06 December 2006

COMMITTEE: PLANNING PLACE: COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL CHAMBER DATE: WEDNESDAY CO-ORDINATOR: MS L JONES 6 DECEMBER 2006 Committee Co-ordinator TIME: 7.00 pm (Ext. 2691)

N.B. This meeting will be subject to a Webcast broadcast live on the Internet

TO: Crs: Miss Monnickendam (Chairman), Ms Golding (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Brehaut, Brown, Mrs Coe, Good, Mrs Holmes, Mrs Hubbard, MacLellan, Minns, Mrs Monnickendam, Myers, Parker, Mrs Pound and Mrs Sheehan.

Nominated Substitutes: Crs: Elphick, Faragher, Hardy and Mrs McGinley.

Co-opted Representatives: Mr Afteni (Mountnessing PC), Mrs Dicker (Doddinghurst PC), Mr Bland (Stondon Massey PC), Mr Day (Ingatestone and Fryerning PC), Mr Jardine (Kelvedon Hatch PC), Mrs Smith (Blackmore, Hook End & Wyatts Green PC), Mrs Savill (Navestock PC), Mr Bayless (Herongate & Ingrave PC) and Mrs Palmer (West Horndon PC).

MEMBERS ARE RESPECTFULLY SUMMONED TO ATTEND THE ABOVE MEETING TO TRANSACT THE BUSINESS SET OUT BELOW.

Chief Executive & Town Clerk

AGENDA

PART ONE

(Items which, in the opinion of the Chief Executive & Town Clerk, will be considered with the public present at the meeting. Details of Background Documents relied upon in the reports before the Committee are attached as an appendix to this Agenda.)

1 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 8.11.2006

Members are requested to bring with them to the meeting their Minutes folder. The Committee is invited to approve the Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8.11.2006.

3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MATTERS

The Committee is requested to consider the applications and matters contained in Agenda Items 4 to 10 as follows:-

Agenda Application Location/Subject Ward Page Item No No No

4 BRW/484/2006 Site of Former Holly Brentwood 3 Trees Primary School West & No. 31 Junction Rd Brentwood

5 BRW/532/2006 2 Hutton Hall Cottages Hutton East 11 Hutton Village Hutton Brentwood

6 BRW/849/2006 Rear of 45, 47 & 49 Hutton South 14 Hanging Hill Lane Hutton Brentwood

7 BRW/873/2006 69 The Meadows Herongate 20 Ingrave Brentwood Ingrave & West Horndon

8 TPO/BRW/ 49 Rayleigh Road Hutton Central 23 101/2006 Hutton Brentwood

9 Service Plan 25

10 Urgent Business 26

2 4. SITE OF FORMER HOLLY TREES PRIMARY SCHOOL AND NO. 31 JUNCTION ROAD BRENTWOOD CM14 5JH DEMOLITION OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE TO PROVIDE CATEGORY II TYPE SHELTERED ACCOMMODATION COMPRISING THE ERECTION OF A TWO AND THREE STOREY BUILDING CONTAINING 23 NO. ONE BEDROOM FLATS AND 9 NO. TWO BEDROOM FLATS, RESIDENT’S LOUNGE, GUEST ACCOMMODATION, OFFICE AND KITCHEN TOGETHER WITH THE REMOVAL OF A TWO STOREY ELEMENT FROM THE SIDE OF 31 JUNCTION ROAD FORMATION OF WIDENED ACCESS ROAD FROM JUNCTION ROAD AND THE PROVISION OF 14 CAR PARKING SPACES (APPLICATION NO: BRW/484/2006)

SITE PLAN ATTACHED Appendix 1

Ward: Brentwood West Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1, CP2, CP3, H1, H6, H11, H15, H18, T4, T7, LT9

(i) Consideration of this application was deferred at the last meeting following the submission of revised drawings, the need to re-consult interested parties, and to enable Members to undertake a formal site visit.

(ii) Set out below is a copy of the report made to the Committee Meeting held on 10.10.2006, with amendments as required in respect of the revised drawings received.

1.0 The Application

1.1 The Application proposes the demolition of the vacant school building and the erection of the two and three storey building containing 23 no. 1 bedroom apartments and 9 no. 2 bedroom apartments together with the widening of the existing access road from Junction Road. The building is to provide accommodation for elderly people and is described as Category II Type Sheltered Accommodation. Also proposed within the building is a guest bedroom (to allow visitors to stay overnight), a residents lounge, an administrative office and a kitchen. 14 car parking spaces are proposed at the front of the building to serve the development.

1.2 The proposed building measures 51.4m long x 18.6m wide (maximum dimensions).The proposed pitched roof building is primarily three storeys, 11.7m high, reducing to two storeys, 8.7m high at its northern end. The proposed building is of traditional design, faced with a mixture of brickwork and render.

3 1.3 To enable the widening of the access road from Junction Road to 5m, the application also proposes the demolition of a two storey element from the side of 31 Junction Road. The two storey element to be removed is a recent addition to the original building, granted planning permission under reference BRW/1238/2004. The extension enlarged the house to enable it to provide 3 bedrooms. The removal of the extension will reduce the accommodation of the house back to its original 2 bedrooms form.

1.4 The application is accompanied by a Design Statement and a Planning Statement.

1.5 Revised plans have been submitted showing a reduction in the ground floor level by 1050mm. They also show a reduced roof pitch which has reduced the ridge height by a further 480mm.

