Rochford District Council Minutes

INDEX

1982

January - December MINUTE INDEX 1982

ALLOTMENTS

Competition 1982 305, 570

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY

Liaison Meeting 179, 556

AUDIT

Audit of Accounts 1980/81 230, 231, 351 cash in Transit/Cash Collection 649 Final Audit 1981/82 649 Audit and the Policy Maker 746 BOROUGH STATUS 649

BUILDING CONTROL

Building Regulations 1976 — Revised fee structure 519

BULLW000 HALL, HOCKLEY 654

BUSES

Ferry Road/Pooles Lane, Flulibridge - Improved facilities 37, 325 Hilltop Farm Estate 324, 518 Service 65 - Ashingdon—South Fambridge link 324, 518 Services 4C and BA 'Cross District' 324, 518 Bus Timetables 523 CAR PARKING

Websters Way Car Park - Sponsored Dog Jog 55 Castle Road Car Park — Band Practice 57, 448 Castle Road - Sale/lease of land 345, 368, 534, 640 Staffing Structure 437 Christmas Amnesty 440 Rayleigh Market - Antiques Fair 441 Websters Way Car Park — Band Practice 448 Ashingdon Road Car Parking 41, 138, 202, 624, 714 Christmas Amnesty 651 Supermarket Trolleys 430, 685 The Approach Car Park 734 Weekly Season Tickets — The Approach Car Park 735 Charges 743 Transferable Tickets 743

CARAVAN SITES ACT 1960

Brandy Hole Yacht Station, Pooles Lane, Hulibridge 98 Unauthorised Caravan on land adjoining 'The Olive Branch' Magnolia Road, Hawkwell 585 Site Licence 2 - Crouch Caravan Park 590 Site Licence Condition - Distance between caravans 591 266 Plumberow Avenue, Hockley 669

CHARGES

Bowls 25, 152, 242 Rayleigh Civic Suite 58 Housing Rents 69 Guest Rooms — OAP units 91 Rochford Fair — charges 116 Hackney Carriage Licensing fees 12? Clements Hall Phase III. Scale of charges 243 The Freight House Community Centre 701 Annual Review — 1983/84 743

CHRISTMAS LIGHTS 651, 661

CIVIC PRIDE 264, 295, 309, 32?, 343 352, 371, 388, 396, 413

CLEMENTS HALL SPORTS CENTRE

Phase III — Progress 30 Phase IV 62, 74, 437, 705 Proposed Swimming Gala — 2/10/82 114 Snooker Exhibition and Demonstration Evening 191 Official Opening 230 Phase III — Charges 243 Phase IV — Main surface water drainage works 418 Bar Arrangements 509 Quarterly Report 604,700 Liquor Licensing 705 COMMITTEES AND REPORTS OF Roach Valley Conservation Zone — Group of Representatives 38, 128, 203, 425, 612 Joint Staff and Safety Panel 52, 140, 636 Joint Works and Safety Panel 53, 145, 342, 661, 636, 729 Cycle of Meetings 1982/83 70, 239 Keep Britain Tidy group — see card of that title Hackney Carriage Panel 127, 522, 662, 708 Highways Agency Panel 145 Rochford Computer Panel 742 District Plan Working Party 717 Appointments Panel 549, 739 Chairman's Panel 62, 230, 351, 549, 649, 739 Audit Panel 62, 230, 351 , 649 Community Centres Panel 62, 351, 549, 739 Annual Appointments 254 — 260 Action Panel for the Disabled 354, 551 Planning Services Committee — 24th June 1982 — Inquest 457, 469 Appeals Panel 538, 643 Housing Benefit Appeal Panel 536, 548 Nssex Games Steering Committee 415, 449, 739

COMMUNITY CENTRES

Revised Strategy for 549

Rayleigh Grange Charges 25, 351 Liquor Licence 62, 549, 705 Provision of Club facilities 351 Administration/Management of 549 Community Association 549 Management Committee 741

Rochford Community Centre — The Freight House Development of 62 Deemed Consent 62 Progress 351 Management of 549 Supplementary Capital Estimate 549 Withdrawal of Rochford Parish Council 557, 739, 758 Scale of Charges 701 Liquor Licence 705 Management Committee 741

Great Wakering Development of 62, 351, 549, 739

COMPULSORY IMPROVEMENT see Unfit Houses

CONCESSIONARY SCHEMES

Revised Conditions 731 CONFERENCES

County Social Services/District Councils 13, 174 ADC Planning Committee - out of town meetings 39 An Alternative to a Work Study Bonus Scheme — Seminar 66 Hazardous Waste Disposal 1 04 National Housing and Town Planning 146 Environmental Health Congress 1982 17? CIFFA, Harrogate 1982 357 ADC Annual Meeting and Conference 1982 358, 443 Institute of Housing 1982 391 Town & Country Planning Association — Weekend School for Councillors 520 Rating & Valuation Association 639 Contracting Out 653, 745 London & South East Regional Planning 721

CONSERVATION GRANTS

Priests House, Ashingdon Road, Rochford 168, 215, 232 2 Weir Pond Road, Rochford 168 Gore House, Ballards Gore, Stambridge 168 53 West Street, Rochford 168 Women's Institute Hall, Rochford 168 309 Ferry Road, Hullbridge 168 4 Church Road, Barling t4agna 378 21 West Street, Rochford 378 2 Chase Cottages, East End, Paglesham 378 67—69 West Street, Rochford 378 3—15 South Street, Rochford 378, 382 Grants Scheme 521 26 South Street, Rochford 476 Halesville Cottage, Ballards Gore,Canewdon 476 21 West Street, Rochford 476 Glebe Farm, Barling 476

CONTRACTS

Aged Persons Grouped Flatlets, High Street, Great Wakering — lift 498 Mill Lane Pump Station reconstruction 498 Fooles Lane, Section 16 Soil Sewer 498 Public Conveniences, Southend Road, Hockley 593 Refuse Sacks 684 Keswick Avenue Foul Sewer 684 The Esplanade Foul Sewer Replacement 684

CONTRAV ENT IONS

See Town & Country Planning - Contraventions COUNCIL PREMISES

SEE ALSO+ Community Centres Clements Hall Park Sports Centre Wakering Sports Centre Mill Hall

Staff Car Park 52 Energy Conservation 62 Rochford Old People's Day Centre 233 Purchase of 1? South Street, Rochford 246, 362, 442 1"Barringtons' Council Offices, Rayleigh 24? 19 London Hill, Rayleigh 248 Refurbishing Exterior Elevation of Council Offices at 3—15 South Street, Rochford 378, 382, 433 Dutch Cottage, Crown Hill, Rayleigh 438, 465, 550 Public Conveniences, Southend Road, Hockley 492, 542, 593 Grant Aid — 17 South Street, Rochford 641 Office Extension, Council Offices 649 Goods left in Council Buildings 673 Depot — Cleansing Standards 729

COUNCI LLORS

Councillor E V Maton 1 Visits to Low Cost Homes 12 Royal Garden Parties 158 Members' Room - Press 230, 355 Correspondence 452 Support Services 649 —--I-

DEEMED PLANNING CONSENTS

Rawreth Playing Field 4, 22, 64, 78 Rochford Community Centre — The Freight House 62 36 Pulpits Close, Hockley 280, 474, 483 Computer Centre Accommodation - Portakabin for Audit 362, 373, 383 17 South Street, Rochford 362, 472, 553 Park Sports Centre — Alterations 417, 460, 504 Mill Hall — Office Extension 310 BMX Track — Grove Road Open Space 411, 472, 504 Temporary Pavillion, Gt. Wakering Playing Field 472, 504 Public Conveniences, Southend Road, Hockley 492, 542, 575 Clements Hall Phase IV — Re-alignment of Tennis Courts 739

DELEGATION SCHEME

Scrap Metal Dealers — Exemption Orders CDLS/DHH) 176 Increase in rate of Intermediate and Repairs Grants (Dliii) 282 Recovery of Rates — Authorised Officers 339 Matters which will not admit of delay (CE) 361 Historic Building Grants (DTP) 521 Building Preservation Notices (DLS ) 650 Public Entertainment Licensing (DLS) 673 Public Entertainment Licensing — Authorised Officers 673 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 673 Unified Housing Benefits 760

DIRECT LABOUR ORGANISATION

Setting up 455 ECCLESIASTICAL PARISHES

Ashingdon & South Fambridge - Proposed Union 740

ELECTIONS

May 1982 - Results 258

E24PLOYMENT, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL 238, 290, 304, 322, 340 DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES 353, 372, 390, 502, 730

Matchbox, Rochford 544 Seminar 730, 748

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

Administrative Alterations . 363

ESTIMATES

Expenditure Targets 1982/83 62 Capital Programme 1982/83 62, 68 Energy Conservation 62 Rechargeable Works 62 Capital Programme 1981/82 — Other Services Block 67 Mill Hall — Alterations 310, 338 Housing Investment Programme 530 Site Investigation — School Site, Great Wakering 727 Fencing - Nobles Green Culvert 727 Computer Panel 742 Crouch Harbour Authority 744

ESTIMATES - VIREMENTS

From To Amount Pembroke House Grested Court £7,000 300, 337 Central Heating Central Heating

Castle Hall Mill Hall £12,000 310, 338 Refurbishing Alterations

Conservation Admin.Bldgs. £5,160 382 Grants Repairs

House Purchase Aged Persons £50,000 732 Loans Alarm Schemes FOOD HYGIENE

Contravention - Vehicle Reg. WHK 768W 15 Training Course 394 301 Ferry Road, E-Iullbriclge 679

FOOTPATHS

Council Policy 126 Purdeys Industrial Estate 317 Diversion of 4 (Hawkwell) & 32 (Bochford) 318 Diversion of 41 Doggetts, Rochford 319, 613 St. Peter's Road, Hockley 621 Unadopted Footpaths 710 Diversion of Footpaths 4 and 7 (Rayleigh) 711 Management and Protection of Public Bights of Way 723 GRANT & LOAN REQUESTS

Hulibridge Community Association 147 Chelmsford Cathedral 214 Priests House, Ashingdon Road, Rochford 168, 215, 232 Pitsea Land—fill Site, Scientific Investigations 397 St. Nicholas Church, Great Walcering - Tower Appeal 532 Kennet District Council 533 Rayleigh Grange Community Association 549 Hullbridge Sports & Social Club 555 Crouch Harbour Authority 744 HACKNEY CARRIAGES

See also Sewers

Rawkwell Brook 101 Kingsmans Farm Ditch Flood Alleviation Scheme 180 Factory Site rio 8 St Johns Road, Ct. Wakering 181 Nobles Green Culvert 676, 727 TOWN & COUNTRY PUNNING

See also Conservation Grants Roach Valley Conservation Zone T & CPA Contraventions Trees

Historic Towns in Essex — Consultation Draft 40 510 Ashingdon Road, Rochford 107 Erection of CB Aerials within curtilate of Residential Dwellings 129, 144 Essex Design Guide Household Survey 130 Development Control Statistics 131, 426, 616 Planning Gain 132 Regal Cinema Site, Bellingham Lane 148 Developments at Wickford 165, 618, 720 Planning Inquiries - The Award of Costs 166 Essex Structure Plan 193, 326 Consideration of Draft T P f 9 1983/84 195, 229 Public Transport Plan 1983/84 204 Enforcement & Planning Appeals 206 ROC/463/80 — Land adjacent to Lillyville Walk, Rayleigh 209 South Fambridge Works 225, 564, 572 Building Preservation — Ropers Farm, Barling Magna 267 Planning Fees 270 Land adj. Buena Vista, Riverview Gardens, Hullbridge 271 308 Greensward Lane, Hockley 224(13c), 274 Employment Generation - Interim Policy 321 Conservation Grants 322 Development Control Policy Ifl Green Belt 332 Forward Plan Programme 333A, 480 Paragraph 19 Consultations with the County Council 375 Hockley Downs Stables, Lower Road, Hockley 376 Rochford Branch Library — 26 West Street 473 'Little Brays' Brays Lane, Canewdon 475 34 Etern Road, Rayleigh 476 Local Plans, The Need for Change 479 BPN — Gore Farmhouse, Stambridge 524 BPN — Pickerells, Rawreth 524 BPN — Buckland House, East End, Pagleshain 524 Rochford Branch Library — 26 West Street 541 'The Cabi&, Lyndhurst Road, Ashingdon 545 BPN — Breade House, Apton Fall Road, Stambridge 572 Rayleigh Conservation Zone — Telegraph Pole at top end of High Street 622 BPN — Bay Tree Cottage, 50 Main Road, Hockley 629 BFN — Mayfair, High Street, Canewdon 629 BPN — 50 Hockley Road, Rayleigh 629 BPN — Millers Farmhouse, The Common, Great Wakering 629 BPN — Winfell, High Street, Canewdon 629 BPN — Roach Farmhouse, Barling Magna 629 ROC/730/81 — Goads Meadow, Church Road, Hockley 689 Land r/o Council Offices, Rochford 253, 691, 747, 758 Computerisation of Systems 716 Essex Coast Protection Subject Plan 718 Wickford District Plan 719 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT - CONTRAVENTIONS

5k Castle Road, Rayleigh — Castle Alarm Services 16 Perrys/Devenish, Hambro Hill, Rayleigh 48, 437, 454, 467 250 Greensward Lane, Hoclcley 84 22 Elm Grove, Hullbridge 164 Land between Ferndale Road & Blounts Wood, Rayleigh 223 Rye Thermoplastics, Swaines Industrial Est. Rocrrd 183, 268 Cedar Mews, Hockley 268 Rose Garden, Aldermans Hill, Hockley 268 Franelle, Church Road, Rawreth 269, 461 308 Greensward Lane, 1-Tockley 274, 374 Bramblehurst Farm, [-lydewood Lane, Canewdon 374 Fly Posting 525 2A Woodside Chase, Hawkwell 688 Spur Aquatics, London Road, Rayleigh 688 Blue House Farm, Chelmsford Road, Rawreth 688

TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS

Waiting Restrictions, Southend Road, Hockley 42 Love Lane (part), Rayleigh — Proposed "One Way" 199 Lancaster Road (part), Rayleigh - Stopping Up 209 Temporary Closure of Bellingham Lane (part) Rayleigh - May Day Fair 226 Waiting Restrictions — Great Wakering 314 Battlesbridge By—Pass 431, 465 Proposed Extension and Variation of Waiting Restrictions, Hockley & Hawkwell 713 Waiting Restrictions - Meadow Way and Spa Close, Hockley 722

TWINNING 649 UNIFIED HOUSING BENEFITS

New Procedure 341 Financial and Staffing Implications 341, 536 Appeal Panel 548 Delegation 760

UNFIT HOUSES

234 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh 8 37 West Street, Rochford 9 5A Spa+Road,Hockley 95 Townfleld Bungalow, Southend Road, Great Wakering 95 4 Olive Cottages, Mucking Hall Road, Barling 95 Chase Cottage, East End, Paglesham 171 'Four Winds' Wood Avenue, Hockley 281, 583 285 Rectory Road, Hawkwell 490, 584 Pickerells Farmhouse, Highlands Road, Battlesbridge 582, 668 WAKERING SPORTS CENTRE

Caravan Rally 118

WALLASEA FERRY 35, 323 ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL MINUTES

1982

July (Part 2) ROCUPORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Audit Panel held on 14th July, 1982. Present: Councillors L.K. Cope, J.A. Gibson, R.H. Roman, A.L. Tate, J.P. Taylor, T. Warner and E.S. Whitworth.

8. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN

Resolved that, in the absence of Councillor Harvey, Councillor L.K. Cope be appointed Chairman of the Panel for this meeting.

9. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors A.J. Harvey and D.C. Wood.

10. CANEWDON PARISH COUNCIL AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS (Minute 7)

In reply to a question the Chief Executive explained that the officer of the Finance Directorate authorised to act as Auditor to the Canewdon Parish Council would not carry out an audit of the accounts, as this would be done by Price Waterhouse, but would assist the Parish Council in the preparation of their accounts for audit purposes.

11. AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS STORES STOCK LEVELS & DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS

In accordance with Minute 4/82 of the Audit Panel the Director of Finance submitted a report giving further details of the items relating to stores balances and deposit account balances referred to in the District Auditors Audit of Accounts for 1980/81.

The Panel discussed alternative methods of purcha8e of bulk items and the introduction of more effective systems for stores monitoring and stores issue.

12. CAR PARKING — STAFFING STRUCTURE The Panel received the confidential report of the Director of Technical Services (circulated to Members only> outlining proposals to amend the car parking establishment from two full—time and two part—time staff to three full—time officers.

The Director referred to difficulties which had been experienced as a result of the absence of one full—time attendant for a considerable time and the resultant effect upon revenue levels.

The Director of Finance referred to collection arrangements for cash from car parking ticket machines and advised the Panel that this was an area which he would wish to review further and upon which he would submit a further report in due course. The Panel accepted that this was an aspect which should be further considered, although there were obvious security problems which might be difficult to resolve.

A- t? 'J i J RECOMMENDED That the Policy and Resources Committee be requested to give consideration to this report.

13. INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 1981/82

The Panel received and discussed the report of the Principal Assistant (Audit) to the Chief Executive upon the work programme of the Audit Section during 1981/82.

Several references were made to areas where allocations of audit time had been exceeded significantly and Members were advised that in carrying out audit exercises, where problem areas were revealed it was an essential part of Audit to pursue these. It was not always possible therefore to predict the amount of time to be allocated until the investigation had actually commenced.

14. PEMBROKE HOUSE (C.929) — ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER (Minute 299/82) The Panel received the report of the Chief Executive which outlined the history snd difficulties in obtaining suitable tenders for the renewal of the existing central heating and hot water system, together with ancillary works, at Pembroke House.

The Chief Executive explained that no tender received complied totally with the specification and as a result the Panel were advised of the alternatives available to them.

It was pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest any improper action in connection with tenders and in the circumstances it was felt that acceptance of the tender of J.W. Coward & Co., in the sum of £63,145 was in the best interests of the Council and the relevant Chairmen had therefore authorised acceptance under Standing Order 18.

RECOMMENDED That the action taken be confirmed.

15. INTERIM AUDIT REPORT 1981/82

The Chief Executive reported that the Interim Audit for 1981/82 had been completed by Price Waterhouse and the final audit would commence in August.

An important part of this audit, being the first conducted by Price Waterhouse at Rochford, was a review of Internal Audit and the Chief Executive felt that the Panel would, in the circumstances, wish to see the comments relating to this area prior to discussion on the audit generally. Details were therefore circulated to Members of the Panel.

Price Waterhouse made particular reference to the ;ent

. Ut?)63O r

structure of the section which they considered to be insufficiept, and suggested that consideration be given to the appointment of a further Senior Audit Assistant, thus allowing the Principal Assistant (Audit) more time to concentrate on planning work, computer audit etc.

The Chief Executive advised the Panel that the structure recommended was similar to that in operation prior to the general restructuring of establishments throughout the Council in the latter part of 1979. At that time the post falling between the Senior Audit Assistant and the Junior Audit Assistant became vacant and was subsequently deleted from the establishment.

Further consideration would be given to the full report on the Interim Audit at the next Meeting of the Panel.

16. AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS 1980181

The Panel continued its consideration of the informal reports of the District Auditor, copies of which had previously been circulated to all Members of the Audit Panel.

The Panel discussed in detail a number of items raised with the Director of Finance as follows:—

1. Sqperannuation Account — lump sum reductions.

2. Essex County Council Agency.

The Director of Finance reported that sums outstanding to this Authority as a result of agency arrangements with the County Council had now all been settled although County had not yet completed its own audit.

3. Community Land Act 1975.

4. Southend Computingentre.

The Director of Finance reported that all balances relating to administrative costs rechargeable to the Southend Computing Centre had now been cleared.

5. Anglian Water Authority (Section 15 Agençy Arrangements).

6. Interest on the use of internal revenue balances.

7. Temparyjorrowing limits.

8. Home Insulation Grant.

9. Rate Rebates.

10. Clements Hail Sports Centre.

The Director of Finance expressed slight exception to the District Auditor's report upon this particular aspect, as it was he who had in fact drawn to the Auditor's attention the Department's awareness for the introduction of a more I w

detailed costing system and supervision arrangements, and these had in fact already been Introduced.

11. Use of County Supplies.

It was reported that where possible full use was made of County Supplies, but this was always subject to satisfactory prices being available, availability of goods and length of delivery.

12. Action copy of Minutes.

13. Valuation for 19, South Street.

14. Accounting for capital receipts.

15. Capital ledger — memorandum account. .

. C' 9 tij ROCUFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL Agpda Item 7

POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE — 21ST JULY 1982

Dutch Cottage Management Committee

At a Meeting of the Management Committee held on 28th June 1982 at the Cottage. Present: Counciltiis J.A. Gibson, Miss. E.G.J. Lovett, T.J. Warner and Mr. P. Lewis.

Apologies: Mr. K. Gee.

APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN

Councillor Miss. B.G.J. Lovett was appointed Chairman of the Committee.

PURPOSE OF THE MEET INC

It was explained that the previous elderly tenant had been taken into hospital a some months ago and would not be returning to the property. The dwelling has • been unfit for habitation for some time but the tenant, though fully appreciating the situation, had not wanted the disturbance involved or for that matter to be rehoused.

The Cottage was in a poor state of repair and extensive works were required to be undertaken. The Director of Health and Housing had prepared the attached Schedule of Defects but Members appreciated that with a building of this age, the full extent of the repairs would only become apparent as the works actually progressed and that the cost could be considerable. Before a renovation scheme could be prepared it was necessary for the Committee to decide the future use of the building and the scale of works to be undertaken.

TITLE

The Committee were advised that the Rayleigh Urban District Council had acquired the building in 1964 from public subscription for the express purpose of preserving it as a listed building. The Cottage had been let on a standard tenancy agreement subject to special conditions relating to viewing by members of the public. The Council had by a Declaration of Trust an obligation to preserve the building as a traditional Dutch Cottage and to keep it in good repair.

HISTORIC BUILDING

The Committee noted that the Cottage was a Grade 2 Listed Building for which a 50% repairs grant would be available from the Council's conservation monies. The Officers were investigating whether there were any other grant aiding bodies for such works. -

FUTURE USE

Two suggestions were considered by the Committee:—

Its continued use as a residential unit, Its use as a museum.

O3833 Major Works were necessary in any event. In the latter ease it was thought that a higher standard of restoration would need to be achieved and that there would be problems with supervision and manning the building. Members also felt if left unattended when the Museum was closed, it might be vandalised and was particularly vulnerable to fire damage.

The Committee were unanimous in the view that it should be re—let as a residential unit to a person with enthusiasm for the building and that the Council should now undertake the major restoration works which were needed. They considered that it was essential that these works were carried out to a high standard and to ensure as far as possible that no further restoration was necessary for the next 20 years.

Mr. Gee who had visited the Cottage with Officers on a previous occasion shared this view.

RESTORATION SCifEME

The Director of Technical Services reported that the scheme would need to provide for a complete examination of the main structure of the building, floors and thatch and that specialist contractors would need to be employed. It might be that he would need to negotiate the works with the contractor on the basis of the total sum of money the Committee were prepared to spend. In particular the existing back addition would have to be replaced and the stairway altered. Upstairs a new layout was desirable with a landing and doors to the bedrooms. He had visited the Dutch Cottages on Canvey Island. These had been renovated and incorporated modern conveniences and he was satisfied that it was possible to achieve a design in keeping with the historic status of the building and at the same time meet the minimum standards for a dwelling house. The building contract should take between 6 and 9 months to complete. As to the site generally it would be necessary to form a parking space at the front and to look critically at the trees near the Cottage.

The Director advised the Committee that it would take a month to prepare a scheme and estimate for their approval and it was agreed to meet again for that purpose. They noted the need for consultation with historic buildings experts and acknowledged the involvement of the County Council and the Department of the Environment. The Committee were also aware that Councillor E.H. Adcock had long experience of renovation works and felt that he might be willing to look at the Cottage with the Director and give his views as to what works might be required. The Director agreed to contact him.

SELECTION OF A TENANT

The Director of health and Mousing suggested that once the works were under way the Committee could advertise for a tenant in the local press, interview suitable applicants and make the selection.

Resolved (1) That the Officers proceed accordingly.

(2) That a report of these discussions be made to the District Council. S e00634 SCHEDUlE OF DETh)TS

"Dutch Cottage", 33'Crown Hill, RyleiEh External: Perished pointing to brickwork of plinth. Defective window putties. Uneven brick paving. Defective pointing, open joints and defective f launching to chimney stack. Condition of flashing to stack? Guttering to bathroom extension — defective stop—end and gutter support. Roof to bathroom extension — felted — will soon require attention.

Living—room:

Floor — boards defective, holed and rotten in places. Evidence of defective joists. Windows — require easing and adjusting. Fireplace — broken hearth, fire back and grate. Gas fire — condition & safety?

Kitchen: floor — brick floor — damp, uneven and broken bricks.

Walls - defective and damp brick plinth. Areas of defective wall plaster.

Ceiling unkeyed and perished plaster. External door — ill—fitting. Worn threshold.

Window — requires easing and adjusting. Sink — inadequate salt glazed, shallow sink. Bathroom: floor — brick floor — damp and uneven.

Walls — comprise timber studs, externally rendered only. Inadequate thermal insulation resulting in severe condensation problems.

Ceiling — inadequate thermal insulation properties — conducive to condensation.

Windows - ill—fitting. Defective catches.

W.a. — seat broken. Condition of cistern is suspect.

Bath — enamel chipped. No overflow. Inadequate diameter to waste fitting.

Multi—point heater — not tested — flue to multi—point discharges approximately 16" below thatch to main house roof, Fire risk?

/Continu ci.. . . ,

n. ( '-a r & l ju>ç —4—

Schedule of Defects (Continued) "Dutch Cott*ge', 33 Crown Hill, Rayleigh

Staircase:

Steep, narrow, inadequate headroom, no handrail — dangerous. Defective wall plaster to staircase.

Bedroom 1 (leading direct off stairs)

Ceiling — soft and. perished plaster.

floor — holed in places — evidence of attack by wood boring insects.

Ch'?mney breast — evidence of dampness.

Window (shared with Bedroom 2) — Totally inadequate natural lighting. Casements ill—fitting. Defective Jaissing catches.

Bedroom 2 (leads off bedroom 1 via small opening in partition)

Ceiling Floor All as for Bedroom 1. Window

General:

Electrical installation appears old. and should be checked.

Decorative condition throughout is poor. ¼

IIW/CB. 22nd April 1982.

S 00 0 3 35 ROCHFORD DISTRI CT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Plannin&Services Committee AtaMeeting held on 27th Julyj3 Present: Councillors F.B.G. Jopson (Chairman), E.fl. Adeock, C.B. Alger, M.N. Anderson, R.H. Boyd, W.H. Budge, T.H. Burt, Mrs. L.M.A. Campbell—Daley, Mrs. P. Cooke, L.K. Cope, B.A. Crick, E.E. Daley, T. Fawell, R.D. Poster, J.A. Gibson, Mrs. P.E. Hawke, Mrs. E.M. Heath, D.R. Helson, P.J. Himfen, R.R. Holman, Mrs. Jo Jones, M.J. Jones, Miss E.G.J. Lovett, Mrs. JM. Munson, i.E. Nokes, R.A. Pearson, G.J. Skinner, R.T. Stephens, C. Stephenson, A.L. Tate, B. Taylor, I.?. Taylor, R.A. Taylor, Li. Warner and E.S. Whitworth.

Apologies: Councillors N.R. Blyther, A.J. Haney, J.A. Sheaf, M.C. Warner and D.C. Wood.

458. MINUTES

Hockley Downs Stables, Lower Road, Hockley (Minute 376/82)

The Chairman reported that appointed Members had visited the site, received a report from the Planning Consultant to the Council and instructed Officers as to further enquiries to be made.

Resolved that the Minutes of the Meeting of 14th June be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

459 MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE — MEETINGS OF 5TH JANUARY, 23RD MARCH AND 15TH APRIL

The Committee were satisfied that all necessary action had been taken. (21210)

460. DEEMED PLANNING CONSENT — ADD NEW WEIGHT TRAINING ROOM AND IMPROVE RECEPTION AREA - PARK SPORTS CENTRE (NIN1)TE41 7/82)

The Director of Town Planning reported receipt of this application.

Resolved that, subject to no adverse comment being received by 4th August 1982, the Leisure Services Committee be advised that the following Condition should apply:—

The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date of this permission. (ROC/445/82 & 6006)(DLS)

461. 'FRANELLE" CHURCH ROAD, RAWRETR (MINUTE 269/82) The Director of Town Planning reminded the Committee of the planning history and reported a request for the views of the local planning authority on a proposal for a pitched roof over the whole property including the rear extension.

Resolved. (1) that the owner be informed that a pitched roof over the original dwelling and the extension is not approved by the appeal decision.

(2) that any planning application f or such a pitched roof would likely be resisted by the local planning authority. (19762 & ROC/868/8O)(DTP)

462. SCHEDuLE OP DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS M RECOMMENDATIONS

The Director of Town Planning submitted a Schedule for consideration and a list of applications decided under delegation.

