Leigh Ward

SOS/06/01242/FUL (Application for full planning permission)

ERECT  PART  SEVEN,  PART  EIGHT,  PART  NINE  AND  PART  TEN-STOREY BUILDING  COMPRISING  COMMUNITY  FACILITIES  TO  GROUND  AND  PART OF  FIRST  FLOOR,  OFFICES  TO  FIRST  FLOOR  AND  24  FLATS  ON  UPPER  FLOORS  WITH  TERRACES,  LAY  OUT  CAR  PARKING  SPACES, CYCLE  STORAGE  AND  REFUSE  STORAGE  AT  BASEMENT  AND  LOWER  BASEMENT  LEVELS,  LAY  OUT  LANDSCAPING  AND  AMENITY  TERRACE AND  WIDEN  VEHICULAR  ACCESS  ONTO  RECTORY  GROVE

87 Rectory Grove, Leigh-on-Sea

New Town Builders Ltd trading as Beaumont Homes         Planware Ltd

 

1          The Proposal

1.1       This is a full application for the redevelopment of this recently cleared site with a contemporary development for a combination of community use, offices and flats, as follows:

 

31 Resident’s parking spaces (129%) and 16 non-residential parking spaces (community space (10), office (2), short stay users (4))

On the ground floor will be a public foyer, reception, lobby, hall and ancillary kitchen, together with a foyer and lobby for the residential part. Also at this level will be external landscaped resident’s amenity space (216m²), breakout areas for the hall, a courtyard and a bin collection area, a plaza at the front with seating and public art, and the ramp down to the car park, with widened vehicular access to Rectory Grove;

At first floor level are proposed two meeting rooms, with associated lobby and office, and a large, flexible, office space;

The remaining floors comprise 24 flats –

2nd floor            4 x 2 bed, all with terraces (no views eastwards) and also a screened amenity terrace to the east side, of 120m2;

3rd-6th floors     4 x 2 bed (total 16 x 2 bed), with individual terraces as on 2nd floor;

7th floor            3 x 2 bed, with terraces, the rear flat having a large southern terrace (approx 70m2);

8th & 9th floors   3 bed penthouse duplex, with 3 large south facing terraces.

1.2       The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement which identifies the general principle of the development to “…express a rich contextual understanding through an expressive form of architecture; provide a well designed building of quality, a series of spaces providing a mix of activity that forms a recognisable public space; provide a community facility that is flexible, adaptable and functional; allow a holistic approach, making a highly visible contribution to the quality and vitality of an urban setting.”

1.4       A planning statement has also been provided which notes: “It is intended that the community facility will be gifted to a suitable body for a 99 year lease- this will allow a non-profitable facility to be available to the community.  The hall is 9% smaller than the original hall – the reduction is due to more efficient use of space making for a more useable long-term facility.”

1.5       A travel plan/travel assessment has been included, which concludes that the impact on the local highway network will be minimal, the development is considered acceptable in terms of transport policy and road safety and that a Travel Plan would be useful for residents, employees and visitors.

1.6       Other documents that have been submitted to support the application include: a massing study drawing showing the proposal in context; natural daylight/shadowing studies; a drawing showing ‘cones of visibility’, showing views out from St Clements Court to the east, and from the development; a site stability report; and section drawings;.

2          Location and Description

2.1       This is a cleared, vacant site previously the site of a community hall.  The surrounding area is mainly commercial in use, with a mix of shops, public buildings, car related uses, surgeries and eating establishments to the west and east.

2.3       The areas to the north and south comprise mainly dwellings, of differing styles, ages and sizes, also with varying plot sizes. The flats at St Clements Court and St Clements Court East (12 storeys) lie to the east of the site and are substantial multi storey blocks, dominating the local skyline.

2.4       The land slopes down, away from the site - gently to the north, whereas the gradient of slope is considerably more marked to the south. As a result, the gardens of properties to the rear (south) have steeply sloping rear gardens abutting the rear boundary. Land locally is identified as unstable, although records indicate the site itself is outside the unstable zone.

