Southend-On-Sea Borough Council Item

Agenda Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Item

Report of the Director of Technical & Environmental Services to Development Control Committee On 17th September 2003

Report prepared by : Planning Officers

Report on Planning Applications An Open Agenda Item

INTRODUCTION

(i) Recommendations in capitals at the end of each report are those of the Director of Technical and Environmental Services, are not the decision of the Committee and are subject to Member consideration

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

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

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

AW - Anglia Water plc BLP - Borough Local Plan CAA - Civil Aviation Authority DEFRA - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DELL - Director of Education & Lifelong Learning DLCAS - Director of Leisure Culture & Amenity Services DSC - Director of Social Care DTLR - Department of Transport Local Government & The Regions EA - Environment Agency EPOA - Essex Planning Officers Association ESRSP - Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan ODPM - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PPG - Planning Policy Guidance Note

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 1 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL CONTENTS

SOS/02/00540/FUL 16a Preston Road, Westcliff-on-Sea 3

SOS/03/00632/FUL 41 Alexandra Street, Southend on Sea 5

SOS/03/01114/FUL 41 Alexandra Street, Southend on Sea 10

SOS/03/00872/FUL 33-35 Park Road, Westcliff on Sea 12

SOS/03/00884/FUL Part of Fossetts Farm Fronting Fossetts Way 14

SOS/03/00964/FUL 15 Scratton Road, Southend on Sea 26

SOS/03/01056/FUL Land adjacent 32 Fernleigh Drive, Leigh on Sea 29

SOS/03/01068/FUL 153 Southbourne Grove, Westcliff-on-Sea 32

SOS/03/01077/FUL Sarah Moore Public House, 57-59 Elm Road, Leigh-on-Sea 35

SOS/03/01079/BC4 Chalkwell Park, Chalkwell Avenue, Westcliff on Sea 38

SOS/03/01094/FUL Cathodean Works, 2-8 Bircham Road, Southend-on-Sea 39

SOS/03/01097/FUL 70 Canewdon Road, Westcliff on Sea 43

SOS/03/01106/FUL Southend High School for Boys, Prittlewell Chase, Westcliff-on-Sea 46

SOS/03/01119/BC4 Victoria Circus, High Street, Southend-on-Sea 51

SOS/03/01125/FUL 33 Ambleside Drive, Southend on Sea 53

SOS/03/01160/BC3 Pantile House, Pantile Avenue, Southend-on-Sea 55

SOS/03/01163/FUL 26 Fernleigh Drive, Leigh on Sea 58

PRE-MEETING SITE VISITS

SOS/03/01046/FUL 99 Tyrone Road, Southend-on-Sea SV2

SOS/03/01124/FUL Sewage Pumping Station, Burnaby Road, Southend-on-Sea SV6

SOS/03/01142/FUL 29 Chadacre Road, Southend-on-Sea SV9

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

Fairview House, 14 Fairview Drive, Westcliff-on-Sea ENF1

388 and 390 Westborough Road, Westcliff-on-Sea ENF3

21 Drake Road, Westcliff-on-Sea ENF5

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 2 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Milton Ward

SOS/02/00540/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

CONVERT FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR MAISONETTE INTO TWO SELF-CONTAINED FLATS (AMENDED PROPOSAL)

16a Preston Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 7NB

Regis Group plc ACS Designs

1. The Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is being sought to convert the first floor and roofspace maisonette accommodation into two self-contained flats. The upper flat would have a bathroom on the first floor with living accommodation and a bedroom on the second floor. The remainder of the first floor would form a two bedroom flat with living space, a kitchen and a bathroom.

1.2. The front garden of the dwelling is shown to be retained.

2. Location and Description

2.1. The application relates to a two storey semi detached Victorian property located on the east side of Preston Road, south of the junction with Canewdon Road.

2.2. The property is currently divided into one flat on the ground floor and a vacant maisonette on the upper two floors. There are a number of properties converted into flats/HMOs in this road and only 1, 3, 9, 15 and 21 opposite and 6 and 14 on this side of the street remain in occupation as single family dwellings.

2.3. The road suffers from severe parking stress, exacerbated by the proximity to the railway station and Hamlet Court Road shopping facilities.

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies: BE1 – Urban Intensification, H1 – Distribution of Housing Provision, H2 - Housing Development - The Sequential Approach, H3 – Location of Residential Development, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2. BLP Policies: H1 (Housing Provision), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats), T11 (Parking Standards), Appendix 4 (Design and Layout Guidelines for Housing), Appendix 8 (Car Parking Standards).

3.3. EPOA Vehicle Parking Standards (2001).

3.4. PPG 3 (Housing); PPG 13 (Transport).

4. Planning History

4.1. At 16/18 1966 – approval of erection of a three storey block of six flats and eight garages at rear (0/44/66).

4.2. At 16 1966 – approval of vehicular access (D/563/66).

4.3. At 16 1969 – approval of conversion of house into two self-contained flats (D/336/69).

4.4. At 16/18 1971 – approval of double garage at rear (D/140/71).

4.5. At 18a next door July 2000 – approval of conversion of first floor and roof space maisonette into two self-contained flats and lay out three parking spaces at rear (SOS/00/00602/FUL).

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 3 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.6. At 16a - SOS/02/00540/FUL: Planning permission refused to convert first and second floor maisonette into two self-contained flats, lay out one parking space to front and form vehicular access onto Preston Road (2002); reason:- The proposed conversion of the maisonette into two self-contained flats would, through creating an additional dwelling, further intensify the use of the property such as to lead to the overdevelopment of this part of the street and further exacerbate parking stress to the detriment of the character of the residential street and contrary to Policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan and Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan. 4.7. A subsequent appeal against this decision was dismissed.

5. Internal Consultation

5.1. Environmental Health Comment – awaited.

6. Publicity

6.1. Neighbour notification – two objections.  Increased multiple occupation in this locality  Poor management and maintenance  Dimensions of attic rooms not suitable for accommodation  Bathroom isolated on lower floor  Exacerbate parking situation  Deterioration of the environment  Inadequate bins/refuse leads to foxes and rats  Tenants have poor regard for tidiness of area  First floor bathroom too compact 7. Appraisal

7.1. Other than the omission of the vehicular access and forecourt parking space, the proposal the subject of this application replicates in all respects that refused under application SOS/02/00540/FUL. In determining the appeal against the Council’s reason for refusal, however, the Inspector concluded that there would be no harm to the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining/neighbouring occupiers from the subdivision to form an additional flat. Rather, he found the provision of an off-street parking space associated with the proposal to be a fallacy and one that would necessitate alterations that would harm the streetscene:- “The provision of a parking space and turning space within the appeal site, with its attendant pavement crossing, would result in the loss of at least one on-street parking space such that there would be no net increase in overall parking provision. In view of the apparent scale of the present street parking problem in the vicinity, the creation of one additional residential unit would not, in my judgement, materially worsen the situation. Furthermore, in order to provide the off-street parking space proposed it would be necessary to demolish a substantial part, at least, of the front boundary wall, and would result in a significant net reduction in the extent of the planting that currently contributes to the townscape of the area. This would conflict with LP Policy C14 and I accordingly find that the creation of an on-site parking and turning area would adversely affect the character of the street, contrary to the objectives of Policy H5” (paragraph 8). 7.2. It is worth noting that the Inspector also found that, in view of the location circumstances of the site, the requirement to provide off-street parking in that case conflicted with Central Government advice at PPG 13.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 4 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 7.3. The subject application has addressed the only reason for dismissing the appeal raised by the Inspector, relating to the loss of the existing front garden. The Inspector found against the Council in respect of the previous reason for refusal. It is considered that conditions relating to refuse storage and sound insulation should adequately address some of the concerns raised by residents in respect of residential amenity and character. Subject to these provisions and in all other respects the proposal is, as previously reported, considered to be acceptable.

8 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 Start within five years (C001) 02 Sound insulation between flats to be carried out prior to occupation 03 Details of refuse storage to be submitted for approval and implemented prior to first occupation

Milton Ward

SOS/03/00632/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

REDEVELOP SITE COMPRISING FOUR STOREY BLOCK OF 16 FLATS, THREE 3 STOREY TERRACED DWELLINGHOUSES, LAY OUT AMENITY AREAS AND EIGHT PARKING SPACES, ERECT GROUND FLOOR INFILL EXTENSION TO FORM GROUND FLOOR RETAIL UNIT (CLASS A1) FRONTING ALEXANDRA STREET

41 Alexandra Street, Southend on Sea

Shout Properties Dedman Planning Services

Consideration of this application was deferred at the meeting on 23rd July,2003, principally to seek revised plans and clarify site boundaries and access issues. The application should now also be read with SOS/03/01114/FUL.

1. The Proposal Site Area Gross (Net) 0.1088h(net) 0.1099h (gross) Height Four storeys 12.2m (13.6m including lift housing) Number of Units 8 x 1 bed 8 x 2 bed 2 x 3 bed 1 x 4 bed Total 19 dwellings Parking 8 spaces (42%) Cycle Parking Provided, numbers not indicated Amenity Space 160sqm for the flats (10m² per unit) Between 50 and 50m² per dwellinghouse Density 174 dwellings per hectare 70 per acre 1.1. The application proposes redevelopment of the site which was previously in use as a car wash. Most of the buildings on site have now been demolished. It is proposed to erect a terrace of 3, three storey houses at the southern boundary of the site, to erect a four storey block of 16 flats towards the centre of the site and to infill the existing access to the premises under 41 Alexandra Street to form a retail unit.

1.2. Each of the single dwellinghouses would have a single integral garage. A further five parking spaces and turning area would be provided to serve the flats

1.3. The flatted development is shown to be a modern, flat roofed design with a glazed central lift housing. It would consist a mixture of brick and timber cladding. Metal, timber and glazed balconies are proposed to the south and east elevations.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 5 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.4. The three terraced houses are of a modern design with a mixed flat and mono pitched aluminium coloured roof, to be brickwork with timber cladding.

1.5. It is also proposed to infil the existing vehicular access to the building from Alexandra Street to form a retail unit and to install a traditional form of shopfront.

1.6. The applicants have submitted a supporting statement, which is summarised as follows:

1.6.1. The development now proposed is considered to make better use of the site than the previously approved scheme in that it comprises high density development in a town centre location and make a more positive contribution in architectural terms, including the Alexandra Street frontage. Each flat provides a good standard of amenity with all rooms meeting BLP guidelines on minimum room sizes with good levels of daylight and outlook. `

1.6.2. EPOA Parking standards state that a maximum of one space per dwelling is appropriate in main urban areas and locations where access to public transport is good. This is such a location and is within easy walking distance of Southend Central Station and reasonable walking distance of bus and train stations. The site is accessible to a wide range of goods and services. Thus it is considered that the level of parking proposed is appropriate in this location. Any additional requirements could be met by nearby public car parks.

1.6.3. The scale of the development has been determined by that of surrounding properties and is entirely in keeping, in fact the proposed buildings are not as high as those to the north and south. The site is considered appropriate, for a modern approach, which contrasts with the surrounding development.

1.6.4. One of the key considerations in designing the development was to limit the impact on surrounding residential properties whilst achieving a high density of development. The officers report relating to outline permission SOS/01/00027/OUT stated: “…this close relationship between the buildings is a characteristic of the area generally and was accepted previously on this basis. It is inevitable that redevelopment of this site for residential purposes would result in some overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties but few properties would be directly affected in this way and it is felt that the need to make better use of town centre sites within the urban area generally in accordance with national and Structure Plan Policies and the improvement to the residential environment which would accrue form this proposal would seem to outweigh any adverse impact that the proposal might be considered to have”. The same applies to the current proposal.

1.6.5. It is considered that the proposed development enhances the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area and does not detrimentally affect the setting of the nearby locally listed buildings, or more distant listed buildings

1.6.6. PPG3 accepts more modest amenity areas to achieve high density residential development that the government now seeks. This application includes private garden areas of 60m² for each of the four bed houses and 50m² for the three bed house. The flats have a shared area of 160m² and nine of them have balconies.

1.6.7. The loss of the car wash for employment purposes is not seen to be a determining factor in this case as a new car wash facility has been built by our clients at 200 Queensway, employing 30 full and part time staff. Secondly the extent permission includes demolition of most of the car wash buildings. “

1.7. Following discussion at Committee on 23rd July the applicants have submitted further supporting information, which is summarised as follows.

1.7.1. Eight parking spaces are proposed, one per house and five other spaces. This is considered to be more than adequate in view of government advice on parking and residential density, EPOA parking standards, the highly sustainable town centre location with access to a wide range of facilities and close proximity to public transport, bus station 350m, Southend Central Railway Station 400m.

1.7.2. Application site SOS/03/0114/FUL adjoins the Council car park. Both entrances into the car park allow exit also. This arrangement is considered far preferable to the remaining option, which is to use the Alexandra Street access.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 6 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.7.3. The high density scheme is considered to be appropriate in view of government advice in PPG3. The proposed development would provide a good standard of accommodation. A sufficient level of parking is proposed.

1.7.4. The two blocks are positioned such that there are spacious areas between all surrounding blocks and between the two proposed buildings themselves. The height of the buildings also means that the buildings sit comfortably within the existing urban fabric. The southern part of the site adjoins Clifftown Conservation Area. Being a high quality development of a scale appropriate to its surroundings, it is submitted that the proposals would harm the Conservation Area or views from or into it. In fact the scheme would enhance the Conservation Area and upgrade the area in general. A contemporary approach is considered acceptable considering the very mixed character of buildings immediately surrounding the site. 2. Location and Description 2.1. 0.1 hectare site on southern side of Alexandra Street extending southwards to meet the rear gardens of properties in Royal Terrace. The application premises are located within a three storey parade of shops with office/residential accommodation above. The unit is currently open to the front with access through to a yard and previously the car wash behind. A number of substantial single storey buildings previously housed the car wash facility, although these have now largely been demolished. The site is open to public view from Alexandra Street, Royal Mews and Clifton Terrace.

2.2. Adjoining to the east is a council owned car park and garages with vehicular access from Royal mews and the two storey house, The Cottage. Adjoining to the west is the large garden area to the Naval Military Club at the western end of Royal Terrace and to the south are 12m gardens to the four storey flats and hotel premises in royal Terrace.

2.3. The Southern part of the site immediately adjoins Clifftown Conservation Area

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, HC2 – Conservation Areas, H1 – Distribution of Housing Provision, H2 - Housing Development - The Sequential Approach, H3 – Location of Residential Development, TCR1 – Strategic Hierarchy of Urban Centres, TCR3 – Town Centres, T8 – Improvements to the Primary Route Network, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C4 (Conservation Areas), H1 (Housing Provision), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H10 (Backland Development), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities), S1 (New Shopping Developments), Town Centre site

4. Planning History

4.1. July 1988 - planning permission refused to demolish part of car wash and erect terrace of 10 three storey town houses and retain commercial premises fronting Alexandra Street, on grounds of inadequate parking, inadequate road width, inadequate private amenity space, excessive site coverage, detrimental to neighbouring properties.

4.2. December 1992 – planning permission refused to demolish car wash and erect 9 three storey terraced dwellings with integral garages and parking spaces and convert 41 Alexandra Street into car valet areas, due to overdevelopment.

4.3. June 1993 – outline planning permission granted to demolish car was and erect 8 three storey terraced dwellings with integral garages and parking spaces and conversion of 41 Alexandra Street into car valet area. Permission expired in 1996 as reserved matters were not submitted.

4.4. April 2001 - outline planning permission granted to demolish car wash, erect 8 three storey terraced houses with integral garages and parking spaces – all matters were reserved for further submission. SOS/01/00027/OUT

4.5. September 2002 – planning permission refused for reserved matters application to demolish car wash erect eight three storey terraced houses with integral garages and parking spaces SOS/02/000775/RES. Refused for reasons relating to unsatisfactory design and unsatisfactory manoeuvring space.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 7 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.6. Current application SOS/03/0114/FUL – Change of use of land to form amenity space and access to proposed residential development on adjoining land which is subject to planning application SOS/03/00632/FUL. To be read concurrently with this application.

5. External Consultation

5.1. The Southend Society – No reply received.

5.2. Environment Agency – No reply received.

5.3. Anglian Water - No reply received

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Design Comment – to be reported

6.2. Highway Comment – No objections.

6.3. Environmental Health Comment – There is no objection in principle, but the site is subject to some intrusion from noise, especially due to the proximity of the Council car park, which serves a number of late night venues, and to a lesser extent from any intensification of use of the rear garden to the north and the military club. In view of this care should be taken in the design of glazing and sound insulation of the buildings. Request conditions re: Scheme of acoustic insulation to party floor of shop unit to Alexandra Street, Scheme of refuse storage, Assessment of possible site contamination. Request informative inviting applicant to liase to minimise nuisance during construction work.

7. Publicity

7.1. Press notice, site notice and neighbour notification – three objections (including one from Clifton Court Residents Association on the following grounds  Insufficient car parking provision  Residents car should not be parked in public car parks  Buildings intrusive and will result in overlooking and loss of privacy  Overshadowing  Design of building out of keeping with surrounding development and adjacent Conservation Area  Too many flats in small area  Four storeys too high  Previous planning applications have been refused due to overdevelopment  Drawing of roof line does not reflect true situation 8. Appraisal

8.1. The principle of residential development on this site has been previously accepted, thus the main issues to be taken into account are the density of development, impact on streetscene, impact on neighbours, parking provision, access, and remediation. The application falls below the threshold for affordable housing provision.

8.2. Residential development on this site has been accepted in principle. Outline planning permission was previously granted for eight dwellings, shown to be of a townhouse design, however detailed design proposals were found to be unacceptable in terms of design and vehicular access. The site is located within the town centre, adjacent to a Conservation Area, where development is high density and generally 3–4 storeys in height and of traditional design.