1.6 The applicants have provided a line of vision diagram which indicates that the Junction Road houses would only see approximately 1m extra of roofline above the existing school roof.

1.7 The proposed ground levels are shown to slope up from the block towards the backs of the houses in Junction Road, with a difference in ground level on the boundary of between 700 and 800mm. A retaining wall is shown along the boundary at the back of nos. 33 to 45. A second retaining wall is shown between the block and the back garden to no. 29 Junction Road.

2.0 The Site

2.1 The irregular shaped site extends to some 0.32ha and is located to the rear of numbers 31 to 45 Junction Road, north of 8 to 19 Cluff Court and east of 26 to 34 Firsgrove Crescent.

2.2 The site is mainly hard surfaced and is generally flat but with banks along its southern and western boundaries. The former Holly Trees School occupies a large portion of the eastern area of the site and a former temporary classroom is situated at the southern end of the site.

3.0 Relevant History

3.1 CC/BRW/1/94: Single storey extension at the front - Approved.

3.2 CC/BRW/26/99 and CC/BRW/27/99: Temporary classrooms - Approved.

4.0 Planning Policy

4.1 The application site is a former School. The site is too small to be identified separately in the Local Plan. Therefore, the site is included within an area allocated for residential purposes in the Adopted Replacement Brentwood Local Plan. The following polices are considered to be relevant to the determination of this application:

4 CP1 General Development Criteria CP2 New Development and Sustainable Transport Choices CP3 Transport Assessments H1 Residential Provision 1996-2011 H6 Small Unit Accommodation H11 Supported Accommodation H15 Housing Density H18 Lifetime Homes T4 New Development and Highway Considerations T7 Parking - General LT9 Use of Redundant Institutional, Recreational and Community Buildings

5.0 Consultations

5.1 The Highways officer raises no objections to the revised plans, subject to the imposition of conditions.

5.2 The Essex Fire and Rescue Service advises that additional water supplies for firefighting purposes may be required. (A copy of the consultation reply has been forwarded to the Applicant).

5.3 Arboricultural Advice - The plans show that excavations will be required close to the existing vegetation in the rear gardens in Junction Road. These form a natural screen between the proposed development and the existing properties.

5.4 There is an Ash and Birch tree that would be adversely affected by the proposed excavation.

5.5 There is a row of Leylandii that would also be adversely affected; these are growing on land that is higher than the application site. It is possible that the roots from these trees are not growing on the application site. The applicant would need to establish this by hand digging along the boundary to a depth of 1m and leaving intact any roots that are exposed.

6.0 Other Representations

6.1 Eleven letters of representation were received in respect of the original plans The letters refer to, inter alia:-

unacceptable height and mass of the proposed building site levels and density levels suggested are inaccurate and misleading the large building would appear out of keeping with the surrounding small scale environment too many units insufficient number of car parking spaces overlooking and loss of amenity increase in congestion in Junction Road

5 lack of visibility from the proposed access road additional strain of existing limited services noise/nuisance from construction likely damage to adjoining houses through construction work obstruct ability of adjoining properties to be maintained loss of value of nearby properties loss of amenity through lighting loss of trees

6.2 At the time of writing this report no objections have been received in respect of the amended plans.

7.0 Summary of Issues

7.1 The application proposes the residential redevelopment of a former Junior School situated in an area allocated for residential purposes. The existing single storey vacant School building, which is situated within the eastern part of the site, is barely visible from outside the site at this time of the year. Any view of the existing building is mainly obscured by deciduous trees and shrubs growing along the boundaries, mainly in gardens of adjoining houses. There are no significant landscape features growing within the site. The application proposes the demolition of the existing former School building and the erection of a pitched roof three storey building within almost the centre of the site. The proposed new building will accommodate 32 flats. A further issue, arising from the revisions to the scheme, is the likely impact of the proposed change in ground levels on the trees along the boundary of the site.

7.2 Access into the site is proposed from Junction Road via the existing access road, which is however to be widened to 5m wide, allowing two vehicles to pass each other. To enable the widening of the access road, the application also proposes the demolition of a recent two storey element from the side of 31 Junction Road and the reinstatement of the original dwelling.

7.3 As stated above, the site was considered to be too small to be separately allocated in the Adopted Replacement Local Plan as a School. However, it was a School and it is considered that Policy LT9 is relevant. The Policy states:

6 “OTHER THAN THOSE SITES IDENTIFIED AS MAJOR HOUSING SITES ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, PERMISSION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OR REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS OR BUILDINGS OF A SIMILAR INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER, OR EXISTING RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, LEISURE OR OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES, SHALL ONLY BE GRANTED WHERE THE PROPOSED USE ADDRESSES LOCAL COMMUNITY NEEDS AND, WHERE THESE NEEDS ARE MET OR WHERE THE EXISTING COMMUNITY USE CAN BE SUITABLY ADEQUATELY RELOCATED ON AN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE SITE, HOUSING NEEDS.”

Comment:

Policy LT9 does not preclude residential development of School allocated sites provided, inter alia, that the existing use can be suitably and adequately relocated. In this case, a replacement 420 place School has already been provided in the redevelopment of Warley Hospital, reference BRW/853/2001. It is therefore considered that the requirement of Policy LT9 has been satisfied.