2.5       The land to the south and to the east beyond St Clements Court East lies within the Leigh Conservation Area, however the site itself is outside the conservation area. The Leigh library, east of St Clements Court East, is a Grade II listed building.

3          Development Plan

3.1       ESRSP Policies BE1 - Urban Intensification, BE2 - Mixed Use Developments, CS1 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Regeneration, CS2 - Protecting the Natural and Built Environment, CS3 - Encouraging Economic Success, CS4 - Sustainable New Development, HC2 - Conservation Areas, H2 - Housing Development - The Sequential Approach, H3 - Location of Residential Development, H4 - Development Form of New Residential Developments, H5 - Affordable Housing, T6 - Walking and Cycling, T12 - Vehicle Parking.

3.2       BLP Policies C4 (Conservation Areas), C11 (New Buildings, Extensions and Alterations),  H5 (Residential Design and Layout Considerations), H7 (The Formation of Self-Contained Flats), E3 (Secondary Offices), E5 (Non-Residential Uses Located Close to Housing), U2 (Pollution Control), U10 (Provision of Other Community Facilities), T8 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety), T11 (Parking Standards), T13 (Cycling and Walking)

3.3       Southend on Sea Design and Townscape Guide (SPD).

3.4       Emerging Core Strategy (DPD1).

4        Planning History

4.1       None relevant.

5        External Consultation

5.1              Essex County Fire and Rescue – Additional water supplies for firefighting may be required.

5.2              Southend Airport – No material impact on operations

5.3              Leigh Town Council – Oppose, contrary to Policy C11, not satisfactory relationship re scale, form, massing, height, elevational design and materials. Too high and dominant, too close to St Clements Court. Design dominates views from all sides. Contrary to ESRSP BE1 and BLP H5, not respecting residential amenities and character of area. Overlooks properties in rectory Grove, Broadway West, and Leigh Park Road. Overshadows and causes loss of light. Contrary to T8 – additional traffic in congested area, adversely affecting highway. Create additional parking need. Concerns re subsidence and refuse collection/storage.

5.4              Environment Agency – To be reported

6        Internal Consultation

6.1              Structural engineer – no adverse observations at this stage - full structural calculations required at b. regs stage

6.2       Highway Comment – no objections. Care needs to be taken with design of car ramp wing walls, to ensure that sight lines at back of footway are not obstructed. Highway engineers would like to be involved in the development of the Travel Plan. They consider the conclusions of the Transport Statement are reasonable.

6.3  Design comment – to be reported

6.4  Environmental Health comment – to be reported

7        Publicity

7.1       Councillor Crystall considers that the prominence of the application site and the scale of development means that careful consideration should be given to the proposal by the DC Committee in terms of impact on the skyline and conservation area, and potential impact on neighbours and the character of the area in general.

7.2       Press and site notice and neighbour notification – 4 letters of support, one from the Leigh St. Clements Hall trust, who have a draft 99 year lease for the new facility; 137 letters of objection on the following grounds:

·        Welcome community hall and shared facilities

·        Cliffs unstable

·        Loss of light and sunlight

·        Impact on character of conservation area from modern building

·        Extra traffic – parking problems locally and road safety issues

·        Will cause overlooking

·        Noise nuisance from hall in evenings and from amenity terraces

·        Enough halls locally

·        Loss of privacy and outlook - too close to St Clements Court

·        Inadequate parking

·        Question need for offices

·        Doesn’t give affordable family dwellings

·        Add to overcrowded area

·        Infrastructure unable to cope.

