Proposal:  Erect part two storey, part three storey building comprising 14 self-contained flats, layout parking and erect fence, railings and electric gate

Applicant:  Mr Henry Hyde and Mr Alex Thorpe

Agent:  Architectural Design Associates

Mr Gray, a local resident, spoke as an objector to the application.

Resolved:-

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01  The proposal would by reason of its size, scale, bulk, mass and detailed design, constitute unacceptable backland development, resulting in a contrived and incongruous scheme that is unacceptable and would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, contrary to National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009). 

02  The development proposed fails to provide an appropriate dwelling mix that would reflect the Borough’s identified housing needs, resulting in the scheme failing to deliver a sufficiently wide choice of homes. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DM7 of the Development Management Document (2015).

03  The design, size, siting, bulk and mass of the proposed development are such that it is overbearing, visually obtrusive and would cause unacceptable overlooking, a sense of enclosure and loss of privacy and light to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings in Shoebury Avenue, Friars Street and Wakering Avenue.

The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

04  By virtue of the insufficient floorspace of the 1 bedroom flats proposed, the poor quality of the external amenity space provided, the inconveniently located parking spaces and the inadequate and inaccessible refuse stores, the development would provide substandard living conditions for the future occupiers of the site, providing a poor quality residential environment.  The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

05  The submission does not demonstrate that the proposal would provide a development that is appropriately accessible and adaptable for all members of the community and information has not been submitted to demonstrate that the new dwellings would meet the M4(2) and M4(3) accessibility standards. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015).

06  As a result of an existing lamp column, one of the parking spaces fronting Shoebury Avenue would not be safely accessible. As a result the development would provide either insufficient parking and result in an increase of on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety or would result in unsafe vehicular movements by virtue of residents trying to access an inaccessible space to the detriment of the highway safety. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DM15 of the Development Management Document (2015).

07 The application does not include a formal undertaking to secure a contribution to affordable housing provision to meet the demand for such housing in the area and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that such a contribution would make the scheme economically unviable. The submission also lacks a formal undertaking to secure a contribution to the delivery of education facilities to meet the need for such infrastructure generated by the development. In the absence of these undertakings the application is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2, KP3, CP6 and CP8 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policy DM7 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

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. The Local Planning Authority is willing to discuss the best course of action

Informatives

01  Please note that this application would be liable for a payment under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) if planning permission had been granted. Therefore if an appeal is lodged and subsequently allowed, the CIL liability will be applied. Any revised application would also be CIL liable.