APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION EPF…

Mrs G Davidson BA(Hons) MRTPI Page 1

APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION EPF/1279/15

PROPOSED 2-STOREY HOUSE

26 MEADOW WAY, CHIGWELL IG7 6LR

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The site is located in Meadow Way which is a residential estate comprising detached

houses of a variety of types and styles. It is a vacant piece of land between Nos. 22

and 28 Meadow Way.

Street view of Meadow Way. Appeal site behind gates on left.

1.2 Access is gained via gates to a private drive and courtyard which is in the same

ownership as No. 26, including the appeal site. It is understood that Nos. 24 and 24a

have a right of access over the private drive and there is no right to park cars in the

private courtyard.

1.3 The site is adjacent to but not within a conservation area. The wall along the

western boundary of the site is within the conservation area.

1.4 Resulting from pre-application discussions with Council officers, an application for

the erection of a 2-storey house on the site was submitted and recommended for

approval (see officers’ recommendation and conditions, attached).

1.5 Members refused planning permission on 26 August 2015 for two reasons. The first

reason states that due to the small size of the proposed dwelling, its position and its

design, the house would be out of character with the street scene and harmful to

the visual amenities of the area, contrary to local planning policies. The second

reason for refusal cites adverse impacts on neighbours’ amenities, specifically,

outlook from Nos. 24 and 28, loss of open space within the cul-de-sac that was an

integral part of the original development and increased use of drive and

parking/turning area, contrary to local planning policies.

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 It is proposed to build a 2-storey, 3-bedroom house. The house is of traditional

design and appearance, with brick and render to walls and tiles to the roof, to match


existing buildings. It would face both towards Meadow Way, albeit behind the

existing walls and gates, and also would provide an interesting frontage on to the

private access road with secondary windows in this elevation. There would be

gardens to front and rear.

2.2 Two garage spaces for the proposed house together with 2 garage spaces for No. 26

would be provided by extending the existing garage to No.26, for which planning

permission already exists (EPF/0352/15, granted 13 April 2015). This parking

provision complies with adopted parking standards.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The Courtland estate, including Meadow Way, appears to date from the 1970s and

planning permission for the 3 existing houses in the cul-de-sac was granted May

1978 (EPF/102/78). Standard landscaping conditions were attached to this

permission but none refers to amenity land nor removes permitted development

rights relating to means of enclosure. There is therefore no evidence that the

openness of the appeal site was an important factor in deciding to grant planning

permission for the 3 houses.

3.2 An outline application (EPF/1251/80) for a bungalow on the appeal site was

unsuccessful in 1980 and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. Permission for a

bungalow was again refused in 1988 (EPF/564/88). In both cases, whilst there were

problems with the proposal in terms of provision of a single-storey dwelling towards

the rear of the site, the loss of important trees was one of the determining factors.

Owing to disease and natural loss through the passage of time (affected trees

removed with consent at various times), there are no longer any trees on the site.

3.3 It is further noted that the smaller footprint of the proposed house compared with

the previously proposed bungalow allows increased separation distances to

neighbours and increased garden space, thereby overcoming remaining issues with

the bungalow proposal.

3.4 Considerable time has elapsed since submission of the earlier applications (35 years

and 27 years, respectively). Those decisions were made according to relevant

planning policy and site conditions at that time and the current proposal falls to be

considered under current planning policies and current material considerations.

3.5 Planning permission was granted earlier this year (EPF/0352/15) as noted above for

the extension of the existing garage to No. 26 to provide a pair of double garages.


Parking within the courtyard, turning and access were considered in determining the

application and deemed to be acceptable.

3.6 Pre-application discussions with Council officers were undertaken and an application

(EPF1505/14) for a new dwelling on the appeal site was withdrawn. The current

proposal has resulted from discussions with Council officers who recommended

approval of the planning application.

3.7 An additional plan (ref: 2015.105.PA-11 rev B) was provided at the request of

planning officers before the planning committee meeting to show more clearly the

impact on the street scene. This additional drawing is not available on the Council

website and is attached to this appeal for clarity and completeness.

4.0 PLANNING POLICIES

4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the presumption in favour

of sustainable development and explains that this means ‘approving development

proposals that accord with the development plan without delay’1. It seeks ‘[t]o boost

significantly the supply of housing’2 and requires good design in all developments3.

With reference to the adjacent conservation area, the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention be paid to the

desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the

conservation area4 and the NPPF echoes this requirement5.

