Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R E Hadley (substitute: Councillor Arscott) and Callaghan.

The following interests were declared at the meeting:

(a)  Councillor Assenheim – 15/01877/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Applicant is his registered GP;

(b)  Councillor Assenheim – 15/ 01046/ADV – Non-pecuniary interest: Lives near to the roundabout;

(c)  Councillor Ayling – 15/01884/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Lives in the vicinity of the application site;

(d)  Councillor Borton – 15/01052/ADV – Non-pecuniary interest: Lives in the vicinity of the roundabout;

(e)  Councillor Crystall – 15/01493/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Adjacent to the dental surgery where he is registered;

(f)  Councillor D Garston – 15/01340/FULH – Non-pecuniary interest: Agent is well-known to him;

(g)  Councillor D Garston – 15/01785/FULM – Non-pecuniary interest: Applicant’s spokesperson is a neighbour of his son and is known to him;

(h)  Councillor McGlone – 15/01917/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Members of staff at the premises are known to him;

(i)  Councillor McMahon – 15/01763/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Business has contacted previously in her capacity as Councillor (withdrew);

(j)  Councillor McMahon – 15/01877/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Comments on the application have been made by the Chairman of a Kursaal Ward Residents’ Association;

(k)  Councillor Van Looy – 15/01785/FULM – Non-pecuniary interest: Applicant known to him in the seafront trade (withdrew);

(l)  Councillor Van Looy – 15/01884/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Ward Councillor;

(m)  Councillor Van Looy – 15/01763/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Applicant known to him;

(n)  Councillor Van Looy – 15/01741/FUL – Non-pecuniary interest: Applicant known to him;

(o)  Councillor Walker – 15/01340/FULH – Non-pecuniary interest: Knows a resident who lives close to the application site.

Resolved:-

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday, 11^th November 2015 be received, confirmed as a correct record and signed.

Report to follow

The Committee received a supplementary report by the Corporate Director for Place that provided additional information on items referred to elsewhere on the Agenda.

(a)  Pre-Meeting Site Visit – Report of Corporate Director for Place No. DETE 16/003

(b)  Main Plans List – Report of Corporate Director for Place No. DETE 16/004

(a)  Leigh Ward

15/01340/FULH

Demolish part of dwellinghouse and erect part single/part two storey front extension to western side of dwelling, erect three storey front extension to eastern side of dwelling, erect a three storey rear extension, replace roof and erect dormer to rear and form new vehicular access to Leigh park road (Amended Proposal)(Part Retrospective)

11 Leigh Park Road, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, SS9 2DU

Mr S. Ezra

Mr G. Littler

Planning permission REFUSED for the following reason:

01  The proposed development, by virtue of the scale, form and architectural features of the resultant dwelling, would cause harm to the appearance of the dwelling at the application site and be a discordant and incongruous addition to the street-scene, thereby not maintaining or enhancing the character or appearance of the Leigh Conservation Area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of DPD1 (Core Strategy), policies DM1 and DM5 of DPD2 (Development Management) and the advice contained within SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guidance).

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining

this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal.  The detailed analysis is set out in a report prepared by officers. In the circumstances the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development.

Informative

You are advised that as the proposed alterations equates to less than 100sqm of new floorspace the development benefits from a Minor Development Exemption under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and as such no charge is payable. See www.southend.gov.uk/cil for further details about CIL.

Resolved:  That ENFORCEMENT ACTION be AUTHORISED to require the removal and reconfiguration of the roof of the dwelling and the alteration of the front elevation of the dwelling to accord with the development approved under the terms of application 96/0365 on the grounds that the development that has occurred, but is yet to be completed, is of a scale, form and architectural style that causes harm to the appearance of the dwelling at the application site and is a discordant and incongruous addition to the street-scene, thereby not maintaining or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.  The development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of DPD1 (Core Strategy), policies DM1 and DM5 of DPD2 (Development Management) and the advice contained within SPD1 (Design and Townscape Guidance).

The authorised enforcement action to include (if/as necessary) the service of an Enforcement Notice under Section 173 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the pursuance of proceedings whether by prosecution or injunction to secure compliance with the requirements of said Notice

When serving Enforcement Notice the Local Planning Authority must ensure a reasonable for compliance.  It is considered that a six  ...  view the full minutes text for item 548.

Report of Corporate Director for Place DETE 16/005

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director for Place which reported on an alleged breach of planning control.

Milton Ward

EN/15/00100/UNAU_B

Without planning permission installed a raised walkway and railings to the front of existing building.

31 Westcliff Parade Westcliff on Sea  Essex

Resolved:-

That ENFORCEMENT ACTION be AUTHORISED to the remove the unauthorised walkway and railings. This is because of its unsympathetic materials and design, causing a detrimental visual impact to the streetscene within the Shorefield Conservation Area, contrary to Policies DM1 and DM5 of the Development Management DPD, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (SPD1).

The authorised enforcement action to include (if/as necessary) the service of an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the pursuance of proceedings whether by prosecution or injunction to secure compliance with the requirements of said Notice.

When serving an Enforcement Notice the local planning authority must ensure a reasonable time for compliance. It is considered that a three months compliance period is reasonable in these circumstances.