Resolved that decisions made made in accordance with the recommendations in the appended Schedule subject to:—

Para. 2 — ROC/322/82

Add

8. All construction traffic shall gain access to the site through 91, Grove Road.

9. The private drive and access road, with the turning head, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before building works on the properties are commenced.

Para.6 — ROC/421/82

Authority be delegated to the Director of Town Planning to determine the application after receipt of replies to consultations.

Para. 7 —ROC/209/75/3

Amend heading to read Ashingdon.

Authority be delegated to the Director of Town Planning to determine the application after satisfaction of the outline permission condition concerning surface water and foul drainage.

Pare. 8 — ROC/445/82

The item having been printed in error, it was withdrawn.

Pan. 11 — ROC/425/82

The Committee were concerned that Bramerton Road should not be used by construction traffic and that there should be pedestrian access only.

Authority be delegated to the Director of Town Planning to determine the application after completion of a legal agreement covering these points. . o a C Para. 22 — ROC/366/82

Add after "club' In Condition 6 "other than by the prior agreement in writing of the local planning authority".

Authority be delegated to the Director of Town Planning to determine the application after receipt of the observations of the Civil Aviation Authority.

Pan. 27 — ROC/439/82

The proposal was withdrawn by the applicant.

Para. 28 — aOC/375/82

Add

5. This permission shall be temporary for a period of 2 years only from the date of this permission.

6. No fish, flesh or fowl shall be kept or sold in the premises unless It is pre—packed and/or pre—frozen.

Para. 33 — ROC/372/82

Add

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, Schedule 1, Class 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Orders 1977 to 1981, the building shall not be enlarged or altered in any way which may prejudice the provision of a garage or garage spaces

Para. 34 — ROC1368/82

Add

5. Std. Cond. 6 — A scheme of landscaping to be approved.

6. The existing pair of semi—detached bungalows on the application site and "Verna" shall be demolished before the development hereby approved is commenced.

Chctirmwi Oat V

rJfl j SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

27TH JUL'J 1982

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

1. ROC/400/82 RAYLEIGH

Outline application to erect 3 detached houses and garages. 8, Trinity Road & Leslie Road, Rayleigh. Litehurst Properties, do R.V. Hudson MIED., LIAAS., 303 London Road (1st Floor) Hadleigh, Essex.

Frontage of Plot to Trinity Road: 18.2m (59'8") Depth of Plot from Trinity Road: 38.7m (127'3") Density: 15.8 d.p.a.

D.T.P. — REFUSE PERMISSION FOR TUE FOLLOWING REASONS:—

1. The proposal represents over development of the site and would produce a cramped development out of harmony with and detrimental to the density, form and character of the existing development adjoining the site.

2. The erection of two—storey houses on. this site would be incompatible with the bungalow properties adjoining the site and would not fall to unduly dominate and overshadow, these problems causing serious loss of amenity to the adjoining occupiers.

3. The limited rear garden depth of the proposed house fronting Leslie Road would result in the rear curtilages of properties in Trinity Road being overlooked to an unreasonable degree causing loss of privacy to the occupiers.

4. The submitted layout plan does not provide a dimension of 6w. between the highway and the garages of the properties fronting Trinity Road in accordance with the Council's current highway standards.

5. The proposals would prejudice the redevelopment potential of 10 Trinity Road, a pre—war bungalow set on a very restricted curtilage. In the opinion of the local planning authority any redevelopment scheme for the application site should either include the curtilage of 10 Trinit3r Road or make provision for that property to be redeveloped in a satisfactory manner in the future.

NOTE:

The occupier of 10 trinity Road objects to the proposal on the following grounds —

— Houses out of keeping with adjoining bungalows. — Loss of privacy. — Loss of light.

—1-— OU'J64d 2. ROC/322/82 RAYLEIGH

Erect two detached four bedroom houses and garages. Rear of 91, Grove Road, Rayleigh fronting Shakespeare Avenue. Bernard Lawrence Co. Ltd., do R.V. hudson, MIED., LIAAS., 305, London Road (let Floor), Hadleigh, Essex.

Width of Plot: 17.98m (59') Depth of Plot: 64.3m (211') Floor Area: 167.2 sq.m. (1800 sq.ft.) Density: 7.1 dpa

D.T.P. — GRANT FERNISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. Std. Cond. 8 — Submit materials schedule.

3. Std. Cond. 12B — Garage to be inciddental to enjoyment of dwelling.

4. l.Sm (6') high interwoven or similar panel fencing shall be erected along the boundary lines coloured green on the application drawing no. RB 4146:82 returned herewith prior to the occupation of the dwelling. Where such fencing already exists but is damaged it shall if retained, be repaired to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the proposed dwellings.

5. The two existing oak trees abutting the western boundary of the site shall be protected by chestnut railing fences for the duration of the construction period at a distance of 2 metres from the trunk. No materials shall be stored or buildings erected within these fences and no changes shall be made to the ground level within the spread of the trees without the previous written consent of the local planning authority.

6. The proposed access drive and vehicle turning area hatched yellow on the plan returned herewith shall be hard—surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the proposed houses or garages.

7. A. vehicle buffer board mounted on suitable posts shall be erected in the position indicated in blue on the plan returned herewith prior to the occupation of the proposed dwellings. Details of the buffer board shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development.

NOTE:

Local residents have been notified of the proposal and set out below is a summary of representations received:—

SHERIDAN CLOSE

21. — Garage on plot 2 25' from french windows and will block light. Garage position will hamper maintenance of boundary fence. Should be high brick wall on boundary. Badly planned over development of no benefit to community or surrounding properties. r!t — — 25. — If permission granted garage to plot I should be sited so as (2 ) not to encroach on outlook — if objection over—ridden garage (letters) should be flat roofed, max. height 7'.

23. — If permission granted a 9" wall 7' high should be erected on boundary with l8 trellis on top between proposed garages in the inerests of privacy, safety and disturbance.

19. — No objection provided development does not reduce natural light and boundary fencing is replaced.

BARRYMORE WALK

4. — Overlooking and loss of privacy — new properties should be bungalows.

SHAKESPEARE AVENUE

— 30. Inconvenience and disturbance during building operations. Parking and obstruction in Shakespeare Avenue by builders and delivery vehicles *

32. — Inconvenience and disturbance during building operations. Should be a turning facility within site.

34. — Already congestion and inconvenient parking in road arising from a recent development. Further development will exacerbate the situation. Adequate parking and means of access must be provided to same width as Shakespeare Avenue and turning space included. Access and turning space should be constructed before commencement of houses.

36. — No objections — development will remove the eyesore of a large shed.

55. — Objects unless a road is made up with a hammerhead in the site to avoid inconvenience and parking in Shakespeare Avenue. Also asks that time limit for completion is imposed and building work restricted to weekdays. Existing trees should be retained.

57. — Objects unless an adequate turning space is provided and parking facilities within the site. Also new access road should be completed prior to the commencement of the dwellings.

59. — No objection — will improve appearance of land.

Subsequent to the receipt of the above representations a revised layout plan has been negotiated and submitted.

The revised layout provides for a vehicle tuning area independent of the parking spaces in front of each garage and for the garage on plot 1 to be constructed with a flat roof. My recommendation includes conditions stipulating that the access and turning area must be constructed prior to the commencement of the proposed dwellings and garages.

—3— !oJfl Q 5 Th ______sPJflCrffSWS*ns..e_

In an attempt to minimise any inconvenience to residents in Shakespeare Avenue during the construction period I have been informed in writing by the applicants' agent that the owner of 91, Grove Road has verbally agreed with the applicant that he may gain access through his property for the supply and delivery of building materials.

These provisions should overcome the residents concern about traffic parking and access.

Of the other points raised the amended roof design on the garage to plot 1 adequately satisfies the concern expressed by the occupier of 25, Sheridan Close.

1.8w (6') high screen fencing exists on the boundaries abutting properties in Sheridan Close and Barrymore Walk. Sections of the fencing are in need of repair and to ensure reasonable privacy I have included a condition in my recommendation calling for the fencing to be repaired or replaced. I cannot see justification for a brick wall as requested by some residents particularly along the boundary between the proposed garages as there are two substantial oak trees abutting the boundary and the construction of a wall and its foundation would, I am sure, threaten the future of the trees.

As regards the objection from the resident in Barrymore Walk the distance between the rear wall of this property and the proposed dwelling backing on to his curtilage is some 29.Sm (97') of which l7.4m (57') comprises the garden of the new dwelling.

3. ROC1376/82 HULLERIDGE

Erect a detached bungalow to replace existing. 65, Hillcrest Avenue, Hullbridge. Mr. J.G. Webb, do Chase Design Services) 59, Wickham Place, Basildon, Essex.

Frontage of Plot: 15.85m (62') Depth of Plot: 375m (123') Floor Area; l30.68m3 (1,407 ft. sq.) D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:— • 1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. Std. Cond. 5 — A scheme of tree and/or shrub planting to be approved.

3. Std. Cond. $ — Submit materials schedule.

4. Std. Cond. 12A — Garage to be incidental to enjoyment of dwelling.

5. Std. Cond. 34 — Certain windows to be obecure glazed.

6. Std. Cond. 35 — A brick wall to be erected to front boundary.

—4-. S : NOTE:

The proposed bungalow is to be constructed between a chalet and a house in an area of mixed development. Both adjoining occupants have written to state that they have no objections to the proposal.

4. R.OC/678181 RAYLEIGH

Erect two linked detached four bedroom houses and garages. (Details). 44 & 46 Castle Road, Rayleigh. Mr. N.J. Bell, 6, Cayleighs, Rayleigh, Essex.

Frontage: l6.08m (52'9") Depth: Approx. 44.20m (l45t) Floor Area: 109.38 sq. m. (1,177 sq. ft.) 132 sq. m. (1,421 sq. ft) At building line: lS.30m (60')

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Ste. Cond. 4 — Iledgerows to be retained.

2. Std. Cond. 12A — Garage to be incidental to enjoyment of dwelling.

3. Std. Cond. 14 — 1.8 metres (6 feet) high fencing to be erected.

4. Std. Cond. 35 — A brick wall to be erected to front boundary.

NOTE:

This application follows the outline planning permission granted on 2nd November, 1981. The occupiers of 48a Castle Road have no objections provided that the land is adequately fenced; this point is covered by the imposition of Condition No. 3.

5. ROC/281/82 ROCHFORD

Site a mobile home to provide temporary accommodation. Nine Acre Farm, Land north of Flemmings Farm Road, Eastwood. D.C., D.J., & J. Francis, do Graham & Baldwin, 94, Queens Road, Southend—on--Sea, Essex.

Size of Farm: 3.64 hectares (9 acres)

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. This permission shall enure for the benefit of Mr. J. Francis and his immediate family only. -

2. This permission is granted for a temporary period expiring on 1st September, 1984 at the end of which time the mobile home shall be removed unless a subsequent extension of this temporary consent is granted by the local planning authority.

—5— oaaG 4 3. Std. Cond. 16 — Occupation of dwelling limited to person engaged in agriculture.

NOTE:

Planning permission was refused in March this year to erect a permanent agricultural workers dwelling on this site (ROC/SOS/BI) as there was not considered to be sufficient justification on agricultural grounds.

However the site is being used for agricultural purposes and contains 14 — 20 cattle, 150 chickens, 30 — 40 rabbits and 2 geese together with a large general purpose barn erected in 1974.

The applicant considers that it is essential to live on the holding in order to give constant supervision and proper attention to the livestock as well as preventing trespass and damage. Re claims that 3 calves have died through injuries after being frightened by dogs

The applicant also wishes to expand the calf rearing programme and to work full—time on the holding.

Whilst at the present moment in time the site does not justify a permanent dwelling based on guidance given in Ministry of Agri culture, Fisheries and Food Advice Notes, there does appear to be a case to allow the owner an opportunity of expanding the cattle rearing programme with a view to achieving a viable agricultural unit.

1 therefore recommend that temporary planning permission be granted for a mobile home made personal to the applicant so that the situation may be reviewed in two years time.

Southend Borough Council consider the agricultural justification to be dubious having regard to the modest nature of the application site; the temporary nature of the accommodation and the visual impact it would create in the area.

E. Amos, Co-ordinator of the Roach Valley Conservation Zone Working Group objects on principle to the proposal in this attractive part of the Conservation Zone as it could be the thin end of the wedge.

The site itself is well screened from Flemings Farm Road by a high roadside hedgerow with the boundaries of the farm lined with mature trees. The mobile home is shown to be located close to the existing farm. buildings and has been positioned so as to give maximum on—site supervision to the farm.

6. R0C/421/82 ROCHFORD

Erect factory units with ancillary offices and car parking facilities. Plot 19, Aviation Way, Southend—on—Sea, Essex. Essex Colour Services Ltd., do Barker Livemore & Co., 98 Broadway, Leigh—on—Sea, Essex.

Floor Area; 1020 sq. m. (10,979 sq. ft..)

—6— r4 V' fl ' 4 V U .3 D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in S years.

2. Std. Cond. S — Submit materials schedule.

3. A landscaped strip 4.5m (14'9") wide as indicated on the submitted layout plan, shall be laid out and permanently retained adjacent to the complete northern boundary of the site.

4. The proposed planting/landscaped strip on the frontage of the site adjacent to Aviation Way shall be increased in width to not less than 3.05m (10') and shall be laid out and permanently retained as a landscaped area.

5. Std. Cond. 6 — A scheme of landscaping to be approved.

6. Not less than 23 car parking spaces shall be provided as indicated on the submitted plans prior to the occupation of the building.

7. The proposed car parking spaces, access and forecourts thereto shall be hardsurfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the building.

8. No goods, packaging or materials shall be stored or deposited on the open areas of the site.

9. Std. Cond. 33 — Car parking spaces to be marked on parking area.

NOTE:

My recommendation has been produced in advance of the receipt of replies to consultations with the Highway Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority. Replies are expected prior to the meeting and should they require any variation or addition to my recommendation I will report same verbally at the meeting.

7. ROC/209/75/3 HAWKWELL

Erection of 29 houses and 32 bungalows with garages: new roads and sewers. (fletails). Site west of Clifton Road, Ashingdon. Crowstone Properties Ltd., c/o Mr. A.B. Asbridge, 3,4 & 5 Church Hill, Leigh—on—Sea.

