Rochford District Council Minutes - October 1998 (Part 3)

Transcription

INDEX 1998 January - December
Minute Index for 1998
Title
The New NHS” White Paper
146 - 200 Rochford Garden Wav
50 - 54 West Street, Rochford
57 South Street - Progress Report
A New Deal for Transport - Government White Paper on the Future of
Transport._
A,I 30 Crash Bamer
Aggregate Credit Llmlt and Treasur y Management
Albert Road, RayleIgh - Proposed ProhIbItton of Driving
Allotments, Bus Shelters and King George’s Playing Field - Transfer to
Ravietah Town Council
L
Tenants Housing Rents
BIO Solids Treatment Plan - Stambndge
Bradwell Power Station and Future Consultation Arrangements Application for Nuclear Srte Licence
Breach of Planning Control at 20 Golden Cross Road, Ashingdon
Breach of Planning Control at Brooklands, Hockley Road, Rayletgh
Breach of Planning Control at Land Adjacent to Shuttlewoods Boatyard,
Waterside Road, Paglesham
Breach of Planning Control at Land Adjacent to The Croft, Trenders
Avenue, Rawreth, Essex
Breach of Planning Control at Mlchelins Comer, Junction of the A127,
A130 Rayleigh Essex
Breach of Planning Control at the Retreat, New Park Road, Hockley,
Essex
Breach of Planning Control, at Hullbndge Yacht Club, Pooles Lane,
Hullbridge
Budget 1998199
Business Rate - Discretionary Rate Relief
Business Rate and Counal Tax Payment Dates
Minute
Number
91
320. 390.
478.
372,465
322
404
IP
1506
( 151,530
411
160
:
1:
536
171
403
ES
77
218
-.5
463
q
283
284
197
18(a), 33,
53,54,341
158,349
434
L
__..
:
5:
;:
Title
Capital Programme 1998/99
Caravan Site Lrcensrng - Steps, Ramps and Verandahs
Chambers of Trade
Chelmer Augmentatron Scheme
Crhzens Charter Performance Indicators
Cleaning of Public Conveniences
Complaints Procedure
Computer Equipment - Disposal of Redundant
Contract Standing Orders Select List foiContractors
Corporate Identity - Strategy Development
Corporate Plan Development
.._
Cost Awards’ -.Planning Enquines and lntorrnal Hearings
Council Spokessperson
Cnme ar id -Uisorder
Cycle of Meetings 1oQ6/Qo
DCMS Spending Review: A New Approach to Investment in Cutture
DETR Consultation Papers
Development Control Statistics - Planning Applications
Dial-aRrde Annual Revrew
Dispersed Alarm System
Domestic Vrolence Project Co-ordrnator
Downhall Road
Dual Bin Waste Collectron Trial
Eastern National Bus Timetable
Eastern Region Conference
Eastern Region Local Government Arts Forum - Membership
Eastwood Rise, Lergh on Sea
Economic Strategy 1998-2003 - Draft 2
Election of the Chairman of the Council for 1998199
Environmental Trust
Essex and Southend Reolacement Structure Plan - Revrsed Wntten
Statement and Key Diagram
-.
Essex ar id Southend Waste Local Plan Uepostt Draft
Essex 01raft Rural
Essex Reptac ement County Structure Plan - Draft Report Plan
Essex Rural 5Zrategy
..
Essex Sustainability Keport - Con sultabon
Essex Transcard Scheme - Progress -tmvrt
h
Essex Waste Plan - Second Consultatr ‘on Draft
Essex Waste Strategy
European Socral Fund Applrcatron
External Auditors Report
Frnal Accounts 1997/98
Footpath Orders at Bnstol Close
Free Parking Expenment
Freight House Meeting - 11 November 1998
Minute
Number
149
9
52
473
423
389
167
533
346
166
55, 267, 315,
329,342
514
268
528
63,164
386
419,420,
466
111,198
494
475
318,479
503
132
135,232
64
11
414
343
201
123
555
1 Title
.-... --.
.-.
tiating Project 43A145 Klchmond Unve, Rayiergh
Gideons
Great Eastern Railway CCTV
Green Paper - Meeting the Chrld Care Challenge
Hackney Carnage and Pnvate Hire Vehicle Lrcensrng
i Hackney Carnage Stand, Raylergh
Halcyon Caravan Park
= Hall Road, Rochford, Main Road, Hawkwell
Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority). Regulabons
1998 and Withdrawal

II..
Minute
Number
481
355
335
345
127
126
317
412
253
R Insurancf
I Local Authonty Natronal Type Approval Confederatron lndemnrty
g Resolution
3 Lornl Tra ,nsportation Panel
mgramme 1998/99
Proposed Scheme
cil Burldrngs
nagement Letter in Respect of 1996/97 Accounts
g Maps in Town Centres
; Meetrng of Essex Economic Partnership
c Meebng with Chief Executive, National Health trust
.I Members Symposrum - Regenerabon
; Members Teach-In
~ Members Travellrng and Subsidence
1~~Mill Hall
Mill Hall Conveniences
3
I68
333
279129,237
252
105,169
40
407
293
256
334
250
155,274
271,453
8
1
Minute
Title
Number
316
432
162
MoblIe Home Owners - Rtghts
Modem Local Government - In Touch wtih the People
Modemlslng Local Government Local Democracy and Community
Leadership
Mornns Close, Glebe Close, Great Wakenng
Naming of Streets
National Car Free Day
National Housing and Town Planning Council Conference - 1997
National Lottery Consuttatlon Process
National Non-Domestic Rating Discretionary Rate Relief
Natonal Playing Fields Assoclatton -Transfer of Vanous Sites
Non Compliance with Landscaping Condrtion at Read Close, Hawkwell
Non-Residential Off-Street Parking Tax
Notices of Motion
Officers’ Interests
Opposition Priority Business
Oraanisatlonal Arranaements
01
_..I Et nf
“I f%fire
Vlll””
.l-!m
,““.Vurc .RocrH)nsIve
.-up
388
26,410
234
110
255
535
161
109
30
183,290,
312,361,
391,453,
493,527
144
120,103
56
496
138
437
IO
474
for Contract Renewal
Noise
$g-,/[m
OutlIne Audit Strategy 19197198
Pavement Peml=lnnc
..a,,.,.,.". a..
Pennington Report on the OutbreaK ot- tc
- 0110157 In Scotland
Performance Management for Environme ntal Heath and Tradma
Standards Work - &nsultatlon
Petition
Planning Performance Check List - Development Control Performance 12 Mont)s Ending 30 Se ptember 1997
Playspaces - Repalrs an-d Maintenance
...-..~.~~~~~. Programme
Ponds at Church Road. Barllna
Pnmarv Care Groulps - Consultation
Process Review - Food Hygiene Inspetins
Procurement Strategy for the Highway and Transportation Service
Prooosed Amendments to the Local Government (Commtttees and
Polkical Groups Regulations 1990 - Consultation
Proposed Multi-Lateral Agreement on Investment
Pro-Rata Representation - Sub-CommIttees
Public Conveniences Cleaning and Inspetion
Public Conveniences Rayleigh - Signing of Mill Hall and CIVIC Suite
Toilets for Public Use
Public Entertainment Licence Fees - Waiver
Public Question Time
Public Safety Zones -A Consultatton Document
Public use of D~stnct Council NotIceboards
Rate Relief for Business in Rural Areas
Rayietgh and Rochford Crtlzens Advice Bureaux
4
1359
1 199
LO, lL3
314
534
505
59
I
272
269
98
97
172
83,262,400,
489
122
96
157
263
Title
Raylergh Bowls Club
Rayleigh Town Centre - Envlronmental
Raylelgh Town Centre -Traffic
Rayie$h Town Centre -Traffic
improvements
Experiment
Survey Update/Junction
Study at Church
entre Forum
Icements - Steering Group
stem Region
[enants Own Gas Fire
It Caravan Sties
-.‘-I
---..-..
---I----,
-.
‘erence Group
;Don to Club House
net Strategy
Matters -Advertising Gutdellnes
East 1 Public Consultation Draft
Serplan - District Membership
Setting the Level of Council Tax
Sties of Special Scienttfic Interest Better Protedron and Management
DETR - Consultation Document
Skateboard Ramp
Social Services Member Locality Panel Seminar
South Essex Authonty - Proposed Expendrture Cuts 1998199 Contracting Round
South Essex Health Authonty - Proposed Expenditure Cuts 1998/99
Southend Au-port:
Southend Business and Tourism Partnership
Southend Community Care Trust
Southend on Sea Borough Council - Erectlon of 18 Signs for
Advertisements and Information Purposes
Sport and Leisure Premises - Bid Items for Consideration for lncluslon In
:apital Programme 1998/99
: in Essex
ssociation
Ige I reatment Works
rder - Amendment
%ng urder 18 ttem
It Collections
Et
Trading Consent Application
Street Trading Consent Fee Waiver - Hockley Chnstmas Lights, Spa
Road, Hockley
itruction - Consultation
Development Plan
Minute
Number
323
543,328,
454,501
84
502
239
413
344
93
379
I 31X
383
._,
_-321
347
159
348
541
233
170
45,81,529
495
319,385
7
6
90
78,131
61
165
196
101
384
87,24E
504
187
49
60,163
104
439
330
94
I 154
I 331
Title
Traffic Calmrng Scheme - Helena Road and Louise Road, Rayleigh
Tree Presetvatron Orders. Drafr Regulations A Consuttation Paoer
Tylney Avenue Plavsoace
Uraent Busrness
V:jrious Streets, Rayletgh - Vanatron to Existing Waitmg Restrrctions
Vehicle Plant and Eauioment reserve
Vehicle Speed Reductton -A Call for Support
Vehicles and Plant - Replacement
Waste - Collection of Household Green
Waste Disposal Sites -Tour
Websters Wav Car Park
Wheatley Wood, Raylelgh
World War One Executrons - Review
Year 2000 - Mortgage Systems
Year 2000 IT Strategy - Migration of AV Office to Microsoft Office
Minute
Number
291,235
408
1254
I LYL
/ 130
I62
409
153
28
29
I 133.236.
__-’ ___’
332, SW
480
435
532
1531
-
-
ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL MINUTES 1998 October (Part 3)
RCK!HlQRDDISTRICTCOUNCIL
At abfeehng l&d on 29th October 1998. present: CounciUorsD.A. Weir (Cl&man),
R Adams, DE Barnes,P A Beckers. C.I. Black, J.M. D&son, D.F. Flack,
D.M. Ford, Mrs J.E. Ford, G Fox, EL. Francq K.A. Gibbs, Mrs H.L k Glynn,
DR Helson, Mrs J. He&on, Mrs A R Hutchings, V D Hut&in& V.H Leach,
Mrs. S J Lemon, CR Morgan, T.A Powell, S.R. Telbs, Mrs. MS. Vmce, RE. Vmgoe,
Mrs. M.J Webster,P F.A. Webster and Mrs MA. War
Apologies, Counc&rs GC. Angus, MC Brown, Mrs J M G&s, Mrs E.M. Hart,
A Hoskmg, RA. Pearson,Mrs. WM Stevensonand D.J. Snttou
461
4.62
l
(l)
ComxUor Mrs. H.L.A Glynn declared a Non-Pexmimy Iuterest m the item “Breach of
P!annmg Control at Land AdJacent to Shut&woods Boatysrd, Watemde Reed,
Paglesham” (Mmute 463) by vutoe of bemg thx Anthor~ty’s reprezntatrve on the
C!rcuchHartxxuAuthorrty
(ii)
Memlms Interests relahng to the Sdedule of Development Applications were received
as foUows
Pm D2 C!ou&lor hfrs. HLA
Glyrm declared a Non-Pwxmiq Inter&.
Para~CounclllorD~Fkdeclaredwm~WnrmaryInterestbywtueoftus
qx~use’s employment and left the Meeting whilst the matter was Qscnased. CounciUor
K.A. Gibbs declared an Interest by vutae of his own employmeut and left the Meetmg
whd.sttbemattmwasdsemed
463.
l
BREACH OF PLANNING
CONTROL AT L.AND ADJACEPiT
SHUTILEWOODS BOATYARD, WATERSIDE ROAD, PAGtEsHAM
TO
The Head of Planmng Servxes reported the unanthorised storage of various items
mcludmg broken vebxles, eqmpment and the w
of dlSC%kdamberdWaste
matraMs on the above ate wthout the benefit of plamung penrrisslon Members noted
the site lcca!z~on.that it lay within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the Coastal Protection
Belt and the LandscapeImprovenaentArea and that the use WBSam!xaq to PohcclesS9
of the Essex Structure Plan, and PohcclesGB 1, RC8 and RC9 of the Rcchford Ihshlct
Local Plan
Members cons&d the use unacceptableby virtae of visaal harm and loss of amenity
and to the detrmxnt of the chmxter of the ama and, If allowed to contnme, would
create precedent making it difficult to resist simdar ppossls elsewhere in the District
to the long term detriment of areasto which &se policies apply. A Member reqoested
that OiTicersmvesbgatethe sltmg of a focd establishmenton the site and the Coonmttez
further reqnestfd that any action be taken w&out delay
That the Corporate Dtrector (law & Administraaon) be autbonsed to take all necessmy
achon including the aztmn armdservxe of No&es and &ion in t&e.Courts to secure the
rernedymg of the breach of plamnng control now repor&. (CD(L&A))
l
-fl
464.
OUl-STANDING ISSUES - MEETlNGS OF 12TII FEBRUARY, l?XTl h&%CH
AND9THJULY 1998
The Comrmtte was sahstied that all nectary aon bad been taken. Mmutcs 79/98
(Fara 10) (HIS) and 307198(paras Dl and 5) (HLS) were carried forward
465
50-54 WEST Sl-REET, ROCHFQRD UPDAm
The Cornconsidered the report of the Had of Enwonmental Pohcy and
lnihatwes which provided further de&Is of the urgent works underiaken to 50-54 West
Street Rocbford followmg the request at the Planning Servxes Canmae on
3rd September 1998 Members noted the details of the works undertaken nnder the
Urgent WorldsNo&e servedon the taildmgs and it was
That arrangementsto protect 5C-52West Streetbe noti.
-I)
DEI’R CONSULTATION PAPER - MODERNISING FUNNING,
FTANMNGAFTEALS PRCXEDURES
466
lIdPROVING
The Commtttee considered the report of the Head of Plannmg Services reganlmg
Consnlmon Paper from the Depafment of the Envkunment, T-on
and the
Regions on possible modjfications to the appeal pnxess for determinmg planomg
appeals, caLled-m plannmg apphatmm and appeals in respect of Tree Preservatmn
Orders, !istd build@ and conservationatas. In nofmg the proposals put forwad in
the Consultahon Paper Members endorsed the suggested l~sponses as cuthned in the
we
Re&ved
That the responses out!.medabove form the Council’s response to this Consult&ion
Paper WI
467
SCBEDULE OF DF!VEL+OPMENTAPPLICATIONS AND RJZCOhfMENDATIONS
The Head of Planmng Services s&mutt& a schedule of development applications for
consider&on and a hst of planning qphcat~o~ and hmldmg rcgnkons apphcahons
deaded under delegation.
