List of minor amendments to plans approved under delegated powers

Transcript

1 ΠΛΑΝΝΙΝΓ ΣΕΡςΙΧΕΣ ΩΕΕΚΛΨ ΡΕΠΟΡΤ Νο Ωεεκ ενδινγ 25τη Μαρχη 2011 Τηε ατταχηεδ Ωεεκλψ Ρεπορτ ινχορπορατεσ τηε φολλοωινγ σεχτιονσ: ΧΟΝΤΕΝΤΣ ΠΑΓΕ ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 1 Reports on applications ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 2 Reports on enforcement cases ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 3 List of applications referred from Weekly Report No ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 4 List of minor amendments to plans approved under delegated powers ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 5 List of appeals received ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 6 Reports on appeal decisions received ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 7 List of enforcement complaints where possible breach of planning control has been identified ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 8 List of enforcement complaints where NO breach of planning control has been identified OR where any breach of planning control has ceased or been remedied Α ΙΤΙΟΝΑΛ ΙΤΕΜ Request to remove a Section 106 Agreement 44 Worrin Road, Shenfield

2 ΧΟΝΤΕΝΤΣ ΠΑΓΕ ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 1 ΡΕΠΟΡΤΣ ΟΝ ΑΠΠΛΙΧΑΤΙΟΝΣ Ρεφερενχε Αδδρεσσ Ωαρδ Παριση Παγε BRW/85/2011 BRW/88/2011 BRW/93/2011 BRW/97/2011 BRW/98/2011 BRW/100/2011 BRW/101/2011 BRW/103/2011 SOLHEIM ALEXANDER LANE HUTTON 22 MIDDLETON ROAD SHENFIELD 88 CHELMSFORD ROAD SHENFIELD HATCH HOUSE 17 COXTIE GREEN ROAD PILGRIMS HATCH 71 PETRESFIELD WAY WEST HORNDON BRIDGE HOUSE THE GREEN BLACKMORE INGATESTONE 4 ROCHFORD AVENUE SHENFIELD 89 HATCH ROAD PILGRIMS HATCH HUTTON NORTH 7 SHENFIELD 8 SHENFIELD 10 PILGRIMS HATCH 11 HERONGATE, INGRAVE & WEST HORNDON TIPPS CROSS West Horndon Parish Council Blackmore, Hook End & Wyatts Green Parish Council SHENFIELD 19 PILGRIMS HATCH 21 Weekly List 1481/1 Week Ending 25th March 2011

3 BRW/105/2011 BRW/106/2011 BRW/108/2011 BRW/109/2011 BRW/115/2011 BRW/118/2011 BRW/119/ SEBASTIAN AVENUE SHENFIELD RAINES LODGE GREENWAY HUTTON 51 VAUGHAN WILLIAMS WAY WARLEY 51 VAUGHAN WILLIAMS WAY WARLEY 15 NEWMANS DRIVE HUTTON 2 TROTWOOD CLOSE SHENFIELD 16 MARGARET AVENUE SHENFIELD TPO/BRW/13/ RIDGEWAY HUTTON TPO/BRW/14/ WORRIN ROAD SHENFIELD TPO/BRW/15/ PRIMROSE COURT TPO/BRW/16/ MOUNT CRESCENT WARLEY SHENFIELD 23 HUTTON SOUTH 24 WEST WEST HUTTON CENTRAL SHENFIELD 32 SHENFIELD 34 HUTTON SOUTH 36 SHENFIELD 37 SOUTH 39 WARLEY 40 Weekly List 1481/2 Week Ending 25th March 2011

4 TPO/BRW/17/ MILAN WALK TPO/BRW/18/ RAYLEIGH ROAD HUTTON TPO/BRW/19/ PEARTREE CLOSE DODDINGHURST TPO/BRW/20/2011 REDHOUSE STATION LANE INGATESTONE TPO/BRW/21/ RAYLEIGH ROAD HUTTON NORTH 41 HUTTON EAST 42 BRIZES AND DODDINGHURST INGATESTONE, FRYERNING & MOUNTNESSING Doddinghurst Parish Council Ingatestone & Fryerning Parish Council HUTTON EAST 46 ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 2 ΡΕΠΟΡΤΣ ΟΝ ΕΝΦΟΡΧΕΜΕΝΤ ΧΑΣΕΣ Ρεφερενχε Αδδρεσσ Ωαρδ Παριση Παγε ENF/BRW/55/2011 HIGHWOOD HOSPITAL SITE CLEEVES AVENUE ENF/BRW/91/2011 COSTA COFFEE 180, HUTTON ROAD SHENFIELD NORTH 49 SHENFIELD 50 ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 3 ΛΙΣΤ ΟΦ ΑΠΠΛΙΧΑΤΙΟΝΣ ΡΕΦΕΡΡΕ ΦΡΟΜ ΩΕΕΚΛΨ ΡΕΠΟΡΤ ΝΟ None ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 4 ΛΙΣΤ ΟΦ ΜΙΝΟΡ ΑΜΕΝ ΜΕΝΤΣ ΤΟ ΠΛΑΝΣ ΑΠΠΡΟςΕ ΥΝ ΕΡ ΕΛΕΓΑΤΕ ΠΟΩΕΡΣ None Weekly List 1481/3 Week Ending 25th March 2011