House Typ No Floor Area B 3 Bed detached bungalow TN 69.2sq.iF(745sq.ft) Dill 3 Bed detached house 3 79 sq.m (852sq.ft) 0118 3 Bed detached house 7 86.9sq.m (935sq.ft) D119a 3 Bed detached house 16 78.3sq.m (843sq.ft) D119b 3 Bed detached house 3 77.ósq.m (836sq.ft) H2 2 Bed detached bungalow 2 60.5sq.m (652sq.ft) H2a 2 Bed detached bungalow 7 6O.Ssq.m (652sq.ft) R9a 2 Bed semi—detached bungalow 10 60.Ssq.m (652sq.ft)

-7- 00934i D.T.P. — GEANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO;

1. Std. Cond. 8 — Submit materials schedule.

2. Std. Cond. 10 — Details of screening.

3. Std. Cond. 15 — Details of walls, fences or other means of enclosure.

4. All garage drives shall be constructed at right angles to the highways.

5. 2.1w x 2.lm (7' x 7') visibility splays relative to the back of footway/highway shall be provided on both sides of all vehicular accesses.

6. The footway shall be extended where shown in brown on the plan returned herewith.

7. Std. Cond. 19 — Each bend of internal estate roads to include a splay at each bend.

8. Std. Cond. 26 — Carriageway of proposed estate road to be completed prior to commencement of any residential development and footpaths before dwellings occupied.

9. Details of the proposed finished surface of the accesaways intended for adoption other then roads shall be submitted to the Highway Authority for approval prior to the erection of any of the dwelling units proposed to have access therefrom. All statutory undertakers' services shall be laid prior to the commencement of any works of construction On the said accessway; thereafter these works of construction shalt proceed in such a manner as to ensure that each of such dwelling units, before it is occupied, shall be served by a properly consolidated and surfaced means of access between the dwelling and the existing highway. The final finished surface of the accessway shall be laid commensurate with the completion of all dwelling units obtaining access therefrom or within any such extended period as may be agreed by the local planning authority. NOTE: I This application is a revised detail submission for the development of the areaof land withing residential allocation west of Stanley Road and west and north of Clifton Road, Ashingdon.

A detail permission was first granted in 1976 pursuant to the original outline permission granted in 1975 but has never been implemented.

An extension of the outline permission was granted in 1979 and the present detail plans have been submitted pursuant to this permission.

The detailed scheme approved in 1976 proposed 70 dwellings comprising a mixture of flats, terraced, semi—detached, and detached houses.

The new proposals reduced the number of dwellings to 61 comprising 29 detached houses and 32 semi—detached and detached bungalows.

—8— r f j 7 The layout seeks to extend Stanley Road to provide access to 17 of the' dwellings only thereby retaining the road as a vehicular cul—de—sac. The remaining properties are served by a new estate road off Clifton Road. The only link between the extended Stanley Road and the estate roaf off Clifton Road is a footpath.

At a meeting of the Planning Services Committee on 28th May, 1981 an outline application for residential development on approximately 2.2 hectares of land west of Albert, Alexandra and York Roads (ROC/3l3/81) was refused on grounds relating to the highway pattern and links with existing roads.

The reasons for refusal centred on the fact that the application did not include a link to Clifton Road or Rectory Avenue and that in the interests of road safety Albert Road, Alexandra Road and York Road should remain cul—de—sacs. In making this decision the Committee also expressed the view that Stanley Road should not be linked with the envisaged spine road between Clifton Road and Rectory Avenue (Minute 315).

A condition attached to the outline permission requires agreement on the arrangements to be made for the disposal of surface water and foul drainage. Details of the proposed scheme are currently being vetted by the Directory of Technical Services' Engineers and initial indications are that the scheme is satisfactory in principle and will provide an acceptable solution.

The Civil Aviation Authority has no safeguarding objections to the proposals.

8. ROC/445/82 RAYLEIGH

Add new weight training room and reception. Park School & Sports Centre, Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh. Rochford District Council, c/c A.G. Cooke) Chief Executive, Rochford District Council, Council Offices, South St., RochE ord.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

9. ROC/395/82 HAWKWELL

Outline application to demolish existing property and erect one dwelLing and garage. 34, Parklands, Rochford. Mr. L.R. Moore, 0/0 The James Abbott Partnership (Ref. BC 3347), 22 South Street, Rochford, Essex.

Frontage of Plot: 13.4w (44') Depth of Plot: 34.47m (113')

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:— 09 O3648 1. Std. Cond. 1. — Reserved matters to be approved.

2. Std. Cond. 2. — Commence in 5 years or 2 years.

3. Std. Cond. 27k — Provision within curtilage of site for garage or garage space.

4. The proposed dwelling shall be of a bungalow or chalet type design.

NOTE;

The proposal will involve the construction of a detached bungalow or chalet between an existing bungalow at 32, Parklands and a semi—detached chalet at 36, Parklands (approved ROC/104/82 but not yet constructed).

Adjacent occupiers have been consulted:— Mr. and Mrs. J. Valentine have replied stating that whilst they have no objections in principle, they feel that "a tall dwelling" would block out light to the bedroom window to the side of their property. . 10. ROC/36l/82 HOCKLEY

Construct new farm access 0.5. Field No. 1616 Betts Farm, Lower Road, Hullbridge. J.W. Robinson Esq., do Abbotts (BC 3348), 22 South Street, Rochford, Essex.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERNISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. Before the new access is first used, the existing hedges along the site frontage to the west of the proposed access shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1 metre.

3. There shall be no obstruction to visibility along the site frontage to the west of the proposed access above a height of 1 metre.

4. Before the new access is first used the hedges and small trees along the site frontage to the east of the proposed access shall be trimmed back and permanently maintained so trimmed so that no part of the hedgerows or trees overhang the highway boundary below a point 2 metres above the level of the adjoining carriageway.

5. The proposed new access road and access shall not be brought into use unless and until the two existing accesses shown on the submitted plan are closed with new hedge planting as indicated on the submitted plan.

NOTE:

The new access is required as an alternative to the existing avenues to enable easier and safer passage between the applicants holdings on each side of Lower Road. Conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are included at the direction of the County Surveyor.

— 10 — 000343 11. ROC/425/82 HOCKLEY

Erect 99 dwellings, 35 garages, layout roads and lay sewers. Balance of the land at Zone U, Betts Farm, Hockley. Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd., 1 Crittall Rd., Witham, Essex.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. Std. Cond. 5 A scheme of tree and/or shrub planting to be approved.

3. Std. Cond. 8 — Submit materials schedule.

4. Std. Cond. 10 — Details of screening.

5. Std. Cond. 15 Details of walls, fences or other means of enclosure.

6. Std. Cond. 19 Each bend of internal estate roads to include a splay at each bend.

7. Std. Cond. 26 — Carriageway of proposed estate road to be completed prior to commencement of any residential development and footpaths before dwellings occupied.

8. Std. Cond. 29 — Dwellings Type 920t, 93lT, 91ST, 930, 926t, and 9325 not to be enlarged or altered without prior approval.

9. The proposed car parking spaces indicated on the submitted plan shall be hardsurfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and made available for use concurrent with the occupation of the dwellings they serve.

10. Any garages erected in the positions shown on the submitted plans shall be constructed in accordance with drawing no. A/6221955 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

11. That part of public footpath no. 5 along the eastern boundary of the application site shall be hardsurfaced and lit to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted.

NOTE:

The schedule of accommdation proposed is as follows:—

House Type

Bed sitters (926T) 8 1—bed flats (920T) 8 1—bed house (930) 6 2 — bed house, terraced, (91ST) 30

— 11 — 2 — bed house, semi—detached, (9515) 6 2 — bed bungalow, semi—detached, (983B3) 2 3 — bed house, terraced, (931T) 10 3 — bed house, semi—detached, (9323) 6 3 — bed house, semi—detached, (9675) 14 4 — bed house, detached, (9140) 2 4 — bed house, detached, (9730) 3 4 — bed house, detached, (9720) 4

TOTAL 99

As can be seen from the above schedule there is a mix of units although emphasis is on the smaller home to cater for the first purchaser and those able to afford the more modest 2 and 3 bedroomS homes.

In total the Betts Farm Estate covers almost 35.5 acres and to date planning permission has been granted for 438 units producing an overall density of 12.37 dwelling units per acre or 56.07 habitable rooms per acre.

If permission is granted to this latest application the total number of units on the estate will increase to 471 giving an overal density of 13.3 dwelliug units per acre or 56.95 habitable rooms per acre. The current proposal therefore produces a very small increase in the overall density figures and thereby the number of persons resident on the estate.

This has been an important factor in leading me to recommend that permission be granted.

I am informed by the applicants that the effects of inflation have resulted in a situation where the small 3 — bedroomed house, traditionally the mainstay of the first purchaser housing market, has now moved entirely out of reach of the majority of first time buyers. The majority of first time buyers in the district are looking for properties below £25,000 with some of the better off able to afford up to the £28,000 mark. The applicants current range of houses features seven properties below £25,000, eight below £28,000, and eleven types ranging from £29,750 to £44,100 with the majority of interest in the first two price categories. The applicants have supplied details of their sales pattern over a four week period pre and post the introduction of a selling release featuring first time buyer house types which clearly indicates the demand and popularity of their starter homes.

My recommendation has been produced in advance of replies to certain consultations. If the replies involve any alterations or additions to my recommendation I will report on same verbally at the meeting.

12. R0C/289/82 RAYLEIGH

Outline application to extend existing building to provide a snooker hall and erect two 3 storey office blocks with pitched roofs. Rear of 13 High Road, Rayleigh, Essex. P.R. Harvey, 41 St. Marys Road, Benfleet, Essex. S — 12 — Site Area: Approx. 1.75 acres.

D.T.P. — REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:—

1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Approved Cpunty Development Plan wherein the site is included within an area allocated primarily for residential purposes.

2. The proposed buildings by reason of their intended use, size and location immediately adjacent to the curtilages of residential and other premises, could not fail to unduly overshadow and overlook such premises to the detriment of the amenities and privacy of the occupiers. Furthermore, the proposed snooker hall complex would be a source of noise nuisance and disturbance by persons going to and from the premises both on foot and by motor vehicles particularly during evenipgs and weekends.

3. The proposed development would be prejudicial to the site an4 adjacent land being developed for residential purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Approved County Development Plan.

4. the site access to Castle Road emerges onto a narrow section of the road almost opposite the exit from a large public car park apd service vehicle access. The vehicle slowing, crossing and turning movements which would be generated by the development would hinder the free and safe flow of both vehicles and pedestrians in Castle Road contrary to highway safety interests. Furthermore visibility at the junction with Castle Road is restricted.

5. Access to the proposed development from' the High Road is con8idered unacceptable by virtue of the number of vehicle slowing, turping and crossing movements that would be generated in the busy princtpal traffic route.

6. No provision is made for a footway along the access to Castle Road and the provision of such facility would significantly reduce the width of the access available to vehicles.

7. The on—site parking facilities indicated in the submitted plan (97) are well below the local planning authorities current car parking standards for offices and sports centres (169) and are considered totally inadequate to serve the premises.

8. No specific provision is made in the submitted scheme for the parking of delivery vehicles servicing the proposed snooker complex building.

9. The envisaged flat roof design for the proposed snooker complex building would be inappropriate and out of character with the existing and new buildings bounding the site.

NOTE:

An application to utilise part of the application site and extend the existing building to provide a Leisure Centre was refused for similar reasons in May 1981 — ROC/88/8l refers.

Local residents have been informed of the current proposals and representations objecting to the development have been received from the

— 13 — 039652 occupiers of :—

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7 — Hilltop Close. 22 — Castle Road. 1, 3, 5, 7 & 10 — High Road.

Virtually all the points raised by residents are incorporated in my reasons for refusal. The only points not covered are — devaluation of property and litter and damage to adjoining property which are not valid planning arguments.

The Rayleigh Civic Society question the suitability of the site for the deveopment proposed, the impact of the buildings and likely disturbance and inconvenience to residents.

The Rayleigh Baptist Church are concerned about possible noise nuisance and loss of privacy.

The County Council (Para. 19 Circulation) raise no strategic objections to the principle of office development having regard to Structure Plan policies but do express the view that the scale of the development is inappropriate.

My recommendation has been produced on the application as submitted which included a declaration by the applicant that he owned thesite. My information is that the land and premises are still in the ownership of J.T. Byford & Son and I have written to the applicant asking him to clarify this point and if necessary amend the application documents accordingly (Section 27 Certificate).

13. ROC/332/82 HAWR3QELL

Erect a single storey side extension for bedroom with change of use from surgery to one—bedroom bungalow. 7A Bolt Farm Way, Rochford. Alex A. Collinson, do Alex Collinson Associates, 137 Southbourne Grove, Westcliff on Sea, Essex.

Frontage of Plot at building line: 9.144m (30') 1 Average Depth of Plot: 14m (46') Floor Area including proposed extension: 43m2 (462 sq.ft.) Density: 31 d.p.a.

D.T.P. — REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The proposal represents and undesirable over—development of the site, which, if allowed within the restricted curtilage available, would present a cramped form of development when compared with the curtilagea of other properties on the Holt Farm Estate.

2. The overall appearance of the building particularly if extended in the manner proposed, would be unsatisfactory, and out of character with the form and appearance of the adjoining dwellings, and, in extending up to the side boundary would also be detrimental to the outlook of, and amenities of, the adjoining dwelling No. 5.

-14- 009633 3. The private amenity space provided for the dwelling is unacceptable in that it falls far short of the 100 square metres minimum area required by this local planning authority, and would not be comparable to the amenity spaces provided to dwellings on the same estate.

4. The arrangements proposed for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage are not acceptable in that no garage space is provided, and the proposed parking of vehicles in the front garden area only would be visually obtrusive in the Street scene, and would unreasonably obscure the view of drivers of vehicles using adjoining driveways causing a source of nuisance and inconvenience to those occupiers.

5. The formation of a vehicular access at this point in the road where a particularly hazardous bend occurs, and the lack of suitable turning facilities within the site could not fail to create an unacceptable traffic hazard to other road users.

NOTE:

Members may recall that in October and December last year two applications were refused on this site for a change of use from Doctors' Surgery to a dental laboratory on the grounds, mainly of lack of adequate garaging/parking facilities, and extra generation of vehicular traffic to and from the site.

Members may also recall that on both occasions, most of the 14 adjoining residents notified objected strongly on the rounds of highway safety because the site was situated on a particularly dangerous bend in the road where traffic congestion is already a problem through parking and volume of traffic throughout the day.

The same 14 occupiers have been invited to comment upon the current proposal, but only four replies have been received. Three do not object but the occupier of No. 5 raises several objections, (i) inadequate parking, (ii) the extension of living accommodation up to the side boundary, (iii) that cars parked on the front garden would obstruct his view when driving out of his driveway which adjoins the site, and in (iv) he refers to the creation of a separate dwelling unit in connection with previous enquiries he himself made recently.

Since the planning considerations here are somewhat complex it may be helpful to briefly identify each one.

The existing development

In 1952 planning permission was granted for the present flat—roofed brick building to be erected on land which, from outward appearances, seemed to form part of the front garden of No. 7 Holt Farm Way, a house approved at about the same time as part of the Holt Farm Estate.

