Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 15 November 2023 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 January 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/B1550/W/23/3317440 Land rear of 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex SS4 1EG • 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 Plan 3 Developments against the decision of Rochford District Council. • The application Ref 23/00018/FUL, dated 12 January 2023, was refused by notice dated 23 February 2023. • The development proposed is demolition of existing garage, with proposed new dwelling and associated development. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage, with proposed new dwelling and associated development at land rear of 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex SS4 1EG in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 23/00018/FUL, dated 12 January 2023, and subject to the Schedule of Conditions to this Decision. Preliminary Matters 2.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Although the appeal was made in the name of Mr Gary Fardell, subsequently it has been confirmed that the appeal is made by the applicant ‘Plan 3 Developments’. I have proceeded with the appeal on this basis. 3. Since the Council determined the application, an updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2023 (‘the Framework’) has been issued. I have consulted the main parties on this and have had regard to any representations received. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The prevailing pattern of development along Stambridge Road and nearby area comprises a linear arrangement of dwellings which face the highway with modest frontages and long rear gardens. 6. The appeal site is located to the rear of dwellings at 24 and 26 Stambridge Road and is served by an existing access along the side of 26 Stambridge Road. With the exception of its access, the appeal site is also enclosed and features a sizeable detached garage. Therefore, the appeal site is already different from the prevailing pattern of development. Even so, this forms part of the established urban grain of the locality. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decision APP/B1550/W/23/3317440 7. Consequently, redevelopment of the appeal site in the manner proposed would introduce a form of ‘backland’ development, as opposed to ‘infilling’ development. The latter is defined as ‘housing development on small vacant frontage plots’ in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 2-Housing Design (‘Housing Design SPD’). 8. The Housing Design SPD does not preclude backland developments. Indeed, this sets out criteria for assessing such proposals. In summary, the criteria seeks to ensure that such proposals are adequately and satisfactorily accessible, and that the access arrangements and the siting of the proposed dwelling do not harm the living conditions of neighbours. That the proposal would not result in any adverse impact upon sites of cultural and historic importance, or upon biodiversity and green spaces. Furthermore, the Housing Design SPD says that development which is out of scale and unduly obtrusive to the outlook of surrounding development will be refused. In this respect, the Housing Design SPD recommends that a bungalow may be acceptable in a backland situation. 9.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions The proposal was assessed by the Council with regard to the suitability of the existing access and the use of this along with the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, on the living conditions of neighbours. The Council found the proposal acceptable in respect of these matters, which also did not form part of its reasons for refusal. I have also considered these matters, as set out below and have no reason to disagree with the Council’s findings. Also, based on the available evidence, the proposal would not result in any adverse impact on a site of cultural and historic importance, or upon biodiversity and green spaces. 10. Although the Housing Design SPD refers to Local Plan Policy HP14, this is not in the evidence before me. In any event, this Policy does not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. 11. The extant garage is of no significant architectural merit. This, along with the wider site has an unkempt appearance, which detract from the visual amenity of the site and immediate area. 12. To facilitate the proposal, the extant garage would be demolished. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be larger, this would comprise a bungalow with a height and pitched roof similar to the extant garage. 13.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions The proposed dwelling comprises a simple form. This would utilise a modern palette of materials, including facing red brickwork and grey cladding, plain red roof tiles and grey windows. Accordingly, the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling would be acceptable in the context of the area, which incorporates a range of property types, designs and scales, which utilise a variety of materials. The proposed dwelling would therefore contribute to local distinctiveness. This dwelling would also meet with the Council’s requirements with regard to the quality and quantum of internal space, external amenity space and separation from other dwellings. 14. The proposal would make effective use of an underused site for a use which is compatible with the neighbouring residential uses. The Council has not objected to the development, in principle, or disputed the need for the type of dwelling proposed. I have no clear reason to disagree with this. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decision APP/B1550/W/23/3317440 15. Overall, and subject to conditions, the proposed dwelling would achieve an acceptable standard of design. Furthermore, its siting would reference the appeal site’s established grain within the locality. In this context, any visual change would be modest and compatible with its surroundings and so the character and appearance of the area would not be unacceptably harmed. 16. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy DM1 of the Council’s Development Management Plan (‘DMD’) which states that the design of new developments should promote the character of the locality. I also find no conflict with Policy DM3 of the DMD, which does not preclude backland development and sets out similar requirements as the Housing Design SPD for considering such proposals. Other Matters 17. The appeal site falls within the ‘Zone of Influence’ for one or more of the European designated sites scoped into the Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (‘Essex Coast RAMs’). The Council has confirmed that it has received the appropriate tariff for the purposes of contributing to the strategic mitigation measures in the Essex Coast RAMs.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions I therefore find there would be no adverse effect from the proposed development on the integrity of the European designated sites. 18. The proposed dwelling would be located to the rear of dwellings at 24 and 26 Stambridge Road, and the appeal site shares boundaries with these and other properties along this road and Mornington Avenue to the east. Despite this, because of the careful orientation of the dwelling within its plot and intervening boundary treatments, there would be no unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours. For similar reasons and because of its acceptable scale, the proposed dwelling would not be unduly dominant so as to harm outlook from any adjoining property. 19. Any additional activity arising from the proposed modest single dwelling, including vehicles using the existing access would be limited. As such, any disturbance arising from the proposal in the context of an established residential area would not be significant. 20. The existing access is served by a dropped kerb and can be used in association with the extant garage at the appeal site. As such, I see no technical reason why this cannot be used for the proposed dwelling.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Furthermore, the use of this access for a modest single dwelling would not result in any significant increase in trip generation to the detriment of highway safety or congestion. 21. The proposed scheme would provide sufficient parking to meet the needs of the development and therefore would not exacerbate any existing parking problems in the area. 22. For the above reasons, the existing access is adequate for the proposal. Therefore, the use of this and the redevelopment of the appeal site for a single dwelling, would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbours. 23. I am aware that planning application Ref 22/00790/FUL, for a detached dwelling was refused at the appeal site. However, the scale and design of that proposal is different to the scheme before me and is therefore not directly comparable. The Council advises that another planning application Ref 12/00418/FUL for the subdivision of plots and the construction of one three https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decision APP/B1550/W/23/3317440 bedroomed bungalow, with access to the side of 26 Stambridge Road was refused planning permission and the subsequent appeal was dismissed. Nevertheless, because I do not have the full details of this scheme, I am unable to draw any comparisons. Therefore, I attach limited weight to the previously refused schemes. Irrespective of this, I have determined the scheme before me on its merits and have found this to be acceptable for the reasons set out above. Furthermore, any other application for backland development would be determined on its merits and therefore my Decision does not set a precedent. 24. Whilst third parties assert that the extant garage is unauthorised and that the proposal would result in additional pressure on existing utilities and services, I have no substantive evidence to support these assertions. 25. The previous loss of a protected tree at the appeal site and the arrangements for notifying neighbours on the planning application to which this appeal relates to are for the Council. 26. Construction activity would cause some disruption, but this would be temporary and would be mitigated by a Construction Management Plan, which could be the subject of a condition.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Any damage arising from construction activity in relation to the proposal would be a matter for the relevant parties. Conditions 27. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council in light of the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition to the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the planning permission, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. 28. Because the details of facing materials have already been provided it is not necessary to require these by a condition. However, in the interests of certainty I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is undertaken in accordance with the materials specified within the application submissions, unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development and area, and to safeguard the living conditions of neighbours, a condition requiring details and the provision of boundary treatments is reasonable and necessary. 29.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions To ensure that the works associated with the redevelopment of the site do not prejudice highway safety or the living conditions of neighbours, it is necessary and reasonable to secure a Construction Management Plan. 30. In the interests of improving the appearance of the site and area, I have imposed a condition requiring a scheme for hard and soft landscaping. A condition requiring details of surface water drainage is necessary in the interests of securing satisfactory drainage of the site. 31. Conditions relating to the surfacing of the access to the site and the provision of on-site vehicle parking and turning areas are necessary in the interest of highway safety. 