5 ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 5 ΝΟΤΙΦΙΧΑΤΙΟΝ ΟΦ ΤΗΕ ΦΟΛΛΟΩΙΝΓ ΑΠΠΕΑΛΣ ΗΑΣ ΒΕΕΝ ΡΕΧΕΙςΕ None ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 6 ΝΟΤΙΦΙΧΑΤΙΟΝ ΟΦ ΤΗΕ ΕΧΙΣΙΟΝ ΟΝ ΤΗΕ ΦΟΛΛΟΩΙΝΓ ΑΠΠΕΑΛΣ ΗΑΣ ΒΕΕΝ ΡΕΧΕΙςΕ Ρεφερενχε Αδδρεσσ εϖελοπµεντ Παγε BRW/515/2010 UNIT 1 FORMER ATS TYRE DEPOT FAIRFIELD ROAD BRW/589/2010 KAPTAGAT SHELLEY ROAD HUTTON BRW/663/2010 ALBANY 26 LEAFY WAY HUTTON BRW/719/ ST NICHOLAS GROVE INGRAVE BRW/744/ ST THOMAS ROAD ERECTION OF PART TWO-STOREY, PART FOUR-STOREY BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE 2NO. GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL UNITS (CLASS A2 AND/OR B1), 1NO. ONE BEDROOM HOUSE, 1NO. TWO BEDROOM HOUSE, 3NO. ONE BEDROOM FLATS, 6NO. TWO BEDROOM FLATS, CAR PARKING AND AMENITY AREA TWO STOREY FRONT AND REAR EXTENSION, FRONT AND REAR DORMERS, ALTERATIONS TO GARAGE ROOF, CANOPY ROOF ABOVE FRONT DOOR FIRST FLOOR FRONT EXTENSIONS, REPLACEMENT OF ENTRANCE PORCH SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 54 MOUNT TEN SOLAR PANELS TO THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 7 ΛΙΣΤ ΟΦ ΕΝΦΟΡΧΕΜΕΝΤ ΧΟΜΠΛΑΙΝΤΣ ΩΗΕΡΕ ΠΟΣΣΙΒΛΕ ΒΡΕΑΧΗ ΟΦ ΠΛΑΝΝΙΝΓ ΧΟΝΤΡΟΛ ΗΑΣ ΒΕΕΝ Ι ΕΝΤΙΦΙΕ Ρεφερενχε Αδδρεσσ Ωαρδ Παριση Παγε ENF/BRW/79/2011 LAND ON THOBY LANE AT JUNCTION WITH THOBY PRIORY THOBY LANE MOUNTNESSING INGATESTONE, FRYERNING & MOUNTNESSING Mountnessing Parish Council Weekly List 1481/4 Week Ending 25th March 2011

6 ENF/BRW/92/2011 BARGAIN BOOZE ONGAR ROAD PILGRIMS HATCH 56 ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 8 ΛΙΣΤ ΟΦ ΕΝΦΟΡΧΕΜΕΝΤ ΧΟΜΠΛΑΙΝΤΣ ΩΗΕΡΕ ΝΟ ΒΡΕΑΧΗ ΟΦ ΠΛΑΝΝΙΝΓ ΧΟΝΤΡΟΛ ΗΑΣ ΒΕΕΝ Ι ΕΝΤΙΦΙΕ ΟΡ ΩΗΕΡΕ ΑΝΨ ΒΡΕΑΧΗ ΟΦ ΠΛΑΝΝΙΝΓ ΧΟΝΤΡΟΛ ΗΑΣ ΧΕΑΣΕ ΟΡ ΒΕΕΝ ΡΕΜΕ ΙΕ Ρεφερενχε Αδδρεσσ Ωαρδ Παριση Παγε ENF/BRW/319/2010 ROSE COTTAGE ONGAR ROAD KELVEDON HATCH ENF/BRW/82/2011 ENF/BRW/86/2011 ENF/BRW/94/ , WOODLAND AVENUE HUTTON 8, HURSTWOOD AVENUE PILGRIMS HATCH FIELD AT END OF GOODWOOD AVENUE HUTTON BRIZES AND DODDINGHURST Kelvedon Hatch Parish Council 57 HUTTON NORTH 57 PILGRIMS HATCH 58 Α ΙΤΙΟΝΑΛ ΙΤΕΜ Request to remove a Section Weekly List 1481/5 Week Ending 25th March 2011

7 ΣΕΧΤΙΟΝ 1 ΠΛΑΝΝΙΝΓ ΣΕΡςΙΧΕΣ ΡΕΠΟΡΤΣ ΟΝ ΑΠΠΛΙΧΑΤΙΟΝΣ Αππλιχατιονσ δελεγατεδ το τηε Ιντεριµ Βυιλτ Ενϖιρονµεντ Μαναγερ φορ δεχισιον συβϕεχτ το τηε χονχυρρενχε οφ τηε Χηαιρµαν ανδ ςιχε Χηαιρµαν οφ τηε Πλαννινγ εϖελοπµεντ Χοντρολ Χοµµιττεε. Decision Notices will be issued in accordance with the attached recommendations unless an application is referred to the Planning Committee by a ΜΕΜΒΕΡ ΟΦ ΤΗΕ ΧΟΥΝΧΙΛ for the Ward in which the application is submitted or by the appropriate ΠΑΡΙΣΗ ΧΟΥΝΧΙΛ. The referral of applications to the Planning Development Control Committee will be in accordance with the protocol agreed by the Committee in December 2008 and any application that is referred will be reported to the next available meeting of that Committee. Where a Member for the Ward within which the proposal is located or a Parish Council is considering the referral of an application the Member or a representative of the Parish Council must speak to the case officer, the Principal Planning Officer or the Interim Built Environment Manager in order to discuss the matter. Applications may be referred in writing or by E mailing the Planning Department (referrals@brentwood.gov.uk) giving a valid Planning Reason for referring the Application. Planning Services Administration Support must be notified of any application which is to be referred by 12 Νοον ον 4τη Απριλ You will receive an acknowledgement of any referral that is made. Copies of plans and all background documents (including letters of objection, supporting letters, consultation responses, Parish Council observations and other representations) are available for inspection at the Planning Office. Weekly List 1481/6 Week Ending 25th March 2011