Although planning permission was granted for the surgery separate to that of No. 7, nevertheless the surgery was until recently, used as consulting rooms by a doctor who also lived in No. 7. In recent years the house was sold off separate to the surgery, and within the past year or so many enquiries have been received regarding an alternative use of the building.

— 15 — jifl 'a' s J 1 One such enquiry has resulted in the present application, which seems to use the building and land as an independent residential dwelling unit.

Acceptable uses of the buildinj

The permitted use is that of a doctors surgery. No conditions were imposed requiring garaging or parking facilities on—site, and therefore 1 think that a similar use, such as a dentists' surgery could also be carried on without specific planning permission being required.

Since the site is situated within an area primarily allocated for residential purposes then a residential use would also be permissible, provided the minimum adopted standards for residential development could be achieved, i.e. frontage, private amenity space, car parking etc.

The use of the building as a 'granny—annexe' to either no. 5 or no. 7 would not give rise to extra amenity or parking facilities, nor would its incorporation into either of those dwellings as an extension be unacceptable, provided conditions were imposed restricting the sub—division into two separate dwellings. The occupier of No. 5, in his letter, felt that such a condition would be a liability if he acquired the building for an annexe to his house and at some future date decided to sell it off as a separate living unit.

Use of the surgery as a separate dwelling

The applicant states that he wishes to use the dwelling for his own occupation, and I have every sympathy with him for suitable dwellings are not readily available in the area. I think, however, that it must also be recognised that more than one person could occupy the unit, whether it be two or more single persons, or a married couple.

In order that a reasonable quality of living can be achieved for the occupants, I think it important that sufficient amenities are provided to any new dwelling which allow a reasonable environment to be achieved without detriment to the area or to the adjoining occupiers. For this reason this authority has adopted certain minimum standards, but unfortunately these cannot be met in this instance.

Private Amenity pçe

None at all is available at the rear, and only 12 sq. metres (136 sq. ft.) is provided by the patio behind the bedroom extension. The minimum requirement is 100 sq. metres.

Car parking

No space is available for a garage, and therefore vehicles can only be parked in the front garden, which would obstruct the visibility from adjoining driveways. The minimum requirement is one garage/space plus one parking space (for visitors).

Access

The proposed access is located on a particularly hazardous point where a bend in the road occurs, and where many residents have bitterly opposed such an access in previous applications on this site.

000 33 The floor area is only sufficient to satisfactorily accommodate )one person, and there is little room for further expansion.

The curtilage of the site is very small, the density more than double that on-the-Holt Farm Estate, and the site would therefore be over—developed unless the site can be enlarged by a re—arrangement of the boundaries with adjoining properties.

14. ROC/446/82 HULLBRIDGE

Add extension to clubroom and bar. Community Centre, Pooles Lane, flullbridge. Hullbridge Community Association, do Mr. B. Lloyd, "Glendale", Alfreda Avenue, Hul.lbridge, Essex.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERWLSSION SUBJECT

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. Std. Cond. 9 — Materials to match existing.

NOTE:

The proposed extension is a single storey addition onto part of the front of the building and measures 4.SOm x 12.0Gm overall, it is to be constructed in materials to match the existing building.

15. ROC/401/82 GREAT WAKERING

Outline application to erect one dwelling. Adjacent No. 7, Seaview Drive, Gt. Wakering, Essex. Mr. G.J. }tartgrove, c/c Mr. I.E. Marsh, IA, Havering Close, Great Wakering, Essex.

Frontage of Plot: 6.lm (20') Depth of Plot: 30.7m (101') Floor Area: 102 sq.m. (1097 sq.ft.)

D.T.P. — REFUSE PERWESSION FOR Th_FOLL0W1NG

1. The proposal amounts to over—development of the site and would produce an unattractive mass of building in the street to the detriment of the street scene and the amenities of the adjacent properties.

2. The form and penetration of the proposed dwelling is totally out of keeping with the adjoining dwellings.

3. No provision is made within the curtilage of the site for a garage or garage space together with a parking space to satisfy the local planning authorities minimum car parking standard for new dwellings.

4. The proposal if permitted would result in the loss of a possible garage and parking space to serve the existing dwelling no. 7 Seaview Drive.

— 17 — 5. The lack of on-site parking facilities and denying the provision of such facilities to No. 7 Seaview Drive would produce on—street parking causing obstruction, inconvenience, and a source of danger to other road users particularly having regard to the location of the site relative to the junction of Seaview Drive with the busy traffic route Shoebury Road.

NOTE:

A similar application was refused by the former Rochford Rural District Council in 1972 and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. The reasons contained in my recommendation are based on the remarks made by the Department of the Environment Inspector in his appeal decision.

16. CD/ROC/3/82 ROCUFORD

Storage of oil dispersant on lorry trailers. Southend Airport, Rochford. Property Services Agency, Eastern Region, Block D, Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge, CR2 2DZ.

Frontage of Plot: 3O.48m (100') Depth of Plot: 12.19m (40')

NOTE:

This application is made by the Department of Trade under the Department of the Environment Circular 7/77 Procedure to use part of Southend Airport for the storage of oil dispersant.

The proposed site has a size of l2.l9m (40') x 3O.50m (100') and fronts onto an old taxiway on the western side of the airport adjoining the Airport Fuel Farm.

The site is required to store oil dispersant which can be loaded at short notice on to aircraft for spraying. The dispersant will be stored in lorry trailers and drums and it is anticipated that six trailers plus 30/40 tons of dispersant in drums will normally be kept on site. Two types of dispersant will be involved BP 1100 WO (or similar) and Dispolene 34 S.

The proposed site is located close to the area zoned for industrial purposes on the Airport and is screened by existing planting to the north and west of the site.

this application is submitted to obtain the Authorities agreement in principle to the proposal and a further submission will be made at a later stage regarding surfacing and provision for drainage etc.

No objections have been received from the County Surveyor, the Director of Health and Housing and Southend Borough Council.

Consulations with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Anglian Water Authority have not been completed, I will report these verbally at the meeting. I — 18 — Recommendation —

I therefore recommend that no objection be raised to the proposal subject to the receipt of detailed plans in due course.

17. ROC/82/82 (LB/ROC/3/82) ROCUFORD

Change use of residential first floor flat into office use for banking purposes and add first floor extension. 15/17 West Street, Rochford. Barclays Bank Ltd., do Mr. J. A.S. Davies, Senior Staff Surveyor, 65 Southwark Street, London, SE1 OHU.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. The materials used in the external construction of the walls and roof shall match those of the existing building, and samples shall be submitted to an agreed with the local planning authority prior to being used in the development hereby approved.

NOTE;

The existing premises in West Street comprise a ground floor Banking Hall with two flats above, on the first and second floors. The building is Listed and the next item on the agenda is a Listed Building application for the same development.

The Bank requires additional office space and wishes to use the first floor flat for this purpose. At this level an open area exists at the rear which also abuts an alleyway between the Bank and adjoining public house.

It is proposed to erect walls and a pitched roof over this open area for use as storage space. The second floor flat will remain in tact, with an internal staircase, down to ground level, in Back Lane.

There is no objection to the proposed change of use which is appropriate in the Town Centre. The County Planner raised no objection to the design of the rear extension apart from requesting that a pitched roof be provided. Such a roof has been provided, and the suggested conditions will ensure that the extension is compatible in appearance to the existing building in terms of materials and finishes.

The Bank has written to say that the existing first floor tenant will be purchasing his own property in the very near future and therefore no hardship will be caused by the loss of the residential unit. They also hope to increase staff levels, particularly in relation to juniors, and the extra accommodation would assist this to take place.

The adjoining occupiers of the Public House have not objected to the extension proposed.

— 19 — 18. LB/ROC/3/82 (ROC/82/82) ROCHFORD

Add first floor extension. 15/17 West Street, Rochford. Barclays Bank Ltd.) do Mr. J.A.S. Davies) Senior Staff Surveyor) 65 Southwark Street, London, SE1 OHU.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. The materials used in the external construction of the building shall match those of the existing building, and details of and samples of such materials to be used shall be submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority before the extension is commenced.

NOTE:

Details of this development have been given in the preceding item, but the frontage to Market Square will not be changed.

The County Planner is satisfied with the proposed extension.

No comment has to date been received from the Rochford Amenities Society.

19. ROC/378/82 HULLBRIDGE

Erect two detached four bedroom houses and garages. Adjacent "Sunny View", Coventry Hill, Rullbridge. Witmor Contractors (Hockley) Ltd., do John U. Williams, Estate house, 377 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood, Leigh on Sea. Frontage of Plot; 22.25m (73') Depth of Plot: 43.58m (l43t) Floor Area: l28m2 (1377sq.ft.) Density; 20.62 d.p.h (8.3 d.p.a.)

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. 514. Cond. 6 — A scheme of landscaping to be approved.

3. Std. Cond. 12A — Garage to be incidental to enjoyment of dwelling.

4. The siting of each dwelling shall be ascertained by measurements taken from the proposed New Street Order Line, as indicated on the submitted drawing. The precise position of the New Street Order Line shall be obtained from the Highway Surveyor before development is commenced.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 Schedule 1 Class 1 of the Town and Country General Development Orders 1977 to 1981 no walls or structures shall be erected in front of any wall of each dwelling which fronts on to Lower Road without the prior consent of the local planning authority, or as permitted by any conditions on the planning permission. . -20- OOC59 6. A brick wall 600mm (2') high shall be erected to the front boundaries of the dwellings in the position indicated in brown on the application plan No. 1070 returned herewith. The bricks used shall match those of the dwellings.

7. Any gates erected shall be recessed to a minimum of 4.26m (14') from the future position of the channel of the adjoining highway in relation to the New Street Order Line, the position being previously agreed with the Highway Surveyor.

8. The turning area for vehicles in front of each dwelling indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out and hardsurf aced prior to each dwelling being first occupied.

9. Std. Cond. 14 — 1.8 metres (6 feet) high fencing to be erected.

10. There shall be no obstruction to visibility above a height of l.O7m (3'6") within the areas hatched purple (2.lm x 2.lm) on plan no. 1070 returned herewith.

11. Std. Cond. 8 — Submit materials schedule.

NOTE:

The site is situated directly opposite Crouch Avenue and is allocated primarily for residential purposes in the Approved County Development Plan. To the west the site adjoins an access strip about 3m (10') wide leading to farmland beyond. Adjoining the access is a bungalow, 'Oeraldin&, and detailed planning permission was granted three years ago to develop that site for two detached houses.

To the east, the application site adjoins a bungalow, 'Sunnyview'. The occupier of that property is concerned that a privacy fence should be provided along the boundary to prevent overlooking between the bedroom window and the porch of the proposed adjoining house.

There are three windows provided along the east flank wall of the proposed house adjoining Sunnyview: a kitchen door/window at ground floor level, and a bathroom and a W.C. window at first floor level, the latter two being obscure—glazed. A condition imposed requires l.8m high fencing along this flank wall which will prevent overlooking.

A New Street Order Line exists along this part of Lower Road, and the County Surveyor is satisfied that the proposal will enable vehicles to turn within each site and enter and leave in forward gear. This will necessitate the dwellings being set back beyond the rear wall of Sunnyview, but no detriment should be caused to the occupier by overshadowing and the view from that property's side bedroom window of Coventry Hill would not be impaired.

20. ROC/399/82 ROCHFORD

Construct new shop front Unit No. 3, Wentworth Development Ltd's Shops, Market Square, Rochford Mr. K. Massow, c/o Binns & Charles, 107, t4arley Hill, Brentwood, Essex.

- 21 - 0003S0 D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. The proposed shopfront shall be constructed in painted softwood.

NOTE:

No objections are raised by the County Surveyor, Rochford Parish Council and by the County Planner.

21. ROC/27O/82 HULLBRIDGE

Erect two detached four bedroom houses with integral garages. (Details) "Lynton, 23, High Elms Road, Hullbridge. Mr. L. Dyne, do Mr. B. Lloyd, 'Glendale', Alfreda Avenue, Hullbridge, Essex.

Frontage: lO.76m (35'3") 1O.76m (35'3") S Depth: 46.44m (l52'4") Floor Area: l28.37m2 (1,382 sq. ft.) each.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 5 — A scheme of tree and/or shrub planting to be approved.

2. Std. Cond. 8 — Submit materials schedule.

3. Std. Cond. l2A — Garage to be incidental to enjoyment of dwelling.

4. Std. Cond. 14 — 1.8 metres (6 feet) high fencing to be erected.

5. Std. Cond. 34 — Certain windows to be obscure glazed.

6. Std. Cond. 35 — A brick wall to be erected to front boundary.

NOTE:

Outline planrting permission for two detached houses was granted on 21st May, 1982. The proposal will involve the construction of two detached houses between two existing houses. Adjoining occupiers at 21 and 25 High Elms Road were consulted, no comments have been received as yet.

22. ROC/366/82 ROCHFORD

Erect new clubhouse with associated changing rooms, two squash courts, service flat and car parking. Land to north of Aviation Way, Southend—on—Sea Essex. O.W.R.F.C. Ltd., c/o Barker Livemore & Co., 98, Broadway, Leigh—on—Sea, Essex. "r — 22 — Site Area: 0.375 hectares

D.TJ. — CRM1T PERMISSiON SUBJECT

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. The vehicular accesses shall be 5.5w (18') in width splayed to a 1.3m (24') dropped kerb connection with Aviation Way.

3. The car parking spaces and accesaways thereto as indicated on the submitted drawing no. 469/5 dated July 1982 shall be hardsurfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and made available for use prior to the occupation of the proposed clubhouse.

4. Std. Cond. 6 — A scheme of landscraping to be approved.

5. Std. Cond. $ — Submit materials schedule.

6. The proposed building should not be used other than as a sport club for the sporting and recreational activities of the Old Wee tcliff fans Rugby Football Club and their successors in title only by merger or a change of name but not by way of assignment to the separate club.

7. The occupation of the residential flat shall be limited to a person (including any dependents of such persons residing with them) or a widow or widower of such a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, by the Old Westcliffians Rugby Football Club to service the club premises and facilities.

NOTE:

Members may recall that an outline application for this development was considered by the Committee last year (Planning Services Committee 1.12.81) and the Committee agreed to approve the development subject to the applicants entering into a legal agreement regulating the use of the proposed building and ancillary facilities to that of a sports club for the sporting and recreational activities of the Old Westcliffians Rugby Football Club.

Whilst discussions on the precise terms of the legal agreement have been taking place the applicants have produced detail plans of the development and have submitted this fully detailed application.

To refresh Memberst memory the application site is situated on the north side of Aviation Way adjacent to land for which planning permission has previously been granted for 20 acres of public open space.

