuse storage or collection and parking implications and highway safety.

Design and impact on the character and appearance of the retail park and the SAM

8.2. The retail park that is developing at Fossetts Way represents a high quality of design with clean car parks and landscaping in and around the development. While it is accepted the mobile catering units and trade centres are often linked sites, visual impact remains an important consideration. The unit will be visible from outside the site, however as it is set well away from the site boundaries and the site is well landscaped (although this landscaping is currently unattractive) the visual impact of the van in the context of the main building is limited and not considered to be harmful.

8.3. The proposed mobile catering unit is 4.5m in width and 2.2m in depth which will still leave a further 2.7m to the side edge of the next parking space and 2.6m to the front of the space. This space could be used to incorporate planter boxes to the sides and the rear and some sort of cover to the front to mask the appearance of the wheels. However, landscaping is rarely successful if not considered to be necessary.

8.4. The Iron Age Camp SAM is located near the site and the preservation of its setting is important. It is considered that the proposed mobile catering unit is sufficiently distant from the boundary so its setting will be unaffected.

Impact on the amenities of the surrounding properties

8.5. The proposed mobile catering unit is located a minimum of 55m from the southern boundary with the new retail units and vacant land with the Wellesley Hospital and allotments being no closer than 120m. To the north and south is open space and playing fields and to the west is the SAM and to the south west is Waitrose supermarket both of which are no closer than 150m from the proposed mobile catering unit. It is considered that because of the distances to the boundary with the neighbouring uses and because the uses within 100 metres of the proposed mobile catering unit (including open space, playing fields, vacant land and other retail units) are unlikely to be affected by odour, the amenities of the neighbouring properties will be protected.


8.6. The hours of operation that have been proposed are 0700 to 1700 Monday to Saturday and 1000 to 1600 on Sunday which correlates with the hours for the B&Q store. This is considered appropriate and will be conditioned.

8.7. It is not considered that the nature of the use is likely to have any implications for crime or disorder for the area or noise due to the restriction on the hours of operation that will be conditioned and the isolation from residential properties.

Refuse storage and collection

8.8. The applicant has not proposed any refuse storage or collection arrangements which given the potential popularity of the activity is likely to create significant levels of waste. There is space within the area surrounding the unit to incorporate a limited amount of refuse storage. This may also be able to be integrated with the collection arrangements for the B&Q store however this would need to be resolved prior to the use commencing and will be conditioned.

Parking implications

8.9. The proposed mobile catering unit will cover three of the 550 parking spaces that have been conditioned to be permanently retained as part of the 2004 permission (SOS/04/01239/FUL). The existing parking provision of 550 parking spaces is well below the Maximum Car Parking Standards set out in PPG 13 which when calculated would amount to 740 parking spaces. However the inspectors report (APP/D1590/V/03/1113372) concluded that this (550 parking spaces) would represent an acceptable level of provision and would not generate off-site highway problems. The inspector also commented on the proximity of the Waitrose store and the nearby retail developments and that there would be scope for sharing of parking spaces. Given these comments it is not considered that the loss of only three parking spaces, which is less than 1% of the total parking spaces, would result in a significant reduction in the number of parking spaces causing off-site highway problems even though there has already been a considerable departure from the maximum parking spaces.

8.10. It is proposed to orientate the proposed mobile catering unit so that it faces towards the pedestrian footpath that runs between the parking spaces. This will give customers of the proposed mobile catering unit refuge from the highway during service as well as safe access. The proposed mobile catering unit should be sited so that there is some relief from the pedestrian footway so there is not a conflict with its intended use and with there being 2.6m available because the width of the unit is only 2.2m and the parking spaces are 4.8m. Therefore the proposed mobile catering unit will not be detrimental to pedestrian or highway safety.


8.11. It is considered the application is acceptable with some minor alterations to the proposal that could be resolved by condition and therefore Members are recommended to grant permission.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:01 Start within three years02 Refuse storage and collection arrangements to be submitted for

approval03 Hours of operation Monday to Saturday 0700 to 1700 and Sunday

1000 to 160004 Location of the catering unit within the application site to be agreed


Thorpe Ward


ERECT CONSERVATORY TO REAR (AMENDED PROPOSAL)

79 Parkanaur Avenue, Southend on Sea, SS1 3JA

Mr M Husslebee AMDEGA

1 The Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought to demolish an existing single storey flat roof extension and replace this with a conservatory. The existing single storey flat roof extension extends 5.3m along the boundary and tapers in for a further 1.1m and has an eaves height of 2.7m. The proposed conservatory extends 5.3m directly on the boundary and has an eaves height of 3.3m.

1.2. Planning permission was granted in July 2007 (SOS/07/00765/FUL) for a conservatory of the same dimensions however it was later realised that the plans showing the existing extensions were inaccurate in that the existing single storey extension was shown as being 1m deeper and half a metre less in height. Due to these inaccuracies it would not have been possible to construct the conservatory in accordance with the approved plans and an amended application would be required.



2.1. The application property is a large two storey detached dwelling located on the western side of Parkanaur Avenue. The property is best described as having two single storey rear extensions that combine to form a larger extension that extends along the boundary with 83 Parkanaur Avenue.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP BE1 - Urban Intensification, – (not saved under recent changes)

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

3.3. SPD 1 – Southend on Sea Borough Council Design and Townscape Guide

4 Planning History

4.1. June 2005 – planning permission granted to erect a pitched roof over the existing single storey extensions which has not been completed but is still a valid permission. (SOS/05/00724/FUL)

4.2. July 2007 – permission granted to demolish the existing single storey rear extension and replace this with a conservatory of the same size as that proposed. The difference between this proposal and the current proposal is the dimensions of the existing extensions. The inaccuracy of the dimensions of the existing extensions has meant that this approval can not be enacted in accordance with the approved plans. (SOS/07/00765/FUL)





7 Publicity

7.1. A Councillor has requested that this application go to committee to ensure the accuracy of the plans.

7.2. Neighbours notified of the application with no response received.

8 Appraisal

8.1. The main considerations with the application are the design and impact on the neighbouring properties. The plans that were originally submitted with the application have been altered in order to resolve the inaccurate sizing of the existing extensions. For the avoidance of doubt this has now been satisfactorily resolved although it being a Portal application does not help.

Design


8.2. The existing flat roof extension is over scaled and outdated in design terms. The proposed conservatory is considered to be a considerable improvement on the existing and integrates effectively with the property.


8.3. The existing single storey flat roof extension extends 5.3m along the boundary and then tapers to 0.7m maximum away from the boundary over a further 1.1m with an eaves height of 2.7m. There is an existing permission (SOS/05/00724/FUL) to erect a pitched roof over this extension which has permission until 2010.

8.4. The proposed conservatory extends 5.3m directly on the boundary and has an eaves height of 3.3m. Neighbouring property 83 Parkanaur Avenue adjacent to the proposed conservatory has a shed located on the boundary adjacent to the extension which will obscure a significant proportion of the extension.

8.5. Given the resulting reduction in the overall size compared to the existing extensions, the extant permission for a pitched roof over the existing extensions and the location of the neighbour’s shed, it is not considered that the proposed conservatory would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

8.6. The new windows to the conservatory face either down the rear garden of the property at a distance of 18m to the rear boundary or 12m to the side boundary which is considered sufficient to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring properties.

8.7. For the reasons above Members are recommended to grant planning permission.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:01 Start within three years02 Materials to match existing


Background Papers

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

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

item agenda southend-on-sea borough council

Documents