8 ΣΟΛΗΕΙΜ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ ΕΡ ΛΑΝΕ ΗΥΤΤΟΝ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΧΟΝςΕΡΣΙΟΝ ΟΦ ΓΑΡΑΓΕ ΙΝΤΟ Α ΗΑΒΙΤΑΒΛΕ ΡΟΟΜ ΒΡΩ/85/2011 Ward: HUTTON NORTH Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 Case Officer: Catherine Williams (Tel: 8/13 Week Date: 6th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ This application is for the conversion of the garage to the south of the dwelling. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ BRW/514/2009: Two storey side extension and erection of new ridged roof over existing two storey rear extension - Approved 5th October BRW/581/2002: Extension at the side and rear incorporating a replacement garage - Approved. A condition was imposed that prevented the conversion of the garage into habitable accommodation. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ηιγηωαψσ: No objection. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ None. 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The application property is a detached dwelling located in a residential area. The property is set back from the road and has established vegetation on the front boundary. The property is currently being extended at the side and this includes the provision of a garage. The proposal would include the alteration of the garage door to a door and a window. Having regard to the location of the garage to the side of the site, set back from the house and the varied street scene the proposal would not have a detrimental affect on the character and appearance of the area. There is sufficient parking space to meet the adopted standard. Having regard to the above it is considered that the proposal would comply with policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. Weekly List 1481/7 Week Ending 25th March 2011

9 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Approve Informatives 1) T1 - Standard time 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the proposed floor plans dated 9th February and the proposed elevations dated 22nd March (Ρεασον: For the avoidance of doubt.) 1) Reason for approval: The proposal would accord with the development plan policies relevant to this proposal that are set out below. 2) I11 - Policies related to approval 3) I8 - Accordance with approved plans 22 ΜΙ ΛΕΤΟΝ ΡΟΑ ΣΗΕΝΦΙΕΛ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΣΙΝΓΛΕ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΡΕΑΡ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ ΑΝ ΡΑΙΣΕ ΠΑΤΙΟ ΒΡΩ/88/2011 Ward: SHENFIELD Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 Case Officer: Mandeep Chaggar (Tel: 8/13 Week Date: 6th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ Single storey rear extension with a pitched roof. Raised patio. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ ΒΡΩ/98/ Erection of two storey and single storey extensions at the front, first floor extension at the side together with alterations to the roof. Refused 27/03/00. ΒΡΩ/321/00 - Erection of two storey and single storey extensions at the front, first floor extension at the side together with alterations to the roof. Approved 30/05/ Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ None. Weekly List 1481/8 Week Ending 25th March 2011

10 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ None. 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The application relates to a detached dwellinghouse located in a residential area. The ground slopes south to north towards the rear of the garden. The proposed extension would be 5.95m deep and approximately 3.6m high with a 3.6m deep patio at the end. The proposed extension would be erected 1.7m from the boundary adjoining no. 20 Sebastian Avenue and screened by a high hedge. No. 20 has a raised patio in their rear garden. Taking into account the screening, the orientation of the houses and the distance from the boundary, it is considered the proposed works would not have an unacceptable detrimental affect by way of overlooking, overbearing or loss of daylight. The neighbouring property at no.24 has a small raised patio near to the boundary adjoining the host dwelling. Along this boundary is a high hedge giving no.24 privacy to their patio area. The existing single storey rear building is currently set off the boundary 0.5m and is 4.5m deep. It is considered the additional depth of the proposed extension would not have a materially greater effect than the existing building. The extension would lie due north of No 24 and would not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight to no.24 property and rear garden. Whilst the proposed works is a large extension, the neighbouring properties have large, wide rear gardens and the extension would not be unduly harmful to the outlook at the rear of the neighbouring properties. It is considered the proposal would comply with Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Approve Informatives 1) T1 - Standard time 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those used in the existing building. (Ρεασον: In the interests of amenity.) 3) The plans relevant to this permission are: 1141 LO1, 1141 S01, Design & Access Statement, Location Plan. (Ρεασον: For the avoidance of doubt.) 1) Reason for approval: The proposal would accord with the development plan policies relevant to this proposal that are set out below. 2) I11 - Policies related to approval 3) I8 - Accordance with approved plans Weekly List 1481/9 Week Ending 25th March 2011

11 88 ΧΗΕΛΜΣΦΟΡ ΡΟΑ ΣΗΕΝΦΙΕΛ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΣΙΝΓΛΕ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΡΕΑΡ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ ΒΡΩ/93/2011 Ward: SHENFIELD Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 Case Officer: Mandeep Chaggar (Tel: 8/13 Week Date: 8th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ Single storey rear extension with a flat roof and roof lantern. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ None relevant. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ None. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ One letter of representation received with the following concerns: This postal area has apparently been listed subject to subsidence problems. Consequently, the proposed works may have some effect on no.90 Chelmsford Road. The drawings submitted with the application showing the footprint of no.90 do not look accurate and seem to reflect the original design of my house and not the current one. 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ This application relates to a detached two storey dwellinghouse located in a residential area. The existing greenhouse would be demolished and the proposed extension erected approximately 2.95m high with a flat roof and a roof lantern centrally positioned. The extension would be 3.63m deep along the boundary. The occupiers of No.86 Chelmsford Road are concerned that the plans do not accurately reflect their current house. However the current building was evident at the site visit. Due to the size and height of the proposed extension and the reduced level as compared with the adjacent dwelling it is considered there would be no unacceptable loss of light or overbearing effect to the occupiers of no. 86. Weekly List 1481/10 Week Ending 25th March 2011