32. To encourage the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and promote sustainable modes of travel such as cycling, it is reasonable to impose https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decision APP/B1550/W/23/3317440 conditions requiring the provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Point and cycle storage facilities. 33. A condition removing permitted development rights for external alterations and extensions to the proposed dwelling is justified in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbours. 34. To safeguard nesting birds, it is necessary to ensure that if any removal of vegetation or the demolition of a building is undertaken during bird nesting season, this is undertaken following a detailed survey to check for nesting birds. 35. The Council has suggested a condition requiring a Residential Travel Information Pack for sustainable transport. Given that the proposal is for a single dwelling which includes some provision for supporting sustainable modes of travel, this requirement is disproportionate. Also, no mechanism to monitor and enforce this condition has been identified. As such, I do not consider this to be necessary or reasonable. 36. Conditions 4 and 5 which prevent any development approved from commencing until they have been complied with, are considered fundamental to the development hereby approved.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — Appeal Decisions It is necessary for them to take the form of ‘pre-commencement’ conditions in order to have their intended effect. Where necessary and in the interests of flexibility, clarity and precision, I have altered the conditions to better reflect the relevant guidance. Conclusion 37. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — M Aqbal INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — M Aqbal INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/B1550/W/23/3317440 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the following approved drawings: 200-Rev 01 (Existing and proposed site plans, including site location plan), 201-Rev 00 (Existing garage plans and elevations), 202-Rev 01 (Proposed new dwelling details), 203-Rev 01 (Site sections) and 204-Rev 01 (Existing and proposed block plans). 3) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, the materials to be used in the construction of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the details provided on Drawing 202 Rev 01. 4) The development hereby permitted (including any demolition works) shall not commence until a Construction Management Plan (‘CMP’) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved CMP.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — M Aqbal 5) The development hereby permitted (including any demolition works) shall not commence until details of hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include: proposed finished floor levels, hard surfacing materials; details of all existing landscaping within and around the site, including details of any to be retained together with measures for their protection during the course of development, proposed planting plans (including details of the quantity, size, species, position) and proposed planting programme, together with a timetable for implementation and details for the maintenance of the proposed soft landscaping. Thereafter, the hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Any trees or plants which within a period or five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — M Aqbal 6) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until an electric vehicle charging point (‘EVCP’) has been provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local panning authority. The approved EVCP shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted and retained for the life of the development. 7) Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, details of the positions, design, and materials of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the approved boundary treatments shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted and retained for the life of the development. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — M Aqbal Appeal Decision APP/B1550/W/23/3317440 8) Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, a surface water drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved drainage scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted. 9) Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, the parking and turning area for the proposed dwelling shall be provided as shown on approved drawing: 200 Rev 01. Thereafter, these areas shall be retained for the use of the dwelling hereby permitted. 10) Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, secure and covered cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the Council’s Parking Standards Design and Good Practice Supplementary Planning Document, Adopted December 2010. Thereafter, the cycle parking shall be retained for the life of the development. 11) Prior to the removal of any vegetation or the demolition of a building between 1 March and 31 August in any year, a detailed survey shall be carried out to check for nesting birds.

Land rear of Nos. 24-26 Stambridge Road, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1EG — Rochford District Council — M Aqbal Where nests are found in any building, hedgerow, tree or scrub or other habitat to be removed (or demolished in the case of buildings), a 4-metre exclusion zone shall be left around the nest until breeding is complete. Completion of nesting shall be confirmed by a suitably qualified person and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any further works within the exclusion zone are undertaken. 12) No unbound material shall be used in the surface treatment of the vehicular access within 6 metres of the highway boundary. 13) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development included within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D and E shall be carried out without express planning permission first being obtained from the local planning authority. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7