The owners of the land, Southend Borough Council, have offered the application site to the applicants on a leasehold basis. In addition Southend Borough Council intend to make pitches on the open space land available to the club and the club would be given priority for such use. It is in fact the policy of the Borough to encourage sporting associations to construct clubhouses from their own financial resources on Council owned playing fields.

— 23 — VflFUost. fl fl fl a f% My recommendation follows the terms of the previous application but I am still in discussion with the Director of Legal Services on the precise wording and content of condition 7 and arising from these discussions the condition may need to be modified. I will report verbally on this point at the meeting.

If Members agree to grant permission subject to an agreement being concluded to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services the application should be dealt with as a Minor Departure from the provisions of the Approved Development Plan.

No adverse comments have been received in replies to consultations with the County Highways Department, the Director of Health and Housing, and the Rochford Parish Council.

The South Essex Natural ilistory Society however do object on the grounds that the development would be an intrusion into the Green Belt and would be better located on the south side of Aviation Way.

The Director of Engineering and Planning Services, Southend Borough Council, has some reservations about the inclusion of squash courts and a service flat having regard to Structure Plan Policy S.9 but on balance has no over- riding objection in view of the location of the site adjacent to the industrial area of the Airport.

I am still awaiting confirmation from the Civil Aviation Authority that they have no objections and hope to be able to report their comments at the meeting.

23. ROC/4l4/82 ROCAFORD

Outline application to erect 1 x 2 bedroom flats. AdLj. 37 Sutton Court Drive, Rochford. Mr. & Mrs. R.G. Evans, 14, Castledon Road, Wickford, Essex.

Frontage of Plot: 42.37m (l39) Depth of Plot: 23.lm (75'9") Density: 69 d.p.ha (28 d.p.a.)

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 1. — Reserved matters to be approved.

2. Std. Cond. 2. — Commence in 5 years or 2 years.

3. Std. Cond. 10 — Details of screening.

4. Std. Cond. 20 — No obstruction to visibility within areas of sight splays.

5. Std. Cond. 13 — 1.8 metres (6 feet) high brick screen walling to be erected.

6. Std. Cond. 14 — 1.8 metres (6 feet) high fencing to be erected.

7. Std. Cond. 35 — A brick wall to be erected to front boundary.

— 24 — fl fl fl ( t/ if U 8. The proposed first floor windows on the rear elevation shall be of a high level type.

NOTE:

Outline planning permission was recently refused for the erection of 7 self—contained flats and garages on this site, application no. ROC/1l5/82, on 21st May, 1982. The three reasons for refusal related to over- development of the site, over—looking and loss of privacy to the adjoining occupiers in Warwick Drive, and lack of parking provision within the curtilage of the site.

This application represents a re—submission of the previous application which has now been amended in order to seek to overcome the reasons for refusal.

The applicant in a supporting letter states that he is aiming to provide low—cost housing for first time buyers and retired couples. The density has been reduced by proposing 7 two—bedroom flats in place of 4 two—bedroom flats and 3 three—bedroom flats.

In order to overcome the second reason for refusal the applicant has indicated that all first floor rear windows will he to bedrooms (not habitable rooms) and that these will be designed with high level windows; a l.8m (6') high fence is also proposed along the rear boundary to the dwellings in Warwick Drive.

With regard to the third reason the garages formerly proposed have now been deleted to reduce the cost of the flats and to allow greater manoeuvrability within the communal parking' area. Parking standards for private housing schemes require a provision of at least 100% where communal car parking is proposed, the present scheme therefore meets the minimum car parking requirements.

The application site is located in an area of mixed development and is adversely affected by the location of two main sewers which traverse the site. Whilst the development in the immediate vicinity of Sutton Court Drive comprises detached and semi—detached bungalows and houses, in Warwick Drive two storey Council flats back onto the site and an elderly persons development lies nearby at the junction with Sutton Court Drive. An earlier permission was also granted to the Rochford District Council to develop this site with B two person flats for elderly persons on 8th November, 1974, application no. ROC/7l8/74.

Rochford Parish Council do not object to the proposal provided that a condition is imposed requiring mature trees to be planted along the rear boundary to reduce the overlooking and loss of privacy.

Overlooking and loss of privacy is safeguarded by the imposition of Conditons 6 & B which require screen fencing and the use of high level windows at first floor level, however a landscaping scheme is required to be submitted as a 'reserved matter'.

Mrs. Mead of 37, Sutton Court Drive would like the site developed but would prefer to see bungalows or houses. If flats are to be built she requests that a screen wall be erected along her side boundary to reduce noise nuisance and loss of privacy from the communal parking area. — This requirement is met by the imposition of Condition number 5. -25- 000334 Mrs. E.M. Osborn of 58, Button Court Drive does not object to the proposed development.

24. ROC/317/82 CANEWDON

Re—build mens toilet and form a cold cellar within existing store. Anchor Public House, High Street, Canewdon, Rochford, Essex. Watneys London Ltd., Albion Brewery, Whitechapel Road, London. El 1EX

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. Details of the bricks to be used on the extension shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced.

3. This permission conveys no approval to the fenestration shown on the west elevation (elevation to garden). The windows used shall be of a type to match those on the main building of a type to be agreed with the local planning authority before the work is commenced. Such windows shall consist of three windows, each 440mm wide and the horizontal timber cladding to the gable and shall be extended downwards to the window heads to conceal the lintels over.

NOTE:

This application and the following item seeks planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the alterations to an existing barn and male toilet at the rear of the Anchor Public House which is a Listed Building.

The County Planner is satisfied with the details of refurbishment of the barn, its conversion to a cold store, and the erection of a male toilet. However, he wishes to see a slightly different arrangement of windows to the toilet, and an extra few inches of shiplap boarding to conceal the concrete lintels, and a suitable condition has been imposed to cover this point.

25. LB/ROC/8/82 CANEWDON

Re—build mens toilet and form a cold cellar within existing store. Anchor Public House, High Street, Canewdon, R.ochford, Essex. Watneys London Limited, Albiort Brewery, Whitechapel Road, London. El 1BX

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence In 5 years.

26 — 2. Details of the bricks to be used on the extension shall be submitted to and apprqved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced.

26. LB/ROC/12/82 RAYLEIGH

Convert lean—to and cold store to cloakroom. Replaster 3 gable ends (Ex brick stacks). Plaster ground floor panels. Extend porch at rear entrance and renew defective external boarding. Pearson Farm, 176, London Road, Rayleigh, Essex. Mr. V. Carter, do R.V. Hudson, MIED., LIAAS., 305, London Road (1st Flr), Hadleigh, Essex.

D.T.P. - GRANT PERMISSION

NOTE:

This work has been carried out satisfactorily.

27. ROC/439/82 IIULLBRIDGE

Erect 2 detached houses and garages 75 Hillcrest Avenue, Hullbridge South Essex Securities, do R.V. Hudson, MIED., LIAAS., 303, London Road (1st FIr), Radleigh, Essex.

Frontage of Plot: 18.5m (61') Depth of Plot: 36.2m (118'S")

D.T.P. — REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:—

1. A development of 2—storey houses on this site is considered inappropriate having regard to the form and character of the existing dwellings adjoining the site and in the immediate vicinity in Hillcrest Avenue, and would appear overpowering, obtrusive and harmful to the street scene.

2. The proposed housing would unduly dominate and overshadow the adjoining residential properties.

NOTE:

The site is situated between a pair of chalets and a bungalow and chalets and bungalows dominate this section of Hillcrest Avenue. An application to erect two houses on land opposite the site was refused by the Council and a subsequent appeal dismissed in 1980. In his decision the Inspector took the view that houses were inappropriate and would be too dominant. -27- OO3886 Chalets have now been erected on the land.

The occupier of the adjoining dwelling number 75 has written objecting to the proposals because the houses would be very close to his property and he would suffer loss of light and privacy. Be also feels it would devalue his property.

28. ROC/375/82 HAWKWELL

Use part of existing shop for sale of pet food. 14, Golden Cross Parade, Rochford. Mr. J. Pudney, 41, Samuels Drive, Thorpe Bay, Essex.

D.TP. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

I. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. This permission shall enure for the benefit of the present applicant Mr. J. Pudney only.

3. Servicing for both uses shall be from the existing rear service area.

4. There shall be no physical sub—division of the shop floor area.

NOTE:

This application was considered by the Committee at its last meeting on 24th June, 1982 and deferred to enable Members to inspect the site. The site visit has been arranged to take place at 6.30 p.m. on 27th July at the premises which front Manstead Gardens.

My recommendation presented at the last meeting is repeated above.

Members' attention is drawn to the fact that a similar application incorporating a physical separation of the shop floor space was refused by the Committee on 20th May, 1982 for the following reason only (R0C/194/82)

"To sub—divide the unit at 14, Golden Cross Parade into a launderette and retail outlet for pet food in the manner proposed would not provide suitable servicing for the shop unit which would have no direct access to the servicing area to the rear of the site intended for those units in Golden Cross Parade".

The current application was submitted in an attempt to overcome this objection and excludes any physical separation of the shopping floor space.

29. ROC/204/82 ROCHFORD

Outline application to erect detached bungalow Adj. 99, Stainbridge Road A.W. Squier Ltd., do A.L. Pearce Esq., Messrs. Strutt & Parker, Coval Hall, Chelmaford, Essex. -28- Frontage: To road 6.Sni (21'4") Widening to: 53.66m (176') Depth: 44.lm (145') Density: 9 d.p.h. (3.6 d.p.a.)

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 1. — Reserved matters to be approved.

2. std. Cond. 2. — Commence in 5 years or 2 years.

3. The dwelling hereby approved shall be a low profile single storey bungalow only.

4. Std. Cond. 17 — Provision for vehicles leaving site in forward gear.

5. Std. Cond. 27A — Provision within curtilage of site for garage or garage space.

6. The access shall be a minimum of 5.5m (18') wide with a 7.5m (28') dropped kerb.

7. The access shall be a minimum of 5.5m (18') wide for the first lOin (32'8') within the site.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 Sch.1 Class 1 of the Town and Country General Development Orders 1977 to 1981, the building hereby approved shall not be enlarged to provide accommodation at first floor level without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority.

NOTE:

When first submitted, the application sought outline planning permission to erect a detached bungalow, and lay out ten parking spaces on land between numbers 99 and 101 Stambridge Road.

Due to objections received from adjoining occupiers the applicant has deleted the ten parking spaces and is now applying for permission to erect one bungalow and garage on the site, which has a frontage to Stambridge Road of 6.50 metres (21141?) but extends to 53.66m (176') behind the garden of numbers 101 to 119 Stambridge Road, a row of terraced houses.

Comments were invited from adjoining occupiers regarding the original application, and points raised concerning the deleted parking spaces are not now, of course, relevant.

The occupier of number 1, Russell Grove was concerned about the few parking spaces near the garden boundary. The occupier of number 103 does not object to the bungalow, but does to the parking spaces; the occupier of number 109 is concerned about overlooking of his rear garden. The occupier of numbers 101 and 99 are concerned about the amount of traffic passing along the access, insufficient space to accommodate a dwelling, restriction as to access to the rear of the terraced houses-which is gained at present by a narrow pathway iuunediately adjoining number 101, and lack of visibility at the junction with Stambridge Road.

The Rochford Parish Council feels that insufficient information is provided to enable comments to be made.

-29- 0006B8 Regarding the access, the County Surveyor raises no objection to the proposed development subject to a direction that the width must be 5.500w (18') for the first lOm (32'). The agents applicants have confirmed in writing that their clients actually own all the land between numbers 99 and 101, and although the occupiers of numbers 101 to 119 may have rights of access across the driveway and footpath, the question of restriction of rights is a private matter between the various owners. The driveway is not a public highway.

If the development permitted was to be a bungalow, and conditions were imposed to that effect, then no overlooking would occur at first floor level, and 6' high screen fencing would prevent direct overlooking between ground floor windows. Whilst a certain amount of overlooking could occur between the ground floor windows of the proposed bungalow and existing first floor windows of adjoining houses, the distances involved would be in the region of 80 feet, and with careful attention to the design of the bungalow such overlooking could, I am sure, be almost eliminated.

In order to prevent undesirable overlooking occurring in the future, the suggested conditions would ensure that accommodation at first floor level is not added in the future without the local planning authority being first given the opportunity to assess the effects of such development, which otherwise may fall within the limits permitted by the Town and Country General Development Order.

In 1978 planning permission was granted for a detached house in a similar location but on a slightly wider site between numbers 53 and 57 Stambridge Road.

The traffic generated by one dwelling should not be excessive and would be acceptable in this location. The provision of suitable screen fences would be mandatory at the detailed submission stage preventing overlooking problems from occurring. The proposed density of development of the site is very low compared with adjoining development.

30. ROC/3O6/82 ROACH GROUP

Use existing dog kennels for boarding, breeding and sale of dogs. "Andrellost, Barrow Hall Road, Barling. Mr. R. Muse, do Kaplan Designs, 29 Victoria Avenue, Leigh on Sea.

D.T.P. - REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING

1. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjoining local residents by virtue of noise, smell and general disturbance associated with a use of this type.

NOTE:

The site is located in Metropolitan Green Belt within a ribbon of development on the north side of Barrow Hall Road close to its junction with Barling Road and Shopland Road about 1 mile due west of Barling Hagna and Little Wakering and approximately 2 miles to the west of Great Wakéring.

— 30 — C 60 In August 1971 there was an application to erect 3 dog kennels and garden shed (ROC/408/71 refers) which was considered to be of a low key hobby use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and therefore permitted development.

An additional block of three kennels has since been erected, also as permitted development.

The applicant owns 2 greyhounds and intends to use the above kennels for breeding, keep four from any one litter and sell the remainder. This is to be supplemented by boarding up to a maximum of 12 dogs during holiday time.

Local residents in the vicinity were consulted and objections received from the following:—

Mrs. W. Newman — Foxgloves, Barrow Hall Pd., Gt. Wakering, Barling Hague. Mr. C.P.V. Ellington — Maveng Mr. A.S. Coppi — Montana " ' Mr. T.L. Coppard — Wakefield " •1 II ii Ii ii Mrs. M. Blake — Fowey Mr. & Mrs. T. Duthie — Tinkers Patch U U Mr. J. Beale — Autumn ft ft Mr. R.E. Lazar — The Coppins Mr. M.A. Betts — Pintry ,I I! U ii ft Mr. S. Diggins — Clematis ft ft U ft

The main objection raised is that the present noise nuisance would be increased if the proposal was allowed. In the light of the above objections copies of the letters have been sent to theDirector of Health and Housing for an investigation into the existing nuisance.

Other points of objection raised by the local residents were related to parking, congestion, smell, future intensification and devaluation of property.