12 The concerns regarding subsidence would not be a material planning consideration, but would be dealt with under other legislation. It is considered the proposal complies with Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005 and is recommended for approval. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Approve Informatives 1) T1 - Standard time 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those used in the existing building. (Ρεασον: In the interests of amenity.) 3) The plans relevant for this permission are: Drawing no. 01, 02, 03, Location Plan. (Ρεασον: For the avoidance of doubt.) 1) Reason for approval: The proposal would accord with the development plan policies relevant to this proposal that are set out below. 2) I11 - Policies related to approval 3) I8 - Accordance with approved plans ΗΑΤΧΗ ΗΟΥΣΕ 17 ΧΟΞΤΙΕ ΓΡΕΕΝ ΡΟΑ ΠΙΛΓΡΙΜΣ ΗΑΤΧΗ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΧΗΑΝΓΕ ΟΦ ΥΣΕ ΑΝ ΑΛΤΕΡΑΤΙΟΝΣ ΤΟ ΕΞΙΣΤΙΝΓ ΣΤΑΒΛΕ ΒΛΟΧΚ ΦΟΡ ΥΣΕ ΑΣ Α ΡΕΣΙ ΕΝΤΙΑΛ ΑΝΝΕΞ ΤΟ ΗΑΤΧΗ ΗΟΥΣΕ ΒΡΩ/97/2011 Ward: PILGRIMS HATCH Zoning: Metropolitan Green Belt Parish: Policies: CP1 GB1 GB15 GB16 GB2 Case Officer: Morne Van Rooyen (Tel: 8/13 Week Date: 11th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ Conversion and change of use of the existing stable block for use as a residential annex to Hatch House. The stable block is to be converted internally to facilitate the creation of two bedrooms, two bathrooms a lounge and a kitchen area. The applicants have submitted a unilateral undertaking, a statement from their planning agents as well as a letter setting out Mr. Clifford Ryan s medical condition in support of the application. Weekly List 1481/11 Week Ending 25th March 2011

13 Externally the conversion would result in the introduction of four window openings as well as front door while the storage area to the side would be removed. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ Most relevant: BRW/480/1996 Stables and storage for trap and tack Approved BRW531/2005 Outline application for the demolition of existing stable block and erection of one detached dwelling Refused and dismissed at appeal on 20 th March Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ηιγηωαψσ: No objections 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ One letter of representation has been received raising objection to the infringement of the proposal on the Green Belt. While mention is also made of an access into Pilgrims Lane, this matter does not form part of the application. 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and would result in the existing stable block being converted to create a 2 bedroom bungalow with all the facilities for independent living. The applicants have indicated that the stable block is located within the residential curtilage of Hatch House. It has however been established through both the 1996 and 2005 applications referred to above, that the stable building does not fall within the residential curtilage and is for planning purposes a rural building in the Green Belt. PPG2 and Local Plan Policies do not consider the reuse of existing rural buildings in the Green Belt as being inappropriate development, but the reuse will only be acceptable subject to certain criteria being met. Local Plan Policy GB16 specifically relates to the proposals for conversion of rural buildings in the Green Belt to residential use. This Policy states that the conversion of rural buildings to residential use will only be permitted where the proposal complies with all the appropriate criteria of Policy GB15 in addition to the following: i) the applicant is able to demonstrate that every reasonable effort has been made to secure a suitable business re use. Comment: No documentary evidence has been submitted to indicate that a suitable business reuse has been sought and for this reason it is considered that this criterion has not been met. ii) the residential use should be a subordinate part of the scheme for business re use. Comment: As stated above, no business reuse has been sought while the submitted plans it indicate that the whole stable block is to be converted for residential purposes. Weekly List 1481/12 Week Ending 25th March 2011

14 GB16 further also sets out that in addition to these two criteria, (a) the buildings proposed for conversion should be located within or directly adjoining a small group of buildings and in this regard the barn is located within a group of related buildings compliant with this criterion of GB16. (b) the buildings must be capable of conversion without resulting in unacceptable intrusive domestic elements such as new curtilages, garaging, sheds, walling/fences, clothes lines, play equipment, domestic storage and hardstanding and should not result in unsympathetic changes to the fabric and character of the building through features such as windows and door openings. Comment: The residential use has associated land to the east, south and west of the building and it would be likely that some part of the land would be used for the introduction of garden furniture and associated objects. In the absence of any usable land to the rear of the building it is considered that the introduction of any domestic elements would most likely be to the south of the building and this would detract from the character of the area while conflicting with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. - The policy goes on to indicate that the proposed reuse should not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the fabric and character of the building due to unsympathetic changes to, or the introduction of, features such as windows, door openings and chimneys. The submitted plans show that the current stable doors would be replaced by windows. It is considered that these changes would alter the rural appearance of the building which would unacceptably detract from the character of the existing building, the character of the immediate area as well as the countryside in general and for these reasons fails to comply with Policy GB16 and would therefore also conflict with policy GB1. In addition to the conversion of the building it is also proposed to use it as an Annex to Hatch House. As identified earlier in this report the existing stable block falls outside of the residential curtilage of Hatch House and its use as an Annex would be tantamount to the extension of the residential curtilage into the Green Belt. The extension of domestic curtilages into the Green Belt leads to further urbanisation, an increase in general activity and a change from rural to a suburban character. This form of encroachment into the countryside is in direct conflict with one of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt and would be contrary to the aims and objectives of PPG2 and Local Plan Policy GB8. On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by PPG2 and for this reason is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and very special circumstance that would clearly outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt would need to be identified. Whether there would be any other harm - The submitted plans indicate that the alterations to the existing stable block would mainly be internal with windows replacing the existing stable doors while the existing storage area is to be removed. An area outside the building is already being used as a driveway for access to and from the stable block and two new parking spaces would be created on part of this gravelled area. Weekly List 1481/13 Week Ending 25th March 2011

