Case 3306058

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED

Southend-on-Sea City Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
18 April 2023
Authority
Southend-on-Sea City Council
Inspector
Jordan A
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Other minor developments
Appellant
Mr Martin Day
LPA reference
21/02498/FUL
ONS LPA code
E06000033
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
30 November 2022

Summary AI

The appeal was allowed due to the proposed extension not harming the character and appearance of the area. The inspector considered the cumulative effect of previous permissions and found that the proposal would not be visually intrusive.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 March 2023 by Anne Jordan BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 April 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/W/22/3306058 Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Martin Day against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. • The application Ref 21/02498/FUL, dated 20 December 2021, was refused by notice dated 3 March 2022. • The development proposed is described as “extend existing detached outbuilding to form store area”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “extend existing detached outbuilding to form store area” at Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 1ED in accordance with application Ref 21/02498/FUL, dated 20 December 2021 and the plans submitted with it, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision 2) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes directly ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, Leigh on Sea. It shall not be occupied as a separate unit of self-contained accommodation. 3) The materials used on the exterior of the extension shall match those on the host structure. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2101-X00, 2101-X01-C, 2101-X03- B, 2101-TP-ST-2.0-A, 2101-TP-ST-2.1-A, and 2101-TP-ST-2.2-A. 5) The roof of the extension hereby approved shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area or for any other purpose unless express planning permission has previously been obtained. The roof can however be used for the purposes of maintenance or to escape in an emergency. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made on behalf of the appellant. This is the subject of a separate decision. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D1590/W/22/3306058 Preliminary Matters 3. The garden of the appeal site has been subject to 2 previous approvals. Permission Ref 21/00809/FUL granted permission to extend a garage which lies to the north of the site, outside the garden, adjacent to the parking area. Permission Ref 21/01032/FUL granted permission for a small extension to an outbuilding and an increase to fence height. The outbuilding is described as a store. The approved extension would extend the outbuilding to be contiguous with a building described as a home office, which lies within the enclosed garden to the property. The submitted site plan does not show these approved developments, which have not been implemented. Nevertheless, I have taken the approved site plans ref 2101-TP-04-A and 2101-TP-01-A into account in my decision. Main Issues 4. The main issue for the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. Undercliff Gardens is a private road where properties front onto a shared communal garden to the south with a clear vista of the coast. To the rear the gardens slope steeply uphill towards Grand Parade.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Although many of the gardens are enclosed by high rear boundaries, or obscured by garage or other garden structures, the open domestic form of these spaces is apparent in some views from the road behind and in longer views from higher ground to the north. In these views the spaces provide a pleasant and varied domestic setting for the diverse architectural treatments of the dwellings below. 6. No 82 Undercliff Gardens is a modern building of contemporary design. The building has been converted into 2 flats. The garden slopes very steeply from the dwelling to a rear boundary wall which separates an upper parking area and garage from the enclosed garden. The garden is extensively hard and soft landscaped and includes stepped access for both flats and a range of outbuildings. As a result, the character of the outdoor space is in keeping with the contemporary appearance of the building it serves. 7. The proposed extension would sit on an area currently used as a decked outdoor seating space which lies adjacent to a building described as a home gym.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision The space is screened from external views from the north-east and west by high boundary walls and would not be visible in views from the south due to the position of the dwelling. The structure would also be very limited in size measuring less than 3m by 4m and the appearance of the structure would be in keeping with that of the main dwelling and the other structures in the garden. I am therefore satisfied that views of the structure would be very restricted and in those available views would not appear incongruous. 8. I have considered whether the cumulative effect of the various permissions would together lead to harm to the character and appearance of the area. The other permissions are for very limited additions and consequently, even when taken together, I am satisfied that the proposals would not be visually intrusive. 9. The Council have referred to Policies KP2 and Policy CP4 of the Southend on Sea Core Strategy, Policies DM1 and DM6 of the Southend-on-Sea https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D1590/W/22/3306058 Development Management Document (2015) and the Design & Townscape Guide (2009). Together these policies seek to protect the established character of the seafront area and to achieve sustainable development which respects the character of the site, its local context and surroundings and I find no conflict with them, or the Framework, which has similar aims. Other Matters 10. I am mindful that taken together with permission Ref 21/01032/FUL this proposal would provide a sizable residential outbuilding. Local residents have raised concerns that the structures on site could be used as separate residential accommodation. I am mindful that such a proposal would be required to demonstrate that any dwelling would provide acceptable living conditions and that the use of the structure as an independent unit would not compromise the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers. Nevertheless, this is not the stated purpose of the scheme and so I have not assessed these matters. Conditions and Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that the proposal would not lead to harm to the character and appearance of the area. 12.

Page 3 · Chunk 6 Appeal Decision

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision In addition to conditions relating to the period for implementation and the approved plans, in the interests of ensuring an acceptable appearance for the development, I consider it necessary that the development is carried out in matching materials. Furthermore, to ensure the proposal does not harm the residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers it is necessary to impose a condition preventing use of the roof as a balcony or external seating area. 13. Finally, for the reasons set out above, to ensure that the proposal does not impact on the amenity of neighbours and to ensure that accommodation in the Borough is of an acceptable standard, and for the avoidance of doubt, it is necessary to impose a condition preventing the independent residential use of the development. 14. Accordingly, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.

Page 3 · Chunk 7 Anne Jordan

Flat 1, 82 Undercliff Gardens, LEIGH-ON-SEA, SS9 1ED — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Anne Jordan INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
For appellant
¶5

The proposed extension would sit on an area currently used as a decked outdoor seating space, and would be very limited in size. The appearance of the structure would be in keeping with that of the main dwelling and the other structures in the garden.

Character and appearance
For appellant
¶7

The structure would be very limited in size and the appearance of the structure would be in keeping with that of the main dwelling and the other structures in the garden.

Character and appearance
For appellant
¶8

The cumulative effect of the various permissions would together lead to harm to the character and appearance of the area, but the inspector found that the proposals would not be visually intrusive.

Other
Neutral
¶10

The inspector was mindful of concerns that the structures on site could be used as separate residential accommodation, but found that this was not the stated purpose of the scheme.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Policy CP4 of the Southend on Sea Core Strategy
Moderate
Policy DM1 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015)
Moderate
Policy DM6 of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015)
Moderate
Policy KP2 of the Southend on Sea Core Strategy
Moderate

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 18 April 2023 under the Open Government Licence.