8.3. It is considered that in principal development of the height proposed, i.e. three storey dwellings and four storey flats can be accommodated on the site without being out of keeping with the character of the area. In particular this development shows the four storey development to have relatively low floor to ceiling heights, thus reducing the scale of the development further. It is considered that the relationship with the adjacent buildings as shown on the submitted long section gives a fair representation of development in the area.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 8 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.4. Officers had concerns regarding the layout and design of the development as originally submitted. The flatted development was shown as being sited close to the western and in particular the eastern boundaries of the site. The eastern boundary abuts an access to properties in Alexandra Street and then the adjacent Council car park. Thus the spatial setting of the building was considered to be poor with a poor relationship with surrounding development. The adjacent accessway to the east of the site has now been included in application SOS/03/01114/FUL and is proposed to form part of the amenity space and entrance feature of the current application site and thus increasing the area of the development site and producing a visually more spacious setting and stronger and more appropriate entrance details. Provided that this land and application SOS/03/0114/FUL are linked to the current application then it is considered that the issue of the spatial setting for the building has been adequately addressed and is now acceptable.

8.5. A strong modern approach to redevelopment of this site is considered to be acceptable and complimentary to the adjacent Conservation Area, and generally the approach shown is considered to be acceptable. Amendments have been received which address previous concerns regarding roof design, fenestration, stair tower and balcony details and materials.

8.6. With regard to the impact on neighbours, the most sensitive properties are those to the south, which are in residential use. The property immediately to the west is in use as a club, there is a car park to the east, and the properties to the north a generally in commercial use at ground floor with commercial and residential at upper floor level.

8.7. The development shows a minimum of 8m between the main rear wall rear of the terraced houses and the southern boundary of the site, and 6.6m between the projecting element at the upper floor level and the boundary. This is in breach of normal Borough Local Plan guidelines of 10.7m. However given the fact that the previous car wash buildings were located adjacent to the boundaries of the site, and taking into account that there is a minimum distance of 26m to the rear of the nearest dwelling, the resulting relationship is, in this instance, considered to be acceptable. Balconies which would have given rise to concerns regarding overlooking have now been deleted from the proposals and replaced with balustrades which do not result in sitting out areas. The impact on the properties to the south is now considered acceptable.

8.8. With regard to residential units above the commercial properties to the north these appear to be set back within the main part of the buildings and thus windows are sited approximately 19m from the northern boundary of site and approximately 27m from the rear of the proposed flats. Other fenestration in the rear of the Alexandra Street buildings appears to serve commercial properties only. Thus it is considered that the proposal would not cause undue overlooking of the properties to the north.

8.9. To the west of the site is a clubhouse building and beyond that a block of flats, Raymond House. The flats have main habitable room windows to the side windows. These are located between 19m and 23m form the boundary of the application site. The proposed fenestration to the west elevation of the flats is to be high level only, and would not therefore result in undue overlooking. However the upper proposed balconies would be required to have screens to the west to prevent undue overlooking of the club and flats.

8.10. In the main in terms of the level of activity generated by the proposals the residential use of the site is considered to have less impact on adjacent properties than the previous car wash and commercial use of the site.

8.11. The application proposes eight parking spaces. In this particular instance three of these would be allocated to serve the houses with the remainder to serve the flats. Given the unique town centre location of the site, and its proximity to bus and railway stations no objection is raised to the level of car parking as proposed. Cycle storage for the flats is also shown although details and numbers will be required by condition.

8.12. Access to the parking area is shown as coming from Royal Mews. It has now been clarified that this access road accommodates two way traffic, although it is commonly used to accommodate traffic existing from the adjacent Council car park and heading eastwards. Furthermore this road has previously been accepted as access to the outline proposals for housing on the site and is therefore considered to be an acceptable access to the site in highway safety terms.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 9 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.13. The site has previously been in commercial use and therefore an examination of possible contamination and resulting remediation measures are required. This matter can be addressed by condition.

8.14. Permitted Development restrictions are required given the restricted nature of the site.

8.15. The proposal also involves installation of a shopfront and retail unit at 41 Alexandra Street, which is currently in use as access to the site. The retail use is welcomed in this secondary shopping frontage. The design of the shopfront is acceptable and appropriate in this location.

8.16. To conclude, provided that this proposal is linked to the provision of the further amenity/landscaped area on the adjacent site to the east, in this particular town centre location the development as proposed is considered to be acceptable. 9. Recommendation Members are recommended to delegate to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 Start within five years 02 Submission of materials 03 Parking to be provided 04 Parking to be retained 05 Cycle parking to be provided 06 Cycle parking to be retained 07 Boundary treatment installed concurrently with dwellings 08 Specified windows to be obscure glazed 09 Landscaping scheme to be submitted 10 Landscaping to be carried out 11 Refuse storage arrangements to be approved 12 Details of levels to be submitted 13 Removal of permitted development rights – Class A, B, C, D,E, 14 Decontamination and remediation to be carried out 15 Balcony screens to be installed 16 Development to be carried out concurrently with and linked with application SOS/03/0114/FUL 17 New commercial unit to be restricted to A1 use only

Milton Ward

SOS/03/01114/FUL (Application for planning permission)

CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO FORM AMENITY SPACE AND ACCESS TO PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON ADJOINING LAND WHICH IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING APPLICATION SOS/03/000632/FUL

41 Alexandra Street, Southend on Sea

Shout Properties Dedman Planning Services

This application should be read in conjunction with SOS/03/000632/FUL.

1. The Proposal

1.1. The application proposes to change the use of a strip of land immediately to the east of the rear of 41 Alexandra Street, which forms the application site for SOS/03/000632/FUL. It is proposed to bring the land into use concurrently with the proposed development and to use it as amenity space/entrance enhancement for that development. Access to the properties in Alexandra Street to the north of the site, would be maintained as part of the proposal.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 10 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 2. Location and Description

2.1. Approximately 180m² site on southern side of Alexandra Street extending southwards to meet Royal Mews. The land is currently vacant but appears to be in use partially as an access to the rear of a property in Alexandra Street. It is partially hardsurfaced, but generally unmade. Adjoining to the east is a council owned car park and garages with vehicular access from Royal Mews and the two storey house, The Cottage.

3. Development Plan

4. Planning History

4.1. None specifically relating to this site

4.2. Current application SOS/03/000632/FUL – redevelop site comprising four storey block of 16 flats, three 3 storey terraced dwellinghouses, lay out amenity areas and eight parking spaces, erect ground floor infill extension to form ground floor retail unit fronting Alexandra Street.

5. External Consultation

5.1. Anglian Water - No reply received

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Highway Comment – No objections.

6.2. Environmental Health Comment – To be reported.

7. Publicity

7.1. Site notice and neighbour notification - no response.

8. Appraisal

8.1. The principle of residential development on the adjacent site has been previously accepted, outline planning permission having been already granted for eight dwellings. However concerns have been raised regarding the spatial setting of that development. Consequently this application has been submitted in order to try and overcome this concern. The application essentially proposes use of the land for residential purposes in association with the proposed residential development on the adjacent site, but which would take the form of amenity space and associated landscaping and provide an enhanced entrance and access arrangement to the flats. The access to the properties to the north would be maintained

8.2. Thus taking this application in isolation and on its own merits the main issues to be considered are impact on streetscene, impact on neighbours, access, and remediation.

8.3. The use of the land as proposed would improve its run down appearance when considered in isolation, and would also help provide an appropriate spatial setting for the flats proposed on the adjacent site.

8.4. The use of the site as proposed would have only a very limited impact on adjoining properties. Its general appearance would be enhanced and access to the properties adjoining to the north, therefore no objections are raised on this basis.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 11 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.5. It is possible that the site has suffered contamination in the past and its appropriate remediation can be controlled by condition, as part of the wider development.

8.6. Permitted Development restrictions are required given the restricted nature of the site.

8.7. There fore the use of this site per se for the purpose proposed is considered to be acceptable, however, in order to address the concerns regarding the setting of the adjacent site, development must be carried out concurrently. This would be controlled by condition. 9. Recommendation Members are recommended to delegate to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 Start within five years (C001) 02 Submission of materials 03 Boundary treatment installed concurrently with dwellings approved under ref. SOS/03/000632/FUL 04 Landscaping scheme to be submitted 05 Landscaping to be carried out 06 Details of levels to be submitted 07 Removal of permitted development rights – Class E 08 Decontamination and remediation to be carried out 09 Development to be carried out concurrently with and linked with application SOS/03/000632/FUL.

Milton Ward

SOS/03/00872/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

USE ELDERLY PERSONS HOME AS HOME FOR PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

33-35 Park Road, Westcliff on Sea

Aitch Care Homes Ltd Clifford Rance Associates

1 Proposal

1.1 The application is for change of use from elderly persons home to accommodation for people with learning difficulties.

1.2 The property was until recently (11th July 2003) in use as an old persons home in accordance with planning permission SOS/87/1798. This is subject to a condition restricting use of the property to an old persons home, incorporating any incidental nursing facilities, and not other use within Class C2 of the Use Classes Order 1987.

2 Location and Description

2.1 The site consists of two adjoining properties, used as one integrated unit, on the west side of Park Road.

3 Development Plan

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

3.2 BLP Policies: H6 (Protecting Residential Character), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), U10 (Provision of Other Community Facilities), T11 (Parking Standards), Appendix 8 Car Parking Standards, Essex Planning Officers Association “Vehicle Parking Standards”.

4 Planning History

4.1 1988 – planning permission granted to use dwelling house as old persons home and layout parking (SOS/87/1798).

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 12 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.2 1999 - Fell two cherry trees in front garden. Permission not required (SOS/94/0152).

5 External Consultation

5.1 Milton Conservation Society – insufficient information in the application as to how the home would be run, including the number of residents or the ratio of staff to residents; excessive noise notice; proximity to London Road would be a danger to residents; unclear if the home would be for local people or from London; the Society would like to see the properties used as single family dwellinghouse or as flats; proposal would not improve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

5.2 National Care Standards Commission – no response to date

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Environmental Health – no objection.

6.2 Social Services – no objection.

7 Publicity

7.1 Press and site notice and neighbourhood notification – three letters received objecting on the following grounds:  ratio of staff to residents (three staff to 11 residents)  insufficient parking  noise nuisance  proposal will not enhance the Milton Conservation Area as the owners are London based, the likelihood is the home will not be run properly at this distance  this is a tightly packed part of the town centre near to the local infants school and with many other old persons homes nearby  there are many anti-social problems to be found in the local area and this is the wrong location for this type of use 7.2 One letter of support

8 Appraisal

8.1 Issues arising include, the extent to which the use of the premises for the accommodation of people with learning difficulties, which is a use within Class C2, would impact to any greater degree on the amenity of neighbouring properties than the permitted use as an old persons home, which is also a use within Class C2; the availability of parking to serve the new use.

8.2 The authorised use of the premises as an old persons home only ceased on 11th July 2003. The home is, apparently, registered for a maximum of 16 residents, all supported 24 hours per day by carer/domestic staff working on shifts, with never fewer than two staff (at night) and a maximum 10 staff during the daytime.

8.3 The proposed new use now sought envisages various internal alterations, with a view to creating accommodation for a maximum 10 adults with learning difficulties, each with en-suite bathroom. As with the old persons home, the new use would be staffed 24 hours per day, by 16 staff working in shifts to provide care and support to residents. At any one time there would be four staff, consisting of a manager and three carers. There would be no resident staff. All staff undertake cleaning and cooking duties and residents are expected to help out too,

8.4 Concern has been expressed about the nature of the persons to be accommodated and, in turn the potential for them to cause nuisance to neighbours and to the area generally. In practice, this is unlikely. The occupiers would be people who, because of their learning problems, are not able to live independently and are beyond the abilities of their families to care for them. For example, they could include autistic people or persons who suffer from Downs Syndrome. They are not ill and do not need constant nursing or medical attention, but they do need supervision. They would live together as a family might, sharing facilities such as the living and dining room and the kitchen. Most could make a drink or a simple meal, indeed, the expectation is that all would make their own breakfasts or share in the preparation of lunch, while staff would prepare the evening meal, perhaps with the help of residents. They would not leave the premises

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 13 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL unsupervised, though most would go to the shops or for a walk with a member of staff.

8.5 Compared with the use of the premises as an old persons home, there would be fewer residents and, most of the time, fewer staff. Both uses generate visitors, but there would probably be fewer with the proposed use than occurs with the old persons home. An identical home for persons with learning difficulties has opened in the town already – 43 Woodfield Park Drive, Leigh-on-Sea. This did not require planning permission as the previous use of the premises there was not subject to any condition restricting its use to an old persons home and no other use within Class C2. It should also be noted that planning permission has recently been granted for the same use at 16-18 Cliff Road, Leigh-on-Sea, in replacement of the old persons home use there (SOS/03/00871).

8.6 The site contains parking for at least 6 cars side by side across the front of the property using the existing hard surfaced area. Applying the Essex Planning Officers Association parking standards for “residential care homes”, this gives a requirement for just three spaces. This is amply provided for. As there would be no resident staff, the Essex standards would require no provision for staff. Nonetheless, there would be ample parking for any staff who do attend by car. The use would have its own mini-bus, but there would be ample space for this too.

8.7 In summary, the proposal is replace one type of Class C2 use with another. The proposal does not, therefore, raise the issue of the loss of single family residential accommodation, neither would it add to the number of non-single family residential uses in the locality. The planning condition that restricts use of the premises to an old persons home seeks to protect residential amenity and the parking situation for the future. There is no reason to suppose that the new use would have any greater impact on amenity than the old persons home use, indeed, it could well be less and, arguably, could be seen as improving amenity in the Conservation Area. Neither are there any concerns in relation to current parking standards. Subject to conditions (A) restricting use of the premises to a home for people with learning difficulties and no other use within Class C2 and (B) requiring in-curtilage parking for not fewer than four cars (three spaces as per Essex standards, plus one space for the minibus used by the home), the proposed is considered acceptable.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 start within five years (C001) 02 use for permitted purpose only 03 parking for not fewer than four cars shall be provided

St Lukes Ward

SOS/03/00884/FUL CONSTRUCT LINK ROAD ACROSS FOSSETTS FARM TO SERVE EXISTING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE VICINITY AND ON FOSSETTS FARM FOLLOWING APPLICATION REFERENCE NO. SOS/02/00071/FUL Part of Fossetts Farm Fronting Fossetts Way

Lansbury Retail Limited Ian Anderson MRTPI

1 The Proposal

1.1 The application proposes the construction of a road, to connect from the existing Fossetts Way, on Eastern Avenue, extending northwards through Fossetts Farm adjacent to the Green Lane, turning in a westerly direction broadly parallel with the Borough Boundary, before connecting with the existing roundabout on Sutton Road. In total, the road would extend to approximately 1300m, of which 1100m would be new build beyond the access to Waitrose supermarket.

1.2 The application also makes provision for cycle and pedestrian access, landscaping and a balancing pond to accommodate water run off from the link road.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 14 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.3 The application is accompanied by a supporting letter providing the following further details:

The Purpose of the Proposals

1.3.1 Fossetts Farm is commonly regarded as the most significant greenfield site within the existing settlement boundary of Southend. The adopted Local Plan (Second Alteration) safeguards the land for the development needs of the Borough beyond 2001, and the emerging Local Plan/Local Development Framework (Southend Issues Paper) identifies the site as a flagship employment site.

1.3.2 Lansbury Retail Limited (Lansbury) has been in discussions with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council over a number of years regarding development aspirations for its land holding at and adjoining Fossetts Farm. Planning permission has already been granted for the development of a retail warehouse unit on land adjoining the Wellesley Hospital, which abuts the Fossetts Farm Local Plan designation. The Borough Council has also recently reported that it is minded to approve Lansbury’s planning application for a DIY retail warehouse development on part of Fossetts Farm adjoining the extant consent site.

1.3.3 Both of these developments are capable of being served by the existing Fossetts Way road. However, the highway assessment undertaken in respect of the proposed DIY retail warehouse concluded that the change in traffic movements attributable to the development would exceed the capacity of the existing highway network. As a result, it was agreed that the opening of the proposed store should be delayed until a new road had been provided through the Fossetts Farm site, to allow access from both Eastern Avenue and Sutton Road – being the subject of the current planning application.

1.3.4 However, the importance of the proposed Fossetts Farm link road far exceeds a means of accommodating traffic associated with the proposed DIY development.

1.3.5 The highway assessment undertaken in respect of the proposed DIY retail warehouse essentially demonstrated that any large scale development proposal on Fossetts Farm would be stifled until improvements could be made to the capacity of the highway network. Consequently, whilst Fossetts Farm is identified as a flagship development site, its development potential is entirely reliant on the provision of a new road to serve the site.

The Nature of the Planning Application

1.3.6 This planning application is a stand alone application. The link road is designed to serve a number of developments on Fossetts Farm, and as has already been confirmed, its implementation is key to bringing forward such sites. However, it is the case that the opening of the proposed DIY retail warehouse is tied to the provision of the link road, and that essentially, the retail warehouse will provide the means to finance the link road. As a result, the link road is unlikely to be implemented until the DIY retail warehouse application has been formally approved.

The Extent of Development to be Served by the Proposed Link Road

1.3.7 As the accompanying EIA confirms, a number of development scenarios have been factored into the modelling of the proposed link road, which can briefly be summarised as follows:  Proposed B&Q DIY retail warehouse;  Proposed football stadium;  Proposed Diagnostics Treatment Centre;  Proposed employment/training centre. 1.3.8 The proposed DIY retail warehouse development has already been referred to. B&Q are committed to operating a Warehouse store from the site, which will replace the company’s existing facility at Short Street. The application is currently with the Secretary of State, who has called in the proposals for his own determination.

