Proposal:  Erect two storey side and rear extension with access to rear parking, first and second floor rear extension to form three additional self-contained flats, install dormer to rear, refuse and cycle stores, canopy to front, alter elevations and extend vehicular access on to Western Road

Applicant:  Mr Jay Neale

Agent:  DAP Architecture

Rev. D Wilks, a local resident spoke as an objector to the application.

Resolved:  That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01.  The proposed side, rear and roof extensions would by reason of their size and design be incongruous, poorly integrated, unsympathetic and overly dominant additions to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene and the surroundings including the rear garden scene. This would be unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

02.  The proposed replacement of the rear garden with car parking in association with the development would diminish an appropriate garden setting to the building, which would be unduly intrusive and materially harmful to the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings in particular having regard to its qualities as an area of houses with private rear gardens. This would be unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

03.  The proposed side and rear extension, as a result of its height, design, size, rear extent and proximity to site boundaries, would be a dominant, visually overbearing feature to neighbouring occupiers causing an undue sense of enclosure and loss of daylight. This would be harmful to neighbour amenities, unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

04.  The high density form of the development would introduce the potential for a degree of comings and goings and general activity which would be harmful to the amenities of adjoining occupiers in an area characterised by a lower density of accommodation with significantly less activity. In particular the proposal would require use of the front and rear gardens for car parking with consequent introduction of noise to the rear gardens, habitable accommodation and private amenity spaces of surrounding occupiers. The harm caused by this intense degree of activity in an extended semi-detached dwelling would be unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

05.  The proposed development would provide an insufficient standard and size of outdoor amenity space, given the site context, the number of residential units and the provision of larger residential units which may be occupied by small families resulting in a poor standard of accommodation. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

06.  The width of the proposed vehicular crossover would be excessive, and would reduce the extent of dedicated footway unacceptably, harming highway safety and compromising the safe and convenient passage of pedestrians, and the visual quality of the residential environment. This would be unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2, CP3 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1, DM3 and DM15 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the guidance contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

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.

Informative

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.