15 Based on the above it is considered that the reuse of the existing building would not result in any new operational development which would detract from the openness of the Green Belt in this location. However as established earlier the external changes would detract from the rural character of the building, its use as an Annex would be result in encroachment into the countryside while in addition resulting in a general increase in urban elements and activities harmful to the character and appearance of the Green Belt and the countryside in this location contrary to Policy GB2 of The Local Plan. Other matters - As has been identified above the proposed use of the stable block as a residential Annex would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. To comply with the requirements set out in PPG2 the applicant would need to put forward very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm that arises due to the inappropriateness of the proposal and any other harm identified. The applicants indicate that the building is to be converted for use as an Annex to enable the applicants to assist with the care required by their brother-in-law (Mr. Ryan), who suffers from dementia and diabetes, and his wife whilst allowing both households to lead independent and private lifestyles. In her letter of support Mrs. Ryan indicates that while it would be appropriate for her and her husband to live in Hatch House, this would not be ideal as they would like to live more independently. In addition the applicants have indicated their willingness to enter into a unilateral undertaking to ensure that the residential annex remains ancillary to the existing house while in addition it would not be sold separately of the house. Comment: The development plan indicates that employment generating uses should take precedent over residential uses in proposals for the reuse of rural buildings. It is considered that although it is indicated that the stable block would be used as an Annex it would contain all the facilities for independent living and whilst it might be convenient for Mr. and Mrs. Ryan to use this building as an Annex no material matters have been identified to indicate why only this building would be suitable. Conclusion The proposed use of the stable block as an Annex would conflict with the Council's policies as regards the re-use of buildings in the rural area and the proposal would be tantamount to extending the garden area of Hatch House into the Green Belt which would represent encroachment and inappropriate development. In addition the external alterations would detract from the character and appearance of the building while the increased activity associated with the use would further detract from appearance of the countryside in this location. The matters identified by the applicants do not carry sufficient weight to justify the harm due to inappropriateness or any other harm identified to the Green Belt. From the details contained in the above report it is concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Polices GB1, GB2, GB8 and GB16 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. Weekly List 1481/14 Week Ending 25th March 2011

16 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Refuse Informatives 1) The site lies outside the areas allocated for development in the Adopted Brentwood Local Plan and, furthermore, forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that: i) Every reasonable effort has been made to secure a suitable business re use and would for this reason conflict with Policy GB16 and GB1 of The Brentwood Replacement Local Plan which seeks to promote the reuse of rural buildings for employment generating uses. 2) The site lies outside the areas allocated for development in the Adopted Brentwood Local Plan and, furthermore, forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Adopted Replacement Brentwood Local Plan indicates, inter-alia, that in order to achieve the objectives of the Green Belt, planning permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for development for purposes other than those appropriate to a Green Belt. The use of the stable block as an Annex would be tantamount to the extension of the garden area of Hatch House into the Green Belt and in addition would be likely to result in the introduction of domestic features to the south between the application site and Coxtie Green Road. For these reasons the proposal would represent encroachment into the Green Belt which represents inappropriate development and there are no very special circumstances in this case to warrant a departure from Policies GB2 and GB8 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 1) I12 - Policies related to refusal 71 ΠΕΤΡΕΣΦΙΕΛ ΩΑΨ ΩΕΣΤ ΗΟΡΝ ΟΝ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΣΙΝΓΛΕ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΡΕΑΡ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ ΒΡΩ/98/2011 Ward: HERONGATE, INGRAVE & WEST HORNDON Parish: West Horndon Parish Council Case Officer: Mandeep Chaggar (Tel: ) Zoning: Residential Policies: CP1 8/13 Week Date: 18th April Προποσαλσ Single storey rear extension with a lean-to roof. Weekly List 1481/15 Week Ending 25th March 2011

17 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ None relevant. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ωεστ Ηορνδον Παριση Χουνχιλ: No objection raised. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ One letter of representation received with the following concerns: o As adjoining neighbour at no.73, I would like to query access requirements for machinery and heavy building materials. Will these be through the garage. 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ This application relates to a detached property located in a residential area. The proposed extension would be the full width of the property. There is an existing garage along the boundary adjoining no.69 and no.73 is set some distance from the proposed extension. A neighbour concerned about how machinery and building materials would be accessed to the rear of the property; this is not a planning material consideration. It is considered the proposed extension would not have an unacceptable affect on the adjoining occupiers by way of loss of privacy. In light of the above, it is considered the proposal complies with Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan and is recommended for approval. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Approve Informatives 1) T1 - Standard time 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those used in the existing building. (Ρεασον: In the interests of amenity.) 3) The plans relevant to this permission are: Drawing no. 2011/02/01/71PW. (Ρεασον: For the avoidance of doubt.) 1) Reason for approval: The proposal would accord with the development plan policies relevant to this proposal that are set out below. 2) I11 - Policies related to approval 3) I8 - Accordance with approved plans Weekly List 1481/16 Week Ending 25th March 2011

18 ΒΡΙ ΓΕ ΗΟΥΣΕ ΤΗΕ ΓΡΕΕΝ ΒΛΑΧΚΜΟΡΕ ΙΝΓΑΤΕΣΤΟΝΕ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΙΝΧΡΕΑΣΕ ΙΝ ΗΕΙΓΗΤ ΟΦ ΓΑΡΑΓΕ ΤΟ ΦΟΡΜ ΦΙΡΣΤ ΦΛΟΟΡ ΦΡΟΝΤ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ. ΒΡΩ/100/2011 Ward: TIPPS CROSS Zoning: Residential Parish: Blackmore, Hook End & Policies: C14 CP1 Wyatts Green Parish Council Case Officer: Helen Bealey (Tel: /13 Week Date: 18th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ First floor front extension above the existing garage, the front extension is to be slightly lower than the main roof of the property and will extend the full width of the existing North East gable end wall. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ BRW/412/76: Demolition and replacement of dwelling- Approved. BRW/143/77: Utility room, rear door to garage- Approved. BRW/371/78: Ground floor extension and alterations- Allowed at appeal. BRW/2/99: Erection of conservatory at the side- Approved. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ηιστοριχ Βυιλδινγσ Αδϖισορ: The existing Bridge House dates from the early 1970 s and replaces an earlier timber framed historic building though not on exactly the same footprint. According to the owner, some of the historic timbers from the demolished building were re-used in the construction of the existing house. Concerning the proposed increase in height of the garage block - the designer has retained articulation between the main body of the house and the garage block and this helps ensure that it still reads as an extension to the main house. However, the sheer size of the resultant proposed garage block with its increased roof height does cause concern. The proposed garage block is large enough to be a small house in its own right and reads as such, thereby diminishing the sense of ancillary use that the existing garage block retains. Evidence suggests that the character of the Blackmore conservation area has suffered from the loss of smaller sized properties. This is particularly apparent around the Green where there are now many substantial houses. This should not be needlessly exacerbated. Weekly List 1481/17 Week Ending 25th March 2011