1.3.9 Land has been safeguarded for the provision of a new football stadium for the purposes of Southend United Football Club. Lansbury has granted the owners of SUFC the right to enter into an option to secure land for the development of a new stadium facility and associated uses within the north-eastern sector of Fossetts Farm. This option can be triggered at any time within three years of planning permission being granted for the proposed DIY retail warehouse.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 15 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.3.10 Lansbury are presently preparing a planning application for a Diagnostics Treatment Centre (DTC) on the south-western part of Fossetts Farm. The bespoke facility will enable Southend Hospital NHS Trust to implement its proposals for expanded health facilities within the Southend region. Whilst these proposals could feasibly be provided without the implementation of a link road it would be undesirable on two fronts: Firstly, it would make the DTS less accessible to residents within the east of the region, but secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it would draw upon all available capacity on the highway network. As a consequence, no other development proposal could be brought forward on Fossetts Farm until the link road had been implemented, and in practice, due to the financial expenditure associated with the link road, this could stifle all other forms of development with the exception of the proposed DIY retail warehouse.

1.3.11 Lansbury are also presently formulating proposals for the development of an employment/training complex to the north of the proposed DTC site, adjacent to the Sutton Road roundabout. These proposals are continuing to evolve, and discussions are taking place with the Economic Development Officer of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and the South Essex Partnership (Thames Gateway). If needs be, Lansbury has indicated its commitment to implement such proposals speculatively, if planning permission is granted for the proposed DIY retail warehouse, which can be formulised by way of a legal agreement.

Environmental and Archaeological Issues

1.3.12 The economic justification for the proposed link road is compelling. However, Lansbury has been careful to ensure that the proposals fully acknowledge the need to minimise environmental impact and also respect the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).

1.3.13 The EIA submitted with the planning application documents the assessments undertaken by Lansbury’s consultants, WSP and CgMs respectively. Lansbury pursued independent discussions with WSP and CgMs in order to determine the optimum route for the road, and both companies, representing their respective disciplines, advanced the route promoted by the planning application. This also coincided with the view of Lansbury’s highway consultants, Boreham Consulting Engineers, that the route proposed was the optimum traffic and transportation solution.

1.3.14 Lansbury’s consultants have also actively entered into negotiations with consultees, including Borough Council and English Heritage in advance of the application proposals being finalised.

Conclusion

1.3.15 For all of the above reasons and those expanded upon within the accompanying EIA, it is respectfully considered that the application proposals represent a highly significant development, which would make a fundamental contribution to bringing forward flagship developments on Fossetts Farm, and in turn, make an active contribution to the economic prosperity of Southend. Notwithstanding this fact, the proposals have evolved with the objective of being sympathetic to environmental and archaeological issues, in order to ensure that the economic benefits of the proposals are not achieved at the expense of the surrounding area.

1.4 The application is submitted under the terms of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The regulations categorise ‘Construction of roads’ as an infrastructure project which may require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where the area of works exceeds one hectare. The EIA is a substantial two volume document The Regulations require preparation and submission of a Non Technical Summary of the information included in the Environmental Statement.

1.5 An Environmental Statement is expected to incorporate the following minimum data:-  A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development;  A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects;  The data required to identify and assess the main environmental effects; and  An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice of the preferred option taking into account the environmental effects.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 16 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.6 The text of the Non Technical Summary is reproduced below:

1.6.1 WSP Environmental Limited (WSPE) was commissioned by Lansbury Retail Limited in March 2003 to prepare an environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to accompany a planning application for a proposed link road across the Fossetts Farm site, Southend-on-Sea. The findings of this EIA are presented in Volume 1 of the Environmental Statement (ES). The text below is Volume 2 of the ES, which provides a non-technical summary of the findings of the EIA.

1.6.2 The Fossetts Farm site has been safeguarded for development in the Southend-on-Sea Borough Adopted Local Plan, Second Alteration, March 1999. The proposed link road will provide the primary road infrastructure for the future development of the Fossetts Farm site.

1.6.3 The site is predominantly made up of disused arable fields at present. Immediately to the south of the proposed road alignment is more disused arable land beyond which there is a Waitrose Supermarket, Wellesley Hospital, Southend United Football Club Training Ground, Eastern Avenue and residential areas further to the south. To the west lie Sutton Road, Southend Crematorium and Garden of Remembrance, a fire station, Temple Farm Industrial Estate and Rosehill Industrial Park. Garon Park golf course, the Southend-on-Sea Leisure and Tennis Centre and Cecil Jones School is located to the east. The area to the north is known as Smither’s Farm and generally comprises arable land. A Scheduled Monument, known as Prittlewell Camp, is located towards the southern part of the Fossetts Farm site and to the west and south of the proposed link road. A Green Lane runs in a north south direction to the south and west of the proposed link road. The Fossetts Farm site lies on the northern outskirts of the town of Southend-on-Sea.

1.6.4 The route of the proposed link road extends northwards from the existing Fossetts Way which leads off the Fossetts Way roundabout on Eastern Avenue (A1159). Eastern Avenue is a dual carriageway road and Southend’s principal distributor route. The proposed road runs northwards to the boundary of the Fossetts Farm site and then extends westwards following the northern boundary of the site. The road will run parallel to and south of the existing Smither’s Chase Lane before it joins with Sutton Road at the existing roundabout where Sutton Road and Chandlers Way meet. The link road will be a total of 1.3km. The pavement along the length of the link road will be 3m wide and will combine a cycleway and footway.

1.6.5 WSP Environmental undertook a scoping exercise to ensure that all relevant environmental issues had been identified at the outset. The findings of this exercise were presented in a letter report and submitted to the Borough Council to provide them and the statutory consultees the opportunity to comment on the content and methodology to be used for the EIA. Planning Officers confirmed that they were satisfied with the scope of issues outlined in the scoping report and the proposed impact assessment methodologies to be used.

1.6.6 The scoping report identified that the proposed link road is likely to raise a number of issues that would need to be considered in the EIA. The primary issues identified were: cultural heritage and archaeology, landscape and visual impact, lighting, transport, noise and vibration and air quality. Secondary issues were considered to be: ecology and nature conservation, water quality and resources and socio-economic issues.

1.6.7 The Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. An assessment of the effects identified above has been made and measures to reduce adverse effects recommended, as outlined overleaf.

1.6.8 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology: The construction phase will result in the removal of sections of the Green Lane and its associated hedgerows. Construction works may also result in disturbance or damage to any as yet undiscovered archaeological resources such as surviving sub-surface features associated with the outbuildings and orchard of the 19th Century Cooper’s/Smither’s Farm. Archaeological recording in advance of and during soil stripping at the construction phase will serve to mitigate any impact on sub-surface archaeological features. As a result, a positive, minor benefit is identified.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 17 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.6.9 The setting of both the Scheduled Monument and the Pill Box will be subject to some increase in visual intrusion during both the construction and operational phases. However, given the temporary nature of the construction activities, the screening effect of the trees and hedges forming the Green Lane and an absence of public access to the Scheduled Monument, only a minor negative impact is identified. Mitigative landscaping is incorporated into the scheme proposals. The screening effect of the trees and hedges forming the Green Lane will be enhanced by further planting. Additional landscaping will be provided in the form of native hedgerow along the west-east section of the road. In time this should further reduce any visual impact on the Scheduled Monument, whilst maintaining the long-distance views from the Scheduled Monument north towards the River Roach.

1.6.10 Landscape and Visual Character: The proposed two lane road will run at grade and as a structure will not be prominent in the landscape. However, traffic moving along the road will be intrusive without mitigation. The construction of the road will result in the loss of some scrub and sections of hedgerows, including part of the Green Lane. Mitigation in the form of native tree and hedgerow planting will reduce the visual impact of traffic to an acceptable level to nearly all of the few sensitive visual receptors overlooking the site. The impact on the setting of Prittlewell Camp is considered negligible since the panoramic views to the north will be preserved. The visual impact on the Green Lane is considered substantial by virtue of the road’s close proximity to the Lane and the loss of vegetation. The proposed link road will reinforce the urban fringe character of the area, but this is compensated to a certain extent by re-establishment of a mitigative landscape structure, which will improve landscape quality.

1.6.11 Lighting: Existing levels of lighting in the surrounding areas are generally typical of urban locations. However, the proposed route is more typical of a rural location. The principle impact of the proposals will be the illumination of areas that have previously been almost entirely unlit. Upward light from the lighting installed may impact on the safety of aircraft using Southend Airport. It is proposed that through consultation with the London Southend Airport Company. The use of luminiares which generate 0.0% upwards lighting will significantly mitigate this impact, and additionally ensure that there is no addition to levels of sky glow in the surrounding area. With the careful implementation of these appropriate mitigation measures and continuing consultation the proposed link road will not cause any significant impact on surrounding receptors or the night-time scene.

1.6.12 Transport: During the construction of the link road it is expected that the site traffic would add about 10% per day to the number of HGVs and about 0.2% to the total number of vehicles. This is considered to be a minor negative impact on the local road network. It is recommended that a routing agreement be made with SBC. During the operation of the link road there will be an 80% reduction in the traffic turning left into Eastern Avenue from Sutton Road (north), and also turning right into Sutton Road (north) from Eastern Avenue. This will result in a marked improvement in the operation of Eastern Avenue/Sutton Road roundabout which is considered to be of major positive significance, given that this roundabout is currently over capacity. The Chandler’s Way/Sutton Road and the Fossetts Way/Eastern Avenue roundabouts will suffer slight adverse impacts overall. However, they will remain within operational capacity. Accessibility to site for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport will improve with the introduction of a combined cycleway and footway and a number of bus stops along the link road.

1.6.13 Noise and vibration: During some of the construction phases, noise levels will increase. However, the increase in noise levels will not be sufficient to exceed the noise limits that are derived from acceptable levels of construction noise and will be only temporary in nature. Therefore, the noise impact during construction is considered to be of minor significance. The vibration impact during the construction works will be of neutral significance. During operation of the proposed link road, traffic noise levels will change. However, the change in noise levels will not be significant at the majority of receptors. With the installation of sound insulation measures to Smither’s Cottages to the standard recommended by the 1975 Noise Insulation Regulations, the impact of the increases in traffic noise levels at these dwellings will be minimised. Therefore, the noise impact during the operation of the link road is considered to be of minor significance. The vibration impact during the operation of the link road will be of neutral significance.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 18 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.6.14 Air Quality: There will be a contribution to ambient pollution levels attributable to construction traffic on the local road network. However, the impact is short-term and will be limited to the period of construction. Once suitable mitigation measures have been put in place the impact of dust and particulate emissions from the site will be of minor significance. The proposed development is predicted to cause a small increase in pollutant concentrations due to the change in traffic flows; but would not cause any exceedances of the standards.

1.6.15 Ecology: The proposed link road alignment will involve the partial loss of three areas of habitat types; arable land; a small area of woodland and short sections of hedgerow either side of the Green Lane. The direct loss of habitat is considered to be of minor negative significance given the limited ecological value of the habitat to be lost. The landscape proposals for the link road include the creation of extensive new areas of habitat including continuous woodland and hedgerow planting and a wetland feature as part of the drainage scheme. This will encourage and facilitate movement and foraging across the site by most species of wildlife. The development proposals will necessitate the removal of part of the Green Lane hedgerows and a small area of woodland along the northern boundary of the site that is likely to support breeding or roosting birds during the spring/summer months. Providing that vegetation clearance is avoided during the bird breeding season the impact on birds is considered to be of minor significance.

1.6.16 Water Quality and Resources: The proposed link road will result in an increase in impermeable surface area, which will increase the rate of surface run-off generated within the site. The increase in surface water run-off may in turn affect the volume of flow in local watercourses with the potential to exacerbate the associated potential flood risks in the vicinity of these watercourses. Surface water attenuation measures to restrict discharge into existing surface watercourses and to the underlying aquifer are recommended. A drainage strategy, which incorporates measures to ensure surface and groundwater protection, coupled with measures to attenuate and if necessary clean up, surface water discharge will need to be agreed with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water in advance of the works.

1.6.17 Socio-economic Issues: A number of jobs will be provided during the 9-12 month construction phase of the link road. It Is unlikely that there will be substantial job creation but it is considered to be a positive impact given the above average unemployment in the area. As well as the direct job creation it is likely that there will be at least some contracts let to local suppliers, which would be beneficial to the local economy. The implementation of the link road will open up the land at Fossetts Farm for development. Lansbury are currently considering a number of other development proposals that have the potential to generate upwards of 1,000 direct jobs. The development opportunities brought about by the implementation of the link road have the potential to bring significant benefits to the local economy and community.

1.7 The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Boreham Consulting Engineers Limited contains the following conclusions:

1.7.1 The proposed 7.3m wide extension to Fossetts Way has more than sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected level of traffic generated from the development and also diverted from the Sutton Road/Eastern Avenue roundabout.

1.7.2 With minor improvements to the Fossetts Way/Eastern Avenue and Sutton Road/Chandlers Way roundabouts, the expected level of traffic can be accommodated without the RFC being greater than 0.85. A further improvement to the Sutton Road/Eastern Avenue roundabout means that this junction, which currently suffers from congestion during peak periods, would operate better after the link road and development have been constructed.

1.7.3 Although this report is primarily concerned with traffic, e.g. cars, consideration has been given to more sustainable modes of travel. The proposed development shows a number of controlled and uncontrolled pedestrian crossings of the extension as well as 3m wide shared cycle/footways. In addition, it is the intention to provide a new/redirected bus service to serve the proposed development. New bus stop locations will be agreed as the scheme progresses.

1.7.4 By demonstrating that there is a positive benefit to the existing, congested Sutton Road/Eastern Avenue roundabout and that the rest of the local highway network has sufficient capacity to cater for the proposed development there cannot be any traffic related justification why planning permission should not be granted.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 19 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 2 Location and Description

2.1. Site proposed for development forming part of Fossetts Farm is located to the north of Southend Borough adjacent to the boundary with neighbouring Rochford District Council. The proposed access road is identified as taking access from Eastern Avenue in connection with the existing Waitrose development and connecting to the north west with Sutton Road, north of the cemetery.

2.2. The site is adjacent to an area of Green Belt and agricultural land that also contains Prittlewell Camp, a univallate hill fort that is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP policies TCR2 – Retail and Town Centre Redevelopment – The Sequential Approach, TCR4 – Retail Developments, NR1 – Landscape Conservation, HC5/HC6 Archaeological sites, BC5 Planning Obligations, T3/T6/T12 (Transport and Accessibility) BIW1 and BIW3 (Business, Industry and Warehousing).

3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), S1 (New Shopping Developments), S2 (Southend Town Centre), S3 (Large Shopping Development), U5 (Access and Safety in Built Environment), T11 (Parking Standards), T12 (Servicing Facilities).

3.3. The BLP was adopted in March 1994, although more recently two Alterations to the Plan have been adopted, namely in October 1997 and March 1999. The latter relates solely to land at Fossetts Farm, including the application site. The BLP was modified to take specific account of Fossetts Farm, and in summary, land including the application site was removed from the Green Belt and re-designated ‘safeguarded land’. The Replacement Local Plan Issues Report, published in March 2001, addresses the application site and Fossetts Farm within a specific policy (page 17), and it is anticipated that this will follow through into an interim policy within the forthcoming Local Plan Review.

3.4. The Waitrose food store, Waitrose extension site, and the Fossetts Way site all fall within the policy 5e area of the adopted BLP. Proposal 5e identified the requirement for a new food store within Southend and specifically allocated the land adjoining the application site for such purposes.

3.5. The application proposals have been assessed against Government planning policy, in particular, PPG13, and RPG9. In addition, in considering the environmental impact of the proposed development, consideration has been given to the advice contained within PPG2, PPG15’, and PPG24. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 provides National Policy in respect of Transport.

4 Planning History

4.1. The context of the application site’s planning history is provided by the evolution of the Local Plan. The Fossetts Farm land, including the application site, was originally reserved as Green Belt and part cemetery use. However, in September 1994, following an application by Swan Hill Developments Limited, a judgement in the High Court quashed the Local Plan, in so far as it related to the allocation of Fossetts Farm.

4.2. Following the High Court decision, an alteration to the Local Plan relating specifically to Fossetts Farm was produced by the Borough Council (Second Alteration), which was subject to further consultation and a Public Inquiry. The Inquiry Inspector concluded that the inclusion of Fossetts Farm within the Green Belt was unnecessary. As a result, the Inspector recommended that the land be designated as ‘safeguarded land’. The Inspector concluded that the site could be suitable for a variety of options, but that no development should be permitted that would prejudice or limit options for comprehensive redevelopment. The Borough Council accepted the Inspector’s recommendations, and through the Second Alteration to the Local Plan, effectively restricted any form of development prior to 2001.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 20 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.3. More recently, the wider Fossetts Farm area has been the subject of a planning application proposing the development of a new football stadium (16,000 seat capacity), an 80 bedroom hotel and leisure development (21,400m²). The application, which was submitted by Southend United Football Club (SUFC) on 10 July 2000, has been withdrawn as it partly covered part of the site of a current application for a retail warehouse pending consideration by the Secretary of State as indicated below.

4.4. 1993 - full planning permission was granted for the erection of a retail superstore (82,750ft² 7690m²) and petrol filling station, layout 831 parking spaces and service bay and layout roundabout and access off Eastern Avenue – land to west and north of Wellesley Hospital, Eastern Avenue, Southend on Sea subject to conditions (SOS/93/0475). (This application for the now established Waitrose Store included part of the current application site within the site edged red. The detailed proposal indicated the works involved in the alteration of the highway to provide the roundabout junction Eastern Avenue, Fossetts Way and access to the proposed superstore and interim hospital access and in addition the line of the then proposed bypass was shown passing through this current application site).

4.5. 2001 - outline planning permission was refused for the erection of a 2,183m² (23,500 ft²) retail store for an unspecified non food retail (Class A1) purpose.

4.6. June 2001 - the above refused application was granted planning permission on appeal. In allowing this appeal following a Public Inquiry, the Inspector concluded that the site represented the most suitable location for a retail warehouse development in Southend, in view of the sequential assessment undertaken by the appellants; that the proposals would not cause any perceived impact on any established shopping centre, and; that the site was not required in order for the Borough Council to deliver a sufficient quantity of employment land. A more detailed consideration of the Inspector’s findings is provided within the analysis of the present application proposals.