·        Building overscaled and height not appropriate

·        Contravenes Policies C4, C11, H5, T8 and ESRSP BE1

·        Loss of public views

·        Will dwarf adjacent building

·        Exit will cause problems for westbound traffic and development will cause more congestion

·        Not a good relationship re: form, scale, massing, height, elevational design and materials

·        External materials not sympathetic with neighbouring development and will deteriorate

·        St Clements Court and St Clements Court East should not be taken as precedent for high blocks

·        Subsidence concerns

·        Gradient of garden on Leigh Park Road is steeper than shown

·        Noise from cooling equipment

·        Building acceptable but not here

·        Too large for site

·        Too many units

·        Fumes from underground car park

·        Daylight studies only cover 9am-3pm

·        Loss of light to bowling club

·        Overdevelopment

·        Overwhelms St Clements Court West

·        Will have a claustrophobic effect

7.3       The Leigh Society was not formally consulted because the site lies outside the conservation area. However, they object for the following reasons - Building interesting and innovative but of such scale, height and massing that impact conservation interests and views from estuary and cause harm to setting of Leigh. St Clements Court towers not precedent, detrimental to townscape and amenity.  Enough dwellings permitted locally so no justification. Overdevelopment and materials will degenerate. Will over-dominate and overshadow surrounding area

8        Appraisal

8.1              The main issues to be considered here are:

·        The principle of mixed use development;

·        Impact on character and appearance of the locality and nearby Conservation Area

·        impact on the nearby Listed Building;

·        The design and visual impact of the proposal on the streetscene;

·        Impact on residential amenities;

·        Highway, parking, cycling and traffic/access issues;

·        Land stability considerations;

·        The need for provision of education and other community facilities;

·        Amenity space and refuse storage provision;

·        Affordable housing;

·        Consideration of potential for development of adjoining site;

·        Other issues raised by objectors.

8.2              The mixed uses proposed include the offer of a community facility to accord with Policy U10.  With limited opportunities locally for the re-provision of a community hall, the most appropriate option seems to be to incorporate it into a wider scheme.  The flexible spaces proposed would move the facility forward into the C21st and the facility would serve the catchment area that the old hall used to. With a user already on board, it is clear that there remains a need for this kind of facility and that it is viable.  The community space is smaller than the previous facility but offers a much better facility, more likely to be used frequently.  The ‘loss’ of 50m² of space is therefore not considered to be fatal to this application, although technically contrary to U10.  The outside space would be attractive and would extend the available space during better weather. The office spaces proposed act as a good small business opportunity within this commercial area, where the provision of new office space has been extremely limited recently and the residential uses proposed do not conflict with policy aims.  Mixed uses are commended by Central Government and a much more inclusive and sustainable option.

8.3              The proposed uses that differ from what was previously on site are the offices and residential.  The community facility would invariably be used more extensively than previously due to its modern and flexible nature, but the site was unrestricted previously and could thus have been used more widely – this aspect is therefore not considered to be problematic. Offices are, by nature, low-noise-generators, falling usually within class B1 which is a use class that is capable of being carried out within residential areas.  This is a mostly commercial frontage, where residents will be aware of the general activity during the day and night, and would have the option of not purchasing a property there if they did not wish for such activity.  The offices are close to the St Clements Court flats but the use is not felt to be problematic in itself, subject to appropriate conditions.

8.4              In terms of the visual impact of the development, careful consideration must be given to the prevailing character and appearance of the locality and it is important that any development is contextual with its surroundings.  The proposal involves the construction of a substantial building, having a large footprint which takes up a high proportion of the area available on this site of restricted size. 

8.5              The proposed building is unashamedly modern in its design approach and the architecture, in itself, is not considered objectionable.  The design is clearly different from anything around it, and higher than all but St Clements Court East. With modern architectural ideas, there are going to be increasing challenges on convention, but it is important not to remain in the past with design, and sites such as this, on the edge of the commercial area, with iconic pieces of architecture, could be developed to set the benchmark for future similarly important sites and should therefore not be dismissed out of hand.  However, an important part of good design is taking account of context and the spatial quality of an area. 