7.4 Policy H1 of the Adopted Replacement Local Plan advises that the requirement for new housing can be provided within those areas allocated for residential purposes. Although previously a School, the site is over washed by the residential allocation. It is not considered that an objection could be substantiated solely on the grounds that the housing provision for the Borough could be provided elsewhere. It is therefore considered that the requirement of Policy H1 is satisfied. 7.5 On larger new housing developments Policy H6 seeks at least 50% of units to be 1 and 2 bedroom properties. In this case all 32 apartments proposed are small units of accommodation and Policy H6 is therefore complied with.

7.6 Policy H11 deals specifically with the provision of supported accommodation such as that proposed in this case. Policy H11 reads:

PROPOSALS FOR SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION SCHEMES WITHIN THE BUILT UP AREA WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED WHERE THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET:

i) THE PROPOSAL IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO FACILITIES E.G. SHOPS, PUBLIC TRANSPORT, HEALTH AND LEISURE FACILITIES

Comment:

The site is located within walking distance of the Brentwood Station, the Kings Road/Warley Hill local shops and facilities and within a short bus ride from Brentwood Town Centre.

7 ii) WHERE APPROPRIATE THE SCHEME SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INTEGRATED ACCOMMODATION TO ALLOW FOR THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT REQUIRED FOR THE CLIENT GROUP FOR WHOM THE SCHEME IS INTENDED

Comment:

The proposed development is intended to provide Category II type sheltered accommodation which provides self contained apartments aimed at occupants aged 60 years and above, enabling independent living but with access to communal facilities, security and support as required. Apartments have specific features designed to meet the particular needs elderly occupants.

iii) THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING AND AMENITY SPACE WHERE APPROPRIATE, A CONDITION WILL BE IMPOSED RESTRICTING OCCUPATION TO PERSONS REQUIRING SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION.

Comment:

The proposed amenity space and landscaping are considered to be acceptable.

7.7 With regards to density, Policy H15 of the Adopted Replacement Local Plan is relevant. The proposed scheme achieves a density of 100 dwellings per hectare. The proposed high density is therefore compliant with Policy H15, which seeks to secure a minimum of 65 dwellings per hectare in town and district centres or other locations with good public transport accessibility.

7.8 With regard to transport assessment, transport choices, highway considerations and parking, Policies CP2, CP3, T4 and T7 are relevant. The application is accompanied by a brief Transportation Statement which estimates, based on the study of 18 other similar developments elsewhere in Essex, that the development would be likely to generate less than the flow from 5 standard houses and concludes that “the development would not have a significant transport impact and so would not justify the requirement for a transport report.”

7.9 With regard to car parking, Policy T7 requires car parking in accordance with Appendix 2 of the Adopted Replacement Brentwood Local Plan. There is no specific standard set out in the Local Plan for the type of accommodation proposed. In a Planning Statement which accompanies the application, the Applicant provides details of car ownership for a number of other sites in Essex. Based on the Applicant’s experience elsewhere, the Applicant regards the provision of 14 car parking spaces adequate to serve the 32 dwellings proposed. The Highway officer advises, “no objection raised given the location, government policy in PPG 3 & 13 and the Highway Authority, Essex County Council, parking

8 standards”. Therefore, it is considered that the requirement of Policy T7 is satisfied.

7.10 Policy CP1 seeks to prevent any unacceptable loss of amenity to existing occupiers caused by new development. The proposed three storey building is to be sited at the rear of existing small two storey dwellings fronting Junction Road. The building is sited to ensure that the Council’s normal eye to eye distance of 35m is met or for the most part exceeded. However, the proposed building itself is only situated some 14m to 16.5m from the site boundary. The normal eye to eye distance is achieved due to the length of the gardens of adjoining properties. Having regard to the distance achieved and the mature landscaping along the site boundaries it is not considered that criticism of the proposed scheme on grounds of overlooking of adjoining properties in Junction Road could be substantiated.

7.11 The normal eye-to-eye distance of 35m is not achieved between the proposed building and 8 to 19 Cluff Court adjoining. However, the block containing 8 to 19 Cluff Court is some 2m above the level of the site and is situated only some 15-16m from the common boundary. The windows on the flank of the proposed building facing towards 8 to 19 Cluff Court are, on the ground floor, 2 secondary lounge windows and 2 kitchen windows. Above, on the first and second floors, 2 kitchen windows are proposed on each floor. Having regard to the changes in levels, the mature landscaping along the site boundary and the ability to impose a condition requiring the lower portion of the kitchen windows to be obscure glazed, it is not considered that refusal of the proposed scheme on grounds of overlooking of adjoining properties in Cluff Court could be substantiated.

7.12 The revisions to the application propose a reduction in the ground floor level of the building by 1050mm. The revised plans also reduce the roof pitch which reduces the ridge height by a further 480mm. In total the proposed building height is reduced by 1.53m.

7.13 The changes in levels, coupled with the height of the proposed new building would mean that the second floor eaves height would be up to 1.3m above the eaves height of adjoining dwellings in Junction Road. The proposed new building would have a ridge height of 9.2m above existing ground level. The three storey element of the proposed new building measures some 44.8m. It is considered that the amendment to the scheme should make a significant difference to the impact of the building as viewed from adjacent properties.

9 7.14 Advice with regard to trees is that the there is an Ash and Birch that would be adversely affected by the proposed excavation. There is also a row of Leylandii that could be adversely affected. The trees form a natural screen between the proposed development and the existing properties, and their loss would be contrary to Policy C7 of the Local Plan. In the light of this consideration it is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED.

