|
| Reasons
- conflict with national/regional policies |
 |
- Planning
Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) - a series of documents issued
by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) setting
out government policy and advice on planning issues such
as housing, transport, conservation etc
- The
Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan (ESRSP) also
impacts on the planning decisions of the Council
|
|
Planning
refusals are most often linked to policies:-
BE1
- urban intensification
PPG1-
General Policy and Principles
|
| |
|
|
| Reasons
- conflict with local planning policy |
|
|
|
|
|
| Policy
H5 of the BLP requires all development in residential streets
to be appropriate in its setting by respecting neighbouring
properties, existing residential amenities and the overall character
of the locality. Should be harmoniuos in character, scale, form,
appearance and materials to that of the overal streetscene. |
| Detrimental
to character and residential amenities |
| The
proposal is contrary to Policy H5 of the BLP as it would
fail to respect the amenities of the neighbouring properties
and the neighbourhood as a whole. |
-
Bulk,height or size.The design is unsympathetic
to neighbouring buildings. The
bulk and size of the building would be detrimental
to the streetscene. The new building would dominate
its neighbours.
-
Loss of outlook, overlooking, perception of overlooking,
obtrusiveness, loss of light or overshadowing.
The proposed building would overlook/overshadow the
neighbouring property. It would cause loss of established
outlook....
- Loss
of privacy. If
the new building would have windows affording a view
into a neighbour's habitable room or onto a patio
area which adjoins a neighbour's dwelling, then the
new building would cause loss of privacy.
- Too
much of the site devoted to hard surfacing. The
Council requires that frontages should not be wall-to-wall
hard surface and that some relief by way of landscaping
should be provided.
- Inadequate
car parking provision. See
Policy T11
- The
stlye of the building. the proposal is detrimental
to the streetscape which is essentially of one style
and the proposed building would be intrusive and out
of keeping. Neighbouring buildings are of a similar
design providing a harmonious aspect
|
|
| Detrimental
to amenities because of 'well' situation |
| The
proposal is contrary to Policy H5 of the BLP as it would
compromise the "well" situation. |
- The
building beaches the 45 degree rule. There must be
at least a 45 degree angle between windows of habitable
rooms in adjacent buildings and the outermost corner
of the new building.
|
|
| Unacceptable
overlooking from balcony |
| The
proposed balcony is contrary to Policy H5 of the BLP as
it would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining
property as it would cause loss of privacy, overlooking
and intrusiveness |
|
| Too
close to boundary |
| The
proposal is contrary to Policy H5 of the BLP as its north/south/east/west
elevation is sited too close to the adjacent property
and would leave an insufficient gap bewteen the properties. |
|
There
must be a least 1 metre between the new building and
a neighbouring boundary at 1st floor level.
|
|
| Plot
too small |
| The
proposal is contrary to Policy H5 of the BLP as
the site is not large enough to contain both the proposed
building and the necessary parking area. The amount of
the site taken up by the building would be detrimental
to the character of the
neighbourhood |
|
|
| Policy
H3 of the BLP seeks to retain an adequate stock of small single
family dwellinghouses (gross floor area under 125 square metres)
for which there is a viable demand. |
| Loss
of a small family dwelling |
 |
The
loss of the single family dwellinghouse is contrary to
Policy H3 of the BLP. |
- Small
dwellings cannot be demolished and not replaced by
at least one similar sized property.
- This
policy is important with regards to protecting of
bungalows.
|
|
| Loss
of a small family dwelling |
| The
loss of the single family dwellinghouse is contrary to
Policy H3 of the BLP. |
- Contravenes
the need to retain a diversity of properties to support
a diversity of life styles and income.
- Contravenes
the need to retain properties suitable for the elderly
and infirm.
- Cross-reference
to Policy H2 : "...the Borough Council will positively
encourage proposals which provide low-cost accommodation
suitable for small households and those in housing
need..."
|
|
|
| Policy
C11 of the BLP seeks to ensure that new buildings and alterations
to existing buildings should be designed to create a satisfactory
relationship with their surroundings in respect of their form,
scale, massing and elevational design. |
| Unsatisfactory
relationship with surroundings |
| The
proposal is contrary to Policy C11 of the BLP as it would
present an unsatisfactory relationship with neighbouring
properties. |
- New
buildings and alterations should be designed to create
a satisfactory relationship with their surroundings
in respect of form, scale, massing, height, elevational
design and materials.
-
Where appropriate they should contribute to and enhance
public pedestrian areas and open spaces.
