Proposal: Demolish existing garages and utility building and erect building comprising of 6 self-contained flats, lay out parking, cycle storage, refuse store and amenity space.

Applicant: Hollowell Ltd

Agent: Plainview Planning Ltd

Councillor McDonald withdrew from the meeting.

Ms Ingoldby spoke as an objector to the application. Ms Perkins, the agent, responded.

Resolved:-

That PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01.       The proposed development would, by virtue of the size and siting of the building coupled with the functional and poorly articulated design of the rear elevation, harm the outlook of and appear visually intrusive for the occupiers of the immediate rear, 17-27 Gordon Road. 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).

02.       As a result of the constrained manoeuvering space, and the necessary proximity of vehicle movements to the main outlook of the ground floor flats, and the reduction in soft landscaping, the development is considered to not offer a suitable standard of outlook and would cause harmful levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of the proposed single aspect ground floor flats to the detriment of their amenity. 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).

03.       Notwithstanding the failure to provide an elevation, the proposed refuse store would materially harm the outlook of occupiers of the existing accommodation at ground floor of Highlands Court by virtue of its size and proximity together with the associated loss of soft landscaped space. The store would be sited a carry distance of some 60m from the northernmost flats at Highlands Court and this would encourage ad-hoc presentation of waste elsewhere within the site. The proposal is therefore found harmful to living conditions of existing and future occupiers at the site. 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).

04.       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) 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).

05.       The proposed development by virtue of its layout, scale and design relative to the site boundaries and neighbouring built form would be cramped, contrived and 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).

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.