4.2 Local policies are provided in the Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations

(2006). Core policy CP1 aims to achieve sustainable development objectives,

including securing the provision of sufficient types and amounts of housing. CP2

seeks to protect the quality of the rural and built environment and CP3 provides

criteria which new development must meet including a requirement that it is

consistent with the principles of sustainability and respects the character and

environment of the area. In order to achieve sustainable urban development

patterns and protect urban form and quality, CP6 and CP7 encourage housing

development within urban areas and seek to make the fullest use of land in built up

areas with high quality development.

1 NPPF paragraph 14

2 Ibid paragraph 47

3 Ibid section 7

4 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 72

5 NPPF section 12


4.3 Policy HC6 aims at preserving and enhancing the character, appearance and setting

of conservation areas. The Council seeks to a achieve provision of a range of

housing, including smaller dwellings in H4A.

4.4 Policy DBE1 covers the design of new buildings and requires that they respect their

setting, are of appropriate size and in appropriate positions and use sympathetic

external materials. DBE2 protects amenities of neighbours and DBE3 requires that

development in urban areas meet specified criteria. DBE6 covers car parking in new

development (with reference to the Essex Parking Standards), DBE8 deals with

provision of private garden space in residential development and DBE9 seeks to

ensure that development does not result in loss of amenity taking into account

visual impact, overlooking, loss of daylight/sunlight and noise, smell or other

disturbance. Policy LL10 requires adequate provision for the retention of trees.

5.0 PLANNING ANALYSIS

5.1 REASON FOR REFUSAL 1. The first reason for refusal relates to the affect of the

proposal on the character of the street scene and visual amenities of the area. It

specifically mentions the small size of the proposal, its position and its design and

states that these factors result in it being out of character. To address this reason

for refusal requires an assessment of the existing character of the area and how the

proposal would affect it.

5.2 Meadow Way is characterised by 2-storey, detached houses displaying a variety of

traditional house styles. No particular type predominates. The houses are set well

back from the road with grass verges, trees and gardens. The appeal proposal is a 2-

storey, detached house of traditional design. It would be set well back from the

road, beyond the existing grass verge, large mature trees and front garden. It would

also be behind the existing walls and gates of the cul-de-sac. Whilst the upper parts

of the new house would be visible over the top of the wall, the house would not be

prominent in the street scene. It would not adversely affect the mature trees on the

adjacent grass verge, as confirmed by the Council’s landscape officer.

5.3 Within the cul-de-sac, the houses are large, 2-storey detached of traditional design

with brick and some render to walls and tiles to roofs. Whilst the proposed dwelling

would be slightly smaller than its neighbours, it would not be unusually small and

would be of similar character being a detached, 2-storey house of traditional design

and materials. Garden size is more than adequate and is in keeping with the size of

neighbouring gardens. It should be noted that the original estate was built with a


mix of house sizes, including 3-bedroom houses, many of which have been extended

over the years to create larger dwellings. The provision of a slightly smaller dwelling

is therefore in keeping with the original estate. It is also worth noting that a larger

dwelling was proposed originally, the size of which was reduced following

discussions with Council officers.

Appeal site behind existing walls and gates.

5.4 In terms of its position, it would be set slightly behind the front of No. 28. The

existing houses in the cul-de-sac are already set behind Nos. 28 and 30 and the

appeal proposal would read both as part of Meadow Way and the cul-de-sac and

would not appear out of place. Owing to the layout of the cul-de-sac, the proposal

would be to the front of No. 24. The distance of separation is significantly more

than exists elsewhere (eg: the distance between Nos. 30 and 26 is 25m). The

proposed dwelling presents a secondary frontage to the cul-de-sac and its position

would be entirely in keeping.

5.5 The position and design of the house would therefore be in keeping with the

surroundings and the size is not so unusual as to make the house conspicuous or out

of place. In addition, its location set back from the road frontage with intervening

existing mature trees and walls/gates further mitigate any impact on the street

scene and visual amenities of the area.

5.6 The proposal would therefore be in keeping with the character of the street scene

and visual amenities of the area, in accordance with national and local planning

policies noted in section 4 above.

5.7 REASON FOR REFUSAL 2. The second reason for refusal covers impact on amenities

of Nos. 24 and 28, loss of open space and increased use of drive/turning area.


Regarding impact on amenities of No. 24, there would be a separation of 32m

between the rear of the proposed dwelling and the front of No. 24. This distance is

sufficient to provide privacy6 and outlook for occupants of both properties. It would

also maintain a feeling of spaciousness in keeping with the surroundings. It is a

greater separation than exists elsewhere in the immediate vicinity (eg: between nos.

24 and 24a and between nos. 26 and 30).