19 In this instance, for the reasons given above, I think that more effort needs to be made to maintain the roof over the garage block as existing, with a step down from the main house and the possible use of dormer/roof lights (though these should be kept to an absolute minimum both in size and numbers) as necessary. I would be happy to discuss this further with the designer. For the above reasons, I consider that this proposal would be detrimental to the character of Blackmore conservation area. Accordingly, I recommend refusal. Βλαχκµορε, Ηοοκ Ενδ ανδ Ωψαττσ Γρεεν Παριση Χουνχιλ: No comment at the time of writing this report. Ηιγηωαψσ: The Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection to the above application as the area available for parking within the site, will comply with the Highway Authority, Essex County Council, parking standards, for the proposed extended dwelling. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ None 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The first floor extension is proposed above an existing attached garage, to a detached property located within the Blackmore Conservation Area. The area in which the property is located is well landscaped, the property is set back from the road and is to the rear of the village pond and green. The garage element of the existing house projects forward from the main front wall of the property. Policy C14 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan requires proposals to preserve or enhance the character of the area and that proposals are in scale with the adjoining buildings. The first floor front extension would be in a prominent position, above the garage and would be visible from the public highway and the village green. Although the roof of the extension is slightly lower than the main house, due to the overall size of the extension, it is considered that the sense of ancillary use that the existing garage currently has would be diminished, to the detriment of the character of the existing house and furthermore, the extension would result in the loss of a smaller sized property around the green. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not preserve the character of the Blackmore Conservation Area and would be contrary to Policy C14 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. Weekly List 1481/18 Week Ending 25th March 2011

20 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Refuse 1) The proposed first floor extension, by reason of its overall size and prominent position, within the Blackmore Conservation Area, would have a detrimental effect on the character of the existing house and would not preserve the character of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy C14 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. Informatives 1) I12 - Policies related to refusal 2) The following plans are relevant to this decision: and a. 4 ΡΟΧΗΦΟΡ ΑςΕΝΥΕ ΣΗΕΝΦΙΕΛ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΡΕΤΕΝΤΙΟΝ ΟΦ ΟΥΤΒΥΙΛ ΙΝΓ ΒΡΩ/101/2011 Ward: SHENFIELD Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 Case Officer: Catherine Williams (Tel: 8/13 Week Date: 18th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ This application is for the retention of an outbuilding. A significant amount of the outbuilding has been constructed. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ BRW/48/2011: Single storey side and rear extension, front canopy and alterations to garage roof - Approved. 8th March S192/BRW/4/2011: Hip to gable extension and rear dormer window - Approved. ENF/BRW/19/2011: Erection of outbuilding. Planning application submitted to rectify breach. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ None. Weekly List 1481/19 Week Ending 25th March 2011

21 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ The three letters of representation have been received stating: o The building has affected views from the neighbouring property; o The building is too large; o The building is too high and too close the boundary; o Noise from the building will be amplified due to the wooden construction; o It will affect the value of the neighbouring properties; o It may set a precedent within the area which result in the area being more built up; 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The application property is a semi detached dwelling located with a residential area, the garden is approximately 23m deep and slopes from front to back. The garden backs onto other rear gardens, which contributes to the sense of openness at the rear of the houses. The building is 4m high from ground level to the ridge and is within 2m of the boundary. It is considered that the building by reason of its height and bulk has a detrimental affect on the character of the area. As a result of the open character of the area and the height of the building it is visible from the neighbouring houses, it is considered that the building by reason of its height substantially detracts from the outlook from neighbouring properties and impacts on the enjoyment of the neighbouring rear gardens. It is accepted that some garden buildings can be erected without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. However, in this case, in order to be "permitted development the building would need to be materially different in terms of height or distance from the boundary and it is considered that this fall back position does not outweigh the harm as a result of the height and bulk of the building. Having regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Refuse Informatives 1) The building by reason of its height and bulk detracts from the open character of the area at the rear of the houses and the outlook from neighbouring properties contrary to policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 1) Drawing nos. 600/9A and 600/10 are related to this refusal. 2) I12 - Policies related to refusal Weekly List 1481/20 Week Ending 25th March 2011

22 89 ΗΑΤΧΗ ΡΟΑ ΠΙΛΓΡΙΜΣ ΗΑΤΧΗ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΠΑΡΤ ΦΙΡΣΤ ΦΛΟΟΡ, ΠΑΡΤ ΤΩΟ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΣΙ Ε ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ. ΒΡΩ/103/2011 Ward: PILGRIMS HATCH Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 Case Officer: Helen Bealey (Tel: /13 Week Date: 18th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ Part first floor, part two storey side extension. The extensions are proposed partially above the existing single storey element and to the rear of the single storey element. The extension is to extend almost the full depth of the existing property and to the same width as the existing single storey side element. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ BRW/187/2010: First floor side extension and side/ rear conservatory- Approved. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ηιγηωαψσ: The Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection to the above application as the area available for parking within the site, will comply with the Highway Authority, Essex County Council, parking standards, for the proposed extended dwelling. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ None 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The extensions are proposed to a semi-detached property, in a residential area. The property is located at the end of a small row of properties, next to the proposed extension is a lane, and next to that are the rear gardens of properties on Danes Way. A previous application for side and rear extensions was approved at the application property. This application results in a larger extension at first floor, than the approved application. The extensions do not extend any further to the rear than the existing property. Weekly List 1481/21 Week Ending 25th March 2011

23 Given the distance from any neighbouring occupiers, and that the extension does not extend any deeper than the existing property, it is considered that the proposed extension would not give rise to any unacceptable detrimental effects on the general amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Although the property is semi-detached, the property to which it is attached has already been considerably extended and therefore the properties already appear un-balanced. The proposed first floor and two storey extensions are to be 0.5m lower than the main roof of the property and will be set back from the main wall of the property. Given the extensions to the attached property and the design of the proposed extensions, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on visual amenity, or the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Approve Informatives 1) T1 - Standard time 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture to those used in the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Ρεασον: In the interests of amenity.) 3) M10 - Retention of window pattern 4) The following plans are relevant to this permission: drawing numbers, and REV-D. (Ρεασον: For the avoidance of doubt.) 1) Reason for approval: The proposal complies with the development plan policies that are set out below. 2) I11 - Policies related to approval 3) I8 - Accordance with approved plans Weekly List 1481/22 Week Ending 25th March 2011