Members considered that the apphcatlon should be deferred, pendmg a more da&d
responsefrom the County Surveyor clanfymg ootstandmg htghway issuesregardmg !&e
layout of the proposedforeccurk
That this apphcatlon be deferred pending a full report to a fotnre Meetmg of the
Planning ServicesConrmidee
PraaD.2-FKkl88/98/ROC-Adj.WamexsBrkige(l%stemsideofLoodon~
A+&
sonmend Road, Rc&fo~L
FtTpmlDelele Gmditica3 of planning pamissKm ref.Fmo7%!J7/ROC to allow
ramvalOfbarrierfiWlintemal-road
Members noted that, followmg concerns raised at the previous Meetmg, the County
Surveyor had mdxatcd hu wvlllmgnessto undertake a further traffic stidy at the Harp
-
1250
House roundabout and cons&red that the application should be defemxt pendmg this
repo*
Resolved
That this applicahon be deferred pendmg a report from the County Surveyor m respect
of a tmfflc impact study for the Harp Honse Roundabout area.
Pqm.sal-RevraicmofWorkingandR&orationScbemetoenable
“an ofbrick
earth e-xtrwtim and modify Conditions7,9,21~5
ad 36 of IDOiRCiYlKr2A wnh
dlmctivxzsstoCherryOrcbardWay.
That the Connty ComaI be mformed that tis Authonty raises no obJection to tbrs
apbcahon m prmcrple snbJectto the comnxnts as set out in the schedule, and the
admad commentsrawi by Members -namely.
(i)
Re-emphasls of the chosen lorry route and the need for the County Councri to
mvesttgate and ~thedepostthtgofmndontothenxdattheendofthis
route (Great Wakermg Brickworks)
(n) The gatmg and fencmg of the bndleway at the sate.
In notmg the cncumstances of the apphcanon, the substanuve motron, as per the
recommendatton m the schedule, was won on a show of hands. Votmg on the
amendment,to place a watching brief over the srte, was also won on a show of bands.
Note: Connmllors DE.Barnes, (2.1 Black, D.RHelson,
Mrs. J.Helson and
Mrs S.J. Lemon wished tt rozorded that they cast then votes agamstthe amendment
Resolved
That the apphcation or a duphcate q&e&ton be delegated to the Dnuctor to approve
to tk
heads of
should the appeal agamst non determination be withdrawn, mi-J&
conditions as set out m the schehtle. Alternatively, rf me appeal is not withdrawn, the
Comml’s response on appeal be based on the report set out m the schedule and the
mtent to approve
snbpzt
to tke co~hons
set out in the s&f&le.
Pmplxal-Uaeoflaodasfo&allpit&erectsinglesiomychrmging-kmihhng,
layoutp&nganx(useexisthlgvehimlar-)
AmendcondmonlSrstbnetoread.
Resolved
That the appWon be approved sub@ to the omdttion heads set out m the schedule
as runend above ad an mformatwe referrmg to the lack of suitable pnbhc mmsport to
the sate.
<1
1
In notmg the reasonsfor the expansmnof the stte, Members expre.s& concern at the
loss of Green Belt land.
Resolved
That authonty be delegatedto the corporate Dmector (Servrccs)subject to expny of the
site notroe to advise HMPnson Service that no objecnons are rmsed by this Council
sub@ to the Conditions set out m the schedule.
Propc&-Ranovepartofhodgcandqlacewith2m.highscKonfenz(wi~
compli!cme withCondmon4ofap#LationF1o515196/Roc
ThatMembersconfirmtheCwncll’scaseatappealbebasedontheprerrrisethatia~
mstanoethe apphcatlon wonld havebeen refused on the following gronnds
“The placing of the proposed fence on the pubhc side of the exrsting hedgerow whmh
has been pmvmnsly retamed for its amenity value, would screen thts visually mrportnnt
featuremthesaPetsceneandresultinitstnmmingbackto~detrunentofvlsual
mmty and wlldllfe mtfmsts. Furthermore, the placmg of the fence m dns pmminent
location would appear as a visually intrusrve feature, cut of character with the
w
envuonment”
In agreeing to the above, Members delegated the Grpomte Dnector (Servrces) to
approve, m agreement wnh the Ward Members and followmg negotmhons wttb the
applicant, a future revned apphcatmn mdtcating the fence inside the hc@e (1e on the
stde of the hedgewhtch facesmto the prrvate gatden of No 1 Silverdale).
&a.8-F1Q17519lURCC.-SlmUk~Boatyard,WatersideRcn1d,Prrglesham
Votmg on a motmn that Condthon 5 be deleted was lost on a show of hands A motton
that C!ondnions 3 and 4 be amended by the addihon of the words “w&out the prior
written approval of the Local Planning Authority” was won on a show of hands.
That the applicahon be appmved sub@ to the condmon heads set out in the schedule
as amendedabove.
468
The Chanman remmded Members of me forthcoming Special Meetmg of the Plsnmng
Servms Conmuttee on 25th November 1998.
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY
PLANNING SERVICES COMMIWEE 29TH OCTOBER 1998
The emdosed reports have been approved by:
l
All plann& applicahons are considered agamstthe backgmund of current Town and Coo&y Plamung
legulanon, rules, orders and cmxlars, and any development, structure and local plans issued or made
therumder In addmon, account is taken of any guidance wttx, advice and relevant policies usu4 by
statutory authorities
E!achplanning application m&ded m this Schedule and any attach& hst of applicauom wM& have
been d&ermhd tier powers delegated to the Corporate Dnwztor (Servicts) is filed -&I all papers
In&ding representationsiw.mvd and consultation rephe as a single casefile
All building mgulation applications are cwstiered agahz-t the bac&ound of the relevant building
regulstio~~ and qmved documents, the BuUdmg Act, 1984, together with aLI relevant Brmah
Staradards.
The above documents can be de available for inspection as Conmxittez backgi-xmd peers at the
office of Plam@ Sexvices,Acacia House, East Stre&, Rock&d.
l
PLANNING
SERVICES
COMMllTEE29TH
OCTOBER 1998
DEFERREDTTEMS
D.l
F/O178/98lROC
MARTYN WJLLIAMS
PAGE 1
PETROL FILLING STATION
INCORPORATING
SHOP,
REVISED
TRAFFIC CIRCULA’fION LAYOUT, NEW
FGRECGm-r
PLUS CAR AND JET WASH FACILITIES (DEMOLISH EXISTING
FILLING STATION)
MURCO SERVICE STATION LONDON ROAD RAWRETH
D.2
F/c488/98/ROC
JOHN WOOD
PAGE 4
DELETE
CONDITION
3 OF PLANNING
PERMISSION REF
F/OO79/97/ROC TO ALLOW REMOVAL
OF BARRIER
FROM
INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD
ADJ WARNERS BRIDGE
(EASTERN SIDE OF
AIRFORT)
SOUTHEND ROAD ROCHFORD
3
JOHN WOOD
PAGE 6
CWO549l98lROC
REVISION OF WORKING AND RFSTORATION SCHEME To
ENABLE
CONTINUATION OF BRICKEARTH EXTRACTION
AND
MODIFY
CONDITIONS
7,
9, 21, 22,
35 AND
36 OF
WITH
DIRECT
ACCESS ONTO
CHERRY
IDOIROC/i’I92A
ORCHARD WM
CHERRY ORCHARD BRICKWORKS CHERRY ORCHARD
LANE
ROCHFORD
4
JOANNECLARK
F/C419/981ROC
ERECT 4-BED DETACHED HOUSE WITH DETACHED
GARAGE (DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE)
4 THE BAILEY RAYLEIGH
5.
ADAMWARD
PAGE 13
F/O643/97/ROC
STOREY
USE OF LAND AS FOOTBALL Pl-ICH, ERECT SINGLE
CHANGING
ROOM BUILDING, LAYOUT PARKING AREA
(USE
EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS)
LAND R/O THREE EL~YSFARM CANEWDON ROAD ASHINGDON
6
JOANNECLARK
PAGE 17
GDf047Z98iROC
ERECT 40 PERSON ACCOMMODATION BLOCK, NEW WORKSHOP
AND RFi-ALIGN l?XISTING SECURITY FENCE
HM PRISON BULLWOOD HALL BULLWOOD HALL LANE HOCKLEY
7
PAGE 20
JOANNE CLARK
FitX%6/98moc
REMOVE PART OF HEDGE AND REPLACE WITH 2M HIGH
SCREEN FENCE (WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION
4
OF AFPLICiU’ION F/O515/96/ROC)
1 SILVER DALE RAYLEIGH
PAGE 9
DOUBLE
n
PAGE 1
1.
I.
1254
8
F/0175/9UlWC
I&wrnirnL~S
PAGE 23
FON’IOON
EXTENSION OF EXISTING
JETTY
(REVISED
SUBMISSION FOLLOWING APPLICATION F/O495/%/ROC)
SHUTTLEWOODS BOATYARD WATERSIDE ROAD PAGLESHAM
PAGE 2
l
l
PLANNING
SERVICES
29TEI OCTOBER
COMMlTTEE
1998
SCHEDULE
OF DlZVELOm
APPLICATTONS,WITH
DIRECTOR’S
RJXOMMENDATIONS,
FOR D -ATION
AT THIS COMMITIEE
D.l
F10178/98iROC PARISH OF RAWREI-H
MURCO SERVICE STATION LONDON ROAD RAWRETH
EREtX PETROL FILLING STATION INCORPOFVXING SHOP, REVISED TRAFFIC
CJRCULATION LAYOUT, NEW FORECOURT PLUS CAR AND JET WASH FACILm
(DEMOLISH EXISTING FILLING STATION)
Applicant: hKJRC0 PETROLEUM LTD
Zonmg
a
Mehopohtan Green Belt, Landsc;rpeImprovemeat Area
Defined Rmort
1.1 ‘Ibs ltern was deferred at the last n-=&g for a Members’ srte vmt ti
the County Surveyor regardmg the access/highwayarrangement9.
further c~nst~Itatmnwith
1.2 A copy of the on&al report, wah revmom, 1sreproduced below
jbaatloll
Details
1.3 This proposal is for the complete mievelopmxt of the filling statm on the ‘Carpenter’s Arm’
roundabout. It will result in the garage campy and kiosk berg rebuilt and repcmtiomd at right
angles to the two mad frontages tt serves. The forem~a car sales and the embng prefabricated
bukhgs includmg office space and workhops will be revved ani a ‘drive mmd’ type car
wanhw~rep~them.Itvnllhaveplantingallroundthispartoftbeslte.
14
Finally, a separatecanopy is proposed for the currently uncovered diesel pump island which hes
Justtothewestofthep~newmainpumpislarPd.T~canopyw~lieinfrontandonthe
shared foW2ourt of an ad~oirung property which is a separate plsnumg unit in mixed
residential/cxmnned use. It 1s understood that thLsbuiidmg hutoncally was the ongmd pre1948 garage. Current mformatlon ilxiicates that there has ru2t been a reaidentlal cxuqation of it
for a number of years. The 3 ex&q vehicle crossover accesspomts will be reMned.
1.5 These pmpctsals~III result in arguably a nett loss of build&s from the site, the replacementof
theexistmg~andkioskandthe
mtnx&tmnofasignifimntplantmgschenxtotherearof
(The
the site. The applicants do ~wt intend to recommence thesaleorrepiurofvehxles.
propnetor of that busmess, a sub lessee of the qphcant company, has been displaced from the
ate, 1sknown to be in dupute with them man attea@ to return to the onginal forecourt salesarea
in front of the old canopy and LSunder mvestlgation for a breach of plnnnmg COJXIXJ~)
Relevant Plannma J&tory
1.6 The existing structure was granted plarming permiss~onin 1967 under ref RAYLL76/67 and in
1978 plamdng permission was granted for car sales from the garage site. Other later recorded
applicaaons were for advm
WlWltmWnnectl~wIthpetrolsal~.
PAGE
1256
Consultations and Reoresematlonr
17
Raw&b Parish Co&
have m objecnons to thawapphcation subjed to appropriate screening,
questIon whether mams sewers referred to are available and what the posit10111s rega&ng car
sales whch have relocated on nearby prerrues.
1.8 TheCountgPlarmerisofthenewthataformalconsultatlon~hlmismtrequiredduetothe
Mhlre of thls proposal.
19
The County Surveyor has no obJectionin principle but would prefer to see a modified Accesson
to the roundabout to reduce the l&&hood of vehxclesstack& back on to the highway,
1.10 AnglianWaterhavemcmxmntstomake.
1.11 The Enviromnent Agents have m ObJectlonsubject to the uuposition of safegeaxkg con&Ions
on any forthcommg penmsslon given the absenceof a nearby mams sewer. (Note the applicants
have mdicated that they are considering an attachrmoi to a Maui sewer renmXefrom the site and
Condhon no 10 wdl cover this pomt)
1.I.2 The Health and Safety Exefutive have no otsefvatiom to make.
1.13 The Head of Housing Health and Cmmmity Cam has m adverse comments subject to the
mclusion of a control of mlsances being attachedto any pen&&m granted.
1.14 Only ore reply (objezting to the scheme)in respome to mtifIc&ion letters has been recervd
displawrmnt that would result.
thecarsalesopefatorduetohBpemumnt
l
from
1.15 The plammg consideration material to the determination of this apphcation are as follows:
Local Plan Polky
vlsld Amenity
Highway safety
MCAL PLAN POLICY
1.16 The-conside~oniswhetherthlsproposaland’ltsimpaamtheco~~of~currentuseof
that would just@ the setting aside tile mrmal
tht2sltewiuFamlnlttoveryspeclalc~
strict presomptlon agamstioappropnate developmentm the Metropolitao Green Belt.
1.17 The site which hes within the Metmpohtan Green Belt acconmlodatc3an llqpropnase but lawful
use wtuch was apparently established prior to the original PlzammgAct aixi has since that tme
been subject to a lawful rekvelopmem/replacement scheme as c8n be seen in Its history above.
Th is a sigmficant mateual eonsidertion in the detennimtmn of th~.~apphcanon
VISUAL AMENITY
1.18 Fkthersn~ the proposal represents a “like for like scheme” 111tie coverage of the site by
buddings and an openmg up of the sateto the rear currently omrpied by prefabncated buildings
onsohdplintkandparkedcam
Asu&arkalareaoflandscapeplantingispropos&totkrear
and this wdl make for a considerable improvement in the appearanceof the srte also
PAGE 2 ,
1257
l
HIGHWAY SAFETY
1.19 The County Surveyor has cmfhmed thattherearenoobjectionsmprinnpletowhatisaschane
thatmakesuseoftheexutngauxssp&s.Thecoinmem
regarding ilnpovi@g the lulldbollt
accesscan be dealt with by the imposition of a cm&on requrmg that spmfic dti to be agreed
before development wnnnenm.
1.20 In the hght of the cirarmstances & out above mcludlng the overall improvement to the
appeamm of the site, ti is considered that these factors do amount to very special cirarmstances
that in thaw case override the mmal presumphon against hupproprute development in the
Metmpohtan Green Belt.
