Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Berry (substitute: Cllr Line), Mulroney (substitute: Cllr Collins), Walker (no substitute) and Ward (no substitute).

The following declarations of interest were made:

(a) Cllr Borton – Agenda Item 6 (22/00899/FULH – 24 Old School Court, Shoeburyness) – Whilst at the site visit an occupant of one of the adjacent properties to the application introduced themselves who the Councillor had met during her mayoral year at an event organised by the YMCA;

(b) Cllr Collins – Agenda Item 4 (21/00161/FULM – 659-665 London Road, Westcliff-on-Sea) – Has spoken to residents about this application but expressed no opinion on the matter; Agenda Item 7 (22/01051/FUL – 366 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood) – On prior applications on this site I have received numerous communications and has reported back on those previous applications and their outcomes and have made no comment about this application before the Committee;

(c) Cllr Sadza – Agenda Item 5 (22/01015/FUL – 1-3 Westcliff Avenue, Westcliff-on-Sea – Attended site visit with developers and other Milton Councillors;

(d) Cllr A Jones – Agenda Item 4 (21/00161/FULM – 659-665 London Road, Westcliff-on-Sea) – Neighbouring shop premises has been acquired by SVP, an organisation known to her.

Resolved:-

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday 6^th April 2022 be confirmed as a correct record.

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: Demolish existing building and part erect five storey, part 4 storey and part 3 storey  building comprising of 20 flats with ground floor commercial unit (class E) and parking, layout cycle stores, bin stores and form vehicle access onto Fleetwood Avenue.

Applicant: SK Architects

Agent: SK Architects

Mr Webb, a local resident, attended the meeting and spoke as an objector to the application.  A representative from SK Architects attended the meeting and responded on behalf of the applicants.

Resolved:

(a) That the Council enter into a Planning Obligation by Deed of Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following:

•                A policy compliant financial contribution of £306,414.69 in lieu of onsite provision of affordable housing

•                £33, 343.93 contribution towards secondary education

•                The planting of 3 new street trees in the highway to the front of the site to the Council’s specifications including the reinstatement of the redundant London Road crossover in this location.

•                The provision of Travel Packs for residents and Travel Plan Monitoring.

•                £2,754.20 towards biodiversity mitigation, management, protection or education (RAMS).

•                Standard S106 Monitoring Fee

(b) That the Council enter into a Planning Obligation by Deed of Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following:

·       A policy compliant financial contribution of £306,414.69 in lieu of onsite provision of affordable housing

·       £33, 343.93 contribution towards secondary education

·       The planting of 3 new street trees in the highway to the front of the site to the Council’s specifications.

·       The provision of Travel Packs for residents and Travel Plan Monitoring.

·       £2,754.20 towards biodiversity mitigation, management, protection or education (RAMS).

·       Standard S106 Monitoring Fee

That the Director of Planning or the Development Control Service Manager be DELEGATED to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the completion of the section 106 agreement referred to above and subject to the conditions set out below.

01 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

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

02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans 409P01, 409P02B, 409P03A, 409P04B, 409P05B, 409P06B, 409P07A.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the Development Plan.

03 Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans submitted and otherwise hereby approved, no construction works other than demolition and construction up to ground floor slab level shall take place unless and until full product details of the materials to be used on all the external elevations of the development, including walls, projecting and inset balconies including floor, underside, fascia and soffit, windows and doors, roof and roof terraces, coping, shopfront including details of any synthetic materials to be applied to the glazed frontage of the commercial unit, colonnade, fascia and soffits, privacy screen, rainwater goods and boundaries have been submitted to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

Proposal: Convert existing Beecroft Art Gallery (Class F1(b)) to 9no. self-contained flats (Class C3), extend dormer to front, erect four storey side/rear extension, form roof top access to new roof terraces, layout parking and form new vehicle access onto Station Road, alter elevations.

Applicant: Property Point AK Limited

Agent: Neobards Limited

Resolved:

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

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

02 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following approved plans NEO.1166.0100 (Existing Site Plan), NEO.1166.0101 (Existing Ground Floor Plan), NEO.1166.0102 (Existing First Floor Plan), NEO.1166.0103 (Existing Second Floor Plan), NEO.1166.0104 (Existing Roof Plan), NEO.1166.0105 (Existing Elevations), NEO.1166.0125.C (Proposed Site and Location Plan), NEO.1166.0126.C (Proposed Ground Floor Plan), NEO.1166.0127.D (Proposed First Floor Plan), NEO.1166.0128.E (Proposed Second Floor Plan), NEO.1166.0129A (Proposed Third Floor Plan), NEO.1166.0130 (Proposed Roof Plan), NEO.1166.0131.B (Proposed Elevations), NEO.1166.0132.A (Proposed Details).