4.7. December 2002 – the Development Control Committee considered an application proposing a retail warehouse incorporating 9,064.3m² (97,570ft²) of gross floor space, and linked to a proposed builders yard of 1,858m² (20,000ft²), and a garden centre of 2,787m² (30,000ft²). The development would also accommodate ancillary offices at ground and first floor level of the retail warehouse, measuring 508m² (5,480ft²), a goods received area totalling 404. m² (4,350ft²) and a customer coffee shop measuring 185.8m² (2,000ft²). Serving the development would be a customer car park providing 600 car parking spaces including 545 general parking spaces, plus dedicated disabled and parent and child parking and employee parking. The Development Control Committee resolved that the application (SOS/02/00070/FUL) should be referred to the Secretary of state under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Direction) with an indication that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject first to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation and subject to conditions.

4.8. At the Development Control Committee meeting on 11th December 2002 it was considered that the Section 106 Planning Obligation should contain the following provisions and restrictions:

 The restriction of use/development of the other land in the applicants ownership at Fossetts Farm to create a ‘restricted area’ to both prohibit certain 'non employment' uses and enable comprehensive employment development;

 The adoption of an ‘indicative zonal plan’ to indicate in broad land-use terms that the remaining land may be comprehensively developed;

 The applicant to submit an EIA and planning application for the Fossetts Farm Link Road [requirement already fulfilled by current application] ;

 The provision of specified off-site and on-site highway works including the provision of the Fossetts Farm link road;

 To pay for the construction of the Fossetts Farm Link Road and to enter into a performance bond;

 A requirement not to open the B&Q Warehouse for trading until the Fossetts Farm link road is completed and other necessary off-site highway improvements carried out;

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 21 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL  Restrictions on the goods to be sold from the development;

 An obligation on the retail occupier to produce and implement a Green Travel Plan; and,

 The provision of a bus service to the Town Centre in accordance with an approved specification.

4.9 Following reference to the Secretary of State the application was “called in” to enable a Public Inquiry to be held and the Secretary of State to determine the application for himself. The commencement date for the Public Inquiry is 20th January 2004.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Rochford District Council – The District Council has no objections to the proposal. This view is subject to:-

 The full implementation of the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment

 That the Council for the Protection Rural England/Essex and English Nature be consulted on the submission, with regard to the specific issue of the removal of historic hedgerows

 That the local planning authority look into the potential/feasibility of providing an adequate acoustic buffer/barrier between the new roadway and the plot/garden area of Smither’s Cottages in order to provide the occupants of these with a suitable amount of protection

 The understanding that this application related solely to the proposed access/highway.

5.1.1 As a supplementary comment Rochford District Council maintains its objection to the use of the site as a site for a new football stadium due to its likely impact on the area and the local traffic implications on the highway network.

5.2 Environment Agency – has concerns over the increased flood risk off-site due to the increased surface water runoff generated as part of the proposal. On this issue the Agency has no objection on the condition that a drainage strategy is approved by the agency prior to the commencement of development. In addition the Environment Agency provides guidance on flood risk and pollution control measures for the construction period. Further comment is made that the crossing of any watercourses or ditches must be discussed at an early stage and agreed with the Agency to ensure ecological damage to these features is minimised.

5.3 Essex Police - provide no comment to the proposed road subject to the design satisfying the safety audit and construction meeting relevant regulations.

5.4 Sutton Parish Council - raise no objection in principle to the proposed road, though some concern is raised with the effect that the future businesses operating from the new road will have on the Sutton environment, in particular Sutton Council are very concerned with regard to the effects of noise and pollution on Smithers and Temple Gate Cottages and that all steps are taken to minimise the impact of noise and visual construction.

5.5 English Heritage - comment that in visual terms the proposed link road does not intrude on the setting of the monument to an unacceptable degree, though lighting standards are likely to have a degree of adverse visual impact. Objection to the proposal is centred on the potentially unsustainable land unit the proposal would create thereby limiting opportunities for its future beneficial and sustainable management. English heritage have not been addressed to date and further discussion is invited to explore the issues.

5.6 English Nature - comment that from the submitted information the applicant’s preliminary ecological walkover of the site has confirmed that the site is of low ecological value, English Nature’s view is that issues with respect to protected species further investigation is required. Recommending that if protected species are suspected or present then an ecological survey should be undertaken, further advice and details supplied.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 22 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 5.7 British Horse Society - request that provision is made within the application for a planning gain benefit to the vulnerable road users in the community that seek safe off-road travel, particularly horseriders. In addition the LPA is to consider how the proposed development will impact on the wider bridle way and track network.

5.8 Horse Owners & Riders of South-East Essex - request that it is considered that a Bridleway be constructed on the north and east side of the proposed link road across Fossetts Farm, advising that over 80 horses are stabled and ridden within one mile of this development.

5.9 Ramblers Association - comment that the proposed development would destroy the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding countryside by reason of the increase in noise and fumes, the new road layout should be amended to serve only the units proposed and not create a potential rat- run between Sutton Road and Eastern Avenue.

5.10 Essex Fire Authority - comment that there are no objections to the application.

5.11 Milton Conservation Society - comment that they object to any proposed new road on Fossetts Farm as no one at this planning stage knows what type of development will eventually be allowed on this last piece of major undeveloped farmland in our town.

5.12 Civil Aviation Authority - comment that they are no longer the responsible authority for safeguarded land and return documents accordingly.

5.13 Essex Wildlife Trust - object to the application in consideration of the impact the development will have on the existing location and its wildlife. Specific comments are provided in respect of the ecology and nature conservation issues and the impact to water in the area, both on the basis of existing water levels and wildlife and the proposed mitigation measures included within the application.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Highway Comment - The principles of the proposed link road are satisfactory to serve the proposed DIY warehouse, the existing Waitrose store and Hospital and the undeveloped white goods store site. Officers are in discussion with the Applicant's consultant regarding details of the proposed link road and its junctions. Based on previous experience with the applicant and the Consultant Officers are confident that these issues will be properly resolved. The application transport assessment also reviewed the proposal in the light of potential further development on Fossetts Farm in the control of the Applicant. Whilst this is valuable for the Applicant Officers have considered the Link Road Application only on the basis of meeting the additional highway transport needs of the DIY Warehouse proposal. Officers consider that the highway transport needs of further development on the Fossetts Farm site will need to be considered in the context of actual planning application proposals especially in regard to potential impacts on the existing highway network.

6.2 Highway Officers therefore recommend that planning consent be delegated for approval subject to satisfactory agreement on the outstanding issues of detail.  The Sutton Road/Eastern Avenue ARCADY analyses using the higher flows held by SBC/Atkins should b incorporated into the report;  The trip generation methodology, including any calculations, should be clearly explained within the report text;  The trip assignment methodology, including any calculations, should be clearly explained within the report text,  Forecast flows for the design year should be provided,  Link and junction assessments should be undertaken for the design year; and  The recommendations of the enclosed Stage 1 Safety Audit will need to be considered and the necessary modifications made to the design of the link road and associated junctions.  SBC require an assessment to be undertaken for the design year as while it is true that the proposed road is not a strategic link or trunk road it is felt that the proposed link road would be a significant local route and as such it is important to ensure that it is built to a standard that will have sufficient capacity in the future.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 23 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 6.3 Design Comment – Height of Landscape Buffer will need to be agreed.

6.4 Environmental Health Comment - no observations.

7 Publicity

7.1 Neighbours notified of application and site notices erected.

7.2 Six responses have been received from local residents, adjoining commercial premises and interested parties. Issues raised for objection include:  Use of land designated as safeguarded within the Local Plan  Considered to be a premature release of land for development given that the Local Plan is in early stages of review.  Detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the area.  Loss of natural amenity which is now very hard to find in the surrounding location.  Damage that will result to Green Lane which should be protected as part of Southend’s green corridor network.  Loss of land for future cemetery extension.  Congestion to highway network and local area.  Impact to surrounding amenity, particularly the detrimental impact to the quiet private hospital environment. 8 Appraisal

8.1 This application raises important issues, both in respect of highway capacity, and also, particularly in view of the adopted Local Plan (Second Alteration), implications for the future development of the remaining Fossetts Farm land. Members are advised at the outset that the principal issue for consideration is the acceptability of the proposed link road development in the light of compliance with Government policy, development plan policy, and any site constraints. However, the adopted Local Plan alteration makes clear that any development brought forward on part of Fossetts Farm should not undermine the opportunity for comprehensive development over the remainder of Fossetts Farm. Consequently, a principal consideration for members is how the application proposals site would relate to future development including the undetermined retail warehouse proposals and other planned proposals including the cemetery extension and possible employment development opportunities on the wider Fossetts Farm area. With the above in mind, it is considered that the following issues are key to the determination of the current application proposals:

 Whether the proposed development would facilitate the Borough Council’s ability to identify sufficient employment land to meet Structure Plan requirements and the employment needs of the Borough;

 Whether the proposed link road would be safe, adequate for identified need and sufficiently attractive and accessible to a choice of means of transport;

 Whether any environmental effects have been identified that would justify the application being refused, or whether any mitigation measures should be implemented before the link road is constructed;

 Whether the application proposals would hinder or assist in the comprehensive development of the remainder of the Fossetts Farm site.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 24 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.2 Fossetts Farm represents one of the Borough Council’s key sites within the Borough. The adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that no proposal undermines the prospect of comprehensive redevelopment across the whole of the site, whilst the Issues Report into the emerging Local Plan refers to Fossetts Farm as one of its flagship sites. Whilst not specifically stated in the adopted Local Plan, the Borough Council has for a number of years envisaged that the site would be suitable for a range of employment purposes. The inspector appointed to determine the Fossetts Way appeal in May 2001 made a number of comments on the issue of employment land. At paragraphs 13 and 14 of his decision notice he reached the following conclusion: “…The safeguarded G1a site [Fossetts Farm] does not prohibit or control development on the P5e allocation [Fossetts Way]. The stadium application may well not be approved at all, or as presently proposed. As one of four ‘Key Employment Sites’ in the Borough, initially identified in the Replacement Borough Local Plan Issues Report, its 29ha could be viewed as capable of accommodating a significant amount of employment land. The matter is certainly one that Council members will bear in mind in deciding its future.

8.3 In December 2002, the applicant proposed a number of measures that were accepted in the context of application SOS/02/00070/FUL to assist in bringing forward the comprehensive redevelopment of the wider Fossetts Farm area. Firstly, the proposed bus service ensures that Fossetts Farm is immediately accessible by public transport. Typically, bus operators are unwilling to extend services until an acceptable critical mass of development or population has been provided. However, Fossetts Farm will be accessible from the outset. Secondly, the applicant was to be required to provide off site and on site highway works ( including this proposed link road extending Fossetts Way to the Chandlers Way/ Sutton Road roundabout) to enhance highway capacity prior to the implementation of employment developments and the retail warehouse commencing trading. This application confirms the applicant’s commitment in this regard.

8.4 Thirdly, in order to recognise the need to balance future development decisions on the site with the provision of infrastructure, the applicant accepts that a ‘restricted area’ should be formed via a Section 106 Planning Obligation to protect the remaining Fossetts Farm site as an employment resource.

8.5 In December 2002 the applicant accepted also that it had not been possible to market the wider Fossetts Farm site due to development constraints; in particular, the uncertainty surrounding SUFC’s proposals, the Local Plan framework, and the practical difficulties of developing the site without infrastructure. This EIA application for the link road seeks to resolve the latter of these issues. It is clear that further work is required to establish the form and content of other employment related development at Fossetts Farm. Furthermore it has been established, that the link road should be implemented prior to the opening of the retail warehouse. As an adjunct to this the link road will also be available for access to employment land thus vindicating the approach, whereby the retail warehouse is regarded as a facilitator of economic development. Southend’s inclusion in the Thames Gateway makes it a priority for economic regeneration. Within this framework there is now a need to generate jobs, to grow the local economy and to encourage both public and private investment in the town.

8.6 The future of the retail warehouse proposal is to be determined at the forthcoming public inquiry and therefore cannot be currently regarded as certain. The link road application proposals will help to meet the identified requirements for comprehensive employment development achieving greater certainty for the area. The approval of this application would therefore assist, rather than hinder, the structured release of the wider Fossetts Farm site for employment generating land uses in accordance with the local plan

8.7 A full and detailed assessment has been carried out by the applicant in order to determine the extent of environmental impact that would be caused by the application proposals. The summary of the applicant's Environmental Statement, which is reproduced within this report confirms that in general, very few significant effects will be caused by the application proposals.

8.8 There are essentially three areas that the applicant has sought to address; the relationship of the proposed development with the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) and the wider landscape on the periphery of the Borough, the location and quality of footpaths in the vicinity of the application site, and in part upon traffic flows. These issues have been considered within the context of both the landscape appraisal and the Traffic Assessment. It is currently considered that the proposed link road will be adequate to serve the retail warehouse development as recommended to Members on 11th December 2002. The link road will therefore be acceptable in highway design terms to deal with traffic arising at the date of opening of the retail warehouse. Predicting the traffic generation of development beyond that date is less certain as there are no

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 25 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL other current development proposals accompanied by qualified Traffic Impact Assessments for Members to consider. Therefore the capacity of the link road to accommodate future traffic flows cannot be fully assessed at this time.

8.9 Mitigation measures proposed as part of the EIA cannot overcome all objections to the proposals, as some of these are untenable. More particularly, the site is not designated as Green Belt, would not act against proposals for a cemetery extension, and is safeguarded to promote rather than resist development. Appropriate mitigation includes protection of the green lane and the implementation of landscaping. The proposed measures for mitigation of environmental effects as identified within the EIA can be delivered by conditions as set out below.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the resolution of detailed highway construction matters and subject to the following conditions: 01 Commence within five years (C001) 02 Details of existing levels and proposed levels to be submitted 03 Landscaping details including replacement habitat to be submitted, approved and implemented 04 Details of lighting to be submitted, approved and implemented 05 Detailed drainage strategy to be submitted, approved and implemented in consultation with Environment Agency 06 No works shall commence prior to the submission and agreement in writing with the LPA and Environment Agency of Drainage Strategy 07 Archaeological investigation programme to be implemented 08 Construction management plan and construction traffic routing agreement to be submitted for approval and implemented 09 Noise insulation measures to be implemented within six months of road opening to public access

Milton Ward

SOS/03/00964/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

REMOVE BOUNDARY WALLS AND GATE AND REPLACE WITH LOW BRICK WALL AND IRON RAILINGS, RETAIN HARDSTANDING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO SCRATTON ROAD (PART RETROSPECTIVE)

15 Scratton Road, Southend on Sea, SS1 1EN

Neil Westley

1. The Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought to remove boundary walls and gate and replace with low brick wall and iron railings to the side, retain hardstanding and vehicular access onto Scratton Road.

1.2. The vehicular access onto the highway has already been installed prior to this application. Permission is required for two reasons, firstly the property is within a classified road. Secondly the site is located in the Clifftown Conservation Area and is covered by an Article 4 direction resulting in the loss of certain permitted development rights.

1.3. The hardstanding is block paved with yellow coloured stone. Along the front boundary are two small (approx. 80mm high) brick built walls with internal lighting features, these would be reduced in size as part of the scheme. Along both side boundaries are bedding areas with vegetation growing with cast iron railings along the eastern side boundary. The existing cast iron railings would be replaced as part of this proposal.

1.4. The frontage is used at present to park two cars clear of the highway.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 26 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 2. Location and Description

2.1. A two storey mid-terraced property located along the south side of Scratton Road in the Clifftown Conservation Area. The house is brick built with various architectural features which include traditional timber framed windows with stone plinths above, a small stone-block staircase leading to the main entrance and white painted window frames and doorway entrance. The roof is tiled with slate tiles. The adjoining terraced properties are all two-storey or similar size and style, although some have been spoilt with alterations. The properties are all residential in character.

2.2. To the north of the site is the main line railway between London Fenchurch Street and Shoeburyness and the Southend Central station which is sunken in the railway cutting below the level of these houses. To the east are residential properties and Scratton Road leading to the main town centre. To the south are rear gardens, a rear accessway to properties and a row of terraced houses fronting Cambridge Road. To the west are more terraced houses and a bridge, which crosses the railway line.

2.3. Some of the properties in the row have vehicular access to parking onto their frontage, although it appears that these are old crossovers, prior to the BLP

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, HC2 – Conservation Areas, T7 – Road Hierarchy, T11 – Traffic Management, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2. BLP Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards) and Appendix 2 – Design Guidelines for Conservation Areas.

3.3. PPG13 – Annex B

3.4. Essex Planning Officers Association – Car Parking Standards.

4. Planning History

4.1. Site has lengthy planning history, with the most recent consisting of:

4.2. 1999 – Permission approved to install timber sliding sash replacement windows to front elevation (SOS/98/01060/FUL)

4.3. 2002 – Enforcement investigation into the alleged unauthorised hardstanding.

4.4. February 2003 – Application withdrawn to remove boundary walls and gate and replace with low brick wall and iron railings, retain hardstanding and vehicular access onto Scratton Road (part Retrospective), due to lack of sufficient information submitted (SOS/02/01544/FUL).

5. External Consultation

5.1. The Southend Society – No reply.

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Design Comment – Opening up the full property frontage to the street is contrary to BLP policy C4 and the Guidelines in Appendix 2 (para. A2.9). Rear vehicular access is possible to the rear of the property and the need for the front garden to be used for parking is not apparent. If parking at the front is the only option, the proposed layout should adequate planting and should not open up the entire frontage - part of the original boundary treatment should be reinstated.

6.2. Considerable efforts have been made to enhance the Clifftown Conservation Area through the restoration of boundary gates and railings, often with grant aid, and the opening up of frontages will conflict with these enhancements and erode the character of the area.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 27 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 6.3. Highways Comment – Scratton Road is a classified road and therefore vehicle accesses are required to benefit from a turning space such that car can turn within the curtilage and emerge onto the highway in a forward gear. From the “Autotrack” copy enclosed, it can be seen that the car would become “locked up” and the turning manoeuvre cannot be performed. Therefore recommend this application be refused.