Remmnendaho~
121 The Corporate &rector (Services) rcwmme&
following cm&ion he&..
that th5 apphcation be approved subject to the
01TIMELIMITsSC4
02 LANDSCAPING DESIGN - DETAIL? SC59
03 CAR PARKING PROVISION SC80
04 MATERIALS TO BE USED SC14
05 AMPLIFICATION PROHIBITED SC43
@jCARPARKlNG
-DELINFATEDSC79
07 NON STD - DETAILS OF CANOPY LIGHTING TYPE’ORIENTATION.
08 N/STD - AMENDMENT TO INTERNAL SITE ACCESS FROM ROUNDABOUT
09 FOUL WATER DRAINAGE SC91
10 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SC90
11 OILKHEMICAL
INTERCBPTION SC89
12 CONTAMINATED LAND SC87
PAGE 3
1258
AN
D.2
F/0488/98/ROC PARISH OF ROCHFORD ADJ WmERS
BRIDGE (EASTERN SIDE OF LONDON SOUTHEND AIRF’OFZ-)SOIJTHEND ROAD
ROCHFORD
DELETE CONDmON 3 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF. F/OO79/W/ROC To ALLOW
REMOVAL OF MRRIER FROM INTERNAL ACmS ROAD.
Applicant London Southend Aqort
Co Ltd
Zming~ Clvd Airfield
21
This application was deferred at the last Comnrmee doe to Members concerns on traffic
anunacceptabletraffiitmpactontheHarpHousemmdabom
manag-grourads,mand to enable forther comment from the County Surveyor aad for Officers to take Members
concerns back to the Airprt operator.
22
The written mponse fmm both parties 1s still awaited, if available, a verbal update w1I1 be
presented or It may be necessaryfor the item to stand deferred untd the responsesare received.
23
Thereportacd
’ “on preset& before is reprinted below and Southend+*sea advise
that their coanmittee raised 110ObJection,densIon delegatedto the Officers to determme to enable
acz-ordmatezirqmnse.
Plm
24
ADvllcation Details
l7u.s appllCanon 1s remove the condition rquirmg the pro&on of an automahc v&icle tamer
acr~sthelntemalaccessroadl~wes~towardsthewdstlngterminalareafrmnthe~
mtemal rOundabOutwlthm the an-port adjacentto the south west corner of the reta~Ipark.
Relevant Planoinn History
2.5 Outline plannmg pemnsslon was granted in May 1995 for a nokfood retail warehouse and garden
tn Warner’s Bndge. (OL/G233/!ZROC)
centre m the south east comer of the Airport ad~aceti
The subsequent de&&d apphcat~on,which diveded the buildmg into six units and omitted the
garden L-zelee,inchldfd an mtemal ~ashortd~mtothesitefromtheHarpHouse
nwndaboutw~chhadthreead~~armsleadingtotheretailparkcarpark,theflylngc~~on
theeasternboundaryoftbearrport~westarardsto~existingte~area
2.6 Co&hoos were imposed on the permission for this arrangement under apphcahon No.
F/C079/97/ROC rquiring the provuon of vehicle barnen acrosstwo of tht~ nu% lead& from
timtemalroudabout,ie
th~leadlngwestto~existingterrmnalandnorthtotheflylng
clubs. The former was to be an automahc barrier aperated by card or remotely and the latter was
to be a mamml bamer operated by the vehicle driver
2.7 The reasonsgiven for rqoniog the bamers were.Bsfollows.The autmnatie barrier - To prevent traflc to and from the airport wing the proposed
rwhvay and entrance/exlr onto the Harp House roundabout whch my be wwitdde
for suchLeveLs
aftrlgic
The mannal lxmiff - lbprevcnt vmkmmat
of=&
PAGE 4
e accessto Auport arm in the interests
Consultahons and Remesentahons
2.8 Rodford Parish Council - ObJehons~the condition applying to F/0079/!?7/TNX was apphed for
a specific reason and accepted by the applicants; it is uJm]dered that the necessity for the
cotiuon shll applies and it is strongly felt that it should ti be Med. Bsxuse ti may now be
inmnvenient to the apphcants is 110reason to delete the cmuiitiori
l
2.9 County Flighways - No cd~jecuon.
2.10 Southend Borough Council - A separate applicanon has been made to the Borough on whtch
tlus Councd haLbe
consulted. The vmii of Southend wdl be repoaed at the meetlog If
avadable
Mated
Planning Considerahons
2.11 As Members wdl be aware, an apphtion has subwpenfly been subnutted for a repfacemeofair
temmal, railway stahon and visitor centre snx.e the relevant couWion was unposed, aradwas
approved subject to numerous cotions and a legal agreenx6, wbicb has yet to be signed. Ttiese
proposals will supersedethe provision of the bamers as b&i locations are affeckd, although no
doubttheAirportwouldwishto~themanualbameruntiltheIpew~is~.Cl~ly
the Airport do not consider the automatic bamer necessaryfor security reasons and they did r!~t
apply for it as part of the in&al application
l
2 12 As a result of consideration of the traffic. study suppl~exiwith the new anport proposals it was
established that the Harp House mu&kart bad sufficient capacity to cater for access to the
terminal building aml area3 of the Aqxxt west of the internal rou&&ul
MQ=county
Surveyor has no ObJectiOn to the alrrent application
2.13 Oneof~ee~tlonstfiatitisproposedtoimposeontheapprovalforthenewtermmalwould
protiti the closure of the exishng accessesoff E!astwoodburyCrescent to avoid all traftic berg
thrown onto the Harp House ro&about, sltbongb clearly both ~ntemal and external hxffic
pattemswdlchangeoncethenewtimlimllsopell.
RecommeManon
2 14 The Corporate Director (Services) recommends:1
That tins a&ka&x~ be approved meet to the followmg co&tior~$).-
01TIMELIMITsFuLLsc4
2.
That Southend Borough Couml be inform4 of the above de&on in response to the
consultation on their appbcation IW SOS/98/0735.
PAGE 5
1261
l
l
3.14 Compared wrth the earlier apphcation, noise levels at the RockalI propemes (from which the
objection was received) would be margmaUyhigher due to the use of the two larger dumpers. At
Cherry orchard Farmhouse, which is right mite
the proposed loading area, the ry)m levels
are higher, but are no higher than the ambient level This property would m any we have a
relatively high daytime IMM level due to road traffic on the B1013. The site of the stockpde 1s however lower than the carnageway of Cherry &chard Way and ls also screened by a
landscapedstrip adJOilJ.& the. highway
3.15 Conversely, noise at l-8, Cheny Dr&n! Lane, the cottages m from of the Cherry Orchard
Brickworka, would be s~gmficantly reduced compared with the earher apphaon. It was
previously proposed to transport the matenal mto the bnckworks by dmnper truck usmg the
underpass beneath Cherry Orchard Way which routed the traffic close to the front of these
c&ages The new t&e levels at the tint facade3will be well below the traffic noise lwels due
to the B1013 and at the rear facadesthere would be no wls~ at all from the prop&s without the
stockpile achvities within the bnckworks
3.16 As will be seen from pamgraph 11 above, the Head of Health, Housing and Comrmmity Care
comments that there is unlikely to be any detrimental effect on Roddord res1dent.sand the revised
applic&lon wdl result in a much improved situation for the 8 cottages in Cherry Orchard Lane
adjoimng the brickworks over the previcu apphcation.
3 17 As far as tie access onto Cherry Orchard Way 1s camemed, there appears to be inadequate
~~areaforamvinglorr~esbeanngmrmnd~afleetoflOistobeused,~~~on
tothe~ywdoonfltctanthln~siteoauldensue.Itappearsthat3or4vehicles~dbe
present at the site at any one trme, but this potential for danger on the highway could be alleviated
ifthe~andl~~areaweretobe’handed’andasketchshovnngsucbrevisedarrangwent
hasb~nsemtotheCcuntyCouncll.Deslrable~suchanarrangementmaybe,hmayIlatbe
achievable in practice however, due to the presemz of an overhead power line wbch could
impede loading operatlors
Recommendation
3.18 The Corporate Dir&or (Servus) reMmmends that the Ccnmty Councd be mformed that tht4
rmthority raises no objection to this apphcation in pnnciple subject to .01 Thewmewmments as set out in paragraph 2 above, with the exception of No. (Ii);
02 The conditions and lorry routmg rquued by the County Surveyor,
03 Consideration bemg pn to the ‘ha&& of the access/loadingderangementsif achievablein
practice to allow a vehicle stacking area within the site m the interest.3of highway safety.
PAGE 8 CM10289/981RGCPARISH OF ROCHFOR,D
P
CHERRY
ORCHARD
BRICKWORKS CHERRY ORCHARD LANE ROCHFORD
REVISION
OF WORKING
AND RESTORATION SCHEME TO CONTINUE
BRICKEARTH
EXTRACTION AND VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 7, 9,
21,
22335 AND 36 OF COUNTY MAl-I-ER APPLICATION IDO/ROCn/92A
A@lcant
Zonmg
HANSON BRICK LIMITED
Metmpohtan Green Belt; Roach Valley Namre Conservatmn done,
Special Landscape Area
Planmng Anohcation Detalls
4 1 N B This 1sa County Matter application as tt relates to mmerals, and ~111be determmed by the
County Council as mmerals Planrung Authorny The views of this Council have been requested
as a CiJnsuItee
4 2 Ths apphcatlon IS to revise the working and restoration scheme and haul road locatIon for the last
w
reserve of brrckearth at Cherry Orchard Lane Bnckworks (now closed at least temporarily) which
exlStSm a field 4 3 hectares m size.
4 3 A m&em set of plannmg condmons for the site was approved m Apnl 1594 when it was not
envisaged that this brIckworks would close When the bnckworks were operational, clay was
excavated on a &ly basis and transponed to the works on a mmiatnre &way Vfnh the works
closed down and the current levels of producuon. the remtroducflon of the mmeral railway ISnot
considered to be a viable opaon.
4.4 The proposals put forward in tis application are for the clay to be excavatedand transported by
dumper truck to Cherry Orchard Brickwork ti either taken to Star Lane works at great
Wakermg on a daily basis or stockpcprled
at Cherry Orchard and taken to Star Lane as and when
required throughout the year, (See the previous item on Qus schedule telatmg to Star Lane
Brickworks ) Permuted hours of opera&n for bnckearth extracnon and transportation of the
excavated bnckearth are 0700 - 18&l Monday to Friday and 0700 Iux) Saturdays with 110
workmg on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
4 5 It IS estlmacedthat there is about four years supply left III the ground which will be excavatedIn
three phases workmg from g~lth to north over about a five week penod each summer,
commencmg in 1998, and then stockpiled enher here or at Gt WakerIng as outlmed above The
prefenad method of working 1s for the clay to be transported directly to Star Lane Brickwork%
assuming that the stockpile proposals under apphcatlon CM/o288/98/ROC are approved. A
margm of 12 metres 1s to be left unexcavatedalong the southern boundary of rhe sne together
with appropriate margins f-mm trees and hedgerows.
4 6 ne exmtng approved haul road runs along rhe southern bc-und=y of the Site but a preferred
altemanve 1sproposed further to the north away from the houses m Southend and Brldletiay lo.
Whether the northern mute ~111be achievablewill depend on the resohmon of land ownershIp
diffcultres In either case, the dumper trucks ti pass umber Cherry Orchard WRY u=ng the
tunnel wtuch was constructed for the previously used ratlway as part of the hIghway work% so
that they will not create a traffic hazard.
ti
l
‘1 -
1264
Relevant PlanmnP HIS~OEJ
4 7 The ongmal perrmsston for bnckearth extractton on this site dates back to 1948 and therefore
pernussron had to be re-applied for m 1992 under the Interim Development Order procedure of
the Planrung and Compensation Aa 1591, to prevent the pernussion lapsmg, and so that up to
date conditrons could be unposed
Consultattons and Reoresentattons
4 8 County Hrghways have no ObJecttonsto the development
4 9 One letter has been received from a Southend resident expressmg concern about posstble further
subsidence effects of the proposal, which they claun have already taken place due to prevrous
workmgs m the vrchuty
4 10 Rochford Parish Council have no objectronsto the proposal Consultatron responsesare awaued
from the Cotmcil’s Head of Housing, Health and Commuuity Care, any received will be
reported at the meetmg
Maternal Planrung Constderaubns
4 11 A notse study has been submitted with the apphcanon assessmg the unpact of the extraction and
transportation of the brtckezrth on dwelhngs m the area, namely the cottages m front of the
brrckworks m Cherry Orchard Lane and the housesm the road called ‘Rockall’ to the south of the
sue m Southend Borough. the prezhczedt-~rselevels have been compared wnh the gutdance given
in the Department of the Rnvuunment Minerals Planning Gutdance document entnled ‘The
Control of Noise at Surface Mmerai Workings’ (MPG1 1)
4 12 The noise report concludes that in Phase 1 the extractron would give rtse to levels that exceed the
‘general’ notse hmns at the dwellings to the south of the exuactmn sne but are well withm the
‘temporary’ notse Imrits that could be apphed m thusease given the relanvely short duratton of the
extracoon Phase(up to 5 weeks per year) Phases2 and 3 would borh meet the ‘general’ 110~
crnerta proposed by MPG1 1 The haul road mto the Cherry Orchard BrrcLworks would gaverise
to somenotse at the front of the row of eight cottagesadjacent to the brickwork but these levels
would be below the ‘germeral’Imuts set out m MPG1 1.
4.13 Given that consent already exrsts for the extracnon of brrckearrh from thrs parcel of land. the
mam constderattonsare whether the revised mute and method of haulage and transportation of the
excavatedmatenal to Gt. Wakermg are acceptable
4.14 The use of a hght ratlway to transport the mate& 1s probably preferable to dumper tmcks
because fewer, less mtrusrve movements would be mvolved, but the latter may not be
unacceptablem vrew of the nor% study conch~s~ons.
parttcularly bearmg m mind the short penod
of ttme each year (5 weeks) when extraction wtil tie place Whilst tt may be preferable for the
brickearth to be processed at the Cherry Orchard Works, the net mcreasein lorry nxwements may
be margmal, smce agamst this must be offset the fact that the bnckworks at Cherry Orchard are
closed, wnh rm export of finished products t&ng place In’ additton, there will be no acttvrty on
the sne at all for over ten months of the year If maternal 1s taken to Wakering as soon as It IS
extract&, whmh ts constdered to be the preferred procedure by both the Applrcants and your
Officers.
“*
4 15 As far as the haul route LSconcerned, the northern route 1s constdered to be preferable as It ~111
be further from the houses to the south and away from the publtc bndleway The stte IS well
screenedherng surrounded by trees and hedges, and there should be no matenal effect on these
arrsmg from the proposal
l
a.
Recommendatton
16 The Corporate Dtrecfor (Sew%) recommendsthat, the County Council be mformed that thts
to thtsappkationsubJeU
to the followtng.authonty ratses no ObJectlOn
1.