8.6              In this case, whilst the existing tall structures on the adjacent site are not considered exceptional in terms of their architectural composition, they do benefit from being appropriately spaced such that from most angles they are ‘read’ as separate entities.  The proposed development the subject of this application would be located in very close proximity to St Clements Court and, as a result of its footprint and bulk would not be seen as a separate standalone piece of architecture within its own clear setting, rather it is considered it would add to the prominence of the adjoining block and would dominate the skyline.  Whilst this approach may be appropriate within a different context, for example on the seafront, it is felt that despite the clear attempts made by the architect to create a novel and interesting building, the building would not sit will within its context and would be unduly visually prominent, as the result of its bulk and scale, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area and to views into and out of the adjacent conservation area.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policies BE1, CS2 and HC2 of the Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Structure Plan and to Policies C4 and C11 of the Borough Local Plan.

8.7              The proposed building lies some 80m to the west of the library and, whilst and it would be possible for this listed building to be viewed with the proposal as its partial backdrop in view of the existing tall buildings and the separation distance it is not considered the setting of the listed building would be compromised to such an extent that would warrant refusal of planning permission in this instance.

8.8              The impact of the building, in terms of residential amenity would be mainly limited to the flats at St Clements Court to the east, and to the properties lying directly to the south – 25 and 25a Leigh Park Road and, to a lesser extent, no. 23.  Whilst the applicant has submitted shadowing diagrams, it is clear that the erection of such a tall building in such close proximity to existing dwellings would inevitably have some impact on quality of life of residents.  The test that needs to be applied, therefore, is whether the development would result in material harm to local residents to such a degree that would justify refusal of planning permission on these grounds.

8.9              In the western elevation of St Clements Court there are a number of windows serving habitable rooms that directly face the development site.  It is considered that the proximity of this proposed very substantial (in terms of both height and bulk) building, which would be located, in places, as little as 6 metres away from these windows would have a materially deleterious impact on the occupiers of these flats, and in particular those on the lower floors, by reason of loss of outlook and direct sunlight, particularly during the evening hours.  From the residential flats located at lower levels the erection of such a tall building in close proximity would appear overbearing and oppressive and result in material detriment to the amenities enjoyed within these properties to such a degree that would justify refusal of planning permission.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policies C11, H5 and BE1.

8.10          In respect of the properties to the south, these are already overlooked to an extent by St Clements Court. Whilst this does not mean it is acceptable to overlook properties, the proposal can only be penalised if it adds significantly to the existing situation. The applicant has undertaken a comparative overlooking assessment of the proposal and St Clements Court. In the main, due to the location of proposed windows, the potential overlooking will be the same as that ‘view’ from St Clements Court although at a closer distance. The majority of the overlooking potential is to the west, which contains no immediately adjoining residential properties. The additional overlooking would be of no. 25a and 27 Leigh Park Road but at a distance of 19m minimum to the rear boundary with those properties and also across other land (the bowling green). Whilst the proposed windows are admittedly close to the site’s side boundary, the impact from this is therefore negligible regarding residential amenity – the 7th floor upwards has reducing numbers of windows facing southeast and thus decreasing amounts of potential for overlooking. Using a benchmark of the old-style guidelines, windows at 6th floor level would be allowed at 22.7m from the boundary with an adjoining property. If you then bear in mind the significant slope in the land before the Leigh Park Road properties proper, the minimum 12m length of the gardens on the Leigh Park Road properties, the oblique angle at which the proposed windows are in relation to those properties and the fact that those properties are already overlooked, the impact is considered to be acceptable. It should also be borne in mind that due to the slope of the gardens on Leigh Park Road, the area given over to ‘amenity’ space is limited to that directly behind the houses – this is more the location where amenities should be protected and is a significant distance from the proposed building (30m). Tree planting on the rear and southern half of the west side boundary could further mitigate against any loss of amenity, if Members were minded to grant permission.