7. Publicity

7.1. Press and Site Notice and Neighbourhood Notification – No replies.

8. Appraisal

8.1. The main considerations with the application are the impact on the conservation area in terms of design and visual amenity, and the impact on highway safety.

8.2. The property has access to the rear via a rear accessway, which is also used by the other properties in the terrace for off street parking within the rear part of the curtilage. Some of the properties in this row have garages at the rear. The accessway at the rear is wide enough to drive a car along. The hardstanding to the front of the property is contrary to Policy C4 of the BLP and does not preserve or enhance the area. BLP Appendix 2 para A2.9 seeks to maintain front gardens as paved areas with traditional boundary treatment of brick walls, piers and iron railings as appropriate area. This proposal sees the loss of the front garden for planted areas, although the side bedding areas would offer some planting, however these are rather small in size compared to the large sized hardstanding which has been installed. Hardstandings are only acceptable on the front if no alternative parking is available and they would need to be sympathetically designed in relation to the Conservation Area. The proposal by reason of these two spaces, excessive amount of hardstanding, lack of landscaping and frontage boundary treatment is contrary to Policy and detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area.

8.3. The proposed railings along the side boundaries would replace those already existing. These railings would be considered acceptable, however a more ornate style of railing would be preferred in enhancing the Conservation Area. The front boundary walls would be reduced in height from what is already existing. The hardstanding is already in place and is constructed of yellow coloured block paving.

8.4. The highway safety issue when considering vehicle access to frontages is whether a car could be turned within the forecourt of the site thereby enter and leave in a forward gear. This applies to roads such as Scratton Road, which is a classified road. The application site is not large enough to accommodate such a turning area and therefore would result in a vehicle being reversed on or off the highway, this would be dangerous to traffic flow and highway safety. The application is also contrary to Policy T8 of the BLP, which is backed up by PPG13 – Annex B of which states that, whatever the type of access, highway safety should be paramount. This is a Class 3 Classified Road.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 28 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.5. The size required for a car to be manoeuvred would need to be approx. 8m by 8m. The hardstanding on the site would be 4.75m wide by 5.30m in length, therefore below what the highway standards require. An Autotrack simulation illustrates that there is a lack of room to manoeuvre a car so that it can turn. Therefore this application is unacceptable from a highways point of view

9. Recommendation

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

01 The hardstanding, by reason of its excessive size, lack of landscaping and front boundary treatment appears over-dominant and visually unattractive to the detriment of the Clifftown Conservation Area and the streetscene as a whole, contrary to Policies C4, C11 and Appendix 2 of the BLP and Policies BE1 and HC2 of the ESRSP

02 There is not sufficient space within the curtilage of the site to manoeuvre a motor car to enable it to be driven to and from the site in a forward gear. Consequently it is likely that vehicles would be reversed into and from the site introducing new hazards and inconvenience to traffic using the adjoining highways, contrary to Policy T8 of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan and T7 of Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan

Chalkwell Ward

SOS/03/01056/FUL (Application for full planning permission) DEMOLISH GARAGE AND ERECT TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE Land adjacent 32 Fernleigh Drive, Leigh on Sea

Appointmoor Ltd

1. The Proposal

1.1. The proposed development includes demolition of two existing garages and construction of a two storey detached house with integral garage to the ground floor, on a plot width of 6.3m with a rear garden area of 100m² minimum and 1m isolation to side boundaries in relation to the first floor.

1.2. Revised plans have been submitted to reduce the scale and form of the proposed dwelling by revising the proposed roof design in terms of height and width, omitting the accommodation initially proposed within the roofspace, the resultant ridge height has been reduced to a mid point between the adjoining properties of 32 and 28.

2. Location and Description

2.1. Application site is a plot of land located to the east side of Fernleigh Drive between dwellings of 32 and 28. Number 32 to the North is a much extended detached property of modest scale and form, to the south number 28 is of a more traditional semi-detached form with set back construction to the rear (shared with number 26), typical of much of Southend’s housing stock circa 1900.

2.2. Surrounding development in Fernleigh Drive can be described as mixed in form. To the south of the site there is a repetition of semi-detached and terraced Victorian and Edwardian forms, to the north this situation is repeated though now interspersed with other later developments with more visual alterations and extensions to the dwellings.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 29 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 2.3. The application site potentially could have formed a double plot in conjunction with number 32 when construction of Fernleigh Drive was originally undertaken. The site with number 32 would have accommodated a pair of semi-detached dwellings with ease. It appears that a double width plot could have been purchased and only one modest property constructed, with two garages being built to the side elevation some time after.

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies – BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), Appendix 4.

3.3. EPOA adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.

4. Planning History

4.1. No planning history relevant to the application site.

4.2. Two relevant applications concerning the adjoining unit of number 32, for extension and alteration. The most recent application for number 32, SOS/03/01158/FUL is for erection of a first floor extension to rear and alterations to elevations. This has been amended to include alterations to the internal layout to improve internal amenity, with the neighbouring application site, subject of this report, in mind.

5. External Consultation

5.1. None undertaken.

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Design Comment - provided on the initial drawings raised concern with the verticality of the proposal due to the site width, making the proposal unacceptable with an over dominant roof form in relation to the construction below. Revised comments on the basis of the amended plan indicate that the roof form is significantly better; however previous concerns over site and building width still remain.

6.2. Highways Comment - A vehicle parking in the garage will be locked in by a vehicle parking on the driveway in front of the garage door.

7. Publicity

7.1. Neighbours notified of application - eight letters of objection received highlighting grounds of parking problems within the street and the implication for the removal of two garages, creation of a new dwelling and thus increasing the potential requirement for parking. Objection is raised on the basis of over-crowding and the loss of a sense of space within Fernleigh Drive in addition to a modern designed dwelling being out of character with the street scene and general location.

7.2. One letter has been received in support of the proposal, a neighbour to the development who is also recorded as the architect responsible for the proposed scheme. Comments in support are the consideration of the varied nature of the street and mix of dwellings present, the improvement of the environment by removing the poor quality garage block and the proposal not causing any additional traffic implications in comparison to the current situation.

8. Appraisal

8.1. The considerations are design, impact on the street scene, impact on neighbours and parking implications.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 30 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.2. It is considered and reflected in the comments from Design & Regeneration that the amended proposal presents a significant improvement in design and appearance terms to that of the initial application drawings. The removal of the accommodation within the roofspace has resulted in a reduced roof form that is more in balance with the proposed structure underneath. In design terms the proposal retains an element of traditional character, especially in 2D plan form, but encompasses a modern approach to the parking requirement with a projecting first floor construction, potentially including a high proportion of glazing to the first floor bedroom.

8.3. The proposed scheme meets all requirements within the Borough Local Plan for layout of new dwellings and construction of infill development. Separation is achieved to the side elevations of 1m at first floor level, and garage aside, 1m clear to boundaries at ground floor; 45° is achieved from habitable windows to neighbouring properties (partly as a result of permitted development alterations on number 32 that are in the process of being carried out).

8.4. Some concern is raised with respect to the size of the dwelling proposed and the resultant internal environment. Whilst the suspended nature of the first floor element provides greater opportunity for primary and secondary light provision, the property remains of a very narrow width at just 4m. Policy H5 of the BLP requires that all new development shall be of a high standard of layout and design, it is acknowledged that the narrow width is a result of BLP policies on separation (the need to achieve 1m separation to boundaries), however guidelines suggest that plot widths be comparable to the existing frontages and at 6.3m total plot width, this site is comparable with other local plots, some of which are as small as 5m wide. It must also be considered as to whether the property achieves sufficient internal space to create the high standard of design required.

8.5. Identified above, the proposal is in accordance with basic BLP policies regarding layout of new dwellings, the resultant relationship to neighbours is considered to be acceptable on this basis. No significant detrimental impact will occur to neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, and proximity. There will be a loss of openness resulting from the development though it is important to consider that the resultant relationship if approved, would be similar to that experienced between properties already existing.

8.6. Relationship to the street scene is concerned with the issue of design. If the narrow width of the proposed development can be accepted, the design can be considered to represent much of what is expected in a new build/infill development, aimed at efficient use of previously developed land and utilising a subtle mix of old design and modern materials.

8.7. Two car parking spaces are provided, one garage and one driveway, this is in accordance with adopted EPOA standards which require a maximum of one space per dwelling in areas of good public transport.

8.8. Overall the proposed development presents an interesting solution to a traditional infill development. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in relationship to the neighbouring dwellings and, subject to strict control on materials, visually acceptable in the street scene.

9. Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 Start within five years (C001) 02 Building, boundary and surfacing materials to be submitted 03 Window details to be submitted 04 No additional opening to be created 05 Permitted development restriction on roofspace, rear extension and porch construction 06 Garage and parking space to be provided as shown 07 Approved garage and parking space to be retained for parking

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 31 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Westborough Ward

SOS/03/01068/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

ERECT PART FIRST FLOOR, PART TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, USE PART OF GROUND FLOOR AS SELF-CONTAINED FLAT AND FIRST FLOOR AS PREMISES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION, ERECT EXTERNAL STAIRCASE AT FRONT AND ALTER FRONT ELEVATIONS

153 Southbourne Grove, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 9UN

Mr Khalid Khawaja MHS Projects

1 The Proposal

1.1. The application proposes the erection of a flat roofed extensions to the east side at ground floor level and the south side, at first floor level and over two storeys, reaching almost to the south and east boundaries except for a small rectangle.

1.2. Also an external staircase is proposed (two stages) on the Southbourne Grove elevation, a minimum of 1.7m from the front boundary.

1.3. The ground floor will be used as retail with extra storage (existing use with one member of staff), and a self-contained, one bedroomed flat, accessed from Southbourne Grove.

1.4. The first floor is shown as seven “bedsits” sharing a lounge, dining room, kitchen and one bathroom/toilet.

2 Location and Description

2.1. Part single, part two storey property used for retail and residential accommodation, on a corner plot on the south east junction of Southbourne Grove and Fairfax Drive. The property has a parking space and access to Southbourne Grove.

2.2. A retail property lies to the north, with residential properties surrounding to all sides.

2.3. This is a busy traffic light controlled junction.

2.4. Currently the street block 69-145 comprises 34 properties, seven of which have been converted to flats (20%). No other premises within the area surveyed for clustering and saturation are recorded as being houses in multiple occupation.

3 Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies CS2 – Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, BE1 – Urban Intensification, H1 – Distribution of Housing Provision, H2 - Housing Development - The Sequential Approach, H3 – Location of Residential Development, H4 – Development Form of New Residential Developments, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H3 (Retention of Small Family Houses), H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H9 (Non-Self-Contained Residential Accommodation), T11 (Parking Standards). BLP First Alteration.

4 Planning History

4.1. 1968 – permission granted for vehicular access (D/824/68).

4.2. 1982 – permission granted for single storey rear extension (SOS/878/82).

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 32 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 5 External Consultation

5.1. None.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1. Design Comment – suggests alternative design and that extension should step back from front building line and roof reflect adjacent pitch. Would still be a very bulky addition to an already large building.

6.2. Highway Comment – proposal to create bedsits likely to increase on street parking which is unattractive from highway point of view.

6.3. Environmental Health Comment – no objection in principle but layout unsuitable (ground floor flat – bathroom needs mechanical ventilation and fire escape. Bedsits – shared kitchen not acceptable and kitchen is main means of escape and this high risk room is unacceptable – each bedsit would require its own exclusive cooking facilities. Overintensive use of sanitary facilities – minimum of one per five tenants. Needs fire separation from ground floor commercial.)

7 Publicity

7.1. Site notice and neighbour notification – the period for publicity expires after the meeting. 25 letters of objection and a petition with 62 signatures objecting on the following grounds:  Set a precedent for other bedsits  Overdevelopment of overcrowded ward  Create more parking problems, lacks parking and removes a parking space  No site notice  Lack of schools, dentists and doctors  Obtrusive extensions, detrimental to residential amenity and architecture of street  No future control over the rooms being let to Southend Hospital nurses.  Many properties in multiple occupancy use  Dangerous access and junction  Number of flats already exist  External staircase out of keeping  Loss of light to garden and to kitchen/diner  Increase in noise and disturbance  Increased delivery needs of expanding business  Disturbance from use of staircase  Increase in rubbish  Street altered as no multiple occupancy at present and this is inappropriate 8 Appraisal

8.1. The considerations here are the impact of the use on the character and amenities of the area, the impact of the extensions and external staircase on visual amenities and residential properties and the parking implications.

8.2. Policy H9 of the First Alteration to the BLP contains the most relevant policy relating to HMOs in this situation. Policies H3 and H6 itself are not directly relevant as this property is not a single family dwellinghouse at present. Members have however been concerned about intensification of uses in residential streets in the past and this proposal would inevitably intensify the use of this property with potential harm to adjoining residents. In terms of Policy H9, there is no clustering or saturation of the surveyed area as there are no other HMOs in the immediate vicinity. There are other flats but it is important to note that the site is currently a shop and a flat, not a single family house. An HMO use itself would not necessarily be detrimental to the area, however, the amount of accommodation – seven units and a flat - is high and has considerable potential for noise and disturbance in close proximity to other residential properties.

8.3. The level of accommodation proposed is only made possible by extending the property. The proposed extensions are visually unacceptable, creating a plot length entirely covered with building. The flat roofed, part first floor/part two storey extension is out of character with the property and detrimental to the streetscene.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 33 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.4. Extending up to the side boundary of 544 Fairfax Drive and along this boundary further to the rear, as well as butting up to almost touching 145, creates a proposal which is extremely imposing in relation to adjoining residential properties. There is a breach of guidelines in that first floors should be set at least 1m off boundaries and not project beyond 3.65m (or 45 in terms of first floors) to the rear of adjoining properties. This proposal projects significantly beyond the rear of 544 at ground floor level (5m), with a further two storey extension adjacent to 544’s south western boundary. The first floors lie almost on the southern and eastern boundaries.

8.5. Amendments to the design suggested would improve its appearance but would increase the height and bulk of the proposal in relation to the streetscene and neighbouring properties and would not overcome the guideline breaches. The premises already project significantly beyond the rear of 544 and any infill on the east boundary or projection further south, even at ground floor level, is considered to be unacceptable so no amended plans have been sought.

8.6. Furthermore, the staircase at the front is severely detrimental to visual amenities so close to Southbourne Grove. Any amended scheme would require internal changes to ensure different entrance/means of escape facilities that avoid the need for an external staircase.

8.7. Environmental Health concerns about the internal facilities are not planning issues but the layout would clearly have to be revised to provide extra toilets and bathrooms and exclusive cooking facilities so the conclusion can be drawn that too many units are proposed for the site

8.8. Access exists to the rear of the site where one parking space is proposed. However, the use of the site is intensifying and parking provision does not sufficiently recognise this. Current standards suggest a maximum of seven spaces and even though the current use theoretically requires six spaces having regard to the location of the site additional provision is felt to be warranted.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to expiry of the publicity period for the following reasons:

01 The proposal constitutes overintensive use of the site and will be detrimental to the amenities of the character and amenities of the area by reason of increased activity, noise and general disturbance contrary to BLP Policies H9 and ESRSP Policy BE1. 02 The proposed extensions and external alterations will by reason of their bulk and be of unsympathetic design detrimental to visual amenities and to the character of the street scene, contrary to BLP Policies C11 and H5 and ESRSP Policy BE1 03 The proposed extensions by reason of their size and relationship to the adjoining property in Fairfax Drive will be detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of that property by reason of obstrusiveness contrary to BLP Policy H5. 04 The proposed level of car parking is inadequate bearing in mind the intensity of use proposed and will lead to increased on street parking detrimental to conditions of adjoining streets and contrary to BLP Policy T11 and ESRSP Policy T12

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 34 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Leigh Ward

SOS/03/01077/FUL

RELAX CONDITION 03 ON PLANNING APPLICATION SOS/00/00292/FUL DATED 01/06/2000 (WHICH RESTRICTED THE OPENING HOURS TO 11AM-11PM MONDAY TO SATURDAY AND 12 NOON TO 10PM SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS), TO ALLOW UNRESTRICTED OPENING HOURS

Sarah Moore Public House, 57-59 Elm Road, Leigh-on-Sea SS9 1SP

Wizard Inns Cliff Walsingham & Co

1. The Proposal

1.1. The application proposes the complete relaxation of the hours restriction attached to planning permission SOS/00/00292/FUL.

1.2. A letter has been submitted on behalf of the applicants containing the following information:

1.2.1. The opening hours granted in March 2000 reflected the “conventional” licensing hours; it is likely that controls over licensing hours will soon be relaxed. The applicants are likely to want to exercise flexibility over their opening hours subject to Council approval; a relaxation of the planning condition is required for this.

1.2.2. There is no longer the justification of a parallel system of planning control and licensing restriction, as licensing will soon be dealt with by the local authority. If problems occur once extended opening hours are granted, safeguards will be in place to deal with these.

1.2.3. The proposed opening hours are as yet undecided, this being the reason for a complete relaxation of the hours restriction being applied for.

1.2.4. The applicants are not aware of any problems that the establishment has caused in the community.

2. Location and Description

2.1. The application property is a detached building on the west side of Elm Road, just north of the Rectory Grove junction. The Police Station is to the north, and residential properties are opposite. The site is on the northern fringes of the Leigh Commercial area, the character becoming increasingly more residential further north along Elm Road.

2.2. Planning permission exists for the conversion of the first floor of the building into five self- contained flats although it is currently probably ancillary to the ground floor, appearing to be in the same ownership as the ground floor.

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policy BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2. BLP Policies: H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), U2 (Pollution Control), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing).

3.3. PPG24: Planning and Noise.

4. Planning History

4.1. 1993 – permission granted to extend roof with windows to front and rear to form additional floor of office accommodation and erect new external rear staircase (SOS/93/0261) (renewal of planning permission).

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 35 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.2. 1997 – permission refused (appeal allowed) to extend roof with windows to front, side and rear elevations, form five self-contained flats with external rear staircase and balcony (Outline) (SOS/97/0694).