The Roach Group Parish Council express concern from a noise nuisance point of view.

31. ROC/3l4/82 RAYLEIGH

Outline planning application to erect 1 detached three bedroom house. Adj. 30 Crown Hill, Rayleigh. Mr. Hartley, do Mr. B.R. Haspineall, 227 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh.

Frontage of Plot: 8.4m (27'ô") Depth of Plot: 55m (180')

D.T.P. — REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:—

1. The proposal represents an undesirable over—development of the site which if allowed when compared with the generous widths of other plots in Crown Hill and when seen against the local planning authority plot frontage policy which requires a minimum of 9.lm (301) for a detached dwelling would appear cramped and out of character of the form of the existing adjacent development.

— 31 — 2. The proposal would detract from the amenities of the adjacent residential occupiers at No. 32 Crown Hill.

3. The site is of insufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate the provision of a vehicular turning space within the curtilage of the site. This would result in vehicles reversing on to and off the classified road to the detriment of highway safety.

NOTE:

A garage and workshop which forms part of No. 30 Crown Hill, at present occupies the site in question. It is proposed to demolish this structure and sub—divide the existing plot of 24.4m (80t) in width into two. There would be sufficient space on the reduced plot of No. 30 to provide garaging.

The overall character of this part of Crown Dill is one of the relatively large dwellings on above average frontages.

This proposal would be totally out of character with the existing form of development and would create a cramped appearance in this part of Crown Hill which is an important introductory vehicular route into Rayleigh Town Centre.

Objections have been received from the adjacent occupiers Mr. & Mrs. J.R. Graham and Mr. R.D. Graham. Their comments follow in summary:—

(1) No. 32 has several side windows which would be restricted in terms of light by the proposal. One of these windows serves a main bedroom and is the only source of external light to that room.

(2) Would present a cramped appearance in the street scene due to the restricted inadequate width of the site.

The County Surveyor has indicated informally that he will be directing that the application be refused on highway grounds and I will report his direction in full at the meeting.

32. ROC/199/82 ROCHFORD

Erect greenhouse, sales office & store shed, while retaining the existing greenhouse. Booseys Nursery, Southend Road, Rochford. Booseys Nursery, do Reg Curd, 16 Cedar Hall Gardens, Thundersley, Benfleet, Essex.

Size of site: 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres)

1. New Classhouse 104 ui2. (ll2Osq.ft.) 2. Existing glasshouse 64 m2. (688 sq.ft.) 3. Sales Officefshed 22 m2. (240 sq.ft.)

D.T.P. - REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:—

1. E.G.B. (Commercial) . — 32 — r c n r' U t) J i 1 -l 2. The proposal would result in the undesirable sub—division of the existing market garden and if allowed could lead to pressure for other commercial uses of this type.

3. The site lies within the Public Safety Zone of an approach to a principal runway at Southend Airport. The proposed development would result in an increase in the number of persons within the zone contrary to the policy restricting the number of people living, working and seeking recreation in such zones.

4. The proposed use would significantly add to the traffic hazards already experienced at this heavily trafficked part of the Southend Road (B1013).

NOTE:

Planning permission was granted on 22nd December 1976 to layout a car park to the front with horticultural sales to the rear, at part of the existing Horticultural Nursery adjoining 15 Southend Road, Application No. ROC/968/76.

The site lies within both the Extended Green Belt and in the Public Safety Zone for Southend Airport and was therefore subject to seven planning conditions. In particular Conditions 6 and 7 stated that, "Sales shall be confined to goods produced on the holding" and "No building or store for the sale of goods shall be erected on the site without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority".

This particular application related to the whole of the market garden site of approximately 1.68 hectares (4.15 acres) and was within the ownership or control of Mr. Boosey.

The present application now relates solely to a small part of the original holding having a site area of 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres), a quarter of which is surfaced for car parking purposes.

Detailed discussions have taken place with the applicant regarding the use of this site and he has stated that it is his intention, "to provide a Nursery for the growing of as many plants and produce as possible but as is usual with all retail nurseries there will be an element of buying in and growing on".

The applicant has stated that he is prepared to enter into a Legal Agreement with the Council to prohibit the sale of such items as:—

"swimming pocis, paving slabs, sand and gravel, fencing, gates, greenhouses, sheds, lawnmowers, tractors and stones for rockeries .... and not to erect any further buildings without prior approval".

Whilst the applicant has expressed his willingness to enter into a legal agreement I have strong reservations whether a site of the size proposed would be able to primarily grow plants and produce in sufficient quantities for retail sale without importing a substantial quantity of stock on a regular basis throughout the year. Such a use if allowed would take the form of a retail garden centre. If a primarily retail use is permitted on this site it would be difficult to control once established and any conditions imposed would be almost impossible to enforce.

— 33 — fl! fl C' " C C4 The present application differs substantially from the original permission granted where it was envisaged that the produce sold would amount to what is commonly referred to as, 'Farm Gate Sales', i.e. attracting sporadic customers on a seasonal basis being a minor use incidental to the agricultural use of the land.

In my view this particular site is unsuitable for the proposed development for the above reasons and the application should therefore be refused permission.

No objections have been raised by Essex County Council Highways Department, Rochford Hundred Amenity Society and Rochford Parish Council.

Consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority has not yet been completed and I will report their views verbally at the meeting.

33. ROC/372/82 HULLERIDGE

Outline application to demolish existing bungalow and erect detached bungalow. Site of tvernal, Pooles Lane, Hullbridge. Mr. J. J. Caton, do Nigel Cooper MFB., 62 Sutton Road, Rochford, Essex.

Frontage of Plot: 18m (59') Depth of Plot: 30m (98') Density: 7.5 d.p.a. 18.6 d.p.h.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 1. — Reserved matters to be approved.

2. Std. Cond. 2. — Commence in 5 years or 2 years.

3. The existing pair of semi—detached bungalows on the application site and 'Clovelly' shall be demolished before the development hereby approved is commenced.

4. Std. Cond. 6 — A scheme of landscaping to be approved.

5. Std. Cond. VA — Provision within curtilage of site for garage or garage space.

NOTE:

At present a pair of semi—detached bungalows exist on this and an adjoining site "Clovelly", both of which are owned by the applicant. Both sites are within an area allocated for residential development in the Approved County Development Plan and tbere is no objection to the bungalow being replaced.

However, the same applicant has also submitted an application (see the following item) to demolish the adjoining dwelling and erect a detached bungalow. In view of the fact that the appearance of a part—demolished pair of bungalows would be unsatisfactory, condition no. 3 has been included to ensure satisfactory redevelopment of both sites. S -34- 000673 34. ROC/368/82 HULLBRIDGE

Demolish existing bungalows and erection of detached bungalow. Site of 'Clovelly', Pooles Lane, Hullbridge. Mr. J. 3. Caton, do Nigel Cooper Nfl., 62 Sutton Road, Rochford, Essex.

Frontage of Plot: 20.8m (68') Depth of Plot: 172m (564') Floor Area: l51.29m2 (1628 sq.ft.) Density: 1.13 d.p.a. 2.79 d.p.h.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years.

2. Std. Cond. 8 — Submit materials schedule.

3. Before the development hereby approved is commenced, details shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority indicating the siting for a garage or carport within the curtilage of the site.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, Schedule 1, Class 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Orders 1977 to 1981, the building shall not be enlarged or altered which may prejudice the provision of a garage or garage space as required by Condition 3 of this permission.

35. R0C1179/82 ASIIINGDON

Erect a conservatory. "The Cabin", Lyndhurst Road, Ashingdon. Mr. J. Appleton, do G.E. Spencer Ltd., 2 Market Square Chambers, Rochford, Essex.

D.T.P. — REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:—

1. The site is situated within the Approved Metropolitan Green Belt, where except in very special circumstances, planning permission will not be given for the construction of new buildings, or extension of existing buildings (other than reasonable extensions to existing dwellings) or for purposes other than agriculture, mineral extraction, forestry or other similar uses consider appropriate in the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The dwelling on the site is not used in connection with any of the foregoing uses except as a private dwelling house, the original floor area of which has, with the benefit of planning permission been approximately doubled within the previous 12 months and the local planning authority considers that the extensions and alterations permitted to date are reasonable in the light of the above policy, and that any further extensions carried Gut to the dwelling, particularly over such a short period of time, would be excessive.

— 35 — 03)674 To permit the further extension proposed would increase the effective floor area qf the dwelling, to the extent that the overall bulk of the extensions would substantially exceed that of the original dwelling, and it would be difficult for the local planning authority to resist similar further incremented extensions and alterations to the building which could result in the remaining parts of the original timber—framed structure from being replated, amounting to the replacement of the dwelling, contrary to the above policy.

2. The applicant has not satisfied the local planning authority that the proposed structure is required for purposes which cannot be accommodated by the provision of an external porch constructed in the vicinity of the existing kitchen door, which would fall within the category of development permitted by Article 3 Sch. 1, Class 1 of the Town and Country General Development Orders 1977 to 1981.

NOTE:

The Cabin was erected over 50 years ago as a small timber—framed building. In recent years a small bathroom was added, and more recently, in September last year, planning permission was granted for substantial extensions and alterations to the dwelling, which extended the building at the rear and side, and resulted in the original floor area of the building being approximately doubled. At that time, although the extensions were larger than one generally permitted for such properties, a legal agreement was not requested.

The applicant now wishes to erect a further extension to the building, described as a conservatory. Although it is not a large structure being 2.9m x l.5m (9'S" x 51) it is yet a furtherextension to the original structure.

I have indicated to the applicants that I would be prepared to approve this extension subject to a legal agreement under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which would have the effect of retaining the existing remaining original structure of the dwelling, and retain the overall character and appearance, but the applicants, after first agreeing to such an agreement, have decided not to continue with it, and wish a decision to be made. They have indicated that they will appeal against any refusal issue.

36. ROC/29l/82 ASHINGDON

Add lounge and extension, erect garage and garden shed and a pitched roof to property. Chase Cottage, The Chase, Ashingdon. Mr. & Mrs. D.W.G. Trigger, do Barker Livemore and Co., 98 Broadway, Leigh on Sea, Essex.

D.T.P. — GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:—

1. Std. Cond. 3 — Commence in 5 years. S -36- 000673 2. This permission conveys no approval to the replacement or alteration to any of the existing timber—framed external walls. Any such alterations which are proposed shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the work is commenced, and shall be subject to a detailed schedule of repairs.

NOTE:

Several extension have been carried out to this old timber—framed dwelling, comprising a side extension built as permitted development, and last year, planning permission was granted to replace an existing rear extension with a larger extension. Before approval was granted, however, the application entered into a legal agreement under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act, where the applicant agreed to the following:—

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Development) Order 1980, and the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1981, no part or parts of the existing timber—framed structure situate on the land shall be altered or replaced in any manner whatsoever without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority."

The agreement was signed by the applicant on 21st January 1982. The applicant now wishes to replace the existing pitched roof over the existing building, to extend it over the side extension built as permitted development, to erect a rear lounge extension to 'square 0fft the building. This will also necessitate two small pitched roofs over the existing and new rear extensions.

I have no objections in principle to these alterations, bearing in mind the terms of the agreement, and the height of the roof is such that it will not be possible to incorporate rooms in the roof in future, which would alter the character of the bungalow.

37. GD/ROC/2/82 GREAT WAXERING

Improvements to entrance area. Ministry of Defence, New Ranges, Shoeburyness — Landwick Entrance. Ministry of Defence, do Area Officer, P.S.A., Goojerat Road, Coichester, Essex.

RECOMMENDATION

The Ministry of Defence be informed through the Property Services Agency that this authority has no adverse comments to make on the proposals but asks that a scheme of tree and shrub planting is carried out on the borders of the entrance complex during the first available planting season following the commencement of the development.

NOTE:

Notice of the above development by the Ministry of Defence has been received in accordance with the provisions of Circular 7/77. This Circular provides a procedure for local authorities to be consulted on developments by Government Departments although development by the Crown does not require planning permission.

— 37 — The proposal includes Improvements to the entrance to Foulness Island at the Landwick entrance beyond New Road, Great Wakering. A roundabout is to be formed together with a visitors car park to improve traffic control and to enable buses to turn more easily. A bus lay—by is also to be provided outside the entrance area. Other improvements comprise new security, fencing barrier gates and accommodation for the security police.

The proposals will clearly aid traffic control and movements at the entrance and my only comment would be that some planting be provided on the borders to soften the impact of the development in the local scene.

S -38- DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

I have decided the following planning applications in accordance with the policy of delegation and subject to conditions:— nvovas

ROC/274/82 Erect a garage at 386 Ashingdon Road, Rochford — Nr. Scriven.

R0C1320/82 Add bedroom and extend existing dormer window at 43 Stanley Road, Ashingdon, Rochford — Mr. E. Sewell.

ROC/327/82 Erect sun lounge to rear and add car port to front elevation at 29 Western Road, Rayleigh — Mr. J. Tebbut.

ROC/333/82 Add a garage at 9 Silverdale, Rayleigh — Mr. Crispin.

ROC/335/82 Erect a rear extension at 9 Weatbury, Rochford — Mr. Webber.

ROC/344/82 Demolish existing conservatory. Erect a dining room at 17 Newton Rail Gardens, Ashingdon — Mr. A. Wilson.

ROC/349/82 Erection of 8' high fence to eastern boundary of horse riding arena at "The Bungalowt, Rayleigh Downs Road, Rayleigh — Director of Housing and Estates, Southend Borough Council.

ROC/280182 Erect an 11 iCy overhead line on wooden poles at Stevens Farm Booster Station, Rayleigh — Eastern Electricity Board.

ROC/35l182 Erect a single storey rear extension at 297 Little Wakering Road, Little Wakering, Barling — Mr. D.J. Egbury.

ROC/290/82 Add extension to existing garage at 4 Chase Side, Rayleigh — Mr. Flatt.

ROC/269/82 Erect a carport at S Parklands, Rochford — Mr. R. Bindley.

— 39 — 030 78 ROC/310/82 Add an extension to dining room and kitchen at 5 Pinewood Close, Hulibridge — Mr. R. Foreman.

ROC/338/82 Remove existing roof. Construct new roof and add bedrooms and bathroom In roof space at 224 Ferry Road, Hulibridge — Mr. & Mrs. Potter.

A/ROC/11/82 Erect a double—sided internally illuminated projecting box sign at 82, Nigh Street, Great Wakering — Drake Estate Agency.

RQC/268182 Add extension to form hallway and extend existing roof at "Wits—End:, Ulverston Road, Ashingdon — Mr. D.M. Lawrence.

ROC/294/82 Add extension to kitchen at 15, Warwick Gardens, Rayleigh - Mr. J. Rixon.