- External
materials should be sympathetic in colour and texture
with neighbouring development.
|
|
| Building
too heigh |
| The
proposal is contrary to Policy C11 of the BLP as it would
be out of scale with its surroundings. |
- The
building is in a particularly prominent site and its
design and size detracts from the townscape.
- The
building is out of scale with neighbouring properties.
- The
building blocks/compromises an important vista
- The
building conflicts with the character of a conservation
area.
|
|
|
| Policy
C4 of the BLP seeks to ensure that proposals for demolition
and development in conservation areas will normally be permitted
only where they would not be detrimental to the local scene
and the character of the area. |
| Unsatisfactory
relationship with surroundings |
| The
proposal is contrary to Polcy C4 of the BLP in that the
position and design of new building does not respect the
general pattern of the area and neither preserves nor
enhances the character of the townscape |
|
| Building
too large |
| The
proposal is contrary to Polcy C4 of the BLP in that
its
mass is out of scale and harmony with the existing and
neighbouring buildings and with the area as a whole. |
|
| Unsatisfactory
relationship with surroundings |
| The
proposal is contrary to Polcy C4 of the BLP in that
the proportions, detailing and materials
of the proposal is inappropriate to the area and unsympathetic
to the existing and neighbouring buildings |
|
| Failure
to comply with Council guidelines |
| The
proposal is contrary to Policy C4 of the BLP
as it fails to abide by Council design requirements for
the specific conservation area. |
|
|
| Policy
T8 seeks to ensure that proposals for development which would
be likely to have a materially adverse impact on highway safety
and movement will normally be refused. |
| Insufficient
turning space |
- The
proposal is contrary to Policy T8 of the BLP as it
fails to provide vehicular turning facilities within
the curtilage of the site to ensure that all vehicles
entering and leaving the site may do so in a forward
gear.
If the site exits on to a "classified" (major)
road, then there should be sufficient space on the
drive area to turn a vehicle so that it both enters
and leaves the property frontwards. (Curtilage: the
area of land attached to a building)
|
|
| Danger
to the public |
- The
proposal is contrary to Policy T8 of the BLP as driving
over the proposed crossover is likely to cause a danger
to users of the footpath or other road users.
The exit/entrance to the driveway is such that
clear line of sight is obscured and the situation
would be a hazzard to other road users
|
|
|
| Policy
T11 seeks to ensure that the number of off-street parking spaces
is appropriate for the size of the development. |
| Insufficient
off-street parking |
- The
proposal is contrary to Policy T11 of the BLP as insufficient
parking spaces have been provided.
The number of spaces (garage and forecourt) is below
that required by the Council and would therefore lead
to increased on-street parking
- The
minimum number of spaces per dwelling is 1
- Properties
with more than one bedroom tend to need more than
one parking space.
|
|
| Insufficient
off-street parking in an area of parking stress |
 |
The
proposal is contrary to Policy T11 of the BLP as insufficient
parking spaces have been provided particularly in an area
of parking stress. |
| The
problems of parking spaces in certain areas in Leigh is
particularly acute - especially near shops, schools, doctor's
, restaurants, pubs, churches and other public meeting
places. |
|
|
| Policy
BE1 seeks to protect the environmental quality of existing urban
areas and to resist new development that would result in over-development,
unsympathetic change and loss of amenity. |
| Over-development,
unsympatheic change, etc |
- The
proposal is contrary to Policy BE1 of the ESRSP as
it would result in an over-development of the site.
New buildings too high/bulky, incongruous, detrimental
to the streetscape
|
|
| Unsympathetic
change |
- The
proposal is contrary to Policy BE1 of the ESRSP as
it would result in unsymapthetic change. The style
and design of the new building is out of keeping with
neighbouring properties.
|
|
|
| PPG1
- General policy and principles |
| Design |
|
PPG1 seeks
to secure good design and to resist proposals that are
inappropriate to their context or incomaptibele with
their surroundings
|
|
|
|
| Additional
reasons for objecting to flat developments |
| Overcrowding |
|
The
proposal is contrary to Council guideline which requires
a density of 100-125 dwellings per hectare
|
|
| Insufficient
amenity space |
|
The
proposal is contrary to Council guideline which requires
a amenity space of 25 square metres per dwelling
|
|
| Insufficient
cycle parking |
|
The
proposal is contrary to Council guideline which requires
a cycle parking of 1.5 spaces per dwelling
|
|
| Detrimental
to the streetscene/townscape |
|
The
proposal is contrary to BLP see policies H5 &
C11above
|
|
|
|