4.3. 1997 – permission granted to form mansard with windows front and rear to form additional floor of office accommodation and erect new external rear staircase (SOS/97/1055) (renewal of planning permission).

4.4. 2000 – permission granted to use entertainment hall and social club as public house (Class A3), alter front elevation and erect canopy to front (SOS/00/00291/FUL).

4.5. 2000 – duplicate application (permission granted) (SOS/00/00292/FUL).

4.6. 2000 – advertisement consent granted for externally illuminated fascia sign, externally illuminated swing sign and non-illuminated board sign to front and side elevations (SOS/00/00293/ADV).

4.7. 2000 – permission granted to extend roof with windows to front, side and rear elevations, form five self-contained flats with external rear staircase and balcony (Outline – vary condition B on SOS/97/0694 granted on appeal 30/01/98 to extend time for reserved matters) (SOS/00/01133/OUT).

5. External Consultation

5.1. Leigh Town Council – Oppose : the move to unrestricted opening hours in the anticipation of a change to licensing laws would give too much flexibility at this stage. The Town Council would recommend that if the applicant wants to change their hours at this point, they should decide what hours they want under existing licensing laws and have such an application treated on its merits. As, when or if licensing laws are changed, the applicant can apply for such opening and/or licensing times as it considers appropriate at that time, and should not try to pre-empt legislation.

5.2. Police Station – support the views of Leigh Town Council.

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Environmental Health – Planning permission exists for the use of the upper floor as residential. The provision of unrestricted hours could give rise to noise and disturbance to potential occupiers of the residential units. This could only be partially addressed by the use of noise insulation – disturbance could be expected from outside the premises. In view of this it is considered that a complete removal of the condition should be resisted but a closing time of 00.30 Monday to Saturday nights and 12 midnight on Sundays might be reasonable.

6.2. (At the present time, in order to obtain a Special Hours certificate for the sale of intoxicating liquor beyond normal permitted hours, the applicants must first have obtained a Public Entertainment licence from the Environmental Health section. Effectively, the terminal hour for Public Entertainment controls the terminal hour for the sale of intoxicating liquor under the terms of the Special Hours certificate. That certificate allows the provision of intoxicating liquor which is ancillary to the provision of music and dancing and substantial refreshment. No such licence or certificate are in force for the premises. These specific controls will, however, be replaced with new legislation.

6.3. The Licensing Act 2003 is not yet in force, but the first commencement order is expected to take effect from March 2004, after which time applications to the Local Authority for a new ‘Premises Licence’ can be expected.

6.4. The Licensing Act 2003 allows for the concept of unrestricted operating hours, but the Council will be able to consider restrictions in the light of valid and justified objections from residents and relevant authorities.

6.5. Under the Licensing Act 2003 there are four licensing objectives, namely: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 36 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 6.6. These are the only criteria upon which applications may be considered, and in the absence of relevant objections the Council would be obliged to grant the application as made.)

6.7. Traffic and Transportation – no objection

7. Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification and site notice – five letters of objection received at the time of writing.

7.2. The points raised are:

 noise nuisance to nearby residential properties from general noise and disturbance

8. Appraisal

8.1. The main consideration here is the impact that allowing unrestricted opening hours would have on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby residential properties. The possible forthcoming changes to the licensing regulations are not a material planning consideration at this stage.

8.2. PPG24 acknowledges that the impact of noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It also states that commercial developments such as fast food restaurants, discos, night clubs and public houses pose particular difficulties, not least because associated activities are often at their peak in the evening and late at night. Local planning authorities will wish to bear in mind not only the noise that is generated within the premises but also the attendant problems of noise that may be made by customers in the vicinity. The disturbance that can be caused by traffic and associated car parking should not be underestimated.

8.3. The proposal to relax the opening hours restriction has great potential to shift the noise and disturbance that is currently generated by the establishment later into the night. Whilst a venue with late-night opening might be considered acceptable in a town centre location, where there are no residential amenities to consider, this location is not considered appropriate for a late- opening venue because of the neighbouring residential properties opposite the site (and those above for which outstanding planning permission exists) and the likelihood of an undesirable change in the pattern of the noise, activity and general disturbance that currently emanates from the premises, to the detriment of residential amenity.

8.4. Whilst is it acknowledged that a change in the licensing laws may be imminent, possibly negating the need for planning hours restrictions, the relaxation of the restriction on opening hours in this instance is considered to be premature, as there are currently no safeguards in place within the jurisdiction of the Borough Council to protect surrounding occupiers against detrimental loss of amenity that is likely as a result of the proposal.

9. Recommendation

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

01 The proposal to allow unrestricted opening hours at the premises would, by reason of the close proximity of the site to residential properties, cause demonstrable harm by reason of air- and structure-borne noise and general disturbance, to the detriment of the amenities of those properties, contrary to Policies E5 and U2 of the Borough Local Plan.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 37 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Chalkwell Ward

SOS/03/01079/BC4 (Application for Full Planning Permission)

LAY OUT MULTI-PURPOSE SPORTS PITCH

Chalkwell Park, Chalkwell Avenue, Westcliff on Sea SS0 8NB

Southend on Sea Borough Council Property Division

1 Proposal

1.1 Council application for laying out an all-weather pitch in place of the current grass tennis courts.

1.2 The work will involve reducing the levels and laying a hardstanding with kerbs and also installing surface water drainage that will discharge to a surface water system.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Grass tennis court located between hardsurfaced tennis courts to the north, a basketball court to the south, a general grassed amenity area to the east and a tree-lined verge to the west with the cricket pitch beyond.

2.2 The site is located within Chalkwell Park, south of London Road and is approximately central within the park.

2.3 Residential properties lie to the south, east and west, at a minimum distance of 164m to the front boundary of the residential properties. Commercial and retail properties lie along London Road with some flats above, at a distance of at least 100m from the site. Mature trees lie within close proximity to the pitch, to its east and west sides.

3 Development Plan

3.1 ESRSP Policies CS2 – Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, BE3 – Retention of Open Space, BE4 – Sports Grounds and Playing Fields.

3.2 BLP Policies C14 (Trees, Planted Areas and Landscaping), C15 (Retention of Open Spaces).

3.3 PPG17

4 Planning History

4.1 None relevant.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Sport England – reply to be reported

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Environmental Health Comment – assumed Park Rangers will control hours of use etc on that basis, no observations.

7 Publicity

7.1 Site notice and neighbour notification – one response questioning the nature of the use.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 38 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8 Appraisal

8.1 The issues to be considered are the impact of the altered playing surface on the facilities within the park and on general and residential amenity and the impact on surrounding trees. It is a Council and national objective to promote quality provision of sports facilities and PPG17 supports “well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities”. that “can play a major part in improving peoples sense of well-being in the place they live”. Para 18 states that “where recreational land and facilities are of poor quality or under used…………………. local authorities should seek opportunities to improve the value of existing facilities”

8.2 This is an existing tennis court area, with unrestricted use, as are the surrounding courts, football pitch and cricket pitch. Being central within a public park site, the unrestricted use of this new muli-purpose pitch for the benefit of the community is entirely in accordance with local plan and national policy.

8.3 Being of a significant distance from residential properties, on a park site which has late night fairs and concerts within the main area, this small pitch, with unrestricted use is not considered to be objectionable in terms of visual or residential amenity.

8.4 Mature trees surrounding the site can be suitably protected by careful design of the construction of the pitch, controllable by condition.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to Grant Permission subject to the following conditions: 01 start within five years (C001) 02 submit details of construction methods with the aim of protecting nearby trees.

Victoria Ward

SOS/03/01094/FUL (Application for planning permission)

RELAXATION OF CONDITION 05 ON PLANNING PERMISSION SOS/00/00324/FUL DATED 19.07.00 WHICH RESTRICTED THE USE OF AMPLIFIED MUSIC AND SPEECH, TO ALLOW AMPLIFIED MUSIC AND SPEECH

Cathodean Works, 2-8 Bircham Road, Southend-on-Sea, SS2 5EG

Southend Vineyard

1. The Proposal

1.1. Planning permission was granted in July 2000 for the use of the building, formerly a parcel distribution depot, as a place of worship. It was reported at the time of the application that in addition to Sunday worship, the premises would be used midweek as an administrative base for staff, as a base for Compassion Ministry to distribute food and clothing to the needy, and for children’s activities including mother and baby groups. Permission was granted subject, inter alia, to a condition prohibiting use of amplified music or speech without written consent of the local planning authority.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 39 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 1.2. Permission is now sought to relax this condition. A supporting statement has been submitted with the application and is summarised as follows:-

1.2.1. Upon receipt of planning approval for the change of use work began to resolve the conditions. Church funds were redirected from restoration of the building to appoint architects and sound consultants. Over the last two years a number of reports detailing the sound improvements have been submitted but refused at Committee. Measurements taken by Environmental Health are almost identical to our own. Consultants have advised that all reasonable measures to insulate the building have now been taken. Any further alterations to the building will not be financially viable. We have adequately demonstrated no nuisance to local residents but they are determined that a zero noise output from the building is achieved. The building has always been in industrial use with 24 hour usage and we do not believe that noise output is now anywhere near that of the former occupiers, Parcel Force.

1.2.2. It is understood that the application could be refused meaning enforcement. It has been a pleasure to serve the local community but this planning issue must be cleared. Support for the application is therefore requested in the light of the support and benefit to this local community.

2. Location and Description

2.1. The application site is located to the western side of Bircham Road at its junction with Redstock Road within an industrial/commercial area adjoining the main Southend to Liverpool Street railway line. These former industrial premises are part single/part two storey with a gross floor area of approximately 2358m2 and last used by Royal Mail Property Holdings (Parcel Force) as a distribution depot.

2.2. Surrounding the site, to the rear, is Prittelwell Path beyond which is the redeveloped Short Street site by the bus operator Arriva. There is residential development comprising bungalows and two storey terraced housing adjoining to the east on the opposite side of Bircham Road, Redstock Road and Stanfield Road.

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policy BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2. BLP Policies: E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), U2 (Pollution Control), U10 (Provision of Other Community Facilities).

3.3. PPG 18 (Enforcing Planning Control), PPG 24 (Planning and Noise).

4. Planning History

4.1. These premises were used until the late 1960s for the manufacture of cathode ray tubes and thermionic valves. The premises were acquired circa 1969 by the then GPO who commenced the use as a sorting office in 1970. Their use was not the subject of a grant of planning permission and accordingly there were no restrictions imposed on the use or the times that the use operated. Parcel Force vacated the premises in 1999 and relocated to the Temple Farm Industrial Estate.

4.2. SOS/99/01225/FUL: Planning permission refused to use parcel distribution depot (sui generis) as place of worship (class D1) (2000); reason:-

The proposal is contrary to Policy E4 of the Borough Local Plan as it would involve the loss of land/premises which should be reserved for uses which provide local employment and/or business opportunities, particularly having regard to the limited supply of industrial and warehousing land in the Borough.

4.3. SOS/00/00324/FUL: Planning permission granted to use parcel distribution depot (sui generis) as place of worship (class D1) (2000)

4.4. SOS/01/00192/FUL: Planning permission granted to use parcel distribution depot as place of worship (relaxation of condition 02 on planning permission SOS/00/00324/FUL dated 19.07.00 which requires 125 parking spaces to be provided before the use commences) (2001)

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 40 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.5. SOS/01/00356/FUL: Planning permission refused to use parcel distribution depot as place of worship (relaxation of condition 05 on planning permission SOS/00/00324/FUL dated 19.07.00 which requires no activities involving amplified music or speech to take place at the premises without consent) (2001)

Inadequate measures are proposed to prevent neighbouring residential properties from being affected by noise from activities involving the use of amplified music and speech. The proposed use would therefore have an adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

5. External Consultation

5.1. None

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Environmental Health Comment – between 11th March and 11th August 2003. Fifty five complaints were received on 41 separate dates 28 visits have been made by EHOs, on ten occasions the noise ceased by the time of arrival and on 15 occasions the noise was audible in the street/in complainants homes, but none a statutory nuisance.

6.2. Following earlier statutory noise nuisances works have been carried out to the building. Further noise break out points have been brought to the attention of the church but no action is believed to have been taken.

6.3. The building was not designed for amplified music and therefore it is necessary for the occupiers to strictly control and manage noise activity. Officers have liaised with the church to give the opportunity to implement their own management controls. In the absence of noise management and control measures to justify a modified condition, the Environmental Health Group objects to the proposal.

7. Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification – fourteen replies (twelve objecting, of which nine are on duplicate letters; two support):-  distress and anxiety to neighbours  excessive noise on several occasions over past three years  band practices continue till 11pm during the week  out of hours Environmental Health officer has been called on many Sundays and during the week  building not suitable for amplified music due to glass and metal roof (soundproofing promised before they started in 2000)  use has increased beyond two Sunday church services originally promised in 2000  youth concerts one Sunday per month very loud – responses to requests for volume reductions show no compassion  nightworker’s sleep affected  the condition has not been policed in three years; other measures to deaden the noise have failed  the church is a magnet for young local musicians to practice and two groups practice there; usually sounds like a rock concert and sometimes until 11.15pm  the Vineyard’s own publicity states that they have an International recording company and that the church is an offshoot of a company “RIOT MUSIC” with a team of public address engineers  our local MP and Councillors have visited only at times when there is no problem with noise  music is vital and integral part of church services  proposal supported 8. Appraisal

8.1. Following the original refusal of planning permission for the change of use of the premises to a place of worship (SOS/99/01225/FUL), the applicant supplied supporting information to demonstrate that the nature of their specific use would generate some local employment and that through the provision of practical skills and training would help to address the imbalance of jobs and skills that leads to Southend’s high unemployment levels. It was envisaged that with

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 41 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL the growth of the church direct employment of over 20 full time staff, as well as part time and support staff, would occur in forthcoming years. Cited amongst the practical training skills to be offered were sound and music production as well as music lessons. In resolving to subsequently grant planning permission (SOS/00/00324/FUL), therefore, it was accepted that activity at the premises would be more wide ranging than that which might otherwise normally be associated with a place of worship.

8.2. Having accepted the use, it was considered that the use would give rise to levels of nuisance materially different to its former use as a postal depot and potentially harmful to the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupiers. The conditions requiring acoustic insulation and prohibition of the use of amplified speech and music were considered to be necessary to safeguard against the potential noise and disturbance impact on neighbouring occupiers, particularly having regard to some of the specific activities referred to by the applicant. For example, while activities involving music production and instruction may be acceptable with insulation, having regard to the circumstances of the site amplified speech and music may not. Responses from neighbouring occupiers appear to vindicate the Council’s position that, even with some insulation works, amplified speech and music has the potential for harmful noise nuisance.

8.3. The applicant had supplied in the submissions that accompanied application SOS/01/00356/FUL (for the relaxation of the subject condition) an acoustic consultant’s report purporting to show reductions in average noise values emanating from the site. Notwithstanding these, on 1st and 8th April 2001 statutory noise nuisance from the site was ascertained and planning permission was subsequently refused. There have been continuing discussions with officers and a site visit in the intervening period pursuant to resolving the problem arising from the continuation of the use in breach of the condition; the installation of a noise limiting device has been suggested as a compromise. To date, however, no positive response in this regard has been forthcoming. Accordingly, there has been no material change in circumstances since earlier attempt to remove the amplified speech and music condition, and it is therefore recommended that permission again be refused on residential amenity grounds. If the proposal is to be regarded as acceptable it would be essential to impose the provision of a noise limiting device upon the applicant.

8.4. In view of the continuing breach and consequent nuisance to neighbours, it is further recommended that an enforcement notice be served. Authority to instigate enforcement proceedings is therefore also sought.

9. Recommendation

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

01 Inadequate measures are proposed to prevent neighbouring residential properties from being affected by noise from activities involving the use of amplified music and speech. The proposed use would therefore have an adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, contrary to Policies H5, E5 and U2 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the Essex & Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan.

Members are recommended to AUTHOPRISE ENFORCEMENT ACTION to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use of amplified sound at the premises.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 42 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Milton Ward

SOS/03/01097/FUL (Application for planning permission)

ERECT PART FIRST FLOOR/PART TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION

70 Canewdon Road, Westcliff on Sea

Udaye Teelockchand Paul Clifton Associates

1. The Proposal

1.1. The application proposes extensive first floor and two storey extensions projecting some 23m beyond the two storey element of the existing care home, and to the southern side of the building and would result in an increase in the number of bedrooms from 10 to 24. A total of seven parking spaces are proposed, four to serve visitors. A new 2m close boarded fence would be erected along the southern and eastern boundaries. The extension would include a number of bay features and a turreted addition to reflect the style of the existing building. Two new vehicular accesses are proposed, one off Preston Road and one off Canewdon Road.

2. Location and Description

2.1. The substantial detached building is located at the junction of Preston Road and Canewdon Road. It is a prominent and attractive feature in the streetscene. It is a mixture of red brick and render and has extensive detailing and a prominent corner turret. The property has previously been extended to the rear with a flat roofed single storey extension. There is currently parking for three cars on site (excluding the garage) and access is gained from Canewdon Road.

2.2. A substantial brick garage is located to the east of the plot, this would be demolished. The site that adjoins No 30 to the east has two substantial sycamore trees along the rear boundary.

2.3. There are several mature street trees along the boundaries of the site.

2.4. The property to the south is substantial in size and set at a lower level. It is subdivided into flats, the lower one of which has a large side window which is a sole source of light.

3. Development Plan

3.1. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H8 (Sheltered Housing and Residential Institutions), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), C14 (Trees, planted areas and landscaping).

3.2. ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

4. Planning History

4.1. 1957 – planning permission granted for two garages.

4.2. 1969 – planning permission granted to use old persons home as single family dwelling.

4.3. 1970 – planning permission for single storey rear extension.

4.4. 1976 – planning permission granted for three storey block of six 2 bedroom and two 1 bedroom flats and eight garages (SOS/741/760).

4.5. 1984 – planning permission granted to use house as elderly persons home (SOS/84/1280).

4.6. 1985 – planning permission granted to use house as home for the mentally handicapped (SOS/84/1497).