8.0 Recommendation

REFUSE

1. The proposed excavation to reduce the level of the site will have an adverse impact on the trees along the eastern boundary of the site. The ash and birch trees make a significant positive contribution to the visual amenities of the locality, whilst the Leylandii constitutes an important natural screen between the proposed development and the properties in Junction Road. Their loss would be detrimental to the amenity and outlook of neighbouring residents, and harmful to the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Policies C7 and CP1 of the Adopted Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.

Informative

1. Inf. 12 Policies related to refusal.

DECIDED:

5. 2 HUTTON HALL COTTAGES HUTTON VILLAGE HUTTON BRENTWOOD CM13 1RX INSERTION OF FIRST FLOOR WINDOW OF EXTENSION TO SERVE BEDROOM - AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 6 OF PLANNING PERMISSION BRW/890/98 (APPLICATION NO: BRW/532/2006)

SITE PLAN ATTACHED Appendix 2

Ward: Hutton East Zoning: Metropolitan Green Belt Parish: Policies: C18 CP1 GB1 GB2 GB6

(i) Consideration of this application was deferred at previous meetings to enable Building Surveyors to assess an Engineer’s Report.

(ii) Set out below is a copy of the report made to the Committee Meeting held on 8.11.2006.

1.0 Proposals

x Insertion of first floor window to side of extension to enable use of roof space as bedroom - amendment to condition 6 of Planning Permission reference BRW/890/98.

2.0 Relevant History

x BRW/890/98: Demolition of existing garage and erection of single storey extension at the side and detached double garage - Approved x BRW/223/2002: Continued use of part of first floor for habitable purposes and retention of first floor flank window (Amendment to Plans approved under reference BRW/890/98) - Refused x ENF/BRW/204/99: Enforcement Notice issued in respect of non- compliance with conditions 6 and 8 of Planning Permission BRW/890/98, requiring the removal of the first floor window in the side extension - Appeal dismissed

3.0 Consultation Responses

x Highways: No objections. x County Planner (Historic Buildings and Conservation): No objection subject to condition that the new window matches those existing.

4.0 Neighbour Responses

x None.

11 5.0 Summary of Issues

x Planning Permission was granted in 1999 for the erection of a single storey extension which increased the total habitable floor space of the dwelling by 37sq.m, Reference BRW/890/98. Condition 6 required that no alterations including the enlargement of or provision of additional window opening shall be made to the fenestration pattern. Condition 8 required the development to be carried out and retained in the form approved. x A bedroom was subsequently formed within the roof space of that extension, served by a first floor flank window. This created 21.6sq.m of additional habitable floor space. An application for the retention of this was subsequently refused, reference BRW/223/2002. x An appeal against the subsequent Enforcement Notice, requiring the removal of the flank window was dismissed. In dismissing the appeal the Inspector stated, inter alia, "There can be little doubt that if this further bedroom had been part of the submitted scheme, permission would have been refused, as being in conflict with policy GB7. Of course, the fact that the development has been carried out is no reason for taking a different view. I cannot avoid the conclusion that the extension as built is inappropriate development within the Green Belt. I appreciate that, to all intents and purposes, the present building is physically no more harmful to the openness of the Green Belt than it would have been without the window and the extra room. But the reasons behind policy GB7 go further than just the exterior form of the building produced....In this case, the extension as built has increased the number of bedrooms in the cottage, and clearly such an alteration would be likely to have implications in terms of more occupants and more activity. In any event, to override the policy in a case like this, without there being very special reasons, would send the wrong message - that the Council's floor space limit could be overcome simply by converting roof areas of permitted extensions into further accommodation. That would undermine the established aims and objectives of Green Belt policy." In assessing whether there are some very special circumstances in this case, sufficient to outweigh the inappropriateness of this development, the Inspector considered, inter alia, "I appreciate that the present occupiers were not responsible for this transgression, which apparently took place before they purchased the property. Also, having been inside the property, I can appreciate the consequences for this particular household if the result were to be the loss of this bedroom. But I do not see these two considerations as being sufficiently compelling reasons for overriding the policy. ..I find that there are no very special circumstances here which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt." x The Enforcement Notice was subsequently complied with by the removal of the window. x The current application seeks to reinstate that window. The proposed bedroom within the roof space to be served by that window is now shown to be reduced to a habitable floor space of 14.5sq.m, compared with the 21.6sq.m. previously shown and actually created.

12 However, not only is the location of the internal partitions shown rather arbitrary and virtually impossible to enforce, the floor space created remains in excess of that permitted by Policy GB6 (formerly GB7) and therefore continues to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as confirmed by the previous appeal inspector. x It is considered that the proposal therefore continues to fail compliance with Policies GB1 and GB6. Furthermore, no very special circumstances are apparent that would justify a different conclusion from that reached on appeal.

6.0 Recommendation

REFUSE

1. The site lies outside the areas allocated for development in the Adopted Replacement Brentwood Local Plan and, furthermore, forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Adopted Replacement Brentwood Local Plan indicates, inter-alia, that in order to achieve the objectives of the Green Belt, the Council will seek to restrict new development within such areas. In pursuance of these objectives, it is the Council’s policy to restrict in size proposals to extend dwellings situated within the Green Belt. Policy GB6 of the Adopted Replacement Brentwood Local Plan states, inter-alia, that the total size of dwellings as extended will not normally exceed the original habitable floor space by more than 37 sq.m. Thus this proposal, which would result in an overall increase of 51.5 sq.m. in the habitable floor area of the original dwelling, would be unacceptable.