The northern route being adopted for the haul road If agreement can be reached wtth
the landowner
2
The brtcketi bemg transported to Star Lane Brtckworks Great Wakermg as tt IS
extracted & not stockptled at Cherry Orchard Lane Br~kworks
3
The progresstve restoratton of the stte’to agriculture followmg the completion of
each phase
4.
No trees or hedgerows beii
Plannmg Authonty
5.
The use of the dumper trucks for haulage withm the site shall be Imuted to not more
than 8 v e&s ltl any calenflar year.
removed wtthout the umsent of the Mmetal
I
i
r”-
1261
l
FIO419/!WRGC R4YLEIGH TWWN COUNCIL. AREA
4’
4 THE BAILEY RAYLEIGH
ERECT 4-BED DETACHED HOUSE
(DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE)
&batU:
MR & MRS B DEARMAN
7hhlg~
Restdenttal
WITH
DETACHED
DOUBLE
GARAGE
4.1 An appeal against nondetemnnatron has been lodged in relation to thts schemeand a hearing has
been requestedby the q+ants.
4.2 Members views am sought on the issues set out in the. “Sunnnay of Plsnnhrg Conslderstions”
forming the basis of the Cot&i’s case at appeal.
l
the appellant has indicated that the appealwould IX w&drawn
to approve the proposal.
4*3However,
if the Council Is minded
P1arnnn.nAunlicatton Details
4.4 The proposal involves replacanent of the exist& d&s&d
larger house with detacheddouble garage
hcntse ami intqml garage With a
4.5 TneslteissituatedattheendoftheBaileywhichisanunadoptedprivateload,lmmediatelynorth
of which ts an area of woodland which rises steeply towards the earthworki of Rayleigh Mount
The mstlng bwse is part of a developmentof 4 dwellmgs which were built in the 197uS
4.6 The appeal site slopes downwards at an increasing gradient from north+ast to south-w% towards
the rear gardem of propeaies on Crown HtU which the replacemenI dwclllng w&d back onto
There is a less pronounr%d cross-fall from south-e& to nor&west, resultrng m ttte dwelling
being on higher land thsn the bungalows on Mount Close whtch are separatedfrom the appeal sate
byagrassedstripwfiichformsparrofthelong~gardenof34CmwnHrll.
0
4.7 The proposed dwelling would have a higbcr ridge height than that extsting and is approximately
18m deeperat therear.Thedetachedgarage would be situated 111the front garden close to the
tummgheadattheendoftheB&y,
F’lmudn.eHistory
ROClO229i71 - Gutlute planmng pemussion was granted on 20 10.71 for 4 dwelltngs (I-1 The
Barley) wtth the reserved matters for m. 4 bemg approved on 31 10.72
ROC/395/85 - Phumtng permissnm was refused on 267.85 for sn outlme application to erect a
detached dwelhng and detachedgarage on handopposite the appeal site.
RGC/O247/86 - Planning pcrmtssion wss refused on 20.5.88 for sn outline spphcatton to erect a
detached hose on the grassed strip to the north-west side of the appeal srte, together wtth
detached garage to tie front. A subsequent sppual was dtsmissed for the following ressons.
craxapeddevelopment, out of character with that extsting; garage and am drive inamgmous
ami m a pronnnent poslhonin the streetscae andrequre removalof hedgerow/trees, loss of
anumtty to 1~0s 5 and 7 Mount Close through overlooktng, loss of outlook and possible
oversh2dowmg of rear gardens; detmnerUsl intpsct on living pattern of lccsl wtldliie.
l
PAGE 9
Consultations and Reuresentxtions
4 8 Rayleigh Town Coundl has no ObJeXIomto the propc& pruvided the 1 metre separation 1s
malntamed
l
4 9 The County Surveyor recommends that cotitlons be attached rqmring the garage to be
positioned a maxmmm distance of 3m from the highway boundary (m order to prevent vehicles
par~mfromof~garagedoorsandobsauctingthehighway)andtheparking/tumiogareato
be paved m a smtable material to be agreedwith the Local Planmng Atiority.
4.10 The EpseE County Council (Elistoric Buildings and m
Advisor) notes that the site 1s
outde the Conservation Area and that It and the Scheduled Ancient Monument would be
unaffected He considers the house 1s no bztter or worse than others in The mey and has rm
objecnons
4.11 The Essex County Council (W
Advh~) ~x)tes that the front elevation ~3 not
dmmntlar to the extstmg dwelhng, aml does M)t therefore comment on its appearance The
increased depth of plan of the proposal has, however, created an unattm~~veflank elevauon with
an overwdegabledendwhichIs tuhhmterist~c of traditional Essex building forms. There 1s
also no srtuxlauon of the wall plane to relzve its mass Whilst there 1s a design solution to
impwve upon this elevation, any adverse.vwual *act of the proposats will be limited to the
views from the rear of neighbouring pmpertles and wti tX)t affexx the general character of the
area
4.12 The lk-m colrrdy Comdl &xdaIkt
Arclmeologlcal Advisor) confirnx that no known
archaeological s&s will be affected by the pro@
development, and no archamlogical
cmdmcm wdl be necessary
4.13 The I)lstnct Council’s Wcmdhds and Ehviromnental Specialigt mspeded the site in order to
assessany nnpact on wildlife on Rayleigh Mount and Crown HIU He observesthat smsll tidlife
scrapessynonymous wtth f&mg/foragmg were found on land adjac& to the appeal stte and two
accessponUs/thomughfar~ were identified, one of whmh is adjacent to the proposed garage It is
considered that the prapasal Hrlll not lead to a significant loss in foraging area or distress to the
wildhfe However, it 1semphasisedthat accessto land to the SK&and front of the appeal site must
IuJtbemtictedmallyway.
4.14 TIE Head of Health, Housing and Community Care has 110adverse ~0mmen.t~SubJ&to the
StaradardIufmmme SI16 (Control of Nmsances)bemg attachedto any perrmssmn.
4.15 TheEarpironmert Agency rzsm no objecnons.
4 16 hglia~
M&r
services has no obJ~~3lonS.
4.17 Letters of ObJectionhave been received from 4 n@bouring properties 3, 5, 7 and 9 Munnt
Close Their concerns m the mam relate to the following plarmmg issues’ the proposed dwelling
being larger overall than that existmg and the flank wall mparttcular havmg a a
effect
and being an eyesore over the properties m Mount Close; the detachedgaragew&l spoil the layout
of the Clase and ti have a detrimental impact on the rear of 5-7 Mount Close; precedent for the
other dwelbgs m The Baiiey to becomelarger and garagesto be bmlt.
4 18 A letter has also been received from the ooxpant of 32 Crown Hill who states that he has a
number of concam, but gives M d&a&. However, he considers that, whdst it is nat a planning
matter, the Gxmcd should be aware that he is the beneficziry of a covenant over the appeal srte
v&h, inter alia, prevents any atteratmns to the existing dwellmghoux unhl plans artd elevatio~ls
have been approved “by tb.eCompany or its summers m htle as being in keqmg w the design
or character of &s Castle Terrace developmem”.
-
1263
l
l
4.19 The prmclple plarrmng considerationsmaterial to this sp@ can be summarisedas follow:
D&go aradvisual tmpact
n Impact on amzmties of adjoining occuparrts
n
DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT
4.20 RayleIgh Mount, which 1sa S&&led Ancient Morum$, lies to the north-east of the appeai s&c
ad the Mount 1s within Ray&h Conservation Area and the designated H.istonc Core of
Rayleigh, the Conservtion Area boundary in&ding the pnvate road wluch serves the appeal site
The appeal site itself is outside the conservationArea. Inthtscaseitisnotmnslderedthatthe
proposal would harm the character or appmmm of the Comemoo Area or affect any of the
other historic desi~ons
particularly as rt involves the replacement of an existmg dwelling
wbch has no noteworthy tradlt~onsl design features.
4.21 The pmpossl should of course be cunsikred in r&&on to stzunkd design guidance This is
m~inAppendix1oftheLocalPlanandTheEssexDesignGuide
l
4 22 The main chmges to the iknt elevation m comparison with the wustmg dwelling mvolve an
~mndge~w~chbringsitupto~levelofthe~mingproperty,no3TheB~uley,
ad deletion of the integral garage
4.23 A further change 1san increase m depth by appmxmzttely 1.8m fmm the orlgmal rear wsll of the
ensting dwelling, (however an e&ii
comervatory acm half the rear already projects further
outwardsthanthepmposedrearwall).Thisinc~indepthhasIeadto
unattractlveflank
devatioionswith ovemde gables tich, as the County Arclutectural Advisor has pointed out, is
mdaracteristic of traditional Essexbmlding forms. Wore,
whereasthe exlstmg north-west
flsnk wall is ‘step@ m’, the pm@
dwelling is of a uniform w&h thrcughout, followmg the
he of the widest pari of the extstlng northwest flank elevation Tlms, due to this mmeasem
height, de@ and width the new dwelling would be.bulkier overall particolarly viewed from the
side.
l
4.24 The other rmm dlffbetween the exutmg and proposed developmaus is that there would be
a detacki double garage witbm the front garden of the appeal site. It would be pasmoned tight in
the northern mmer which would necessitatethe removal of the exmmg conifers It is unfortunate
that these tree would be removed as they would have pmvided an efikctive screen to the garage
Nevertheless, the garage would not be onduly promment. In the prwioos appeal (see above) the
garage whxh the Imp&or described as app+umg “somewhat mcmgruous in a prominent
poutton in the street scene” was kated on the adjacent open ki in a more promment posmon
than that amendy proposed.
4 25 The Camty Surveyor 1s concemed that vehicles would park in fmnt of the garage doors which
would led to them overhanging the kughway as there is insufl?ueti spam between the doors and
the b&way to accommodateacarlength.Thus,be rmmmem3.7that the garage be positioned a
maximum dt%ance of 3m from the highway boundary in order to deter such puking. Officers
have dkuased this wah the Agent but he mmiders that rc-posltioning the garage would
detrimentally affezt the settmg of th-enew dwellmg, and it is conceivablethat vehicles would shll
park to the front of the garage and overhang the highway even more. In any event, a parkmg
space1spmvlded to the side of the garage which would be equally convemmt as parkmg m front
of the garage.
4.26 In summary, whdst there 1s scope for lmprovanent m the design, notably the north west flank
elevation of the dwelling, the general character of the area and the street sceneof The Bailey wdl
not be detnmeutally affected
l
I
PAGE 11
d
1270
lhWA(X ON AMENITIES OF ADJACENT OCCUPANTS
4.27 The main dlfferenccs between the exlstmg anl the pmposed developmentshave been explained
above Those prqrtles which are hkely to be affected mast are the bungalows on Mount Close
(5,7&9)amino
3TheBailey.Totherearthereisabacktobackseparationof53Illetre
between dwellings and this distance elimirurtes any perceivable rmpact on the living unximons of
those proper&s fiuntmg Crown Hdl
4.28 It 1santupated that no 3 The Bailey wouW be httle affected by the development. The rear wall
wMlldeXLend2mdeeperthantheexistingrearwallafthemaindwel~,butatpresentthereisa
mnservatory close to the boundary of no.3 which extends futher out than the proposed rear wall
m any event. Furthermore, a 45 degree line would not be contravened
4.29 The rear aspectsof the bungalows on Maant Close, vnth their short rear gardens, face onto the
north-west flank of the proposed dwelling and the & of the detached garage. There 1s sn
mtewening strip of land betPreensome 9 5m wide, (the back garden of 34 Crown Hill), and the
separation ~WXKZ beiween buildmgs would be a mhmmnn of 23 metres The appeal site is on
higher groti and the exxstug dwellmg is quite domhut& over the bungalows on Mount Close,
this would be compmdd by the mxase m&e. Thereissomemterveningxremingbutits
effectiven~ wlu be reduced in wmm months
Conctiiom
l
430~stthedeslgnofthedwellingcouldbekmpmved,andtherewillbeanimp~onthe
resldentlal amemhesof occupantsof Monnt Clcse, the Local Planrring Authority must realistically
compare exlstlng ~th proposed iad determme whether the proposed dwelling 1sso much worse in
design terms and would have so ranch more. lmpact on residmtml amcmty, that a refusal of
plaomng perm&on could be j&cd
Followmg careful mnsideratlon, Officers consider on
balancethatthlswdlnotbethecase
4 31 In respect of the garage and the CoUmy Surveyor’s comments, itiSUOtconSlderedthatti
pmposal could be refused (or lmieed an appeal succe&ully defended) on ttus mntter
4.32 The Corpaate Director (Services)rewrmwd that the applicatmn be delegatedto the Director to
approve should the appeal agaimt nondete&nation b-eHrltMrawn, subject to the followmg he&
of comzhtiorts.Alternatively, if the appeal IS not w~tlxtrawn It 1s rccommemled thatManbers
mnfmn that the Counnl’s mspmse on appal is based on the above report and mtenr to approve
SUbJmtto the fouowmg wndltxms.
01 TIME LIMITS - FULL STD SC4
02 MATERIALS TD BE USED SC14
03 PD RESTRICTED- FRONT OR REAR EXTENSIONS SC17
04 PD RESTRICTED-WINDOWS SC22
05 PD RESTRICTED-OBS GLAZING SC23
06 ENCLOSURE/SCREENING (retention of and provision of)
07 TREE PLANTING - DETAILS SC57
08 WILDLIFE PROTECTION
09 GARAGE AND HARDSTAND SC81
1271
l
-N l
5
FM43iY7fROC PARISH OF ASKlNGDON
LAND REAR OF THREE BAYS FARM, CAN!ZWDON ROAD, ASHINGDON
USE OF LAND AS FOOT&ALL PITCH, ERECT SINGLE STOREY CHANGING ROOM
BUILDING, LAYOUT PARKING AREA (USE EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS)
&?Jhc=t
zoning:
RAYLEIGH ROYALS FOOTBALL CLUB. C/o MR R W HILLIARD
MetropoUtan Green Belt, Spell LandscapeArea, Lcmdmp Improvement Area
Plarming Ap&atmn
51
l
Details
Thm applicauon proposes the pmvtsicm of a football pa& measum8 %mx6GTaatlandrearof
Three Bays Farm, Canewdon Road, Ashingdon hoposals also lncti the provision of a loosed
surfaced parkmg area, the use of the existing v&a&r accessand the erection of a single storey
changq mom. The proposed Ln&%q is of rrmber mnstmtiion with a low p~ti, felted roof, snd
would provide basic accommodationfor two teams to change, a separatemom for the referee and
toilet facilities. ‘I& applicant has stated that if the use its a fbotball field ceases,the btlllding can
be easily removed.
whocom@ewithintheSqtreLengae
5.2 Th.efootballprtchisrquiredbyRayleighRoyalsFC
whmh covers a large area fram 5kuthd m Wkkford in the south east of Essex and cmrently
play at Ashingdoo Rezreational Gmumi. It IS proposed to form a B team, whereby an addltional
pitchwvouldbelequiredw~~wouldbe~alternatelybetweentheAandBteams,andwould
leave the current home pitch t?ee for other teams to use, thereby helping other clubs in their qmst
for league status.