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 43 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.7. 1991 – planning permission granted for part single part two storey side and rear extensions, single storey rear extension and convert garage/store into detached staff accommodation, lay out parking areas, enlarge vehicular access onto Canewdon Road and form new vehicular access onto Preston Road (SOS/90/1390).

4.8. 2000 – planning permission granted to convert part of first floor into a self contained flat, erect external staircase at side and lay out parking spaces with vehicular access onto Preston Road (SOS/99/01127/FUL).

5. Internal Consultation

5.1. Design Comment – materials to match.

5.2. Highway Comment – this proposal may give rise to additional on street parking, mainly from visitors to the care home. However the site is within a sustainable location and therefore it is unlikely that an objection would be raised by the Traffic and Transportation section.

5.3. Environmental Health – no observations.

6. Publicity

6.1. Site notice and neighbour notification – one letter of objection on the following grounds:  Further erosion of garden areas  Access to parking spaces obstructed by mature street tree  Preston Road already congested with parking vehicles mainly of non residents 7. Appraisal

7.1. The main issues to be taken into account are the impact of the development in the streetscene, impact on neighbours, implications for parking and highway safety, impact on existing trees.

7.2. The proposed extensions are substantial in size and would result in the majority of the site being covered in built development, and with the exception of the north west corner of the site, the whole of the frontage would be developed. It is recognised that the applicant has attempted to reflect the style of the existing building, however the extension will appear obvious, the resulting development will overpower the existing building and will appear dominant and out of keeping within the streetscene. Although there are other substantial dwellings in the vicinity there is also a sense of spaciousness within the streetscene, particularly along Canewdon Road, this would be unacceptably eroded as a result of the proposed development.

7.3. The current single storey extensions do project some way beyond the two storey element of the building, however they are relatively unobtrusive in terms of their impact. The extension which was approved in 1990 has now of course expired and was granted prior to adoption of the current Borough Local Plan. However this was substantially smaller than that now proposed, more subservient to the main building and did not include a side extension. That proposal cannot therefore be judged to set a precedent for the current application.

7.4. The proposed parking spaces would result in the loss of two mature street trees to allow for the vehicular accesses. This would be to the further detriment of the appearance of the streetscene. Furthermore the proposed visitor parking spaces off Canewdon Road would be located immediately adjacent to the building, and in particular bedroom windows and would result in the loss of a landscaped area, further emphasising the detrimental impact on the streetscene.

7.5. Turning to the impact on neighbours, the property to the south is subdivided into flats. The ground floor element has a side window which is the sole source of light to what appears to be a dining room. The proposed rear extension breaches a line of 45 when measured horizontally and also appears to breach a similar line taken vertically. Although the nearest part of the building is effectively 4.6m to the north of the window and it is therefore unlikely that a direct loss of light will result, this relationship indicates that the extensions would appear bulky and obtrusive and would result in a loss of outlook to the adjoining dwelling.

7.6. Furthermore the two storey projecting element to the rear is sited only approximately 6m away from the side boundary with No 18. There are main habitable room windows in this elevation which would give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking of the neighbouring garden and

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 44 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL into the property.

7.7. Although the two storey element projects along the rear boundary of the property, the separation distance with those properties to the east is approximately 20m and this together with the existing impact on the two storey garage building means that this relationship is considered to be acceptable.

7.8. The existing home has three parking spaces. There are currently 10 bedrooms and the applicant has confirmed verbally that there are seven staff. The proposed development would result in 24 bedrooms and the applicant has suggested that 14 staff would be employed. EPOA parking standards look for a maximum of eight parking spaces for this scale of development - seven spaces are shown. The area is one of heavy on street parking, in particular on Canewdon Road. The applicant has not submitted any supporting information to show how staff and visitors might be encouraged to use alternative forms of transport. No cycle parking is shown. The four visitor parking spaces onto Canewdon Road have a poor relationship with the existing building resulting in a loss of amenity to future residents and would result in the loss of a street tree, as would the spaces from Preston Road, and are not considered to be acceptable in this regard. Thus in this instance it is considered that the details of the parking as shown are unacceptable and the resulting number of acceptable located parking spaces is insufficient to meet the needs of the development and would exacerbate an already unacceptable on street parking situation within the area.

8. Recommendation

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

01 The proposed extensions by reason of their size, siting, design and proximity to plot boundaries would appear dominant and out of keeping in the streetscene and result in a loss of spaciousness to the detriment of the character and visual amenities of the area and contrary to Policies C11, H5 and H9 of the Borough Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan

02 The proposed extensions by reason of their rearward projection, bulk and proximity to the boundary would appear dominant and overbearing in relation to the neighbouring dwellings to the detriment of the occupiers thereof and contrary to Policies H5 and H9 of the Borough Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan.

03 The proposed extensions by reason of their rearward projection, and proximity to the boundary would result in an undue level of overlooking of the neighbouring properties to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers thereof and contrary to Policy H5 of the Borough Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan.

04 The proposed development would result in the loss of two mature street trees to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area and contrary to Policy C14 of the Borough Local Plan.

05 The location of a number of the proposed parking spaces is by reason of its proximity to the building and the resulting loss amenity to occupiers and the resulting loss of street trees considered to be unacceptable, furthermore the amount of parking proposed would not meet the needs of the development and would be therefore likely to result in additional on street parking in an already heavily parked area to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policies T11 and T8 of the Borough Local Plan and Policy T12 of the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 45 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Prittlewell Ward

SOS/03/01106/FUL (Application for Full Planning Permission)

ERECT TWO STOREY SPORTS HALL AND MUSIC FACILITY TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY (Amended Proposal)

Southend High School for Boys, Prittlewell Chase, Westcliff-on-Sea SS0 0RG

Southend High School for Boys Peter Emptage Associates Ltd

1 The Proposal

1.1 An amended application to build a sports hall and music facility on the existing tennis courts. The proposal involves a part 8.75m high, part 7m high set of buildings, the higher of the two parts being a new flat roofed sports hall, located a minimum of 26m south of residential rear boundaries; and the lower part being a new music facility, joined to the main section on the ground and first floors but also supported on pillars. The facing materials will be composite cladding, profiled roofing and lower level masonry on the sports hall. An external staircase is shown on the north west elevation of the sports hall from the first floor fitness suite, changing room and viewing gallery. The first floor of the sports hall building also contains music practice rooms. The ground floor contains shower and changing rooms, store rooms and a staff room. The music facility contains a rehearsal area on the ground floor with the first floor having two music classrooms, an office, control room and recording/ensemble room.

1.2 The sports hall has no windows. The music room has windows to the rooms facing south, north. east, west and south west. To serve the construction of the building, a temporary access road is shown running to the south and east of 46-70 Earls Hall Avenue with access onto Earls Hall Avenue itself. Possible additional parking (approximately 16 spaces) is shown adjacent to the north west corner of the new buildings, but are expected to be deleted.

1.3 The applicant has written as follows:-

1.3.1 The scheme address issues raised at Development Control Committee and suggestions that alternative location should be considered. These have again been considered and discounted:-

(1) West Field Location - obscures view of and detrimental to view of locally listed school - distance from properties in Hobleythick Lane pushes sports hall in front of school - east sun at lower angle creates longer shadow over adjoining properties (2) Infill in Earls Hall Avenue - creates same problems for bungalows in Earls Hall Avenue - scale of building adjacent to residential in street scene likely to be unacceptable - building would need to be set so far back that pitches would be lost (3) South corner of playing field - far too remote from school building resulting in unacceptable loss of teaching time - would need separate access from Prittlewell Chase - music facility would need to be located elsewhere on site - sports facility isolated (communication and security issues) - detrimental to important open space and open aspect from Prittlewell Chase - cost implication due to separate music facility (4) South of Playing Field - serious impact on façade and open playing fields - impinges on useful playing field (large spaces can be used for sports pitches, small corners and boundaries cannot) - obscure view and is detrimental to views of locally listed school - scale of building adjacent to residential in streetscene likely to be unacceptable - cost implication due to separate music facility

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 46 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL They have to therefore pursue a similar location to the original, improving the situation as far as practicable. Building has been:- - moved further from boundary – min 26m to max 46m – the distance to the housing being 56-75m - angled away from boundary to provide a variable flank to the properties - lower by approximately 450mm by changing construction on the roof deck - set into the ground by approximately 500mm - moved away from main school by further 2m to increase the amount of light/space between buildings and increase separation - temporary construction access road for the duration of the contract only, to be removed on completion (permitted development) - access to facility after school and at weekends via Hobleythick Lane and Prittlewell Chase only. After hours use in line with other sports halls at Westcliff High School for Girls where occasional use in evening by a badminton club or hockey club is normal - acoustic control of music practice rooms built into scheme during construction (controlled by condition?) They feel the combined effect of these amendments will produce an acceptable solution to the school, neighbours and the local authority. 1.4 A letter has been received from the Headmaster in reply to concern from neighbours about a three year building programme he mentioned in a letter to Old Southendians. He states that there are identified deficiencies in their specialist accommodation that need to be addressed, particularly to cater for increasing pupil roll. He referred to extended science, art, technology and drama facilities in the letter to Old Southendians. However, this accommodation will be provided almost entirely by means of internal conversion. The only planned new build is a new art studio above the ground floor changing rooms at the west end of the main building – not enlarging the footprint of the existing main building. Plans provided show internal conversions and position of proposed new building art studio. The new languages centre was added to the school’s accommodation in February 2003 and part of it will be converted to a food technology suite.

2 Location and Description

2.1 Two storey school buildings and associated playing fields, tennis courts and parking facilities, located on the north side of Prittlewell Chase, bounded by Hobleythick Lane, Earls Hall Avenue and Burr Hill Chase and generally surrounded by residential properties.

2.2 Vehicular access is taken from Earls Hall Avenue, Hobleythick Lane and Prittlewell Chase, together with a second gate and small largely unused vehicular access to Earls Hall Avenue, east of No 46.

2.3 Mature trees and shrubs lie between the existing tennis courts and residential properties on Earls Hall Avenue, the houses themselves lying roughly 30m from their rear boundaries.

3 Development Plan

3.1 PPG1 : General Policy and Principles, PPG17 : Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, PPG24 :Planning and Noise.

3.2 ESRSP CS1 – Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, BE1 – Urban Intensification, T11 – Traffic Management, T12 – Vehicle Parking.

3.3 BLP policies C2 (Historic Buildings), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), E5 (Non Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), U7 (Existing Education Facilities), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway) and T11 (Parking Standards).

3.4 Locally Listed Building

4 Planning History

4.1 There is a long history dating from 1956 relating to the provision of temporary classrooms and minor extensions and alterations at the school

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 47 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.2 1996 - planning permission granted to remove single storey classroom units fronting Hobleythick Lane and erect a two storey building to provide sixth form block (SOS/96/0967)

4.3 2002 - planning permission granted to demolish temporary buildings and erect two storey building to form teaching accommodation and glazed link to existing sixth form block (SOS/01/01288/FUL).

4.4 July 2003 – refusal of planning permission to erect two storey sports hall and music facility to the northern boundary (SOS/03/00848/FUL). Refused as the sports hall element would be obtrusive and overbearing, due to its bulk, height and proximity to the boundary with residential properties on Earls Hall Avenue, detrimental to residential amenities and contrary to ESRSP Policy BE1 and BLP Policy C11.

5 External Consultation

5.1 Sport England - reply to be reported.

5.2 Southend Airport - reply to be reported.

6 Internal Consultation

6.1 Design Comment - cladding of main sports hall would be preferred to continue to ground. Southern windows of music block could be more interesting, otherwise a well designed contemporary solution which will contextually relate to and enhance the existing buildings. Materials to be agreed.

6.2 Highway Comment – would be a conflict of turning vehicles at the junction of Earls Hall Avenue and the temporary construction access road, also the loss of possible additional parking will result in increased parking elsewhere. However, it is recognised that the school grounds benefit from large parking areas and should accommodate any extra parking demand as a result of the proposal.

6.3 Environmental Health Comment - reply to be reported.

7 Publicity

7.1 Press and site notices and neighbour notification. The period for representations expires after the meeting.

7.2 Twenty representations to date, objections on the following grounds:-  Question use of public transport to the facility  noise from hall use in evenings (sound proofing for hall not proposed)  busy bend in road is of concern  Safety hazard and inconvenience from construction traffic and construction access  Hall better sited on Prittlewell Chase boundary  welcome weekend access via Prittlewell Chase and Hobleythick Lane only - condition needs vigorous application  option 4 seems to meet everyone’s concerns  building will cause loss of light to adjoining residential properties  the building will be an eyesore to neighbours  the proposed building will screen from view any intruder to residential properties  likely to generate on-street parking problems in the locality. The parking implication has not been properly addressed  loss of outlook from residential properties  the character of the area will change  the loss of playing fields is regrettable  any differences from the previous scheme are so small as to be negligible. All the previous issues still remain.  Emergency access could be problematic  This proposal is part of a larger project, which it is intended to push through piecemeal. The whole scheme should be submitted as one application so residents are given a clear picture.  There is insufficient information to judge the impact of the school’s long term proposals.  An increase in rat-running through Earls Hall Avenue is likely.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 48 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL  The proposed building is poorly designed and will spoil the view of the locally listed building from Prittlewell Chase.  There is the potential for light pollution should the building be externally lit.  Question three year plan and where these buildings would be located and if the construction access is for this winter programme  The sports hall at Westcliff High School for girls has been mentioned as an acceptable comparison but the site location and relationship with neighbouring properties are completely different to this case.  The temporary access is likely to be permanently retained after completion of the development. 8 Appraisal

8.1 The principal issues raised by the proposal for the sports hall are whether the proposal overcomes the previous reason for refusal and whether the visual impact of the amended building and its impact on the setting of the locally listed school, the impact on residential amenities from the building and the uses associated with it, parking implications and relocation of the tennis court and loss of the playing field to hard play area acceptable.

8.2 It is a Council objective to encourage the best use of school sites and the better use of recreational facilities in the interests of the wider community. This is in accordance with national guidance.

8.3 This is a modern building which has been designed to sit in the context of the main school buildings. Whilst it is large, this size relates well to the extensive mass of the school façade. Facing details can be controlled by condition. Due to the acceptability in the context, the proposed building is still considered to be acceptable in terms of the setting of the locally listed building and to comply with Policy C2 of the BLP.

8.4 Turning to the impact on residential amenity the building has been moved significantly further away from residential properties, reduced in height and rotated to further minimise its impact. These long-distance, largely oblique views of the proposed building are now considered to be acceptable and it is certainly located at considerably greater distances from residential properties than the recently approved scheme at St Thomas More school. The amendments made are considered to have adequately dealt with the reasons for refusal and it is now clear that no suitable alternative siting exists for the building. In any case the application siting should be dealt with on its merit. A table comparing the previous scheme to that currently proposed is set out below:

Refused Scheme Current Proposal

Storeys 2 2

Height 9.2m 8.75m

Distance from boundary 15m 26m-46m

Distance from nearest house Approx 42m 56m-75m

8.5 In terms of the use within the building, sports hall and music facilities are, by their nature noisy uses but clearly, being considered when a building with no north facing windows and adequate noise insulation, the noise created by such uses should be reasonably contained. This could be controlled by condition and Environmental Health comment on this is awaited.

8.6 With regards to parking, details of staff numbers proposed have been supplied. The applicant confirms that no additional staff are required with the potential maybe for one or two additional in the future. Parking standards are set at a maximum. The area shown previously for a possible additional parking is not considered at this stage to be necessary as this discourages people from using public transport. Also, extensive community use is not envisaged so non-school hours, non-school use is not likely to be widespread so additional parking facilities are not considered to be justified. This aspect of the scheme has been omitted from the current drawings.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 49 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.7 The access road shown is just for the construction period for construction traffic, this can be controlled by condition, in order not to adversely affect residential amenities. The agent has submitted that the contract period s likely to be in the order of nine months.

8.8 PPG17 and Policy C15 seek to protect open space - including school playing fields - from development. Development should not normally be granted planning permission unless there has been a "robust assessment of need" or where no such assessment has taken place, th land is incapable of forming a playing pitch, or the loss is replaced elsewhere.

8.9 PPG17 provides guidance on sports/recreation development and states 'open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people's quality of life. Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion… Good quality sports and recreation facilities can play a major part in improving people's sense of wellbeing in the place they live …. sports and recreation facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness and good development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others'. …. local authorities should seek opportunities to improve the value of existing facilities. Usage might be improved by better … capital investment to secure improvements. In looking to improve existing open space facilities, local authorities should promote the compatibility of the use made of sport and recreational facilities with adjoining land uses'.

8.10 PPG24 deals with noise and states 'noise can have a significant effect on the environment and quality of life enjoyed by individuals and communities…. ' The impact of noise can be a material consideration… It is important that new development involving noise activities should, if possible, be sited away from noise sensitive land uses.

8.11 Local planning authorities must ensure development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use and design of facilities suggests mitigation such as to contain the noise/barriers/sound insulation/adequate distances between noise sensitive buildings/limiting operating times. Local planning authorities are to take account of how frequently the noise will be generated and how disturbing it will be and balance the enjoyment of participants against nuisance to other people. The impact of noise from sport, recreation .. will depend to a large extent on the frequency of use of existing facilities.

8.12 However, in the circumstances there is not considered to be a supportable objection to noise disturbance from the building's uses.

8.13 In conclusion, the scheme is now considered to overcome Members’ concerns and it is considered that the impact on the amenities of adjoining properties and the streetscene is minimised. The proposal will make a valuable contribution to the facilities of the school and wider community.