ROC/295/82 Add front porch and extention to garage and add a cycle store at 31, Eastern Road, Rayleigh — Mr. K.S. Gee.

ROC/304/82 Erect a rear extension at iSA, Hockley Rise, Hockley — Mr. B. Wilkins.

ROC/305/82 Construct pitch roof to existing property at Grass Croft, Folly Chase, Hockley — Mr. D. Gray.

R0C1307/82 Erect a kitchen extension to rear at 107, Bull Mr. C. Fox. Lane, Rayleigh — . ROOf 250/82 Add rooms in roof space and erect a rear extension at 14, Ambleside Gardens, Hullbridge — Mr. M. Hens on.

ROC/350/82 Extend boundary fence 2 metres at 45, Little Wheatley Chase, Rayleigh — Mr. Jack Clifford.

ROC/2l6/82 Add lounge extension, porch, w.c. and garage at 70 Ferry Road, Hullbridge — Mr. E. McLaren.

ROC/371/82 Add extension to form a utility room at 4 Forfield Close, Hockley — Mr. M. Lawrence. S — 40 — 679 ROC/360/82 Add rear extension at 9 Willow Walk) Hockley — Mr. Goodchild.

ROC/352/82 Add rear single storey extension at 31 The Westerings, Hockley — Mr. S. Lark.

ROC/347/82 Extend existing dormer at rear to enlarge bedroom at 6 Oak Road, Rochford — Mr. J.M.H. Taylorsmith.

ROC/336/82 Erect a side porch and add a rear dining area at 29 Nursery Close, Rayleigh — Mr. C. Shore.

ROC/32l/82 Add bedroom and bathroom to first floor at 24 Kingswood Crescent, Rayleigh — Mr. D. Burrows.

ROC/308/82 Erect a two storey side extension and a single storey extension to rear at 150 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh — Mr. R. Smith.

ROC/293/82 Erect a rear extension at 2 Barbara Close, Rochford — Mr. R. Hill.

ROC/3l3/82 Demolish existing garage & covered way. Erect utility room, garage & covered way with two bedrooms over at 56 Manor Road, Hockley — Mr. W. Jackson.

RoC/337/82 Add front and rear extensions at "Homelands", Lark Hill Road, Canewdon — Mr. J. Weidner.

R0C/348/82 Demolish existing conservatory. Erect a rear extension at 5 Folly Lane, Hockley — Mr. Thring.

ROC/359/82 Add rear extension at 30 Richmond Drive, Rayleigh — Mr. K. Kendrick.

ROC/363/82 Add a conservatory at 3 Queens Road, Rayleigh — Mr. 9. Livermore.

ROC/384/82 Erect a front extension to garage at 33 Aldermans Hill) Hockley — Mr. K.G.0. Fearnley.

-41- (JJ11633 ROC/284/82 Add extension to existing dormer windows at 9 Larkfield Close, Rochford — Mr. S. Duff.

ROC/296/82 Erect a car port at 6, Larkfield Close, Rochford — Mr. J.P. Lewindon.

R0C/324/82 Erect a two storey rear extension at 57 Hillcrest Avenue, Rullbrldge — Mr. T. Evans.

ROC/386/82 Change of use of Highway Land to private garden at 60, ilighams Road, Hockley — Mr. M.R. Garnsey.

ROC/370/82 Add room in roof at 7, Harewood Avenue, Etawkwell — Mr. T. Swain.

ROC/381/82 Add bedroom and shower room to first floor at 39, Hatfield Road, Rayleigh — Hr. Chorley.

ROC/309/82 Add a bedroom to first floor at 15, Nelson Gardens, Rayleigh, Essex — Mr. A. Dinallo.

ROc/311/82 Add extension to lounge at 5, Grove Close, Rayleigh, Essex — Mr. D. Nye.

ROC/353/82 Change of use from highway land to private garden and erection of 6' wall and fence adjacent to 36, Ferndale Road at junction with Kings Farm, Rayleigh — Mrs. E.J. Taylor.

ROC/365/82 Add front porch at 15, Barrymore Walk, Rayleigh — Mr. Ison.

ROC/379/82 Add kitchen extension at 9, Stile Lane, Rayleigh, Essex — Mr. Higgins.

ROC/396/82 Erect a garage and two storey side extension at 29, Bellingham Lane, Rayleigh — Mr. I.J. Brown and Miss S.J. Clinker.

A/ROC/8/82 Erect two non—illuminated and two internally illuminated advertisement box signs at 33, Eastwood Road, Rayleigh, Essex — Mr. Baker.

A/ROC/12/82 Erect an internally illuminated box fascia sign at 6, Eastwood Road, Rayleigh — Coral Racing Limited.

— 42 — ( k!cJ LL' REFUSALS

ROC/276/82 Convert existing garage to Study/Playroom and add extension to kitchen and a car port at 17 Byford Close, Rayleigh — Mr. R. Poyntz.

Reasons: 1. The proposed flat roof front extension by reason of its size and appearance is considered to be detrimental to the elevations and character of the existing property and would create an unduly prominent and incongruous feature in the street scene.

2. The proposed balcony extension on top of the front flat roof extension would lead to overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of no. 15 Byford Close.

3. The siting of the proposed car port could threaten the retention to the existing mature oak tree which is a prominent and attractive visual feature in the street scene.

ROC/326/82 Outline application to erect one detached bungalow adjacent "Kia—Ora", Pudsey Hall Lane, Canewdon — Mr. AD. Owers.

Reason: M.G.B. (Residential)

ROC/247/82 Add an extension to existing garage at 14, Broadway, Hockley — Mr. & Mrs. Nash.

Reason: Unrelated design and discordant feature in the street scene.

ROC/340/82 Outline application for change of use from licensed restaurant to public house at 7 & 8 Silchester Corner, Southend Road, Great Wakering, Essex — Mr. M. Kaye.

Reasons: 1. EGE (Commercial). 2. Adverse affect on neighbours. 3. Inadequate car parking.

-43- A/ROC/l3/82 Erect two internally illuminated fascia advertisement signs at 65, Spa Road, Hockley, Essex — Magees/Portnian Building Society.

Reason: The proposed Internally illuminated box signs by reason of their size and content would appear unduly dominant and out of scale with the building on which they are to be displayed to the detriment of the building and the street scene. Furthermore the proposed signs would project above the existing fascia board and roof of the premises and would thereby produce a moat unsatisfactory and crude feature. It is considered that any fascia signs attached to this building should be designed to integrate with the detail design and scale of the existing building.

S — j1 J U — 44 ROCI-IFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

P. SWELL ECIS DMA DID O&M COUNCIL OFFICES W Barrislor-a'NLaw SOUTH STREET 'Irector of Legal Services ROCHFORD tel Southend-on-Sea 546366 ESSEX 'y Ret SS4 15W

Your Ref When calling or telephoning Please ask for 23rd July, 1982.

Dear Councillor,

Members of the Council are summoned to a meeting as detailed below.

Yours —The Director of Legal Services.

DATE: 29TH JULY, 1982

TINE: 7.30 P.M.

PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, RAYLEIGH

A GE N PA

PRAYERS

1. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 6th JULY 1982

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (if any) I 4. To receive Committee minutes as listed and to pass such resolutions as may be necessary.

Committee Date Minute Nos.

Health & Housing Services 8th July 384 — 406

Leisure Services 13th July 407 — 419

Development Services 15th July 420 — 433

Policy & Resources 21st July 434 — 456

Planning Services 27th July 457 —

5. To consider questions under Standing Order 7.2 (if any) of which appropriate notice has been given.

6. To consider Officers Reports (if any).

S h ( 1) C' 3 ROCUFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Council

At a Meeting held on 29th July 1982. Present: Councillors D.C. Wood (ChafFnan), Ed!. Adeock, M.N. Anderson, R.H. Boyd, W.H. Budge, Mrs. L.M.A. Campbell—Daley, Mrs. P. Cooke, L.K. Cope, B.A. Crick, E.E. Daley, T. Fawell, R.D. Foster, L.A. Gibson, A.J. Harvey, Mrs. P.E. Hawke, Mrs. E.M. Heath, D.R. Nelson, P.J. Rimfen, lUll. Holman, Mrs. Jo Jones, N.J. Jones, F.B.G. Jopson, Miss B.G.J. Lovett, Mrs. J.M. Munson, J.E. Nokes, R.A. Pearson, J.A. Sheaf, G.J. Skinner, R.T. Stephens, C. Stephenson, A.L. Tate, E. Taylor, J.P. Taylor, LA. Taylor, T.J. Warner and E.S. Whitworth.

Apologies: Councillors C.B. Alger, N.R. Blyther, T.H. Burt, and M.C. Warner.

463 MINUTES

Resolved that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6th July 7fW82 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

464. OIAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman thanked all the persons involved with the very successful Festival of Sport which had been held recently.

The Chairman expressed his thanks and congratulated Members and officers for their organisation of the Rochford Fair held at Clements Hall on 24th/2Sth July. It was considered that the two—day event did great credit to the District of Rochford.

Members were reminded that the Phase UI development at Clements Hall would be open to the public as from 31st July, although the official opening ceremony would take place on a date to be announced.

The Chairman reported that the Council's joint response to the Town & Country Planning Association's case for the siting of the Third London Airport at Maplin Sands had been completed on the 28th July. He read a letter from Lord Boston of Faversham, President of the Defenders of Essex, congratulating the Council on the manner in which the case had been presented and the expertise used in the preparation of the evidence documents.

The Chairman expressed his appreciation to the Directors of Legal Services and Town Planning, and their staff, for all their efforts connected with the Hearing.

465 MINUTES OF COMMITTEES

Resolved (1) That the Minutes of Committees be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted subject to the amendments shown. - r % ti —, 'J'¼i (2) That the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to any documents necessary to give effect to decisions taken or approved by the Council in these Minutes.

Committee Date Minute Nos.

Health & Housing 8th July 384 — 406 Services

Shops Act 1950 — Sunday Trading. Association of District Councils (Minute 393/82)

The Chairman of the Committee reported that a letter had been received from the Rayleigh Civic Society expressing concern at the Council's support of the ABC moves to end controls on Sunday trading. The Society did not see any great need to change the law. They argued that shopkeepers they had spoken to showed no enthusiasm for such a change, that if shops and supermarkets opened on Sundays they would probably close on a weekday thereby inconveniencing another section of the public and finally that the quiet atmosphere of the English Sunday would be destroyed.

The Chairman of the Committee did not consider that any different decision would have been reached had the letter been before his Committee.

Resolved that the views of the Rayleigh Civic Society be noted and that the recommendation in two parts in Minute 393/82 be adopted. (989)(DHH)

Sale of Council Houses — Transfer to Building Society Mortgages (Minute 405/82) Note; Councillors B.A. Crick and R.A. Taylor disclosed a jEiuniary interest as holders of a Council mortgage and being invited to remain in the meeting, took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Leisure Services 13th July 407 — 419

Bicyç]e Motocross (BMX) (Minute 411/82)

Further to the adoption of Minute 411 it was,

Resolved that the operation of the Grove Road BMX track be reviewed before any other si,tes are considered for this purpose in the District. (23241)(TJTS& DTP)

Development Services 15th July 420 — 433

Traffic Regulation Orders — Battlesbridge By—pass (Minute 4l/82)

Further to the adoption of Minute 431 it was,

Resolved that the provision of street lighting along the by- pass be pursued with the County Council and that the Chairman of the Committee and the Director of Technical Services be \ authorised to make the necessary approaches. (933)(DTS) Policy & Resources 21st July 434 — 457

Dutch Cottage, Crown Hill, Rayleigh (Minute 438/82)

The Chairman of the Committee reported that there was a need for listed building consent to be obtained in order to begin remedial works on the building as soon as possible.

The decision in Minute 438 to defer identifying the proposed use would have the effect of holding up these important renovation works for nearly three months unless a decision as to its future use could be made at this meeting.

Resolved that the following recommendations be substituted for the recommendation in Minute 438:—

"(1) That works of repair and renovation be undertaken.

(2) That the building continues to be used as a dwelling.

(3) That the Dutch Cottage Management Committee consider applications for the tenancy to determine the form of tenure and rental.

(4) That listed building consent be obtained for the necessary renovation works." (6125)(DHH & DLS)

Rochford District Sports Council (Minute 449/82)

Resolved (1.) That Councillor Mrs J.M. Munson be appointed to deputise for Councillor Eli. Adcock on the Sports Council.

(2) That attendance be classified as an approved duty. (701)(DLS & OF)

Perry's Site, Hambro Hill, RayleigjMinute 454/82)

Resolved that the matter be considered further after the exclusion of the public.

Planniflg Services Committee — 24th June 1982 (Minute 457/82)

Resolved that the preamble to Minute 457/82 be amended to read as follows:—

"Because of the lateness of the hour, and the absence of the Member who had raised the matter, consideration of the report of the Chief Executive was deferred."

Planning Services 27th July 458 — 462

466 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

Resolved that, in accordance with Section 1(2) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, the public be now 'excluded from the meeting for the reason that publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest, the business about to be discussed being the subject of confidential reports.

tt T p- 467 PERRY'S SITLM4BRO HILL, RAYLEIGH (Minute 454/82)

Note: Councillors R.H. flolirian and J.A. Sheaf disclosed pecuniary interests by way of business relationships with the site occupiers and left the meeting.

After discussion, voting on a motion for reference back was recorded as follows pursuant to a requisition made under Standing Order 14:—

For the Motion (10) Councillors R.F1. Boyd, Mrs L.M.A. Catapbell—Daley, B.A. Crick, E.E. Daley, D.R. Helson, P.J. Himfen, J.E. Nokes, G.J. Skinner, C. Stephenson and R.A. Taylor.

Against the Motion (22) Councillors E.H. Adeock, N.N. Anderson, LU. Budge, Mrs P. Cooke, L.K. Cope, T. Fawell, R.D. Foster, J.A. Gibson, A.J. Harvey, Mrs P.E. Hawke, Mrs E.M. Heath, Mrs Jo Jones, M.J. Jones, F.B.G. Jopson, Miss E.G.J. Lovett, Mrs J.M. Munson, R.A. Pearson, R.T. Stephens, A.L. Tate, B. Taylor, J.P. Taylor and D.C. Wood.

AbstainiM (2) Councillors T.J. Warner and E.S. Whitworth.

The motion was declared LOST.

Members mentioned the need for an improved access off Hambro Hill to the site and also for improvements to Hambro Hill itself.

Resolved that Minute 454 be adopted subject to the negotiations with the appellants including the provision of a new access road with adequate sight splays off Hambro Hill to the Perry's site and to the Director of Technical Services taking up with the County Highway Authority the road Improve- ments necessary to liambro Hill. (9806)(DLS/DTS) .

Chairrncm Dc& ______