Agenda item

19/00565/FULM - Rear of 95, Prince Avenue. Southend on Sea (St Laurence Ward)

Minutes:

Proposal: Demolish existing workshop buildings and storage garages to rear and erect two, three storey blocks comprising of 11 self-contained flats including bin/cycle storage, layout amenity space and parking (Amended Proposal).

Applicant: Mr James Dove

Agent: Mr James Collinson of Design Spec Ltd.

 

Mr Haynes spoke as an objector to the application. Mr Dove, the applicant, responded.

 

Resolved:-

 

That PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

01.       The applicant has failed to demonstrate through a suitable appraisal that it is no longer effective or viable to accommodate the continued use of the site for employment purposes in the short, medium and long term, and that the alternative use would give greater potential benefits to the community and environment than a continued employment use. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM3 and DM11 of the Development Management Document (2015).

 

02.       The proposed development by virtue of its layout scale and design relative to the site boundaries and neighbouring built form would be cramped and contrived, incongruous and materially harmful to the appearance, visual amenities and quality of the surrounding townscape. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), 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 Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

 

03.       The proposed buildings by virtue of their layout scale and design relative to the site boundaries and neighbouring dwellings would be unduly dominant and overbearing to neighbouring occupiers, and would lead to a material loss of outlook. The layout design and proximity of the development would also lead to a material loss of privacy. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), 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 Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

 

04.       The proposed development would provide an inadequate level of daylight and poor outlook to occupiers of the ground floor flats at Block B and would provide an inadequate quantity and quality of usable outdoor amenity space together with a substandard setting for the proposed dwellings. In addition, refuse storage would be inadequate and there would be insufficient off-street car parking to meet the needs of occupiers. On this basis the development would provide inadequate living conditions for future occupiers. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies KP2, CP3 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

 

05.       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 the submission fails to demonstrate that such a contribution is not viable. 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 (2019), Policies KP2, KP3, CP6 and CP8 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policy DM7 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

 

06.       The proposed development would fail to meet acceptable standards for new dwellings as it fails to demonstrate that it would be appropriately accessible and adaptable for all members of the community in accordance with the requirements of the Building Regulations M4(2) and M4(3) accessibility standards. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015).

 

Informatives:

 

01.       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.

 

02.       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.

Supporting documents:

 

Get the best from this site

We use simple text files called 'cookies'. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For more information, including how to turn cookies off, see more about cookies - or simply click the Continue button to use this site as normal.