24 20 ΣΕΒΑΣΤΙΑΝ ΑςΕΝΥΕ ΣΗΕΝΦΙΕΛ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΑΛΤΕΡΑΤΙΟΝΣ ΤΟ ΣΙΝΓΛΕ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΡΕΑΡ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ ΡΟΟΦ ΙΝΧΛΥ ΙΝΓ ΗΙΠ ΤΟ ΓΑΒΛΕ ΑΝ Α ΙΤΙΟΝΑΛ ςελυξ ΩΙΝ ΟΩ, ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ ΤΟ ΓΑΡΑΓΕ ΑΝ ΕΡΕΧΤΙΟΝ ΟΦ ΝΕΩ ΠΟΡΧΗ. ΒΡΩ/105/2011 Ward: SHENFIELD Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 Case Officer: Mandeep Chaggar (Tel: 8/13 Week Date: 18th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ Alterations to single storey rear extension roof from hip to gable roof and additional velux window; Extension to front of garage 1.3m deep; Porch extension 1.3m deep. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ ΒΡΩ/237/ Single storey side and rear extension. Approved 24/05/ Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ηιγηωαψσ: The Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection to this application as the area available for parking within the site, excluding the substandard garage, will comply with the Highway Authority, Essex County Council, parking standards, for the proposed extended dwelling. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ One letter of representation received with the following comments: o At present, numbers 20, 22, 24 and 26 Sebastian Avenue are an attractive set of matching 1930s mock tudor houses which have retained their original character features at the front for around 80 years. Extending no.20 would adversely affect the appearance of this part of the Avenue and set a poor example for others to follow. I feel the appearance of the Avenue is important to all who live here. 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The proposed works relate to a semi-detached property located within a residential area. The nearby dwellings on this side of the street have pairs of semi-detached properties that have retained their original character to the front. This application proposes to make alterations to the previously approved application BRW/237/2010. Weekly List 1481/23 Week Ending 25th March 2011

25 The hip to gable roof to the single storey rear extension would not have an unacceptable overbearing effect on the occupiers of no.18 Sebastian Avenue. The porch and garage extension would not project more than 1.3m in front of the main front wall of the house and would not be in breach of the guidance in appendix 5 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. However, although the front extensions would be a small addition the design of this element would not reflect that of the dwelling. It is considered that the forward projecting additions would be jarring features that would detract from the pleasant wellordered character of the houses in this part of the street. Having regard to the above, it is considered that as regards to its effect on the character and appearance of the property and the street scene the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Refuse Informatives 1) The design of the proposed front extension would detract from the character and appearance of the property and the street scene in conflict with Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan ) I12 - Policies related to refusal ΡΑΙΝΕΣ ΛΟ ΓΕ ΓΡΕΕΝΩΑΨ ΗΥΤΤΟΝ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΤΩΟ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΣΙ Ε ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ, ΠΑΡΤ ΤΩΟ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ, ΠΑΡΤ ΣΙΝΓΛΕ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΡΕΑΡ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ, ΡΑΙΣΙΝΓ ΟΦ ΡΟΟΦ ΤΟ ΡΕΑΡ ΑΝ ΡΕΜΟςΑΛ ΟΦ ΡΕΑΡ ΟΡΜΕΡ ΩΙΝ ΟΩΣ ΤΟ ΧΡΕΑΤΕ Α ΦΙΡΣΤ ΦΛΟΟΡ Α ΙΤΙΟΝ, ΤΩΟ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΦΡΟΝΤ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ, ΕΝΤΡΑΝΧΕ ΓΑΤΕΣ ΤΟ ΤΗΕ ΦΡΟΝΤ ΟΦ ΤΗΕ ΣΙΤΕ: ΑΜΕΝ ΜΕΝΤΣ ΤΟ ΑΠΠΛΙΧΑΤΙΟΝ ΡΕΦ: ΒΡΩ/725/2010. ΒΡΩ/106/2011 Ward: HUTTON SOUTH Zoning: Residential Parish: Policies: CP1 H17 Case Officer: Helen Bealey (Tel: /13 Week Date: 18th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ Two storey side extension, measuring 2.8m wide, 9.7m high and 10.8m deep with a dormer window in the rear elevation measuring 1.5m wide with a pitched roof. The depth has been altered since the previous application, so that the extension projects further forward. Weekly List 1481/24 Week Ending 25th March 2011

26 Part ground and part first floor rear extension, which extends the full width of the property. The extension to the rear would have a dual pitched roof with gable ends. Two storey and first floor front extension, single storey front extension with front porch. Entrance gates to the front of the site, the pillars to the gates would measure 1.9m high with gates measuring 1.7m and would be metal railings painted black. The gates open inwards. This is an amendment to a previously approved application, ref: BRW/725/ Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ BRW/615/95: Two storey extension at the front, single storey extension at the rear together with carport at the side- Approved. BRW/782/95: Two storey extension at the front, single storey extension at the rear and garage at the side- Approved. BRW/725/2010: Two storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension, raising of roof to rear and removal of rear dormer windows to create a first floor addition, entrance gate to the front of the site- Approved. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ηιγηωαψσ: The Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection to the above application, subject to the following condition being attached to any approval, as the area available for parking within the site, will comply with the Highway Authority, Essex County Council, parking standards, for the proposed extended dwelling: o The proposed gates shall be inward opening only. Ρεασον: To enable vehicles using the access to stand generally clear of the carriageway whilst the gates are being opened and closed in the interest of highway safety. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ None 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The proposal relates to a detached house within the Hutton Mount area. The area is characterised by large detached houses located within generous plots and deep front gardens. The style and design of houses is mixed, many of which have been previously extended. This application follows a previously approved application for a two storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension, raising of the roof to rear and removal of rear dormer windows to create a first floor addition and entrance gates to the front. This application includes two additional front extensions, an alteration in the depth of the side extension, alterations to the design of the front porch and an alteration to the rear dormer window, from a flat roof to a pitched roof. Weekly List 1481/25 Week Ending 25th March 2011