5.3 The applicant has stated that there is a shortage of good quaMy local pitches and that the prm
ptti would help meet tk shortf&ll. The supportmg statementfrom the applicant also refers to
central govemmm gmdanm which IS an atkmpt to Justify the pm@.
Relevant Plannine.History
l
5.4 There IS no plaonmg h~ory sp&fic to &us site, However, the adjacent laradwhich is wrthm tk
apphcant’s ownershq was the subject of a plannlq application (rkrence F/OO58/98/ROC3
which
~a.9 approved at the prcvioos Comm.me+e
0n 1 October 1998 The applm.ti0~ S&S to
r~theexistingvehicular~mfacilitatetheuseoftheb~~totherearofthedwe~
for the manufkcmre of prefabmzatedtimber sheds It is pmped to sharethis accessin mnnectlon
wOh both the wmmercial use snd the proposed football pitch.
Consultations and Reore%ntations
55
Ashingdon Parish ConnciI make no dbjmtions m the proposals
56
Canewdon Parish Co&
make no obje&ons to tbz pmposala
5.7 Jbsex County Council (County Surveyor)rewmmds that permission be refused as the
proposal would intensify the use of a substandardaccessand would lead to tk detenmon m the
efticlency of the through mad as a traflic tamer and be dmntal
to kghway safety It is also
considered that the proposal 1s not ILI accordance with sustainable trsmport pohcies and would
create ull~~ecessarymnflia with traffic uamg Canewdon Road m the detrmzentof highway safety.
However, the County Surveyor recommendsmmlifmns rclaimg to visibility splays and the access,
If Members are muded to appmve the applica&on.
l
PAGE 13
5.8
5.9
Bead of Howlug,
Health and Community Cam reports that there is potential for
rmisance by way of muse and dn%urbancefrom the proposed development affcctmg nearby
residents The degree of any such mdsanceis impossible to predict and m the event pmblems dtd
arise, they would be dtffiatlt to control through envimnme&l health legislation. In the
arcumtances, if Members are mkalful to approve the application, a temporary consent should be
granted to enable the impact of the developmentto be assessed In addttion, control over the days
and times of use of the proposed prtch should also be considered and restnctlons unposed on the
use of amphfied speech/public addresssystems. Members should note that only hmited washing
and santtary facilihes are proposed hnpmvernentsto thesefacdnies should be considered At the
very least there should be hand-washy facrlitres pronded m mtmectton wtth WCs and showers
should be pmvtded parucularly rf the developmentis m be permanent.
The Comml’s
0
t Agency has 110obJectronto the pmposed development, but makes comments
rdating to wnmmnat ed water, drainage systemsard the discharge of effluent.
The Enpironmen
5.10 EngIiah Sports Coundl nates that although the Rochford District Local Plan is not specific about
the adquacy or otherwise of playing pitches to meet future need, It appearsfrom the application
that there 1s an identtfied need for such facihties, snd the proposal can therefore be ~ustdiedin
prmctple Gutdoor sport and recreation are accepted in PPG2 as appropriate land uses in the
Green Belt Comments are also made wnh regard to the technical rquuements which relate to
pitch dhnenxons and changmg faclIities. In pnnctple, therefore, En&ah Sports Council supports
the application, espectally hi the context of the overall loss of such facihties throughout the
region
l
5.11 In response to Nergbbour Ntitflcation and the display of a sne notice erght letters of
represematmn have been received ob@mg to the proposed development on the followmg
&nxmds:
-dnolseanddi- inrreased traffic
- lmer problems
-cbangeofumofland
- area should be protected from develcptncnt
Matenal Plamuna Considerahons
5.12 The planning mnsiderattons matenal m the detemnmhon of this application are summarised as
follows
l
PLANNING POLICY
5.13 The snc 1ssituated withht the Metropohtan Green Belt and partly m the Special Landscape Area
and La&cape Impmvement Area as designated m the Rochford District Local Plan First Review
5.14 Although there IS no specific pohcy armed at the pmvision of new sports fields / football pitches,
Pohcy LT3 of the Local Plan encourages proposals for h&or and outdoor sports clubs and
shnilar facditles, but WIU have regard to; the likely noise aud dlsturbarmcermltmg from the
activtties; the need to hnut the use of the bukling and site in the uttercat of residenhal amenity,
the hkely volume of trafllc that would be generated; the adequacy of the transport network and
means of access to the srte; the adeqacy of off-street parkmg facilities; the impact of the
development on vrsual ammitres of the area, and the existeaxx of snmlar facilities witbm the
locality
PAGE 14
l
0
515intermsofthermmberofparlangspitcesrequiredbysucha&velopment,thestandardis~SportsGrmmdsascorrtainedw~A~ZoftheLocalPIan.Thestatldardrequire4onecar
parkmg space for every two people to use the playmg area(s) at any one ume. Calculation of the
mmber of players should include suktmte players and referees, sod therefore 13.5 spaceswould
bzE&reded As 1t stands, the appllcatton proposes 20 spaces, thereby sattsfyhlg Car parking
5.16 With regard to the she’s locstion, partly within the Special Landscape Area and Laodscape
Jmprovemmt Area, policies RC7 and RC8 are applicable However, tt is considered that the
provision of a football pitch and a m&st dummtable changing room m this location accords
well thesepollCles.
5 17 Plamring Policy Gutdance Note 2 (PPG2) - Green Belts re-iterates mxi remforces the Local Plan
Pohcy regardmg the presumpuon against mapproptiate development wnbm the Green Belt
However, paragraph 1.6 addresses land uses which may be accqtable amI fulfil certain
objectives. One such objective is to provrde opportumties for sport and outdoor recreatron near
urban areas. Therefore, the proposal to provide a football pitch seeksto achrevethis objective and
is constdered acqtable wrthin the Metropolitan Green Belt.
5 18 Plamnng Policy Guidsnce Note 17 (PPG17) - Sport and Recmatmn addresses the tqnc of
reneatior& needs wrthm the countrystde It states that in development plans ard development
control, local plamnng authontiea should have regard to pmservmg or e&am&g those
characterimics wlxch are important, and to pm&ding for the needs of the local commumty and
emnomy and for other uses of land such as agncuhure They should take account of the nature of
the partsxlar sportmg acuvy and the abilhy of the land to sustain that acuvny m the long term.
Advme also states that rt ahonld bc possible to comam the nqact by appropriate management
m!zasum (for example through restrictions on time, space or season).
AMBNITY
5 19 The location of the proposed football pitch 1ssome 12Omfrom Canewdon Rosd amI is snuatfd to
the rear of the exktmg dwellmg and outhdIdings asskated wrth the cnmmercial busmess The
proposedchangingroomwillbe~sit~behmdtheseexlsung~dingsand~forethe
openness of the Green Belt is adequately maintamed. No ad&tonal aoxss will be reqoired to
facditate the use of the football pitch, although conditions to achieve nxessq standardswtll need
tobeimposed.
5.20 Wnh regard to the mrpact on tighbounng properha, there is cenainly the potent& to cause
noise and dstmbme. However, theseissues can be minimised through the hnposmon of s&able
cxmlltiolls rehtmg to the days aud llours of use.
0
HIGHWAY SAFETY
5.21 As prevmusly stated the County Surveyor reconmremisthat penmsston be refused owing to the
intensnicatmn of a substandard accessand m ad&ion does not accord wtth sustainabletransport
policies. However, officers are of the oplruon that these issues can be overcome by the impostnon
of suitable comhttom. Therefore the County Surveyor has recommended a number of wrditions
wh+zh were reommemld with regard to plarmmg application reference F/oO58/98/ROC which
seeks to use the same accessand relate to vrsibthty splays and the wtdening of the access. As
stated w&in PPG2, pmposals should not be rejected without considering whether, by imposing
reasonablecondtuons, any objections could be overcome
PAGE 15
1275
Conclusion
5.22 Takmg mto awmmt all of the abovematerial co~~ideratio~ts,It is consldeti that there would be a
mmimal affect upon the opxnm and charxtcr of the land, acd therefore the prmc~plesof the
Green Belt would not be comprormsed.
hli-t&ME, thepOklltld dfectsOnadJOm PmpeTaS
would be controlled by the proper impas~honof suitable um%tiorq thereby atkmptmg to protm
the smeantiesof&y
resxlent~a113kdawrkers.
5.23 In conclusion, it is considered that the use of ti land m ti partlcxlar locatum 1sappropti for
the provision of a football pitch and accords with mmisterial advice mntained within PpG2
together wi15 policies contain& ulthm the Rochford District Local Pian.
Recommendati~
5.24 The Corporate Director (Services) leumrmends tbat tlus application be approved subject to the
following condmons he&s.
01 SC48 TEMPORARY USES
Thispermiss~onshallbelimitedtoape;lodexplrmgon31May20M)atw~chtime~useofthe
site.as a football pitch &all ceaseand the laml restored to ft’s former condxtmn (see mformative
below), on or before the eqi-y date unless a ‘renewal’ of ti permkion has been sought aui
obtamed.
02 SC28 USE CLASS RESTRICTION
03 SC36A HOURS OF USE RESTRICTED
The use hereby permitted shall m)t take place, tx) plant/machmery shall be operated armdno
dehvenes shall be taken at or m
from the site outside the hours of 12.00 to 20 CMI
Monday to Fnday, 1O.M)to 17 00 on Saturdays, 10 00 to 14.00 on Sundays(up to a maxl~lum of
twu weekdays per week)
04 NON-STANDARD CONDITION
No use shall ~be~retheexlstlngaecessto~srtels~denedtoa~wictthof
5.5 metres for a distance of 12 metres from the carnageway edge anl provided wuh 7.5 metre
r&us kerbs retmxd to an aaxsway width of 5.5 metres. Once constructed, the said vehicular
access shall k made available for use and thereafter retamed ;uadmamtamed in the qpmvd
form.
05 NONSTANDARD CONDITION
No use shall commence before visibility splays of 2 nxtres x tangent p&t of the bend are
provided etther side of the access.Thereafter, 110obstruc&on above 1 metre m he@ wrthm the
area of the splays shsll be permitted
06 NON-STANDARD CONDITION
Thcaccesssballbeconstructedofapxmanxt
metfes from the carriageway edge.
andboundmatcnalforammmmm
dutanceof6
07 NON-STANDARD CONDlTION
The parkmg area hereby penratted shall only be used in mn~unctlon with the football matchesand
wlthm the permitted hours of use, as s&tied in Corxlmon 04.
08 SC34 FLOODLIGHTS - PROHIBITED
09 SC43 AMPLIFICATION PROHIBITED
PAGE 16
1276
6.
GD/o472/98/ROC RAYLEIGH TOWN COUNCIL ARBA
a
HM PRISON BULLWOOD HALL BULLWOOD HALL LANE HOCKLEY
ERECT 40 PERSON ACCOMMODATION BLOCK, NE%’ WORKSHOP AND REALIGN
EXISTING SEC!FENCE
Apphcant H M PRISON SERVICES
Zoning.
Metropohtan Green Belt
P1anni.n~Auulication De&h
6 1 Members are adwed that under the provisions of Cucular 18/84 (Crown Land and Crown
Development) Part IV (Development by Government Departments), development by the Crown
does not require plannmg p-errmasion However, GoveDepartments are obliged to consult
local phmng authorities before pm
vnth development which would otherwue require
plarmmg permission.
l
6.2 The proposal is to ered an (tccomm3datlonblock for 40 persons, a new workshop and to re-align
thesearntyfence. The amrmmodation block is part two storey/part single storcy?has a footprint
0fMSsqmandistobe~tonpartoftheexisting~groundmpartbetweentwoexis~
large buildings. The workshop bmldmg 6sof a smaller scale being single storey, with a footprlnt
of144sqmandistobel~totheintheeastpartoftheslte.
There-ahgmnentofthesenuay
fence WIU increasethe prison gmumls by approximately 138Ihsqm.
Relevant Plant&a Hlstm
6.3 Of greatest relevance are the previous two appli&ons
AUthLXXy
GD/OO45/97/ROC!- Convert exe
latchen and offi
comprising 14 additlod cells. no objectmn.
considered by the Local Plannmg
floor space to hmg accommodanon
GD/O591/97/ROC - Erect smgle storey detached buildmg for staf? amemty BaxmrmOdation
wmpnsing off two ‘rest’ rooms, a krtshn and W.C This bulldmg was reqmred to replace the
no objection.
staff facilities whh had been lost through conversion to mmate -on.
l
Consultations and Reore%ntatiom
6.4 Rayleigh Town Coti
have raised concerns that propc&s are bemg put forward on a piecemeal basis (smce Taos1sthe tlurd apphhon for the srte within the last year) and have asked for
clariflcauononthefutureplansofBullwoodHallPrisoninthenext5tolOyerrrs.
Information regardmg these issueshas since been gamed from HM Prison Service and passedon
to Rayleigh Town Council.
6 5 The Envlromnent Agency have asked for foul water drainage and smfacz water drainage detruls
to be supphI pnor to the commencementof any development
6 6 Head of Health, Housing and Community Care raves no adversecommentssubject to standard
mformative SI16 Control of Nuisance
6.7 AngIian water has no objection.
6.8 Esex County Comdl Conservation Specialist has no comment to make on the application.
PAGE 17
6 9 The thmty
Surveyor has no objecton
on trafh
isws
6.10 TWOletters havebeen raked from the general public i?~mg &JecSlons
m&ding adequacy of vehicular accessarrangemznts ard increasing volumes of traffic, acd a
further two letters of concern regardmg hghtmg/security and the visual impact of the bddmgs
from Hockley Woods.
Summaw of Plamting Conslderatlons
6.11 The site 1swithm the Metmpohtan Green Belt, a Spenal Landscape Area (Policy RC7) and the
Roach Valley Conservation Zone @KS) The proposed accommodattonblock has been i-e-sited
following a prelhninary consultation and wtll now stand adjacent to the main prison complex
Although stfl visible from the open countryside this 1sa far preferable lo&ton and would not be
too conspicuous to view betng m the main viewed against the background of the existing prison
block % applies to the open counqside to the south aml the well used pubhc footpath which
traverses the countryside to the south and west whereby tie accommcdation block would be
observed in the context of the 3 storey tlat roofed bmldmg wIthin the peon complex and the
kitchen block
6.12 Negotiations with the applicants have resulted m a reylsed schemewhich illustrates a reduction m
the height of the bud-,
feather edge boardmg on the walls (colour EObe agreed) and slate
effect steel she&q m slate grey for the roof cl*
The red&ant bmldmg 1s certainly of a
higher stn&rd design than tie existmg large bmldmgs within the complex.
a
6.13 The proposal does not comply with Green Belt pohcy (GBl) of the adopted Rochford Dktrtct
Lccal Plan (First Review). Therefore ‘very special cmmnstances’ must be demo111thu
caseM)BStovrarraDd~needforIlewbulldingsmtheG~Belt
6.14 Thmugh c~rrcspondence with HM Prison Service it has been cxplamti &at over the last 12
months the female prison population has increased nationally from 2674 to 3146, with a 100%
occupancy at BIdtwo& Hall
Applkatm GDIW45Wl/ROC has already pronded an addrtional 14 places at
Bullwood Hall by the conversion of an existing kttchen. However, the five female
prison estabhsbmzntsin the South J?a.starea are still operating at m&mom level.9and
so ~mximately 22% of female pnsoners are likely to be awommdati further than
100 rmles from their home area, creating not only difficnltles for visits, but the added
public em
of prisoners’ YLsItors’travellb cDsts
Clearly an sddittonal houseblock in the South Fast is mquired and by takmg into
acmmt local dcmarris on the prtson population, securrty and avtidity
of spaceIt was
constdered by HM Prison Setice that BulIwood Hail best met the cnterta This will
brmg the operatmg qmcrty of Bullwood Hall to 180 The Prison Service has stated in
wntmg that there are no plans to fur&hertirease the capactty at Bullwood Hall.