Informatives

1. I12 - Policies related to refusal.

DECIDED:

6. REAR OF 45 47 & 49 HANGING HILL LANE HUTTON BRENTWOOD CM13 2HS ERECTION OF THREE DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH GARAGING (APPLICATION NO: BRW/849/2006)

SITE PLAN ATTACHED Appendix 3

Ward: Hutton South Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 H15 H21

This application was referred by Cllr Kenny from Weekly Report No. 1257 for consideration by the Committee. Set out below is the extract from the appropriate Weekly Report.

1.0 Proposals

x The application proposes the erection of three detached 3-bedroom chalet bungalows within the rear garden areas of 45, 47 and 49 Hanging Hill Lane with access from the end of the cul-de-sac of Lilian Crescent. x Plot 1: L-shaped building incorporating a car port, measuring 10.5m wide x 16.6m deep x 6.9m high (maximum dimensions); dormer windows to front and one side; Roof light to bedroom 2; 126sq.m. garden area; x Plot 2: L-shaped building incorporating a double length garage measuring 12.1m wide x maximum 15.75m deep x 6.8m high; dormer windows to front and rear; 71.3sq.m. garden area; x Plot 3: L-shaped building incorporating a double garage measuring 15.8m wide x 10.1m deep x 6.5m high (maximum dimensions); dormer windows to front, rear and one side; 108sq.m. garden area

2.0 Relevant History

x BRW/276/92 (on rear gardens of 45-47 Hanging Hill Lane only): 2 detached bungalows with access from Lilian Crescent – Refused on grounds of the development being out of character in the locality and overlooking. x BRW/477/92 (rear gardens of 45-47 Hanging Hill Lane only): 2 detached bungalows with access from Lilian Crescent – Refused on the grounds of the development being out of character in the locality, overlooking and the loss of a preserved tree; Appeal dismissed

14 x BRW/1253/2003: Erection of three detached dwellings – Refused on the grounds of the development being cramped and out of character with the area and loss of privacy to existing and future residents. x BRW/298/2004: Erection of three detached chalet bungalows with garaging – Refused on the grounds of the development being cramped and out of character in the street scene and detrimental to the amenities of the locality. An appeal against that decision was dismissed. x BRW/1245/2004: Erection of three detached chalet bungalows with garaging – Refused on grounds that the dwellings, by reason of their size, style and siting, would appear cramped and out of character in the street scene, to the detriment of the character and amenities of the locality. x BRW/334/06: Erection of three detached chalet bungalows with garaging. Refused on the grounds that the fenestration pattern of the dwelling proposed on plot 1 is such that the first floor rear bedroom window would give rise to overlooking of the rear garden areas of the neighbouring properties in Hanging Hill Lane. An appeal against the decision has been lodged.

3.0 Consultation Responses

x Highways: The proposed access arrangement to and from the garage for plot No. 2 would be difficult, given the proximity and orientation of the garage door to the turning area and access road from Lillian Crescent. However, given government policy in PPG3 & 13 and the Highway Authority, Essex County Council, parking standards, it would be difficult to substantiate an objection on these grounds. It is recommended a condition be attached to any approval requiring the proposed accesses to be constructed in accordance with the terms, conditions and specification of the Highways Authority, Essex County Council.

4.0 Neighbour Responses

x Six letters (including one from the Brindles Wood Residents’ Association), have been received raising objections on the following grounds: x Additional traffic, causing highways hazards x Style of houses is out of keeping with existing housing in the area x Overdevelopment of the site x Insufficient parking provided leading to more on-street parking x Effect on trees and wildlife x Appeal Inspector’s views are ill informed and contrary to those of residents

15 5.0 Summary of Issues

x The site lies within a residentially allocated area and forms part of the rear gardens of properties fronting onto Hanging Hill Lane. Access would however be gained from the end of the cul-de-sac of Lilian Crescent. x The application follows four previous refusals of similar proposals under reference BRW/1253/2003, BRW/298/2004, BRW/1245/2004, and BRW/334/2006. Application Reference BRW/298/2004 was subsequently dismissed on appeal. The Inspector considered the main issues to be: (a) The effect of the size, style and siting of the proposed dwellings on the character and appearance of Lilian Crescent (b) The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing and future residents of the development and Lilian Crescent. x In terms of siting, size and style the Appeal Inspector stated, inter alia, “Although higher and purpose built the appeal dwellings, which would also have dormers, would reflect some of the style and character of the existing buildings. In my view, although front dormers are not typical of the existing dwellings, their existence on these parts of the appeal dwelling would improve their appearance and add to interest and diversity in this street scene. The appeal dwellings would be larger than the existing individual bungalows but slightly smaller than the pairs of bungalows. As they would be seen in the context of these buildings rather than the individual bungalows I consider that their size would relate to the existing street scene. Being located across the head of the crescent and not in line with the existing development the proposed dwellings would not be seen in the same plane as the existing bungalows and need not in my view reflect the precise rhythm of that development. Nevertheless with the exception of the gap between plots two and three the separation distances between the proposed dwellings and the existing would be larger than the gaps between most of the existing buildings. I do not therefore consider that the siting of the proposed dwellings would appear cramped in their relationship with the existing street scene. I conclude on this issue that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the visual amenity of Lilian Crescent and that it would have a positive effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.” x When considering the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing and future residents the Inspector commented that “the proposal includes windows to habitable rooms that would be facing other windows within the development at a distance of less than ten metres. There would also be bedroom windows in unit 2 facing the existing landing window in No. 17 Lilian Crescent and overlooking its front entrance. In my view these relationships do not meet appropriate privacy standards for modern development and would compromise the living conditions of the existing residents of No. 17 Lilian Crescent and future residents of this and the appeal properties. This suggests to me that in this context the proposed layout is unsatisfactory….I do not consider it desirable for windows in habitable rooms to be obscure

