Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 April 2025 by G Dring BA (Hons) MA MRTPI MAUDE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 May 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/W/25/3358928 Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Southend-on-Sea SS0 9TS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Mamun Ullah against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. • The application Ref is 24/00967/FUL. • The development proposed is convert existing coach house into a dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • whether appropriate living conditions would be provided for the future occupiers of the proposal with particular regard to the amount of floorspace provided, outlooks and privacy; and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of designated European sites. Reasons Living conditions 3.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site comprises an existing two storey coach house situated to the rear of 363A Westborough Road, which is accessed from an alleyway which runs between the rear of properties along Westborough Road and the side boundaries of properties that front onto Fleetwood Avenue and Hildaville Drive. The proposal is to convert the coach house into a dwellinghouse with an internal floor area of 45.7 sqm. An open plan living space is proposed on the ground floor, with a bedroom and bathroom proposed at first floor level. The appeal building is not subject to any heritage designations. 4. Table 4 set out under Policy DM8 of the Development Management Document July 2015 (DMD) sets out the minimum internal space standards for new dwellings. A gross internal floor area of 45sqm is identified for a one bedroom dwelling with two bedspaces where the dwelling is on one floor. Under Table 4, there are no standards set out for a one bedroom dwelling where the dwelling is on two floors, such as the proposal. 5. The Council refer to the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (NDSS) which identifies a minimum gross internal floor area of 58sqm for a one bedroom two person dwelling with two storeys.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision I note that Policy DM8 of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision I note that Policy DM8 of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/D1590/W/25/3358928 DMD does not refer to the NDSS. However, the NDSS are still a material consideration in that they represent the latest national guidance on space standards and are a useful reference point in considering whether the proposed accommodation would be suitable in size. 6. Whilst the appellant suggests that the proposal could be suitable for one person rather than two, the bedroom space provided would be suitable for a double bed and therefore I find it reasonable to consider the proposal as a one bedroom two person dwelling. It would also not be possible to control the number of people living in the dwelling and therefore it must be assessed based on it being occupied at full capacity. 7. The proposal would therefore fall short of the gross internal floor area identified in the NDSS for a one bedroom two person dwelling laid out across two storeys. Notwithstanding this deficiency against the NDSS, as a consequence of the limited internal space, future occupiers would be exposed to a poor quality and confined internal living environment that would impact negatively on their living conditions. 8.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Opposite the double door window and smaller window at first floor level in the southern elevation that would serve the bedroom is a first floor window in the rear elevation of No 363A. At the time of my site visit all of these windows were clear glazed and there were views possible between these windows with very limited separation, meaning there would be a significant impact on privacy. Whilst I accept there is a general arrangement of mutual overlooking in urban areas, I find the limited separation distance in this case to be significant in contributing to a poor relationship with the neighbouring property in this respect. 9. The appellant asserts that both bedroom windows would be obscure glazed in order to avoid overlooking. Nevertheless, if both windows were obscure glazed it would leave the bedroom space without any acceptable outlook, given that only small rooflights are proposed in the northern elevation and no other clear glazed windows are proposed. It is also stated as a result of the neighbouring commercial uses that windows would be required to be kept closed in order to mitigate noise impacts.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision This would further limit the outlook from windows, which could not be opened in the interests of preventing unacceptable noise and disturbance to future occupiers. The lack of outlook would lead to an oppressive bedroom space. 10. I accept that the erection of a boundary fence around the external space to the rear would ensure that the ground floor space would not be significantly overlooked from the neighbouring windows. However, this consideration would not overcome the harm I have set out above. I acknowledge that there are other buildings within rear garden spaces along Westborough Road and that they inform the pattern of development. Nevertheless, I am not informed of the specific details of any examples where the relationship between independent properties would be as intimate as the appeal scheme proposes. 11. I therefore find that the proposal would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the amount of floorspace provided, outlooks or privacy. The proposal would be contrary to Policies CP4 and KP2 of the southend on sea core strategy development plan document one adopted December 2007 (CS) and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the DMD.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision These policies seek, amongst other things, that developments are of good quality design that contribute to a high quality environment including maintaining and enhancing https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision These policies seek, amongst other things, that developments are of good quality design that contribute to a high quality environment including maintaining and enhancing https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D1590/W/25/3358928 amenities and securing good relationships with existing development, having regard to privacy, overlooking, outlook, noise and disturbance and that new dwellings should provide convenient, useable and effective room layouts. European sites 12. The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of a number of European sites. These sites are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). New housing development within the zone of influence would be likely to increase the number of recreational visitors to these European sites. Whilst the effect of the appeal scheme is likely to be limited, in combination with other developments there is a risk of significant effects on the designated sites. 13. Whilst there is limited information before me on this matter from either of the parties, I am informed that the Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) Supplementary Planning Document (2020) sets out a tariff based approach to secure strategic mitigation with regard to recreational disturbance.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision I have not been provided with any evidence that the RAMS contribution has been paid and there is no legal agreement before me that would secure it. 14. The appellant suggests that the RAMS payment could be secured by planning condition. However, the Planning Practice Guidance states that a negatively worded condition limiting the development that can take place until a planning obligation or other agreement has been entered into is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases. I have not been provided with any draft wording of such a condition in order to be able to consider it against the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 15. There is therefore insufficient information before me to confirm that the proposal would not result in harm to the integrity of designated European sites. As such, the proposal would not comply with Policies KP1, KP2 and CP4 of the CS or Policy DM6 of the DMD, which seek, amongst other things, that European sites for nature conservation are not adversely affected by any new development. 16.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Policy DM1 of the DMD is referred to in the Council’s second reason for refusal, however, this relates to design quality and is not directly relevant to this main issue. Other Matters 17. The appellant asserts that the proposal would result in the effective and optimal use of a vacant underutilised property which would contribute an additional one bedroom dwelling to the housing supply in a location which is close to facilities, services and public transport. Economic benefits would be gained during the construction phase and after with future occupiers supporting the local economy. However, given the scale of the proposal any benefits would be limited. 18. I note that this appeal proposal is a revised scheme that sought to overcome issues raised through previous applications considered by the Council. Be that as it may, I must consider the appeal proposal before me on its individual merits. I have also been referred to three examples where the Council has granted applications for change of use or conversion at other sites, which the appellant https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D1590/W/25/3358928 asserts are similar to the proposal before me. However, I have very limited information before me on what was proposed, or the context of those other examples and I cannot adequately compare them to the scheme before me now. Even if there are other examples of properties where the living conditions are not appropriate, I do not have the planning history of any examples before me, nor would it lead me to support a scheme which is deficient in this respect. 19. The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a sufficient housing land supply currently and that the Housing Delivery Test identifies a deficiency in housing being delivered. There is limited information before me from either party on this matter. However, under paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework, it states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. 20.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — Appeal Decision The European sites referred to above are a protected area or asset of particular importance under paragraph 11 d) i. and given my findings above, without sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise, the effect on the integrity of European sites does provide a strong reason for refusing the scheme. As such, the balancing exercise set out under paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework is not engaged in this case. Conclusion 21. I have found conflict with the development plan as a whole. This weighs significantly against the proposal and outweighs any limited benefits that would result. I have not found any material considerations, including the Framework, that would lead me to a different conclusion. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

Rear of 363A Westborough road, Westcliffe-on-sea, Southend on sea, SS0 9TS — Southend-on-Sea City Council — G Dring INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4