In corqnnct~onwti the addmonal spacesit was considered that a workshop would also
berequiredtomeetthedemandsofanltlcreasemthepopulationatBullwoodHal]and
this workshop IS shown on the plans as being of a smular design to the accommodahon
block
6.15 In all the circumstances, It is felt that there are ‘very special circmmtance8’ warranting such
developm+ntwitbm the Green Belt, thesebei the demonstratedneed for female prisoners in the
south East.
a-
l
6.16 Authority delegated to the Corporate Director (Servtca) mb~ect to exphy of the ate notice to
advise HM Prtson Serva that IH) obJectionsare raised by this Camal subject to the following
mnditions:
02 MATERIAL To BE USED - EXTERNALLY - SC14 (including security fez&
No development shalJ commence,before precfse detatls of the Qpe, Colour and Mam$acturer of
all external facing and roofing matenals tn be used m the mnstruaion of the accommcxlatton
block, new workshop and re-aligxd seamty fencz have been submitted to and approved in
writhgbytixLxalPlamnngAuthonty.
Suchrmtenalsasmaybeagr&mwmmgbytheLmal
Planning Autbonty, sbalI be used m the developmenthereby permtti.
03 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SC91
04 FOUL WATER DRAINAGE SC91
l
l
PAGE 19
1280
7
l
F/0286/98/ROC RAYLEIGH TOWN COUNCIL AREA
1 SILVER DALE RAYLEIGH
REMOVE PART OF HEDGE AND REPLACE WITH 2M HIGH SCREEN FENCE
COMPLIANCE
WITH
CONDITION
4
OF
APPLICATION
WOW
F/O515/%/ROC-)
ApplicaWMRSBAPWVISANDMRRMNORMAN
7 1 An appeal against nox-determmaUonhas been lodged m relation to thts propxal and It 1s likely
that1twlllbedealtwirhbylWns0fwrittenrepnxenmtl0ns.
7.2 Members’ news are sought on the tssuesset out herein, forming the basis of the Gxncil’s case at
appeal.
Plannlm A&ication Details
7.3 On 30th December 1996 planning permission WBSgramed for a side extemion (part two storey
and part single storey) and new vehic&r cc?ss to no 1 Sdverdale subject to various mndltions,
mcludmg that “The existmg hedgerow shown between pour&sA and B on the approved drawmg
no.2381/% shall hereafIer be retained and rut pm&, removed or otherwise reduced in height
withcut the pnor wntten agremxnt of the Local Plan&g Authortty” (condition a4). The reason
for thts mrxlitton was “To enable the Local Plannmg AuIhonty to secure the retention of the
hedgemw m the tierests of prot&ing pnvacy and amenity”. This mature hedgerow forms an
at~~natlrralscreen~eenthereargardenofthe~~sIteandthefrontgardenofn0.
156
Daws Heath Road.
7.4 The above extension has been built and the spplicants have fo& that the hedge does mt provide
snfficient pnvacy between their slmng room, dmtng room and lutchen and the front garden of no
156 Daws Heath Road and that persons dnvmg/walkmg along Daws Heath Road can look diiy
thongh the hedge. Thus, they would like to trim the hedge and erect a fence on its south+ast
de, 1.e. on the outside of the hedge line, in order to improve pnvacy.
l
l
7.5 OngmaJly offkm were under the impression from the bxfurmat~onsubrmtted that the proposal
involved removal of much of the hedge and its repll
with a fence Followmg a site
meeting (and a letter dated 6 October 1998 which was enclosedwith the appeal do-on)
it
was clearly establishedthat the mtention is to retam the h&e as far as possible ami erect a fence
82minlengthby2mmaximum
he&, retxwm&immmg only those parts of the hedge which tt
is essential to remove to phystcally allow for the fence to be erected In the COWS
tt is
cons&red that the pmposal should more accurately be. described as “Tnm hedgerow ti erect
fence (in compliance with condition 04 of application F/O515/%/ROC)”
PAGE 20
1
128
Relevant Planmna History
I 6 The only relevant planmng history is the Inspector’s commentsmrela0ontoanappealtichwas
allowed on 20 2 97 This relatfd to the original part two storq and part single storey stde
extension and new v&c&r accesspropoul (F/362/%/ROC) The Inspector stated that "Dmcd
vlslbllity from the new windows to the wmdows of 156 itself could be mu@olled by the
the
presmon
and enhmmment of the exi&ng intervemng hedge, acd by obsaua glm
proposed &zw bathroom window”. I am satisfied bati these safeguards could be provided by
applying appropriate mtitiom.” Accordmgly, m allowmg the appeal the Inspector imposed a
m&tion requiring the submission of a landscapmg scheme “mcl~g
arrangements for the
preservation and erhtmcment of the hedge along the boundary between the appeal sateand 156
Daws Heath Road”.
Consultations and Reuresentatlons
7.7 Raylelgh
Town
Council
has m
7.8 The County Surveyoriquki
(which 1sthe case)
mmmerrts on the application
the fence to be positioned clear of t& limits of the htghway
7.9 Following a detailed site imp&ion, the &u&l’s Wood&& and EMromnenfal Specialist hu
de&mined that the fence will have soze effects on the hedgerow. However provided the fence
Im follows that shown on the submitted plans and there 1s no change from the specificatmns
shown on the plans, then the effects will not be sermus and the hedge wtll survtve.
7.10 The ocmqmfs of 156 Daws Heath Road have st&d that they would be reluctant to 1~ the
greeneryoftheexistinghedge,andthatawoodenf~wouldbeahardfeaturetofaceandan
unusualfeahzzinafmntgardm
Theyarealsomncemedthatrernovalofanytree3/hezlgesmay
cause subsidmx The occupants of 177 Daws Heath Road, opposite the app& stie, have
submttd stmIlg ObJecdonsas the hedge forms an ahactIVe feature, a haven for wtkihfe, and is
particularly important as much gmznery has been removed m recenf years.
7 11 It should be noted that thcsc neighbours may well have bmn under the Mpression. like Officers
were or&ally, that much of the hedge was to be removed
Summary of Plannma colasideratlons
7 12 The mam mnstderation 1s whether the onghul reamm for hnpo&g the mnditmn to r&in the
hedge and not prune, remove u or reduce it m height (v&out pnor agreement of the Local
Planning Authority) wffl be prejudiced by thu proposal. The rezznu for the mrhittton bemg
attached were “to secure ret&on of the hedgerow m the interests of protecttng privacy and
am&y”. Also ~totablythe mnditton rctamed control by the Local Plauomg Authority, whtch we
are now able to exercise including allowmg appropriate worlcs
7.13 Fustly, it is consIderedthat privacy would be improved through the mtmduction of a more solid
screenbehmi the hedge.
7 14 Secomily, the mue of “amcntty” needs to be cmsidered Thts can of mursc mvolve many
Merest factors. In this partmlar caseU was mtemrledto refer particularly to the amenum of the
occupants of the application dwelling &elf and neighbcurmg properties in terms of pnvacy and
gmeral outlook The mtiihOn w,asnMa reflectum of the fact that the hedge forms an attractive
feabue in the street m
as, although this is the case, this was not sufficient justitication for the
hedge’s retenuon With the fence erec&l, the appellantsthemselveswill sttll be able to view the
hedge, as arlll the other n&bow
in Stierdale The omupauts of no. 156 Daws Heath Road
wlll be mat affected as much of the hedge would be obscured from view, apart from the upper
paas
l
l
7.15 The appellants have identtfied a mzd for more privacy and have followed the correct pro&ore
requti
by condition 04 on planrung pemussion F/O515/%/ROC. It 1s considered that the
ongmal reasonsfor imposttion of tlus condition wtll not be prejudiced by erwxtng a fcme xijacem
to the hedge and tmmung the hedge amxdiogly However, clanty is rquir& as tc exactly
whi&partsofthehedgewtibcaffe&d
TheappelJanthaxstatedthattluswtllnotbekmwn
until work begnu on erecting the fence Hence cm&ion 2 1srecommdtd to provide ti clarity
and Local Planning Authority control.
7.16 The Corporate Due&or (Servims) recommends that Munbers confirm the Comcii’s case a
appeal be based on the above report and any pemdssion granted includes the following mnditiom
Furthermore, the Corporate Duector (Servtces) be authorised to determux the apphcation for
approval as set out below should the appellants be pqared to wtthdraw the appeal subject to a
revised satisfadory descrrption of the applition.
OlTIMELIMlTSFULL-STDSCX
l
02 NON STANDARD CONDITION
Priortothetnmmingbackofanypaa~~~writtennoticeofsuchworlc4shallbe
given to the Lmal Planning Ationty (at least two weeks pnzvious to this operation camme&@
to enable a site rne&ng to take place wrth the Local Plannmg Authority’s
Speclalr.st/Officerto agree the pm&e amcunt of trimming back All such tmnmug b;tck shall be
camedoutinacu&9nmwithdxsagrez3mnt.
Wocdhd
l
PAGE 22
1284
-
1285
a
8. Fx)l75~8lROC PARISH OF PAGLESHAM
SHUTTLEWOODS BOATYARD WATERSIDE ROAD PAGLESHM
PONTOON - EXTENSION OF WSTlNG
APPLICATION F/O495/%/ROC)
JETTY (REVISED SUBMISSION FOLLOWING
Applmnt: PAGLFXIAM BOATYARD LTD
Zomg.
Metropolitan Green Be&, SSSI, Spcual LandscapeAm,
LandscapeImprovement Area
eDDlication Details
8.1 This site 1sknown as Shuttlewoods Boatyard and lies at the east end of Pagleshamsnd at the end
of Waterside Road on the western side of the River Roach at PagIeshamReach. It mmgnses a
long establishedboat yard wtth various baildings, areas for beat storage, handliq and repairs and
also has a slipway mto the river.
l
82
83
THIS spphcation seeks planning perrmssion for the c~~nstructionof a 5Omlong flmtmg pontoon
Jeay~asan~iontoanexistingtruncatedsohdjettyw~~proj~sorneUhnetres
into the river at the end of the boatyard It would consist of pontoon sec~om each 2 5m wide by
1Omin length. They would be securedto five 45Cmmdiameter piles drtven into the nverbed. The
jetty will terminate some 2Om from the line of the Neap Tide. It will afford a greater ease of
accesstotheboatyardacmsswiderstatesoftbettde
84
The spphcant describes the current function of the boatyard as qezahs~
andyachtsupto60feetinlengthand~mgmaonngslaldintheRiverRoach
that it provtdes fanlu1e.sfor yard based anl vismng craft
in cornmzial craft
Itisalsostated
Relevant Planning H&tm
0
8.5 The recorded plannmg history of this site coinmen- in 1949 when a temporary penmasion for
one year was granted for a store shed an3.Mouse under ROC/372/49 This pemussmn was
renewed on a yearly basis until 1958 when the permd was extended to three years and am&ted
to be renewed every three years ti
1976
was grauted under reference ROU64U73 for
8.6 Just prior to thu expiry outlme plammg -ion
the erectton of a boat building shed and conditionally subJed to beii personal to the applicant.
Application RQU537fl4 proposing the use of agrtcultural land as a vlsrtors car park and open
boat storage area was allowed cmappal m 1975 Planning pertmssion was grant0d to extend and
additlonsl ‘hard’ m&r Roc1678J74. Wm
of the s&s acceu road was permit&l tier
ROC/669/74.
87
l
Under ROC/lG07/76 permisston was grauted to use extsttng buildmgs as boathousesa& storage
of beat equipment. The constructton of a water gate through the sea wall was permrtted under
ROC/SCt7/78 and also m the sane yex under ROCX213178 perrmsston was granted for a
Klargester tank (sewagesystem).
PAGE 23
8.8 ROC%29/87 was approved for the contirmed use of the boat building shed permitted under
ROCY641f73but not sub@2 to the personal conrhtmn previously imposed. Planmng pen&ton
wa.3refused for the construction of a new qUay and pontoon pter and concmtmg over an exlstlng
hard under ROCIp29/88 Pernussion was also refused for the erection of a budding for boat
buildmg and repairs u&er ROC/620/89 but was then allowed on appeal
8.9 In 1996 plamung permission was refused m&r F/0495/% for the wnstmctlon of a pontoon jetty
and was dismk& on appeal. ti
current applicatmn for cons&muon Is for a s~gmficimtly
reduced pontoon m terms of Its length and extent
8 10 F’agbham F’arkh ComdI raced obJectionsto this application on the grounds that it will result
m mcreasedtraffic through the village and along tbz public right of way The use of the W yard
causesmbana
to the village and any worsening of that slhutton would be unacceptable.
8.11 Essex County CmmciI (County Surveyor) raise no objtions.
8.12 The Crouch Harbom Authority have M ObJectIonbut
obtamd from the Authority
that
a works hcence v&I need to be
8.13 Fnglkh Nature comment that although the area adjacentto the apphcation site has not yet been
deslgnatedas a Special Protection Area (SPA), listed as a RAM&&R site or acceptedas
A can&date for Special Area of Conservation (&AC) PFG9 advice statesthat where development
propctsaIsaffect them SPA’s and cSACs’ should be treafed m the same way as classified SPA’s
ad destgnated SACS. They state that these tidal mud and salt marsh are used by signifia
numbers of over wintermg wildfowl tihtding Brent Geese which occur m intematmnally
mrportant numbers on the Crouch and Rod estuaries. They cons&r that the effect upon on the
integrity of the she as a result of mcreased dumrbance may not be significant as there are not
manyrecreational~uslngtheestuaryatthatcrrucaltrmeofyearfromthebeginningof
December to the eml of February They also raise the of whether what 1s proposed will
affect tidal flows such that they might increaseerosion of the salt marsh, tidal mud and undermme
the sea wall. They advise to seek reassuraracef?om !he Environment Agency that this will not
happen. Fiiy
they would not ti
to see thu proposal set a precedent for further development
in the area whtch umld otkwtse lead to additional disturbmce.
8.14 The Eaviromnent Agency do not state any objtions to the proposal but do a&kc that the pnor
written consent of the Agezq is rquired for any worka or struchzcs in, under or over or whhm
9mofthetopoftheriverbsnk
Theyalsoadviseinresponsetothepoint~byEnglishNature
(re potentd for erosion etc) that as the pontoon is to be of a flm
type sawed to five poles
they do not consider that any adverse mrpact will result.
