Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cowan (substitute: Councillor Berry), D Garston (substitute: Councillor McGlone) and Mitchell (substitute: Councillor Cowdrey).

The following interests were declared at the meeting;-

(a) Councillor Collins – Application Ref. No. 21/92459/FUL (366 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood) – Non-pecuniary interest: Received representations and spoke about the application with residents;

(b) Councillor Habermel – Enforcement of Planning Control Ref. No. 20/00009/UNAU_B (84-90 The Ridgeway, Westcliff on Sea) – Non-pecuniary interest: Rear garden of his property is on the other side of the railway in close proximity to the site (withdrew);

(c) Councillor Mulroney – Application Ref. No. 21/02498/FUL (Flat 1, Undercliff Gardens, Leigh on Sea) – Non-pecuniary interest: Member of Leigh Town Council, non-participant in planning;

(d) Councillor Wakefield – Application Ref. No. 21/02525/FUL (11 Wesley Road, Southend on Sea) – Non-pecuniary interest: Owns an HMO;- and

(e) Councillor Walker – Application Ref. No. 21/92459/FUL (366 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood) – Non-pecuniary interest: Has been asked about the application by residents.

The Committee received and noted a supplementary report by the Executive Director (Growth and Housing) that provided additional information on the items referred to elsewhere on the Agenda.

Proposal: Extend existing detached outbuilding to form store area

Applicant: Mr and Mrs M Day

Agent: Metson Architects Ltd

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

Resolved:-

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

01 The proposed extension in combination with existing and consented development on the site would be detrimental to the open and undeveloped character of the rear gardens within Undercliff Gardens at this point to the detriment of the character of the area and representing an overdevelopment of the site contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies KP2 and Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy, Policies DM1 and DM6 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the Design & Townscape Guide (2009).

Positive and Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and clearly setting these out in the reason(s) for refusal. Furthermore, Members of the planning committee which took the decision to refuse planning permission based their view on a detailed report prepared by officers and have considered whether there are opportunities to amend the development to address this harm. Where a potential way forward has been identified, this has been communicated to the Applicant.

Proposal: Change of use of existing building from retail (Class E) to dwellings (Class C3), erect two storey rear/side extensions with balconies to first floor rear, install dormer to rear and roof terrace, form 5no. self-contained flats with associated amenity space, cycle and refuse storage (Amended Proposal)

Applicant: Mr Martin Saunders

Agent: Mr Jonathan McDermott of Town Planning Experts

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

Resolved:-

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 695-400; 695-401; 695-402; 695-403 Rev 03; 695-404 Rev 03

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the development plan.

03. Before the development hereby approved is occupied the materials used on the external surfaces of the development must match those used on the external surfaces of the existing dwelling. This applies unless differences are shown on submitted plans.

Reason: To safeguard character and appearance of surrounding area in accordance with Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy 2007, Policy DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document 2015 and the Design and Townscape Guide 2009.

04. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, details of energy efficiency and other sustainability measures, including the provision of at least 10% of the energy needs of the development hereby approved being provided from renewable sources, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried only in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development through efficient use of resources and better use of sustainable and renewable resources in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Core Strategy (2007) policies KP2 and CP4 and the guidance contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

05. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, water efficient design measures set out in Policy DM2 (iv) of the Development Management Document to limit internal water consumption to 105 litres per person per day (lpd) (110 lpd when including external water consumption), including measures of water efficient fittings, appliances and water recycling systems such as grey water and rainwater harvesting shall be installed in the development hereby approved and be retained in perpetuity thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development through efficient use of water in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Core Strategy (2007) Policy KP2, Development Management Document (2015) Policy DM2 and the Councils Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

06. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, details of secure, covered cycle and refuse storage for the flats shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 759.

Proposal: Change of use from existing 6 bed HMO (Class C4) to 7 bed HMO (Sui Generis) with bike store to rear and refuse store to front

Applicant: Mr Martin Saunders

Agent: Krystal Architecture Ltd.

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

Resolved:-

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 654-400-Rev 00, 654-401-Rev 01, 654-402-Rev 00.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the development plan.

03 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) the building, the accommodation in which is being extended under the provision of this permission, shall not at any time be adapted to enable formation of more than seven (7) bedrooms and the property shall not be occupied by more than seven (7) people at any one time.

Reason: To ensure the use hereby approved would offer acceptable living conditions for its occupiers in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Core Strategy (2007) Policies KP2 and CP4, Development Management Document (2015) Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8.

04 Notwithstanding the information submitted and otherwise hereby approved, the development hereby approved shall not be brought into first use unless and until at least seven (7) secured and covered cycle parking spaces have been provided and made available for use at the site as shown on plan reference 654-400-Rev 00 and detailed in the Design and Access Statement December 2021 –V2 or in accordance with any other details which have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority under the scope of this planning condition. The cycle provision shall be retained in perpetuity thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate cycle parking and in the interest of visual amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Core Strategy (2007) Policies KP2, CP3 and CP4, Development Management Document (2015) Policies DM1, DM3, DM8 and DM15, and the advice contained within the National Design Guide (Rev 2021) and the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

05 Notwithstanding the information submitted and otherwise hereby approved, the development hereby approved shall not be brought into first use unless and until secure refuse and recycling store has been provided and made available for use at the site as shown on plan reference 654-400-Rev 00 and detailed in the Design and Access Statement December 2021 –V2 or in accordance with any other details which are previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority under the scope of this planning condition. The refuse and recycling provision shall be retained in perpetuity thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate waste, recycling and food waste  ...  view the full minutes text for item 760.

Proposal: Change of use from storage/distribution (Class B8) to tyre sales and fitting (Class Sui Generis)

Applicant: Karsaz Hassan

Agent: Nicholas Kingsley Smith of Kingsley Smith Solicitors LLP

Resolved:-

1. That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

01 Inadequate information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in significant and demonstrable harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers including nos.22-24 The Rodings and 6-7 Rodings Close, in terms of noise disturbance. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies KP1, KP2, and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM11 of the Development Management Document (2015).

Positive and Proactive Statement

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

Infomative

01 As the proposal is for a change of use without the creation of additional floorspace or the creation of a residential unit, the development would not be CIL liable.

2. That ENFORCEMENT ACTION be AUTHORISED to:

a)    Cease operating as a tyre fitting unit;

b)    Remove the corrugated sheeting and blue painted finish from the building;

c)    Remove from site all materials resulting from compliance with a) and b) above, including tyres stored externally and internally.

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

When serving an Enforcement Notice the Local Planning Authority must ensure a reasonable time for compliance. In this case a compliance period of 3 months is considered reasonable.

Resolved:-

That ENFORCEMENT ACTION be AUTHORISED to secure the following:

(a) the removal of the unauthorised first floor rear extensions;

(b) the removal of the unauthorised patio; and

(c) the removal from site of all materials resulting from compliance with (a) and (b) above.

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

When serving an Enforcement Notice the Local Planning Authority must ensure a reasonable time for compliance. In this case a compliance period of 3 months is considered reasonable for the above works.