TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPEAL BY MR BALWINDER CHAHAL SITE AT 142 BUCKHURST WAY, BUCKHURST HILL, ESSEX APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF CASE Our Ref: KW/MLR/K/7452 November 2017 Stansgate Planning Chartered Town Planners Chartered Surveyors Planning and Development Consultants 9 The Courtyard, Timothy’s Bridge Road, Stratford upon Avon, CV37 9NP T: 01789 414097 F: 01789 414608 E: [email protected] W: www.stansgate.co.uk Stansgate Planning is the trading name of Stansgate Planning Consultants Limited registered in England and Wales Registration Number 08010392 142 Buckhurst Way, Buckhurst Hill Appellant’s Statement of Case INDEX Page 1. Introduction 1 2. The Site and Its Surroundings 1 3. Background and Relevant Planning History 2 4. The Appeal Proposal 2 5. The Development Plan 3 6. Material Considerations 3 • National Planning Policy Framework 3 • Planning Practice Guidance 5 • Emerging Epping Forest District Plan 5 • Epping Forest 5 Year Assessment of Land Supply 5 1/04/2016-31/3/2021 7. Grounds of Appeal 5 • The Correct Test 5 • Reasons for Refusal 3 (the second number 2 on the Decision Notice) 7 • Reasons for Refusal 1 and 2 8 • Balancing Test 11 8. Conclusions 12 APPENDICES 1. Officers report regarding application EPF/2064/17 (appeal proposal) 2. Plans and decision notice regarding application EPF/2825/16 3. Appeal decision and plans regarding application EPF/0049/15 4. Extracts from the Epping Forest District Local Plan January 1998 5. Extracts from the Epping Forest Local Plan Alterations July 2006 6. Epping Forest 5 Year Assessment of Land Supply 1/04/2016-31/3/2021 7. Officers report regarding application EPF/2688/13 8. Drawing 17.05.010 - Sections KW/MLR/7452/1711 Statement of Case November 2017 Stansgate Planning 142 Buckhurst Way, Buckhurst Hill Statement of Case 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This statement accompanies the appeal made by Mr Balwinder Chahal against the decision of Epping Forest District Council to refuse planning permission at 142 Buckhurst Way, Buckhurst Hill, for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the redevelopment of the site with a two storey building containing four flats with rooms in the roof and an integral carport. 1.2 The application was refused under delegated powers for three reasons. Numbers 1 and 2 are very similar and relate to the impact of the building on the character of the area whilst the third (also numbered 2) alleges a poor standard of amenity for future occupants of the flat in the roof space. Reference is made in each reason to various policies of the adopted Local Plan and to the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The application site is located on the eastern side of Buckhurst Way, almost opposite the junction with Walnut Way. It is roughly rectangular in shape and measures approximately 0.05 hectares. The site contains a single brick built bungalow with a large pitched, tiled roof, which fronts the adjoining road. Parking for two cars is available in front of the property which also has a small garage. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is in the north western corner. A sizeable private garden lies behind the dwelling. 2.2 The site is located on the eastern side of Buckhurst Way, in a largely residential area. To the north of the site the eastern side of the street is characterized by two storey terraced dwellings fronting the road, most with on-plot frontage parking for one or two cars. To the west properties are in cul-de-sacs with few dwellings facing Buckhurst Way. The road slopes down gently from north to south and bends slightly to the south of the site. Immediately to the south of the site is a public footpath and beyond that large fence with a private garden behind. Beyond this are a number of terraced dwellings but also modern apartment developments, which are clearly visible from the application site. KW/7452/1710 statement of case 1 November 2017 Stansgate Planning 142 Buckhurst Way, Buckhurst Hill Statement of Case 2.3 The application site is situated within walking distance of a number of local shops, services and public transport facilities, which includes the Roding Valley train station less than 200m distant to the south. 3. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have now been a number of applications for the redevelopment of the site, as set out in the Relevant History section of the officers delegated report, attached at Appendix 1 to this statement. 3.2 Drawings and the decision notice relating to approved application reference EPF/2825/16 for the extension to form a new first floor and conversion to provide two dwellings are attached at Appendix 2. 3.3 Drawings and the appeal decision relating to refused application reference EPF/0049/15 are attached at Appendix 3. 4. THE APPEAL PROPOSAL 4.1 The appeal seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of a new building containing four flats. The building has the appearance of a single large dwelling, and is two storeys with rooms in the roof. The ground floor contains a two bedroom flat, a car port for two vehicles, a cycle storage area and a food waste wheeled bin store. The first floor provides two 2 bedroom flats and the roof space a further two bedroom flat. 4.2 The building will be finished with facing brickwork at ground floor level, with painted render at first floor with a plain clay tile roof. A large shared amenity space is provided to the rear of the property. In front of the building is parking for a further two vehicles, a 4.1m turntable to assist with entry and exit in a forward gear, and a Metrostor refuse enclosure providing housing for 5no 360l wheeled bins. 4.3 The site will continue to be accessed via the existing drive in the north western corner, widened to suit. KW/7452/1710 statement of case 2 November 2017 Stansgate Planning 142 Buckhurst Way, Buckhurst Hill Statement of Case 5. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5.1 The Development Plan for the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 comprises the ‘saved’ policies of the Epping Forest District Local Plan adopted January 1998 and the Alterations adopted July 2006. 5.2 The following policies of the 1998 Local Plan are relevant to the consideration of the appeal. Extracts are attached at Appendix 4. Policy DBE1 Building in Context Policy DBE2 Building in Context Policy DBE3 The Relationship between Buildings and Spaces Policy DBE5 Structuring New Residential Developments Policy DBE9 Amenity Considerations 5.3 The following policies of the 2006 Alterations are relevant to the consideration of the appeal. Extracts are attached at Appendix 5. Policy CP1 Achieving Sustainable Development Objectives Policy CP2 Protecting the Quality of the Rural and Built Environment Policy CP7 Urban Form and Quality Policy H3A Housing Density 6. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS National Planning Policy Framework 6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides an overview and general statement of the objectives of the Planning System. It provides a strategic commentary on planning policy and emphasises the contribution the planning system can make to achieving sustainable development. The relevant paragraphs and sections are as set out below. 6.2 Paragraph 7 which states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. KW/7452/1710 statement of case 3 November 2017 Stansgate Planning 142 Buckhurst Way, Buckhurst Hill Statement of Case 6.3 Paragraph 11 which reaffirms that planning law requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (repeated in paragraph 196 regarding determining applications). 6.4 Paragraph 14 which advises that the ‘golden thread’ running through the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development (repeated in paragraph 197 regarding determining applications). It further states that for decision taking this means approving development which accords with the development plan without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless specific policies contained in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted, or that any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 6.5 Paragraph 17 which sets out the core planning principles and in particular the need for development to seek to secure high quality design and achieve a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. 6.6 Section 6, Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes, which requires local planning authorities to ‘boost significantly’ the supply of housing. It continues that Council’s should identify specific deliverable sites to provide five years worth of housing against their requirements, with a 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition, increased to 20% where there has been a persistent record of under delivery. It further states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the five year supply cannot be demonstrated. 6.7 Section 7 which requires planning proposals to achieve good design, with the aim of making places better for people. 6.8 Paragraph 215 which states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework, the closer the policies in the Plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight they may be given.