Proposal: 1. Partial demolition to church and church hall, erect single storey extension to west side of church, erect gabled extensions to north-east and north-west corners of church hall with internal alterations to convert into six dwellings, associated garages and cycle storage, layout amenity space and one visitor car parking space, form vehicular access onto Avenue Road, install boundary railings, install rooflights and alter elevations.

Proposal 2. Partial demolition to church and church hall, erect single storey extension to west side of church, erect gabled extensions to north-east and north-west corners of church hall with internal alterations to convert into six dwellings, associated garages and cycle storage, layout amenity space and one visitor car parking space, form vehicular access onto Avenue Road, install boundary railings, install rooflights and alter elevations (Listed Building Consent)

Applicant: David Morton

Agent: Ayshford and Sansome

Mr Atkinson, a local resident, spoke as an objector.

Resolved:-

That PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01 The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the church and church hall can be converted into residential dwellings without harming the special character and significance of the listed building. In particular the extent of roof alterations to the principal roofslope, and the visual impact of the ventilation equipment and louvres and the extent of roof demolition for the church hall are harmful to the character and integrity of the listed building and the viable alternative uses report / marketing information submitted with the application is insufficient and out of date and has failed to demonstrate that other more sensitive uses would not be practical and viable. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007) Policies DM1, DM3 and DM5 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and guidance contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007) Policies DM1, DM3 and DM5 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and guidance contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

02 The proposed church hall extension would give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking of the neighbouring occupiers of number 5 Park Road and its private amenity area. The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), 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 guidance contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

03 The proposed church conversion, by reason of the inadequate levels of light and outlook to the northern units, would result in an inadequate quality living environment, to the detriment of the amenities of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. This is unacceptable and contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2018), 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).

04 The proposed parking layout as shown in drawing reference 1716/T/004 is unacceptable because the garages proposed fail to meet the garage standards as set out in the Development Management Document (2015) paragraph 7.12 and the spaces would therefore not be useable for the parking of vehicles. In the absence of this the proposal would be provided with inadequate parking to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and highway safety. The design also fails to make adequate provision for refuse and recycling storage for future occupiers and is likely to harm to the character, significance and setting of the heritage asset. The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policies KP2, CP3 and CP4 of the Southend Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1, DM3, DM5 and DM15 of the Development Management Document (2015).

05   The proposal has failed to assess the impact on bats and has therefore not demonstrated that there would not be an adverse impact on the ecology of the site. The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend Core Strategy (2007).

That LISTED BUILDING CONSENT be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01 The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the church can be converted into 4 dwellings over 3 floors without harming the special character and significance of the listed building.

In particular the impact of the sub division on the integrity of the main worship space, the extent of the loss of the ecclesiastical features within the building, the extent of roof alterations to the principal roofslope, the visual impact of the ventilation equipment and louvers and the extent of roof demolition for the church hall are harmful to the character and integrity of the listed building. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (2007) Policies DM1, DM3 and DM5 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) and guidance contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

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.

02 It is noted that some of the proposed drawings show the replacement of the fleche/spire. This would be a positive addition to the proposal and welcomed subject to detailing but it is understood that this has now been omitted from the proposal and is therefore an error on the drawing. This needs to be clarified in any amended proposal.