8.15 The Roach ti
and Fairwaya and Co-ation
Commitk express a number of reservations
about ti proposal but also state that they are net&r for or agamstthe proposal Their comments
are made m responseto the wntten mfomuuon m support of the application They pomt out that
the yard does not welcome vtsiting craft and a sign is d@ayed that effectrvely says that these
facdihes are for the yard’s customers only. They state that they have “an orkgomg action with”
the Comty Council Ymmse the yard 1sdenymg accessfor vls~tmgyachtsmen and other casual
nsltors to the yard” They make a duticQon between those pontoons smtable for landmg and
those smtable for mooring They consider that what IS proposed appears mot to be smtable for
mwring They consider that perrmsston for moormg would be dangerous. They b&c& that the
appli&
reference to Policy Ll of the Essex Structme Plan 1s irrelevant as the yard is for its
a own pnvate customers only They guery the general saf~kkquacy of the struchue m &verse
weathedhde comhttom They state that d planning pemussion is granted that a conditmn should
bermpasedthatthepublicbeallowedtousett
Theproposedjettyisnotsirmlartothoseother
exampIesquoted by tfne applicant as this proposal is not of adeqoatestrength to support moored
craft. They constdet that the pontoon should be restricted by u&&on to only allow boats to lay
alongs& for loading and unloadmg. The mnstruction should be of good quaky
a
l
8 16 The Head of Housing Health and Connnunity Care reiterates his views that related to the
previous larger proposal snd advtsesthe iqosttton of a condttton d&uhng the methti and tnnes
of con3ruction so as to mimmke thebqxictoftlWprocessonthesurmm&gsrea
8.17 Four letters of representattonhave been mcetved ObJecttugon the groumla of an mcreasem visus
by motor cruisers and theii added wash eroding the salhngs, an mcreasem polhthon, an increase
oftrafficmthevillage,thebalanceof~localecasys~wouldbeupset,aradthesitelsalleged
to be part of a comervatton ama.
Summarv of Phumin~!Considerations
8.18 The proposal to extend the extstmgBetty was, as can be seen from the htatory of the site, an tssue
prevmualy dealt wtth on appeal. The tssues listed below were those sinularly identified m that
appeal and are relevant therefore to the determmation of thrs applrcauon whtch represents a
smnlar but most stgmficantly r&cod scheme.
8.19 The mam planning issues material to the determmatmn of this application are ammnnised as
foIlows:
l
* Plannblg Policy;
* Effect on Vtsual Amernty;
*-lImpaa;
PLANNING POLICY
8.20 The applicauon site lies withm the Metropohtau Green Belt as deflned in Policy GBl of the
Rochford Distrid Local Plan First Review, in addmon Poltcies LTll and RC9 apply that give
priority to the protection of the rural ami undeveloped areas of the coastline ami inlets. Policy
LT12 relates to the pmvtsion of pontoons and nmormgs set against the need to retam the special
chamcter of the estuary. The srte also lies m a Special Iandaqe Area, Policy RC7, whtch
presumes against developmentunless its sitmg, design, materials and landscapmg accord wtth the
character of the area. In addition the site lies in a Sue of Spectal Scienttfic Interest, Pohcy RC3
(SSSI). The ate hes within the Roach Valley Nature Comervahon Zone, Pohcy RC5.
l
8 21 Policy GBl is applicable to new bmldmgs as well as to changes of use or extenstom of extshng
btuldmgs In the prevtous appeal decision that hqector conchided that the word “building” as set
out in the General Permitted Development Chder 1995 could apply to a pontcon Betty. That policy
states that one of the few categones of developmentthat is acceptable111the Green Belt 1ssmallscale factlities for recreamm. Thus the proposal must be vrewed in thu context and specifically m
the h&t of the preeedmg appeal where a much larger proposed pontoon was found not to be in
scale with its surroumimgs. However, in that de&on the inspector did not state that the prmcrple
ofapon03nwasanunacceptableone
Thatmspectorwssalsomhtdfulofaprecedtngappeal
dectston ml990 in which planning permission was granted for the erection of a bmldmg for boat
budding and repam, whn the yard itself. The rasue that featured in both those determuting
impectors’ muds was that of the scale of the proposals before them and thus the likely hnpact,
abea for two different types of development,
8 22 In the caseof the previous pontoon appltcatton the inspector inchtded the level of activity it might
generate as an aspectof ‘the s&e’ of the pmpoaala. As to the actual level of that activity he stated
that he had to consrder this issue in the absenceof any quanttfied view horn either the appellant or
the Local Planmng Autlmrny.
8 23 He neverthelessconcluded tbat as regards the size of the proposal, the hkely level of use, and that
the boatyard would be tmhhely to invest m that size of pontoon unless the acttvity it generatedwas
hkely to pay for its cost; that “there ta some doubt about whether the proposal ra small scale m
this respect”.
l
PAGE 25
r! fz 8 -
128
8.24 The proposal that now falls to be consider& ia, physically a much smaller scheme, mater&y
Merent from that drsmissedon appeal m term3 of its proposed extent The prevmua schane
would have been of such a size ti It would have offered accessto craft at all states of the tide
and would have e
a sigmficant nmnber of craft at any one tnne. It was to have
formed a large ‘T’ shape extending %metres out mto the river and with an addlhonal 8Ometr-e
long pontoon ~ctty at the end of It forming the end of the ‘T’.
l
825 Thislatestpropos~isforamuchshorter5(knetrefl~pontoonJettyexterrslon,Itwouldbean
extension to the existing ngid ~&y that lies alongside the existing wide concrete causeway that
rtms Parallel to it but also contitmes right out irrto the river to the line of the lowest risii h~gb
hde or ‘Neap Tide’ mark The proposed pontoon however would termmate almost 2Om from the
Neap Tide mark
8.26 Also about 25m out mto the river on the opposite side of the causeway are two large verhcal
umber frames forming a “saubbmg cradle” for craft to use between the ttdes This structure ia at
least 4m htgh above the riverbed and is folly exposeddung low tide.
8.27 This proposal would not therefore pmvide a permanent ‘wet’ moormg It would be almost aa
resulctedinits~astbecausewaybutprwsdea~~saferof~~~fromvisiting
craft. It 1s considered that this size of pontoon Betty mw ptq+zd 1s complementary to the
fmmionug of the w
rather than adding a new intrusive dimemion to ita activities. This
activity accords wtth the views expressedin
lunikd scale of both appemme ad likely wed
the prevtoos appeal In which casethts parhcular prval
does no+ conflict with the ObJectIvesof
Policy GBI
l
828ItisnotconsideredthattheintegntyofPolicyLT11willbec~mpromi~dasthenatore,scalea~l
me
of this proposal will not harm the nature mnservauon inter&a of the area NeKher will it
give nse to other policy contllcts tlor will tt iotenslfy act&y leadmg to congestion or contltcts of
use As a crnnpiementaryfacility It is not likely to compmmise exiatmg Bccessarrangements.
8.2‘3 As far as policy RC9 is ~czerned this proposal representadevelopmatt both appropriate to this
cmsthne location and to the existing lawful nse it will complement. Cor2wxprdy thts particular
proposal will rmt mmprormse the pmtection of the rural and undeveloped coastline and inlets.
8.30 Wtth regard to the objecbves of Pohcy LT12 there is 1~ evidence that at present there is regular
congestion of craft Should it me ti pontoon would help alleviate it rather than exacerbateit
The Crouch Harbour Authonty do not object< The avadability of mmrm~ at WaJlaseaIsland 1s
not relevant as the purpose of the pontoon 1s made clear by the applicant to provide safer and
easleraccesstoandfromthewaterfolcustomersof~boatyanl
TlteresponseoftheRonch
Area F & CC advises that In theu mns&‘ed and &epe&nt
opmion the speclfcation of the
pontoon proposed is rut suu
enough to support moored craft. In any event dza aspect can
be cmtrolld by cotition.
EFFECI ON VISUAL AMENITY
831 Asregardsthe~issue,thatoftbr:liLelyeffectonvlsual~~,athightideit~llstillbe
seen m mnjmztion and clase pmxumty wtth thz concrete causeway and scrubbing tower cradle
The flat low profile of the pontoon will lte close to the surface of the water Therefore thrs very
lmuted impad mut be mnsldered in the light of those Local Plan Pohcles that were also pertinent
at the ttme of the previous appeal
8 32 In psrttcular Pohcy RC7 concerns &self wtth the pmtedlon of Special Lamlscape Areas arad
presumes agam~ any development unless its l&on,
siting, design and materials w111accord
with the charauer of the area It ia mnaldered that thu pontoon wfi not 0mflict wtth those
ObJectiVeS
-<
-
1283 PAGE 26
l
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT a
8 33 The site lies within a Site of Special Scientific Imerest (SSSI). NotwahstaDding the SSSI status, in
their wnsultahon rqonse English Nature msed two key issues relating to this proposal Firstly
they raised that of whether there would be any adverse physical effect upon the nntdflats and
riverbed arismg from the presence of the pontoon 111the t&l flow and the means by whtch it
would be anchored Secondly they ratsed the issue of d&ubame to the over-whttermg bird
pqulat10ns by hlmm amity at a crucial time of year.
8 34 With regard to the tirst issue, the Envhomnent Agency were re-conntlted on thrs specific pomt
aml they have confirmed that in theii option the presenceof five 45Gmmdiameter secmdngp&es
spa&d at 1Chnintervals wilt not have an adversenor an appreciable effect on the tidal movement
over the riverbed hkewlse UE shallow profile of the pontoons themselves will have no
apprectable effect on the ndal flow itself
8 35 The second me of the critical time penod has been dtscussed with English Nature in
umsultatton, and it is apparent that the over-wmtermg pencd for wildfowl runs from the
be~of~m~rtotheendofFebruary.Thisaaperiodoftimeinw~chl~re~ngis
lowest and probably non-extstent due to wmter we&her and adversesea conditions. On &LB basis
the concems relatmg to wild fowl are aflevrated and m any event the nature of thts proposed
pontoon 1s only to improve facilities for existmg customers of the boatyard. On this basts the
~inelevelofusethatmayexistatthistvneofy~~beunaffectedandassuchisalreadya
long establishedpart of the envnonmemal charac& of the area.
8.36 Fmally on the basis of the preceding pamgraphs it 18 considered that this proposal does not
wr!&t
With the ObJecthreS OfPOhQ'
RC5 Which SB?h to r&St devdopment
p@ldlCd
to the
retention and mansgementof urrportant wtldltfe habnats
Recommendation
8.37 The Corporate Director (Services) rexommerndsthat thrs applicatton be approved subject to the
condmon headsset out below
01 TIME LJhiIT.%FuLLS-TD SC4
The pontoon jetty hereby approved shah at no tlrne at all be uxd for the permanent moormg of
letsure craft, houseboatsor commercial craft.
0
No constructron of, or maintenance/repair work on the pontoon jetty hereby approved shah be
wned out between 1st December and the 1st Match.
No construction of, or mamtenance/repanwork on any craft berthed at the pontoon jetty hereby
approved shah be carrid out between 1st -alxithe1stMarcil.
The use of the pontcon jetty hereby approved shah be restricted to only customers of the boatyard
gaming accessto its facihties/servrces
PAGE 27 ’
c
0
4
.
/
-/,
i’#
DELEGATED
l
F’MNNING DECISIONS - 29TH OCTOBER 198
I have decided the followmg aqplicaUonsm aaxrdaw
AD/o379/98/Roc
w&h the polmy of delegation.
APPROVE
73 EASTWOOD ROAD RAYLE$GH
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGN
COUNTRYSIDE ESTATES
F/0198/98/ROC APPROVJX
43 OAK WALKHOCKLBY
ERECT SINGLE STOREY FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS
‘IO
EXISTING
VEHICULAR
ACCESS
SUBMISSION
FOLLGWING
(REVISED
APPLICATION F/O612/97/ROC)
MR & MRS O’RIORDAN
0
F/o229/98iROC APPROVE
39 DOWNHALL ROAD RAYLEIGH
ERECTCHIMNEY
MRGKHARRIS
F/O234/98iRGC APPROVE
hiURRELS HALL BLOUNTSWOOD ROAD HULLBRIDGE
GROUND FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION (GARAGE)
MRHURLBY
F/G243/98/RCC APPRCMX
14 BARLJNG ROAD GREAT WAI(ERING
DEMOLISH EXISTING BUNGALOW AND ERECf 4-BED CHALET AND DETACHED
GARAGE
SUBMISSION
DOUBLE
AND
mRJ3
(REVISED
FOLLOWING
APPLICATION F/oO81/97/ROC)
MR R SHORf
F/O281/98/RGC APPROVE
23 STATION CRESCENT RAYLEIGH
TWO Sx)REY SIDE EKTENSION INCLUDfNG
ROOF AND DORMBRS TO FRONT AND REAR
MRS BARWICK
l
CONVERSION OF HIP TO HALF HII’
F/O295/98tROC APPROVE
19 NELSON ROAD RAYLEIGH
GROUND FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION
MRANDMRSCOLE
F/02%/98/ROC AI’FROVJt
2 SHERIDAN CLOSE RAYLEIGH
FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
CJCTHOMAS
F/0323/98iROC APPROVF,
215 WMWICK ROAD RAYLEIGH
ERECT TWO STOREY SIDE AND SINGLE S’I0REY REAR FXTENSION
OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF. F/O134/93fROC)
MR P BFXIDRELLI
l
PAGE
1
(RENEWAL
F/O384/98iROC APF’RGVE
CRANFORD CHURCH ROAD HOCKLEY
ATTACHED
GARAGE
(REWED
PERMISSION REP F/o464/%iROQ
APPLICATION
FOLLOWING
PLANNING
hfRGSlMRAY
l
F/O390/98/ROC APPROVE
38 OAK WALK HOCKLEY
ERECT TWO S’lDREY SIDE EXTENSION WITH OPEN-SIDED SINGLE
STORN
PROJECTTON TO BOUNDARY AND FLAT ROOF SINGLE GARAGE TO FRONT,
FRONT AND REAR DORMER WINDOWS (REVISED APPLICATION FOLLOWING
F/OC98/97/ROC)
MRANDMRSABOWEN
F/03%/98/ROC APPROVE
1 CREEKSEA FERRY ROAD WALLASEA ISLAND
DEMOLISH EXISTING DWELLING AND GARAGE. ERECT 3-BED BUNGALGW
D COOKSON
F/f?4l3/98fROC APPROVE
29 MlLTON HALL CLOSE GREAT WAKERING
FENCE ‘l-0 REAR BOUNDARY (WITHOUT COhfFU4NCE
ERECT SCREEN Pm
WITH CONDITION 4 OF PLANNING PERMISSION RF& F/o429/9S/ROC)
DJ&BEHBATH
0
FI0404l98/ROC REFUSE
191 RECTORY AVENUE ROCHFORD
CONVERT GARAGE FLOORSPACE M HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION.