16 glazed. I therefore conclude on this issue that, whilst the use of obscure glazing could protect the living conditions at No. 17 Lilian Crescent, the proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the living conditions for future residents of the development.” The Inspector did not consider the privacy of No. 16 Lilian Crescent to be harmed. x The previous application (BRW/334/2006) sought to address the Appeal Inspector’s concerns, as set above, by: (i) Increasing the distance between the side of Plot 1 and the front of Plot 2 from 8m to 9m (ii) Re-arranging the first floor layout of Plot 1 with the effect that the side facing dormer window facing the front of Plot 2 serves a landing rather than a bedroom and can therefore be fitted with obscure glass. (iii) Deleting the side facing dormer window previously facing the landing window of No. 17 Lilian Crescent. The effect of the marginal re-siting of plot 2 was a reduction in the size of its private garden area from 80.75sq.m to 71.25sq.m. A further amendment is the change of one ground floor bedroom to a dining room, reducing the dwelling from 3 to 2 bedrooms. x On the basis of the amendments made, the relationship of habitable rooms between the proposed new buildings is such that overlooking is now unlikely to occur, subject to the fitting of obscure glazing. Furthermore, residents of No. 17 are now also not likely to be affected by any first floor side-facing windows. x In terms of the effect on private amenity space, plot 2 would have less than the minimum 75 sq.m. normally required for a 2-bedroom dwelling. It would also be virtually impossible to prevent what is now identified as a dining room to be converted to a third bedroom for which a private garden area of 100 sq.m. would be required. x However, it would be possible to remove permitted development rights in respect of extensions which would normally enable future residents to reduce the size of their garden areas without the Council’s permission. In this case, given the relatively “tight” nature of the proposed development, this would be an appropriate course of action in any event. x With regard to other objections raised by residents during the appeal referred to above concerning highway safety issues and drainage difficulties, the Inspector considered that the addition of three dwellings to the catchment using the junction of Sylvia Avenue with Hanging Hill Lane would generate minimal change to the use of this junction. Furthermore, in the absence of an objection from the appropriate body or specific evidence in support [of drainage problems] he could not attach significant weight to this claim. x In considering the previous application Members felt that whilst the scheme had been designed to avoid mutual overlooking between the proposed dwellings the window to bedroom 2 of Plot 1 would give rise to overlooking of the rear garden to neighbouring properties in Hanging Hill Lane. x The plans have been amended to replace a dormer window with a roof light, the cill of which will be set above eye level. This will therefore prevent any overlooking of neighbouring property.

17 x The concerns regarding overlooking have been addressed and it is considered therefore that, subject to conditions, Policies CP1, H15 and H21 are met and a refusal could not be substantiated.

6.0 Recommendation

APPROVE

1. T1 - Standard time 2. L2 - Landscaping - Full permission where scheme not submitted 3. W2 - Screen walling/fencing - after completion, full or outline 4. H18 - Garaging of private cars 5. M1 - Details of materials and samples 6. M7 - Obscure glazing 7. M9 - High level windows 8. M10 - Retention of window pattern 9. M22 - Disabled access 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enacting Order, no extensions whatsoever shall be erected to the dwellings hereby approved. 11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enacting Order, no additional dormer windows or roof lights shall be installed or any other additions or alterations made to the shape of the roof of the dwellings hereby approved. 12. (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enacting Order, no development falling within Class E of Part One of the Second Schedule of that Order shall be carried out within the gardens of the dwelling hereby approved. 13. R14 - Site levels to be submitted 14. M12 - Retention of development as permitted

Reasons:

10. To ensure the retention of adequate private amenity space for the future occupants of the dwellings. 11. In the interest of visual amenity and privacy. 12. To ensure the retention of adequate private amenity space for the future occupants of the dwellings.

18 Informatives

1) I11 - Policies related to approval 2) The Applicant is advised that the proposed vehicular accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the terms, conditions and specification of the Highway Authority, Essex County Council who shall be contacted prior to the commencement of any works. 3) I6 - Lifetime Homes 4) I8 - Accordance with approved plans

DECIDED:

7. 69 THE MEADOWS INGRAVE BRENTWOOD CM13 3RW TWO STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, REAR DORMER WINDOWS AND ENLARGEMENT OF FRONT DORMER WINDOW (AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING PERMISSION APPROVED AT APPEAL REF: BRW/477/2005 COMPRISING INCREASED DEPTH OF REAR EXTENSIONS, INCREASED HEIGHT AND DEPTH OF REAR FACING DORMER WINDOW, ADDITIONAL WINDOW TO REAR FACING DORMER, ADDITIONAL WINDOWS TO PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, ADDITIONAL WINDOW TO FLANK ELEVATION ADJOINING No. 71 AND ENLARGED WINDOW TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AT THE REAR) (APPLICATION NO: BRW/873/2006)

SITE PLAN ATTACHED Appendix 4

Ward: Herongate, Ingrave & Zoning: Residential West Horndon Parish: Herongate & Ingrave Parish Policies: CP1 H21 Council

This application was referred by Herongate & Ingrave Parish Council from Weekly Report No. 1259 for consideration by the Committee. Set out below is the extract from the appropriate Weekly Report.