9 Recommendation

Members are recommended to delegate subject to expiry of the publicity period and GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 start within five years (C001) 02 submit samples of materials (CEAQ) 03 no windows other than those shown (CIML) 04 noise insulation to all buildings (CLDI) 05 levels details submitted (CZYR) 06 landscaping scheme submitted (CJDP) 07 landscaping implemented (CJAC) 08 temporary access removed upon completion of this location 09 weekend access only via Prittlewell Chase & Hobleythick Lane 10 details of external lighting

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 50 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Milton Ward

SOS/03/01119/BC4 (Application for planning permission)

USE VICTORIA CIRCUS FOR THE SITING OF MARKET STALLS BETWEEN 21ST NOVEMBER AND 21ST DECEMBER

Victoria Circus, High Street, Southend-on-Sea

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Chief Executive and Town Clerk

1. The Proposal

1.1. This application seeks to grant permanent planning permission for a use similar to that which took place last year and was known as the Bavarian Christmas Market. However last year stalls were located within the High Street, the current application proposes use of the Victoria Circus area for siting of market stalls between 21st November and 21st December, seven days a week. Trading hours will accord with Christmas trading hours generally in the High Street (these have not yet been finalised). The market will take the form of a number of wooden stalls, which will measure 4m x 3m and will be similar to last year’s stalls. The exact siting and number of stall is yet to be finalised. One of the stalls will sell hot food and it is intended to provide seating to serve this unit, the exact details of which have yet to be agreed.

1.2. A supporting statement and information accompany the application and are summarised below:

1.2.1. Last year for the first time a Bavarian Christmas Market was introduced to Southend town centre, the only one of its kind in the East Anglian region. The market consisted of 12 brightly coloured cabins selling traditional Christmas good and traded for a five week period in the run up to Christmas. This year it is proposed to bring the market back to the town centre as a regular annual event but to site the market mainly in Victoria Circus and part of the High Street. This will provide improved access for the general public and create less congestion down the central aisle of the High street. Last year the market attracted a major sponsor, First Great Eastern Railways, which enabled a major promotional package to be put together in association with Southend BC.

1.2.2. This type of market provides income of the Town Centre Manager, which is used to market and promote future events for the town centre. It also increases footfall to the town centre as well as economic benefits to local companies and services.

2. Location and Description

2.1. The market would be located at the northern end of the High Street in Victoria Circus. This busy pedestrianised area bounds, amongst others, the Odeon Cinema, WH Smith, Victoria Plaza and Virgin. It contains several seating areas but is otherwise undeveloped.

3. Development Plan

3.1. Borough Local Plan Policies S4 (Retail Markets) T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T12 (Servicing Facilities)

3.2. This section of the High Street is designated on the Borough Local Plan Proposals Map as Defined Shopping Centre (S1) and Existing Pedestrianised Area (S8) and is contained with Primary Shopping Frontages.

3.3. Southend on Sea Gateway Town Centre Strategy 2002–2012.

4. Planning History

4.1. None relevant to this site, however a temporary market has in the past operated in this location with the benefit of permitted development

4.2. 2002 – planning permission granted to use part of high street for the siting of market stalls between 22nd November to 23rd December every year SOS/02/00556/FUL

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 51 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 5. External Consultation

5.1. Police Community Safety Officer – to be reported.

5.2. Victoria Circus Tenants Association – to be reported.

5.3. Fire Brigade – to be reported.

5.4. Essex Chamber of Commerce – to be reported.

5.5. Southend on Sea Access Group- to be reported.

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Design Comment – No objections.

6.2. Highway Comment – A licence under S115 of the Highway Act will be required and this requires the consent of all frontagers. Arrangements need to be made to protect the Highway structures and to ensure there is sufficient access for the passage of pedestrians, service vehicles and the emergency services.

6.3. Environmental Health Comment - to be reported.

7. Publicity

7.1. Press notice, site notice and neighbour notification – no response.

8. Appraisal

8.1. A Christmas Market was permitted in the main part of the High Street and the market operated last year with great success, therefore the main issues to be taken into account are the appropriateness of the current proposed location, appearance of the market stalls, highway safety and opportunity for servicing and cleansing.

8.2. Retail markets have long been a popular form of secondary shopping and were traditionally held at the centre of towns providing a lively meeting place for residents and shoppers. Policy S4 applies and states that the Council will promote the establishment of a permanently based retail market. Following on from last years activities it is clear that the proposal would provide a lively interesting opportunity to increase the attractiveness of this part of the High street to shoppers.

8.3. The relocation of the market to Victoria Circus is considered to be an improvement over the siting along the High Street, which did lead to some congestion and pushed shoppers out to the margins of the thoroughfare. The market as proposed concentrates the stalls in a more open area, providing a focus for shoppers, whilst still leaving room to continue the throughflow of pedestrian traffic and allow access for service vehicles, cleansing etc.

8.4. The design of the stalls will be the same as those last year, and provided they are laid out in a manner which does not result in the stalls all backing on to the main highway and thus creating a more hostile environment for shoppers, is considered to be acceptable. The exact siting of the stalls can be controlled by condition.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 52 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.5. It is understood that it is desirable that the stalls be in place in the run up to Christmas, therefore rather than restrict the planning permission to the dates as proposed, as this would only be appropriate for this year it is suggested that the permission will be time limited to the six weeks prior to the 25th December, allowing for greater flexibility.

9. Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 Start within five years (C001) 02 Number of stalls to be agreed 03 Siting of stalls to be agreed 04 Permission time limited to between 13th November and 24th December each year 05 Refuse storage arrangements to be agreed 06 Details and siting of temporary seating to be agreed 07 Sound insulation of generator

Kursaal Ward

SOS/03/01125/FUL (Application for planning permission)

RETAIN USE OF DWELLINGHOUSE AS HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (RETROSPECTIVE)

33 Ambleside Drive, Southend on Sea

Nacro Community Enterprises R Zitola

1. The Proposal

1.1. To retain the use of a former single family dwelling as a house in multiple occupation. Investigations have established that a housing association has leased the property as an HMO in order to provide supported accommodation for single homeless persons. Residents have their own rooms, which have locks, they share kitchen, lounge, bathroom and toilet but have their own tenancies. One room of the property is used as an office for a helper/supervisor who will be on hand during the day, but not at night. There were three persons resident at the property at the time of inspection, although there is potential for five occupiers in total. However the Association has agreed not to place any further residents until the application has been decided.

1.2. This application was submitted following a number of complaints regarding alterations to the property and subsequent enforcement investigation.

2. Location and Description

2.1. The property is located on the northern side of Ambleside Drive, between the junctions with Honiton Road and Cheltenham Road. It was originally built as a single family dwelling, roof extensions have been added. The front garden has largely been laid out as hardstanding and there is space for two cars to park. .

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policy BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2. BLP Policies; H6 (Protecting Residential Character), H9 (Non Self Contained Residential accommodation), T11 (Parking).

4. Planning History

4.1. October 1983 – planning permission granted to use home for elderly persons and single storey side extension (SOS/959/83).

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 53 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 4.2. September 1998 – planning permission granted to extend roof with windows to front and rear (SOS/88/1504).

4.3. August 2002 – planning permission granted for change of uses to single family dwellinghouse house (SOS/02/00787/FUL).

4.4. July 2003 – complaint received re alleged use as HMO.

4.5. August 2003 – matter reported to Development Control Committee, but deferred to allow for consideration of this planning application.

5. External Consultation

5.1. Railtrack – reply to be reported.

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Highway Comment – this proposal may give rise to additional on street parking which is unattractive from a highway point of view.

6.2. Environmental Health Comment – to be reported.

7. Publicity

7.1. Site notice and neighbour notification – no response to date

8. Appraisal

8.1. The main issues are the impact of the development on the character of the streetscene and amenities of adjacent occupiers. It is recognised that the use of residential properties for multiple occupation can give rise to loss of amenity due to the intensive form of and density of occupation and the resulting potential for noise intrusion and disturbance. Furthermore the concentration of HMO’s within an area can exacerbate this impact. Policy H9 seeks to limit the number and distribution of HMO’s whilst at the same time making provision for this type of accommodation for which there is a recognised need. Policy H6 seeks to protect the character and amenities of residential streets and to ensure that they remain attractive for single family housing.

8.2. The size of this property is above the policy minimum and there are no other HMO’s in the road or the near vicinity. And although the number of properties already converted from single family dwellinghouse use exceeds 10%, the loss of the dwelling for single family dwellinghouse use had already been accepted when planning permission was granted for its use as a residential home. (Although planning permission was granted in 2002 to cover the property back to single family dwellinghouse use, there is no evidence that his use was ever taken up). Thus it is not considered that the use of the premise would result in undue clustering or concentration of such development or be contrary to Policy.

8.3. The impact on adjacent residents also falls to be considered. The dwelling is semi detached. Policy H9 requires that HMO’s are limited to detached properties or those where the attached property is not in single family dwelling use. Council records show that the adjoining property remains in single family dwelling use. It is clear from the level of complaint from the adjacent dwelling that lead to this enforcement investigation, that the use of the property is already giving rise to noise and disturbance, in particular from the playing of loud music and unsatisfactory behaviour in residents rooms, particularly late at night. Given that the property is currently under-occupied and occupation has the potential to almost double, it is considered that the use of the premises as proposed gives rise to a greater level of disturbance than that which was associated with the previous nursing home use.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 54 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.4. It is therefore considered that the use of this semi detached property for HMO purposes is inappropriate and unacceptable.

9. Recommendation

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

01 The unauthorised use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation has resulted in undue noise and disturbance and subsequent loss of amenity to the occupies of the adjoining dwellings and is therefore contrary to Policy BE1 of the ESRSP and Policy H9 of the Borough Local Plan.

and that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to require cessation of the use of the property as a house in multiple occupation on the grounds that the unauthorised use is detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining properties by reason of noise and general disturbance, contrary to Borough Local Plan Policy H9

St Lukes Ward

SOS/03/01160/BC3 (Application for Full Planning Permission – Borough Council Application)

ERECT SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO EAST ELEVATION

Pantile House, Pantile Avenue, Southend-on-Sea, SS2 4BD

Southend On Sea Borough Council Building Design Associates

1. The Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought to erect single storey extension to east elevation of the building. The property is in use as a residential care home for elderly people.

1.2. The internal layout of the extension would form an office, meeting room, kitchen, toilet and entrance lobby/hallway. The office would be positioned along the north elevation of the extension with three windows. The office would have an internal floor layout measuring 96m2 for the office and 29m2 for the meeting area. The south elevation would feature the meeting room, kitchen and toilet and would have a total of four windows. The proposed side elevation would have the main entrance, and only entrance to the extension. Two existing windows from the east elevation would be relocated along the north elevation of the building at ground and first floor level to existing bedrooms. The position of where these windows are currently would be infilled as a result of the extension. The proposed toilet window in the extension would have obscure glazing.

1.3. The proposed extension would have materials to match existing and would be sited on the east elevation of the main building.

1.4. The proposal is part of the refurbishment of the building which is due to commence in December, resulting re-planning of bedrooms, a total of 28 bedrooms.

1.5. The applicant has submitted a statement in support of the application, which is summarised below:

1.5.1. The proposed single storey extension would be used by the out reach team. The number of staff using the facility would be between 6-8, which are existing staff already based in the main building. The offices would be used between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. There would be no increase in visitor numbers to the site. The existing parking at the site is minimal but as part of the refurbishment, which is due to commence December 2003, a car park of 15 spaces would be provided. Some of the existing bedrooms and multi-occupancy rooms would be replaced increasing the number of single bedrooms to a total of 28.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 55 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 2. Location and Description

2.1. A large two-storey building built on a spacious plot along the north side of Pantile Avenue in an area that is predominately residential in character. This part of the road has an open layout with grass verges separating the highway from the footway with properties that have open front gardens. Pantile House is a brick built structure with the main pitched roof having concrete interlocking tiles and with the rear projecting part of the building having a flat roof. The building has a fenced front boundary painted white with a hedgerow growing behind it. The site has a rear service road accessed via a road running along the west side of the site. There appears to be no off street parking at the site.

2.2. The property is in use as a residential care home for the elderly (Class C2 of the Use Classes Order).

2.3. To the north of the site is the Temple Sutton School. To the east of the site are a mixture of terraced and semi-detached bungalows and houses in residential use. To the south of the site are a number of residential bungalows which are set back from the roadside and a community hall. To the west of the site is Grahame House a residential block of flats.

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policies BE1 – Urban Intensification, CS2 – Protecting the Natural and Built Environment.

3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H8 (Sheltered Housing and Residential Institutions), H9 (Non-Self-Contained Residential Accommodation), E5 (Non- Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), U6 (Non-Residential Health Care Facilities), T11 (Parking Standards).

4. Planning History

4.1. 1984 – Permission granted for alterations and extension to provide revised accommodation and fire escape (SOS/84/00276/CC4)

4.2. 1990 – Permission granted to erect part single/part two storey side extension to provide fire escape staircase (SOS/90/00669/FUL)

5. External Consultation

5.1. The National Care Standards Commission – Awaiting response.

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. Design Comment – The proposed scheme is unacceptable in its current form. The design and its integration with the existing building would be significantly improved if the extension were set back from both the existing front and back building lines and If the window style matched those of the existing building (i.e. the meeting and office to match double bedroom window design and the kitchen to match single bedroom style. Materials to match existing.

6.2. DSC Comment - Awaiting response.

6.3. Highways Comment - Awaiting response.

7. Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification – One reply from a councillor raising concerns of parking at the site and within the vicinity of the nearby school and in residential homes.

8. Appraisal

8.1. The main considerations with this application are the impact on the neighbours, impact on the streetscene, impact of increase in staffing levels and activity at the site, impact on parking and the implications involving the design of the extension in terms of visual amenity.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 56 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.2. The proposed extension would be positioned on the east elevation of the building. The nearest neighbour would be a terrace of bungalows located on the adjacent side of the street approximately 32m away from the existing building. There would be no significant harm caused to any neighbouring residential dwellings.

8.3. The proposed extension would see the loss of some private amenity space within the curtilage of the site and therefore a slight loss of openness, by which this part of the street is characterised. However the dimensions of the extension would be 10.25m long by 8.2m wide by 5.9m high and would appear relatively small in size in comparison to the existing building. If approved the extension would enclose this corner of the site, which would still have a degree of openness with a lawn front and rear garden to the site.

8.4. The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing building, would have materials to match. Design have objected to the application stating that the building should be set back from the existing building. Ideally this would create an improved design to the building but the proposed extension would be reduced in size causing a loss of floor space to the proposed office and meeting room. The application is not considered to warrant refusal on these grounds. Design have concerns over the windows not matching, particularly the rear windows. The proposed extension would have windows to match the existing; the windows to be relocated at the rear would be as a result of the infilling of the side elevation, where the new extension would be constructed. The applicant would use these existing side windows in the rear elevation of the main building. The rear elevation of the building is not viewable in the streetscene. The windows would match the existing building on the front elevation. The proposal would be considered visually acceptable in the streetscene. Therefore the proposal would not harm the visual amenities of the area.

8.5. The extension to the building would incorporate an office and meeting room which the applicant has stated would be used as a facility for the Outreach Team which are currently located in the existing building. There would be no increase in staff from this application and the proposed hours of use are 9am to 5pm on a Monday to Friday basis. The proposed extension would not lead to an increase in activity to the site.

8.6. The site has no allocated car park so staff and visitors currently park along Pantile Avenue. There would be no increase in activity so the general parking within the area would be unaffected. The area is not one of high parking pressures the road also has a public bus service so any future visitors should be encouraged to use public transport as an alternative. The applicant has stated that proposed refurbishment would provide a 15-space car park, which would require separate planning permission.

9. Recommendation

Members are recommend to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 Start within five years (C001) 02 Materials to match existing 03 No additional windows other than those shown 04 Opening of hours to be restricted 05 The proposed office and meeting room to be used as ancillary to the properties existing use INFORMATIVE

01 A separate application for planning permission would be required to lay out a 15- space car park within the curtilage of the site

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 57 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL Chalkwell Ward

SOS/03/01163/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

ERECT SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION (AMENDED PROPOSAL)

26 Fernleigh Drive, Leigh on Sea

M Metson & Z Smith Smith & Metson Architects

1. The Proposal

1.1. Proposed development is an amendment to a previously approved scheme. The previous approved permission for a single storey rear extension remains unchanged. The amendment involves the reduction in footprint of the extension, but bringing the south flank wall further into the ‘well’ area. The glass rooflight has been omitted and velux windows substituted.

2. Location and Description

2.1. The semi detached house lies on the eastern side of Fernleigh Drive, it has a shared driveway with No 24.

2.2. No 24 has a rear projection with kitchen door to the rear and kitchen windows to the side. This forms a ‘well’ with the application property. A 1.5m fence separates the rear gardens of the properties. No 28 has a single storey rear extension.

3. Development Plan

3.1. ESRSP Policy BE1 – Urban Intensification.

3.2. BLP Policies C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations), H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), Appendix 4

4. Planning History

4.1. 2002 – permission granted for the construction of a single storey rear extension (SOS/02/00018/FUL) – subsequent minor amendment agreed to reduce roof form and construct a lower, glazed metal roof.

4.2. 2003 – permission granted for single storey rear extension (amended proposal) (03/00703/FUL)

5. External Consultation

5.1. None undertaken.

6. Internal Consultation

6.1. None undertaken.

7. Publicity

7.1. Neighbour notification – no representations received to date.

8. Appraisal

8.1. The consideration is whether the proposal is an acceptable amendment to the previously approved scheme 03/00703 (which itself was an amendment to 02/00018).

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 58 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL 8.2. The alteration involves a reduction in general bulk and form of the extension but it is proposed to bring the south flank wall further into the well area, worsening the relationship with 24 Fernleigh Drive. This contravenes local plan policy and guidelines and is not normally acceptable, but in this instance the projection beyond 24 is decreased, and the part of the single storey extension that was on the boundary no longer exists, so it is considered that the development will have less of an impact on No.24 than the scheme for which permission already exists. Consequently there is no objection to the proposal.

8.3. All other aspects of the scheme have been considered previously and found to be acceptable.

9. Recommendation

Members are recommended to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 01 Commence within five years (C001) 02 Obscure glazing to any windows in south facing side elevation (CIAB) 03 Extension to be rendered, colour to match existing building

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.

$jkngfq5d.doc Page 59 of 59 Report No: DTES03/172 - FINAL