MR&MRSTURNER
01
WOULD LEAD TO VEHICLES PARKING ON THE HIGHWAY To THE DETRIMENT OF
OTHER ROAD USERS
116 ALEXANDRA ROAD GREAT WAKERING
ENCLOSE FRONTAGE WITH IM HIGH FENCE
COLIN GORDON
F/C409/98/ROC APPROVE
123 BURNHAM ROAD HULLBRIDGE
GROUND FLOOR FRONT, SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION
MRANDMRSBURRELL
20 GLADSTONE ROAD HOCKLEY
ERECT TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION CONSTRUCT NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS
P JOBEY
F/0423/98/ROC APPROVR
LONGVIEW THE ESPLANADE HULLBRIDGE
TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION, CANOPY ROOF ‘JU FRONT WITH BALCONY OVER
MR&MRSCOE
PAGE 2
1293
l
I
F/C425/98/RGC APPROVE
14 HAMJL’IGN GARDENS HOCKLEY
ERECT 4-BED DETACHED HOUSE
EXISTING BUNGALOW)
s CGrIluLL
WITH
INTEGRAL
GARAGE
(DEMOLISH
F/@426/98iROCAPPROVE
99 FOLLY LANE HOCKLEY
GROUND FLGOR REAR EXTENSION (CONSERVATORY/SUN LOUNGE)
MRRHAND
8
F/O429/98/ROC RETUSE
3 HAVENSIDE LlTTLE WAKERTNG
GROUND FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION (WC AND CARPORT)
MR A GOODWIN
01
THE PROPOSAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE OF AN INAPPROPRIATE DESIGN, WHICH
WOULD APPEAR AS A VISUALLY DOMINANT FIXTURE IN THE STREET SCENE AND
OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE DWELLING AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.
02
GOULD BE DIFFICULT TO USE THE CARFORT WITHOUT CREATING CONDITIONS
OF DANGER To PEDESTRIANS AND OTHER ROAD USERS.
1 BRGCKSFORD AVENUE RAYLEIGH
GROUND FLOOR SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS
MR S TAYLOR
F/o432/98/ROC APPROVE
36 MORNINCiION AVENUE RCCHFORD
ERECT GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION (DEMOLISH EXISTING KITCHEN
GARAGE)
MR I J McTAGGART
l
AND
F/O434/98lROC REFUSE
17 MOUNT AVENUE RAYLEIGH
EXTENSIONS
TG ROOF INCLUDING HIP ‘ID GABLE AND FLAT ROOFED REAR
DORMER.
S CHAICXON
01
WOULD UNDERMINE THE SYMMETRY OF THE PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED PROPERTIES
PRODUCING AN UNACCEI’TABLE AND INCONGRUOUS VISUAL INTRUSION ‘IO THE
STREET SCENE WOULD CREATE A PRECEDENT
F/O435/98/RGC APPROW
11 THE ACORNS HOCKLEY
ADD
PITCH ROOF To EXISTJ.NG SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS
ROOMS IN ROOF AND SIDE EXTENSION
MRMHARSENT
F/o438/98/ROC APPROVE
56 STAMBRIDGE ROAD ROCHFORD
GROUND FLGOR REAR EXTENSION
MRSVWmN
To
CREATE
F/o441/98/ROC AFFROVE
ROCHFGRD HOSPITAL DALYS ROAD RGCHFORD
REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW &FORMFIREESCAPEDGOR
‘WORLD’ GROUP CENTRE.
SPRINGBOARD HOUSING ASSOC LTD
WJTH
RAJ@S
‘JG
F/0444/98iRGC AFPROVE
LAND RKYLBIGH STNfI’HE APPROACWHATFIELD ROAD RAYLBIGH
SUBSTITUTION OF HOUSE TYPES TO PLOTS 12, 13, 14 &
AF’PROVED UNDER APPLICATION REF FlO302/9liRGq
MCALPINE HOMES EAST LTD
18
(PREVIOUSLY
F/0452/98iROC AI’PROVE
26 MEADOW WAY HOCKLEY
ERECT TWO PITCHED ROOF DORMER WINDOW EXTENSIONS
FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION WITH SIDE FACING DORMER
MR J NEWBOLD
‘IO
FRONT
AND
F/C455/9S/ROC ATTROVE
MARK 1 HIRE LTD PURDEYS WAY ROCHFGRD
TWO SMREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS ‘IU PRCJVLDENEW WORKSHOP
ADDITIONAL STORAGE FLGORSPACE
MARKlHIRELTD
AND
FI@%O198/ROCAFPROVE
14 DUCKETTS MEAD CANEWDGN
ERECT TWO SXXEY AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS
To ROOF TO PROVIDE TWO DORMER WINDOWS ‘JO REAR
mEVISION ‘IO
APPLICATION REF F/O280/97/ROCj
PETER LUNN
FlO46U98iRGC REFUSE
FORMER BOILER HOUSE, ROCHFORD HOSPITAL DALYS ROAD ROCHFORD
INSTALL 3 X 6OOMM MICROWAVE DISHES ‘IV EXTERNAL PLANT ROOM WMLS,
AND 6 EQUIPMENT
6 SECTOR ANTENNAE
ON POLES ABUTI-ING CHIMNEY
CABINS (REVISED APPLICATION)
ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATJON SERVICES
01
WOULD PRODUCE AN ALIEN AND INCONGRUOUS APPARATUS AT A HEIGHT VISIBLE
FROMAWIDEAREA’IDTHEDETRJME
NT OF VISUAL AMENITY. WOULD IMPAIR THE
SETTJNG OF A LISTED BUILDING.
F/O461/98/RK APPROVJZ
38 HILLTOP AVENUE HULLBRIDGE
ERECT THREE DETACHED 4-BED HOUSES (DEMOLSH EXISTING BUNGALGW)
A HAWKRIDGE
F/O469/98/ROC AFFROVE
108 FERRY ROAD HULLBRJDGE
GROUND FLGOR REAR EXTENSION
MRANDMRSSBUNN
F/O470/98/RGC AF’PROVE
19 ST THOMAS’ROAD SOUTH FAMBRJDGE
FT&ST FLOOR RBAR EXTENSION
D NEAVE
PAGE
4
l
l
l
F/o475/98/ROC AFFROVE
46 MARYLANDS AVBNUE HOCKLEY
TWO S’IDREY SIDE EXTENSION AND DETACHED GARAGE
MRANDMRSJUDE
F/@477/98/RGCAFF’ROVE
8 UPWAY RAYLEIGH
GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
MR K V O’CONNOR
Fl0478l98iROC APPROVE
116 MAIN ROAD HAWKWELL
CONSTRUCT VEHICULAR ACCESS
MRBFTNCH
F/0481/98iROC AF’PROVE
COMPASS ROSE WATERSIDE ROAD PAGLESHAM
ERECT DETACHED GARAGE
WILLIAM BAILES
l
F/o483/98/RGC AF’PRGVE
9 THE TRUNNIONS ROCHFORD
cow
PART OF EXISTING
GARAGE FLOORSPACE
To
HABITABLE
ACCOMMODATION
@lTHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 4 OF PLANNING
PERMISSION REF. ROC/62/82/8)
MRANDMRSGFHOWLETT
F/C489/98iROC AF’PROVE
27 MILTON HALL CLOSE GREAT WAKFRING
ERECT SCREEN PERIMETER FBNCE To REAR BOUNDARY (WITHOUT CGMPLIANCE
WITH CONDiTION 4 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF. F/O429/95iTiOC)
MR D P FITZGERALD
511 ASHINGDON ROAD ASHlNGDON
CHANGE USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM SHOP TO FLAT AND
FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
TURNER BROS (ROCHFORD)
l
F/O493/98iRGC APPROVE
7 CHELMER AVENUE RAYLEIGH
ROOF EXTENSIONS INCLUDING HIP To GABLE AND REAR
FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
MRANDMRSLAWS
ERECT
WRMER.
GROUND
GROUND
I
I
F/@@4/98/ROCREFUSE
17 HEYCROFT ROAD HAWKWELL
FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION (SUPPORTED ON COLUMNS) AND DORMER
EXISTING SIDE FACING ROOFSLOPE
MRANDMRSTOLEMAN
TO
:OULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE AMENTI’IES OF THE GCCUPJERS OF THE
NEIGHBGURING DWELLING, CONTRARY To POLICY
02
THE BLJND DORMER PROTECTION WOULD APPEAR INCONGRUOUS AND WOULD
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE APPARENT SBPARATION BETWEEN THIS AND THE
NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY WOULD CREATE A PRECEDENT.
PAGE 5
F/O4%/98/ROC AFTROVE
18 ALEXANDRJA DRIVE RAYLEIGH
GROUND FLGOR REAR EXTBNSION
E WILLIAMSON
F/O499/98/RGC APPROVE
23 MONKSFORD DRIVE HULLBRIDGE
FORMATION OF ROOMS IN ROOFSPACBWITH DORMER TO REAR.
MR&MRSBERRY
F/0506/98/ROC AI’F’ROVE
35 STATION AVENUE RAYLEIGH
GROUND FLOOR FRONT EXTENSION (PORCH)
PETER JOHN BAINES
89 DOWNHALL ROAD RAYLEIGH
ERECT TWO STOREY SIDE AND FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSIONS
MRANDMRSKING
F/05171?38ROCAPPROVE
24 WOGDSTOCK CRESCENT HOCKLEY
RETAIN GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION (CONSERVATORY)
MRSMLTOGVEY
183 EASTWOOD ROAD RAYLEIGH
ERECT TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION AND GROUND FTOOR REAR EXTENSION
WT&ASWONG
LB/O360/98/ROC GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
56 HJGH ROAD HOCKLN
REPAIRS. ALTERATIONS AND REPLACEMENT DETAILS INCLUDING FRONT
PI’EH
ROW WINDOWS, REAR WJNDGW, REAR FLAT ROOF, END WALL
RAINWATER GOODS
MRMJHUGHES
LB/Ckl42/98/ROC APPROVE
ROCHFORD HOSPITAL DALYS ROAD RGCHFORD
REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW & FGRM FIRE ESCAFE DOOR
‘WORLD’ GROUP CFNTRE
SPRINGBOARD HOUSING ASSOC LTD
WITH
RAMPS
AND
‘IO
LBKi463/98/ROC REFUSE
FORMER BOILER HOUSE, RGCHFORD HOSPITAL DALYS ROAD RGCHFGRD
INSTALL 3 X 6ooMM MICROWAVE DISHES To EXTERNAL PLANT ROOM W&L&
6 SECTOR ANTENNAE
ON POLES AEWITNG CZHIMNEYAND6EQUIPMENT
CABIN.5 (REVISED AF’PLICATTON)
ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES
:OULD PRODUCE AN ALIEN AND INCONGRUOUS APPARATUS AT A HEIGHT VISIBLE
FROM A WfDE AREA ‘IO THE DETRIMENT OF VISUAL AMENITY WOULD IMPAIR THE
SETTING OF A LISTED BUILDING
. 1297
PAGE 6
I
a
l
LB/0480/98/ROC APF’ROVE
KINGS HEAD PH WEST STREET ROCHFORD
DISPLAY 3 NON-ILLUMINATED
PAINTED
ILLUMINATED PAINTED HANGING SIGNS.
SHEPHERD NEAME LTD
BOARD
SIGNS
AND
2
LDC/O3=41/98iROCLKhVFtK DEV CFXT APP APPROVED
26 WBLLING’ION ROAD RAYLEIGH
ESTABLISH LAWFULNESS OF PROPOSED USE OF A GROUND FLOOR ROOM
EMPLOYMENT PURPOSES (PLACEMENT OF NANNY/NURSERY NURSES)
MRANDMRSPDSAWYER
OUo279/98iROC APPROVE
LAND ADJ 36 HOCKLEY ROAD RAYLEIGH
OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR DETACHED BUNGALOW AND DETACHED GARAGE
FRONT
MRS EM STRATFORD
l
OL/Ck@O/98iROCREpuSE
WE?STVIEWCHURCH ROAD HMKLEY
OUTLINE
APPLICATION
‘ITI USE L4ND
FOR RESIDENTIAL
(DEMOLISH FXISTING DWBLLING)
MRDBALL
01
i&cEsSIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE MlXROpOLITAN GREEN BELT
NON-
FOR
To
DEVELOPMENT
l
l
PAGE
7
129
l
DELEGATED
BUILDING
REGULATIONS
DECISIONS APPROVALS 2gm October 1998
Plan Number
AddlWS
D~lilJtiOU
BR 98i331
LOIlgVleW
TIMEsphllade
Two Storey Extension at Side
Hullbridge
l
BR 98i384
66, Hsnmmi Avenue
Rochford
Flat Roofed Kitchen Ex&nsbn
BR 98/401
4, SheridanClose
RayleIgh
First Floor Fxtension Ova
Existing Ground Floor
EXblSlOn
BR 98?390
130, WarwickRcad
Rayleigh
Room in Roof
BR 98n89
90,FWM
Hullbndge
Extension to Shop
BR 9$375
14, Rectory Road
Rochford
Extension & Altembom
BR 97?489A
4, Bn&vorth Close
Hockley
Two Sbrey Side Fx&ns~on
Recon.&&ion of Smgle Stm-ey
Rear Extenxon
BR 98(400
l
BR 98I153A
162-168, High Street
Rayleigh
Altaatxons to Of&e & Sales
countm
BR 98/402
96, Victoria Averme
Rayleigh
Demolition of Dwellmg and
Erection of Bungalow
BR 98/391
9, Imcester Avenue
Rochford
ErectRear B&mom Extension
BR 98l418
8, Brookside Averme
GTeatwakerlng
Convert Integral Garagemto
Habitable Accommcdat~on
BR 98i182A
160,Hghstreet
Rayleigh
Creation of SepamteShop Umt
wr!h Vacated FIQIIIFloor
counterh
BR 98/408
site of wrington
HilLside Road
F!astwocd
Fkstion of Five Detached
Houses
BR 98/414
vacant site
Fronbng Dalys Road/
Pollal?isClos
PlcJb 1-7, Pollards Close
7 No 3 Storey Houses
l
l
DELEGATED
BUILDING
REGULATIONS
DECISIONS
REJECTIONS
29’ October1998
Address
Descriotion
BR 98/385
7-8, Fleethall Road
PmdeysIndustrial Est.
Rochford
Extemon to Emsting Offices
BR 98/379
Plots 19-‘25 Glencrofts
White Hart Lane
Hawkwell
Erect of Four No New Houses
BR 981378
3,
Tyrelk
HoCkley
New
BR 981377
226,
Ashingdon Road
Ashingdon
Rear Extension
BR 981373
Heavylift Enginming
SouthendAirport
ProposedRaised StoragePlatfom
BR 98/371
Plots 1 & 2, Bardfield Way Pair of Sm-Detach4
Houses
Rayl+$
BR 98i370
7, Chebner
Plan
l
Number
a
2”d Storey Acmmmodakion
Over Existmg AttachedHipRoofed GarageandNew Garage
Porch
Avenue
Loft Conversion& RearExtension
Rayleigh
BR 981347
Oxford Road
Rochford
58,
Extension Al-on
Roof
to Rooms III
1301