1.0 Proposals

x Amendments to planning permission reference BRW/477/2005 approved at appeal comprising: { Increase in depth of rear extensions by 0.3m. { Increase in height and depth of rear facing dormer { Additional window to rear facing dormer window. { Additional windows to proposed single storey rear extension { Additional window to flank elevation adjoining No. 71 { Enlarged window to first floor extension at the rear

2.0 Relevant History

x BRW/320/2005: Two storey side extension, enlargement of front dormer window and two storey front extension, two storey rear extension and construction of attached swimming pool building to rear - Withdrawn by Applicant. x BRW/477/2005: Two storey side and rear extensions, single storey rear extension, rear dormer windows and enlargement of front dormer window - Refused on the basis the proposed two storey side extension and front dormer window would, by reason of their size, siting, scale, mass and design, result in an imbalance in this pair of semi-detached dwellings and, in addition the development would appear cramped and out of character with the street scene to the

20 detriment of the visual amenities of the area. This application was Allowed at Appeal. x BRW/1106/2005: Enlargement of front dormer window, single storey side and rear extensions, two storey rear extension and rear dormer windows - Refused on the basis that the proposed first floor extension by reason of its size, scale, mass and design was poorly related to the existing property and that the proposed front dormer window by reason of its size and design would result in an imbalance in the pair of semi-detached properties to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.

3.0 Consultation Responses

x Parish Council: No objections. x Highways: No objections.

4.0 Neighbour Responses

x Three letters have been received (two from the same address and are identical) objecting on the basis, inter alia, that the proposed extension would: x set a precedent for future extensions in the area x result in a terraced appearance in the street scene x result in a loss of amenity and decrease in privacy to adjoining occupiers x result in a decrease in value to neighbouring properties x be deeper than those approved at appeal x that the re-organisation of the first floor rooms would result in overlooking from a side facing dormer x be an overdevelopment of the site x be an overdevelopment of a semi-detached house

5.0 Summary of Issues

x The principle of the extensions and the extensions to the dormer windows was approved at Appeal. This application therefore seeks changes to the approved scheme. An objection to the overall design of the scheme could not therefore be substantiated in this instance. x The enlarged two storey rear extension complies with the 45 degree rule and is located in excess of 1.0m from the side boundaries. x It is not considered that the increase in depth of the two storey rear extension would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers. x It is considered that the enlarged rear dormer window continues to satisfy the relevant criteria of Policy H21. x It is not considered that the revised fenestration pattern to the ground floor rear elevation or the rear facing dormer window would have a detrimental impact on the privacy or amenity of adjoining occupiers.

21 x The reorganisation of the internal layout results in a bedroom to the rear with a window in the side dormer facing onto No. 67 The Meadows. Subject to the imposition of an obscure glazing condition it is not considered that this window would have a detrimental impact on adjoining occupiers. x The proposed flank window to the side facing No. 71 also serves a bedroom. Subject to an obscure glazing condition, it is not considered that this window would have a detrimental impact on the privacy of adjoining occupiers. x In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the relevant criteria of Policy CP1.

6.0 Recommendation

APPROVE

1. T1 - Standard time 2. M2 - Matching materials 3. M6 - Obscure glazing and fixed shut 4. M7 - Obscure glazing 5. M10 - Retention of window pattern 6. M12 - Retention of development as permitted

Informatives

1. I11 - Policies related to approval 2. I8 - Accordance with approved plans

DECIDED:

8. 49 RAYLEIGH ROAD HUTTON BRENTWOOD CM13 1AJ FELL ONE CEDAR TREE SUBJECT TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER No. 27 OF 1986 (APPLICATION NO: TPO/BRW/101/2006)

SITE PLAN ATTACHED Appendix 5

Ward: Hutton Central Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: C8

This application was referred by Cllr Braid from Weekly Report No. 1258 for consideration by the Committee. Set out below is the extract from the appropriate Weekly Report.

1.0 Proposals

x Fell one Cedar tree located to the front of the property.

2.0 Relevant History

x TPO/BRW/28/1996: Crown thin by 15% one Cedar tree: Approved x TPO/BRW/57/2003: Crown lift, crown thin and crown reduce by 30% one Cedar tree: Approved

3.0 Consultation Responses

x HoBSS: It is apparent that the property has suffered differential foundation movement from the cracking patterns observed on site. The crack monitoring records upward movements taking place, which occurs when the soils recover moisture which has previously been removed by vegetation. The point at which the damage has occurred is the closest to the Cedar. The subsoil has depleted moisture content at 500mm to at least 1.0m below ground level, and live cedar roots have been recovered from this area. It is therefore apparent that the cedar has caused the damage to the house. x The house should be underpinned to depths which will remain unaffected by the current and future water demands of the tree, or the tree should be removed having regards to any potential adverse heave effects to both the structures and services adjoining. Tree management measures are likely to prove ineffective in this case due to the relationship between the tree and the dwelling, and the depths to which the soil may have been effected x Hutton Preservation Society: Pruning should be considered in these cases as there is an increasing demand for trees to be removed when other factors could be involved. Heave is also an factor that should be taken into consideration x Arboriculturalist: The tree is a healthy specimen that is growing behind a row of mature preserved trees and it is difficult to view it from the

23 road. Its removal would not adversely affect the amenities of the area. There are no arboricultural reasons to remove the tree