Reason:  To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan.

03 Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans submitted and otherwise hereby approved, no construction works other than demolition and construction up to ground floor slab level shall take place unless and until full product details of the materials to be used on all the external elevations, including walls (infilling and new and gable decoration and including colours), balconies including balustrade,  supporting column, fascia and floors and dormers,  windows including glazing, roof and roof terraces including coping/edge, fascia and soffits, rainwater goods and boundaries have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before it is brought into first use.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and wider conservation area, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) Core Strategy (2007) policy KP2 and CP4, Development Management Document (2015) Policies DM1 and DM5 and advice contained within the National Design Guide (2021) and the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).  

04 Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans submitted and otherwise hereby approved, no construction works other than demolition and construction up to ground floor slab level shall take place unless and until full design details for all new doors (main entrance and French doors), any replacement dormers, eaves and balcony details for the proposed extension at a scale of 1:20 or 1:10 as appropriate have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved details before it is brought into use. The detailed designs for the other historic features to be reinstated including the lantern, roof terrace, balustrade extension and windows shall be carried out in full accordance with plan reference NEO.1166.0132.A (Proposed Details).

Reason: To ensure the development suitably  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

Proposal: Erect dormer to the rear

Applicant: Mr Curtis Jewitt

Agent: Mr Dale Perry of Doodle Architectural Design

Resolved:

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

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

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

02 The development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans: 01, 02, 03.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the consent sought, has an acceptable design and complies with policy DM1 of the Development Management Document (2015).

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 property. This applies unless differences are shown on the drawings hereby approved or are required by other conditions on this permission.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the consent sought, has an acceptable design and complies with policy DM1 of the Development Management Document (2015).

Positive and Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.  The detailed analysis is set out in a report on the application prepared by officers.

Informatives

01 You are advised that as the development 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 the Levy.

02 You should be aware that in cases where damage occurs during construction works to the highway in implementing this permission that Council may seek to recover the cost of repairing public highways and footpaths from any party responsible for damaging them. This includes damage carried out when implementing a planning permission or other works to buildings or land. Please take care when carrying out works on or near the public highways and footpaths in the city.

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

Applicant: Mr Karsaz Hassan

Agent: Nicholas Kingsley Smith of Kingsley Smith Solicitors LLP

Resolved:

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reason(s):

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).

Informatives:

1 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.

2 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.

Breach of planning control:  unauthorised side extension

Resolved:

That Enforcement action be authorised to:

a)    Remove the unauthorised side extension in its entirety, and

b)    remove from site all materials resulting from compliance with a)

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 demolition of the unauthorised side extension.

Taking enforcement action in this case may amount to an interference with the owners’ and/or occupiers’ Human Rights. However, it is necessary for the Local Planning Authority to balance the rights of the owners and/or occupiers against its legitimate aims to regulate and control land within its area. In this particular case it is considered reasonable, expedient, and proportionate and in the public interest to pursue enforcement action on the grounds set out in the formal recommendation.

Breach of planning control:  Rear extension not in accordance with plans approved under planning permission reference 18/02173/FULH

Resolved:

That enforcement action be authorised to:

a)    Remove the unauthorised first floor rear extension in its entirety OR

b)    Reposition and amend the extension so that it fully complies with the plans approved under planning permission 18/02173/FULH

c)    remove from site all materials resulting from compliance with a) OR 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 demolition of the unauthorised rear extension or 6 months for its modification to fully comply with the 2018 Permission.

Taking enforcement action in this case may amount to an interference with the owners’ and/or occupiers’ Human Rights. However, it is necessary for the Local Planning Authority to balance the rights of the owners and/or occupiers against its legitimate aims to regulate and control land within its area. In this particular case it is considered reasonable, expedient, proportionate and in the public interest to pursue enforcement action on the grounds set out in the formal recommendation.

Breach of planning control:  Erected rear extension

Resolved:

That Enforcement action be authorised to:

a) Remove the unauthorised rear extension in its entirety, and

b) Remove from site all materials resulting from compliance with a).

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 demolition of the unauthorised side extension.

Taking enforcement action in this case may amount to an interference with the owners’ and/or occupiers’ Human Rights. However, it is necessary for the Local Planning Authority to balance the rights of the owners and/or occupiers against its legitimate aims to regulate and control land within its area. In this particular case it is considered reasonable, expedient, and proportionate and in the public interest to pursue enforcement action on the grounds set out in the formal recommendation.