8.11          Traffic impacts on residential amenities are felt to be acceptable. This is a vibrant area during the day and evening and the roads are busy. Good provision is made for parking for all three uses proposed, away from public view. Residential amenities should not be jeopardised by traffic to and from the site. Furthermore, as the site is in a sustainable position, with good access to amenities, no further parking provision is necessary. Suitable cycle parking facilities are proposed, adjacent to the lifts, to offset the reduced parking numbers and assist in the goal of non-car-borne travel. Access to the site is acceptable and there have been no objections from a highway point of view. The detailed design of the car ramp wing walls, to ensure that sight lines at back of footway are not obstructed, can be controlled by condition. The Travel Plan can be worked up in consultation with the Council and its consultants and this can be controlled by condition.

8.12          Land stability issues have been satisfactorily resolved and can be further controlled at the Building Regulations stage.

8.13          The proposal will lead to families being able to be accommodated and, as such, children will require places in local schools. If Members were minded to grant permission, there would be a requirement to provide a suitable financial contribution which could be dealt with under S106 of the Planning Act.

8.14          The applicant has offered good public domain planting and outside space at the front of the building which would benefit the community and the streetscene – the details of this could be controlled by condition. Also offered is a necessary public art feature in this important location. This could also be secured by an agreement under Section 106 of the Planning Act if Members were minded to approve this scheme.

8.15          Amenity space provision for the flats is satisfactory, with large communal spaces and also individual balconies. The site benefits from being close to Leigh Library Gardens and Belton Hills, providing different types of recreation space within easy walking distance. No further amenity space is therefore justified on site.

8.16          Refuse storage is provided for in basement stores and via a collection area at ground floor, within a suitable distance from the highway so that refuse collection vehicles do not need to have access onto the site.

8.17          The proposal is for 24 flats – this is one flat below the threshold used to require affordable housing under the local plan policies. Whilst the Core Strategy is intended to introduce a lower threshold, the strategy has yet to be adopted, so carries only limited weight at this time.

8.18          Whilst objectors have stated that there is a lack of infrastructure locally, such as Doctors’ surgeries, nurseries, dentists, sewerage, etc. the policy basis to require such contributions is in its infancy (BE5 of the ESRSP) and it should be noted that a development of only 24 units would be unlikely to necessitate significant additional investment in infrastructure.

8.19          It is clear that this vacant site offers an opportunity for redevelopment that, if properly planned and thought, out could benefit both the community and the appearance of the locality.  Whilst the applicant has sought to provide an exciting new scheme for this site, it is considered that the quantum of development, as evidenced by the bulk, form and footprint of the building would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality and would result in material harm to the amenities of existing neighbouring properties.

9        Recommendation

Members are recommended to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:

01.       The proposed development, by reason of its footprint, bulk and massing and its proximity to existing tall buildings would be unduly visually prominent within the area and detrimental to the spatial quality, appearance and character of the locality.  Furthermore, the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policies CS2, BE1 and HC2 of the Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Structure Plan and to policies C4 and C11 of the Borough Local Plan.

02.       The proximity of the development to the eastern boundary of the site, when combined with the height and massing of the building would result in material detriment to the occupiers of properties within St Clements Court by reason of being unduly oppressive and overbearing leading to a of loss of outlook from habitable room windows, and by reason of overshadowing and loss of direct sunlight, particularly during the late afternoon and evening hours.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policy BE1 of the Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Structure Plan and to policies H5 and C11 of the Borough Local Plan.

 

 

Background Papers

 

(i)         Planning applications and supporting documents and plans

(ii)        Application worksheets and supporting papers

(iii)       Non-exempt contents of property files

(iv)       Consultation and publicity responses

(v)        Borough Local Plan

(vi)       Relevant PPGs, DCPNs and Circulars

 

NB      Other letters and papers not taken into account in preparing this report but received subsequently will be reported to the Committee either orally or in a supplementary report.