4.0 Neighbour Responses

x None

5.0 Summary of Issues

x Notwithstanding the comments of the Council's arboriculturalist, in light of the findings of HoBSS it is considered that the proposed works are justified. x It is considered that a refusal of consent would be difficult to substantiate in this instance

6.0 Recommendation

APPROVE

1) TR4 - Replacement tree to be planted

Informatives

1) I11 - Policies related to approval

DECIDED:

9. SERVICE PLAN

PURPOSE OF To seek members approval of draft Service Plan for Planning REPORT Services. CORPORATE Value for Money Core Value - “The Council will provide high OBJECTIVES quality, efficient and value for money services and will seek continuous improvement in service delivery to meet the needs of the Community.” IMPLICATIONS x Legal The Council produces Service Plans as part of its approach to the CPA regime. x Finance The funding of the Service Plans is dealt with through the annual budget process. x Staff The staffing issues for each element of Planning Services Directorate are set out in the Service Plan. x Risk Failure to adopt the annual Service Plan will compromise the Management effectiveness of Planning Services and the annual budget setting process. x Asset There are no additional Assess Management implications. Management x Health & The operation of Planning Services complies with all Safety requirements of the Council’s Health and Safety Policy. x Diversity There are no additional diversity implications. ACTION To approve the draft Service Plan in respect of Planning REQUIRED Services.

As Members will be aware, as part of the Corporate approach to the Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime, individual Service Plans are produced, which provide the essential links at service level with the Council’s overall Mission and Strategic Objectives as set out in the Corporate Strategic Plan.

The Service Plans are also working documents for staff, providing a clearly defined statement of which the Council as a whole and its individual services re trying to achieve.

The various Plans are reviewed and updated on a regular basis and the relevant draft Service Plan for Planning Services has been placed on deposit in the Members’ Room.

RECOMMENDED that the Service Plan for Planning Services be approved.

DECIDED:

25 10. URGENT BUSINESS

Any other items which the Chairman of the Committee decides are urgent. (Any items raised containing “exempt information” may be considered under Part Two of the Agenda.)

PART TWO

(There are no items known which, in the opinion of the CE&TC, will be considered with the public excluded from the meeting. In terms of any issues raised containing ‘exempt information’ the Committee may decide to exclude the public by passing the necessary resolution.)

Town Hall Brentwood Essex December 2006

26 APPENDIX 6

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (AS AMENDED)

COMMITTEE: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

DATE: WEDNESDAY 6 DECEMBER 2006

PLANNING AGENDA ITEMS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS FILE REF/DIR

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 8.11.2006

Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8.11.2006.

3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MATTERS

4. SITE OF FORMER HOLLY TREES PRIMARY SCHOOL AND NO. 31 JUNCTION ROAD BRENTWOOD CM14 5JH DEMOLITION OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE TO PROVIDE CATEGORY II TYPE SHELTERED ACCOMMODATION COMPRISING THE ERECTION OF A TWO AND THREE STOREY BUILDING CONTAINING 23 NO. ONE BEDROOM FLATS AND 9 NO. TWO BEDROOM FLATS, RESIDENT’S LOUNGE, GUEST ACCOMMODATION, OFFICE AND KITCHEN TOGETHER WITH THE REMOVAL OF A TWO STOREY ELEMENT FROM THE SIDE OF 31 JUNCTION ROAD FORMATION OF WIDENED ACCESS ROAD FROM JUNCTION ROAD AND THE PROVISION OF 14 CAR PARKING SPACES (APPLICATION NO: BRW/484/2006)

1. Application form and plans - BRW/484/2006 CE&TC 2. Consultation replies from: 1. Highways dated 27.6.2006 & 9.8.2006. 2. Essex County Fire & Rescue Service. 3. Six letters of objection. 4. Five letters of representation.

1 5. 2 HUTTON HALL COTTAGES HUTTON VILLAGE HUTTON BRENTWOOD CM13 1RX INSERTION OF FIRST FLOOR WINDOW OF EXTENSION TO SERVE BEDROOM - AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 6 OF PLANNING PERMISSION BRW/890/98 (APPLICATION NO: BRW/532/2006)

1. Application form and plans - BRW/532/2006. CE&TC 2. Consultation replies from: 1. Highways dated 14.6.2006. 2. ECC Historic Buildings & Conservation dated 16.6.2006.

6. REAR OF 45 47 & 49 HANGING HILL LANE HUTTON BRENTWOOD CM13 2HS ERECTION OF THREE DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH GARAGING (APPLICATION NO: BRW/849/2006)

1. Application form and plans - BRW/849/2006. CE&TC 2. Consultation replies from: 3. Six letters of objection.

1. Application form and plans - BRW/873/2006. CE&TC 2. Consultation replies from: 1. Highways dated 28.9.2006. 2. Herongate & Ingrave Parish Council. 3. Three letters of objection.

8. 49 RAYLEIGH ROAD HUTTON BRENTWOOD CM13 1AJ FELL ONE CEDAR TREE SUBJECT TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER No. 27 OF 1986 (APPLICATION NO: TPO/BRW/101/2006)

1. Application form and plans - TPO/BRW/10/2006. CE&TC 2. Consultation replies from: 3. One letter of representation.

2 9. SERVICE PLAN

10. URGENT BUSINESS

Chief Executive & Town Clerk (Proper Officer for the purposes of Part VA of the Act)

Town Hall Brentwood Essex December 2006