27 The two storey side extension is proposed to be altered in depth by approximately 0.5m. Given the distance that the extension is located from the nearest neighbouring property, it is considered that this increase in size would not have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the neighbouring occupiers. The new dormer window is proposed to the rear of the new two storey side extension. Since the last approval, it has been altered from a flat to pitched roof, which is of a similar pitch to the new two storey gable end extensions. It is considered that the altered dormer window would be in keeping with the design of the existing house and would not have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties. The proposed alterations to the front elevation include a two storey front extension. This two storey element is set some distance from the boundary and is of a similar design to the existing projecting element to the front of the building. It is considered that the extension would not have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area or to the neighbouring occupiers. It is considered that the alteration to the porch and the new first floor addition above the porch would be of an acceptable design and would not have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the character of the area. In light of the above it is considered that the proposal would comply with Policy CP1 and H17 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Approve 1) T1 - Standard time 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture to those used in the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Ρεασον: In the interests of amenity.) 3) The first floor window on the rear North West elevation serving the en-suite bathroom as indicated on plan no. AW.1002 shall be obscure glazed and permanently retained as such. (Ρεασον: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents and to accord with Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.) 4) No part of the approved two storey extension, including fascias, soffits and rainwater goods shall be located closer than 1.2m to the site boundary. (Ρεασον: In order to retain the spatial quality of the area and to comply with Policy H15c of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.) 5) The front gates hereby approved shall be retained as inward opening at all times, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. (Ρεασον: To enable vehicles using the access to stand generally clear of the carriageway whilst the gates are being opened and closed in the interest of highway safety.) 6) The approved drawing number related to this permission is AW.101 and AW (Ρεασον: For the avoidance of doubt.) Weekly List 1481/26 Week Ending 25th March 2011

28 Informatives 1) Reason for approval: The proposal would accord with the development plan policies that are set out below. 2) I11 - Policies related to approval 3) I13 - Energy Savings 4) I8 - Accordance with approved plans 51 ςαυγηαν ΩΙΛΛΙΑΜΣ ΩΑΨ ΩΑΡΛΕΨ ΒΡΕΝΤΩΟΟ ΧΟΝςΕΡΣΙΟΝ ΟΦ ΓΑΡΑΓΕ ΙΝΤΟ ΗΑΒΙΤΑΒΛΕ ΑΧΧΟΜΜΟ ΑΤΙΟΝ, ΣΙΝΓΛΕ ΣΤΟΡΕΨ ΡΕΑΡ ΕΞΤΕΝΣΙΟΝ, ΑΝ ΕΡΕΧΤΙΟΝ ΟΦ ΟΥΒΛΕ ΓΑΡΑΓΕ ΒΡΩ/108/2011 Ward: WEST Zoning: Major Housing Site Parish: Policies: Case Officer: Catherine Williams (Tel: 8/13 Week Date: 15th April ) 1. Προποσαλσ This application is for a single storey rear extension; Conversion of integral garage into habitable accommodation; Erection of detached garage. 2. Ρελεϖαντ Ηιστορψ BRW/512/2010: Conversion of garage into habitable accommodation, single storey rear extension and erection of double garage - Refused 20th September The proposed garage by reason of its forward position, design, width and length would be out of keeping in the street scene and harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 3. Χονσυλτατιον Ρεσπονσεσ Ηιγηωαψσ: Although the access would not be ideal the Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection as the area within the site would comply with adopted car parking standards. 4. Νειγηβουρ Ρεσπονσεσ Four letters of representation have been received stating: o The proposed detached garage would be out of character with the overall planning of the area; o It would have a detrimental affect on the view from Flat 2 Symphony Court and the aesthetics of the building. Weekly List 1481/27 Week Ending 25th March 2011

29 o The garage would spoil the outlook from nearby properties. o Nothing has changed from the original refused application. o St. Raphael's Place is already very close to the rear of no.51, and the rear extension would result in windows being even closer to St. Raphael's Place and would detract from the privacy of occupiers within St. Raphael's Place. 5. Συµµαρψ οφ Ισσυεσ The application property is a semi detached town house located within the Clements Park development, within which there is an established character, although the dwellings are not uniform. The dwelling is attached to a block of flats but is opposite houses of a similar style. The majority of the properties opposite have retained the integral garage and car port. However, having regard to the position of the dwelling and the scale of the change to the front elevation it is considered that the conversion of the garage would not have a detrimental affect on the character and appearance of the street scene. The rear extension would be 2.95m and would square off the existing 'L' shape rear elevation. It would result in a rear garden approximately 10m deep. The garden does not directly back onto St. Raphaels Place and the views to and from the property would be at an angle. It is considered that the rear extension by reason of its depth would not materially increase the level of overlooking into the properties within St. Raphael's Place and would not result in unacceptable loss of privacy. The properties opposite maintain open frontages, albeit shorter than that of no.51. The proposed garage would cover more than half the width of the driveway and significantly obscure the front elevation of the property. It is considered that as a result of the scale and bulk of the garage and in the context of the open street scene the garage would have a detrimental affect on the character and appearance of the area. This application is identical to one previously refused under ref. BRW/512/2010 and there have been no material changes to policy or the site circumstances since then to justify approval of this application. 6. Ρεχοµµενδατιον Refuse Informatives 1) The proposed garage by reason of its forward position, design, width and length would be out of keeping in the street scene and harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. 1) I12 - Policies related to refusal 2) Drawing nos , and 1 of 4 and 2 of 4 are related to this refusal. Weekly List 1481/28 Week Ending 25th March 2011