5.8 The new house would be situated to the side of No.28 at a distance of 11m at the

closest point. Although the proposal would be set behind the front of No. 28 and

project further back than it, it would only just clip the 45 degree angle of view from

the nearest first floor window of that property at a distance of 11m. This indicates

that there would be no significant loss of outlook. (Drawing PA-09 Rev A showing

the 45 degree angle, which was submitted as part of the planning application, does

not account for the slight set back of the first floor of No. 28.) There are no windows

to habitable rooms above ground floor level proposed in the elevation facing

towards No. 28 thereby avoiding any overlooking. It is noted that conifers in the

garden of No. 28 have been removed since submission of the planning application.

5.9 The proposal would therefore not significantly adversely affect amenities of

neighbours.

5.10 The appeal site is currently a grassed piece of vacant land. It has been

demonstrated with reference to the original planning permission for the

development of the cul-de-sac that its openness did not form an important factor in

that decision. There are high walls to 3 sides of the site and a fence or wall of up to

2m in height can be erected along the remaining side as permitted development.7

There is no right for neighbours to use the land, other than access along the drive for

the 2 neighbours, and it is not a visually prominent open space. The proposal would

not result in the loss of important open space.

5.11 The proposal is likely to result in an increase in traffic using the courtyard but for a

single, 3-bedroom dwelling it is unlikely to be so significant as to warrant refusal of

planning permission. It should also be noted that planning permission

(EPF/0352/15) has already been granted for an extension to the existing garage to

provide 2 double garages, one of which would be used by the new house. In

6 A direct window-to-window separation of 25m is generally taken to provide sufficient space to avoid undue

overlooking. 7 The private drive adjacent to the site is not a ‘highway’ for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 because it is not one over which the public has a right to pass and repass. A private right of way exists only for Nos. 24 and 24a.


determining that application, the Council has already assessed traffic and parking

issues associated with the new garage and judged them to be acceptable.

5.12 There is more than sufficient space for parking and turning vehicles associated with

the existing and proposed dwellings in the cul-de-sac, in compliance with the Essex

Parking Standards. Nos. 24 and 24a have a right of access to and from their garages.

Claims that the courtyard becomes congested resulting from parking are therefore

invalid. In any case, even if cars are parked outside each of the garages, there is still

ample room for parking and turning in accordance with adopted standards and this

issue has already been addressed by the recent grant of permission to extend the

existing garage to form 2 double garages, one being allocated to the new house.

5.13 IMPACT ON ADJACENT CONSERVATION AREA. The proposal, being of modest size

and traditional design and appearance would not affect the adjacent conservation

area. The protected wall and the trees on adjacent land would not be affected. The

proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of its impact on the adjacent conservation

area.

5.14 NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES. The proposal represents sustainable

development being located within the urban area of Chigwell and close to existing

services and facilities, including public transport. It therefore complies with the

NPPF and core policies of the Local Plan. It would not be detrimental to the

character, appearance or setting of the adjacent conservation area, thereby

complying with relevant legislation, the NPPF and HC6 of the Local Plan. The

proposal would contribute towards provision of a mix of dwelling types and sizes, in

compliance with the NPPF and H4A of the Local Plan.

5.15 Turning then to the criteria in DBE1: the appeal proposal would respect its setting in

scale, proportion, siting, massing, height, orientation, roof-line and detailing; it

would be of appropriate size and position in the street scene; it only uses external

materials which are sympathetic to the vernacular range of materials. It therefore

complies with policy DBE1.

5.16 In having no significant adverse affect on amenities of neighbours the proposal

complies with DBE2. The proposal meets the criteria in DBE3 and has dual front

elevations facing both Meadow Way and the cul-de-sac. Parking for the new

development would be conveniently located and would not visually dominate the

street scene, in accordance with DBE6 and would comply with the adopted Essex


Parking Standards. The gardens for the new house would provide privacy and be of

appropriate size, shape and location, in compliance with DBE8.

5.17 The proposal would not result in loss of amenity for neighbours. There would be no

overlooking owing to the design of the proposal and distances to existing dwellings,

no loss of sunlight/daylight owing to the relationship between the buildings and

distances between them, no undue disturbance would result from one additional

dwelling in the cul-de-sac and the visual impact would be acceptable. It therefore

complies with DBE9. Trees on adjacent land and the wall protected by conservation

area status would not be affected by the proposal and would be appropriately

protected, in accordance with LL10.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposal represents sustainable development of a new house in an established

residential area. Owing to its size, location and design, it would not adversely affect

the street scene. The proposal would not adversely affect amenities of neighbours,

would not result in the loss of important open space and traffic generated by the

proposal can be satisfactorily accommodated.

6.2 The appeal proposal complies with national and local planning policies and it is

requested that the appeal be allowed and planning permission be granted. It is

suggested that the conditions (see attached schedule) in the planning officer’s

report to the committee are appropriate.

Mrs G Davidson BA(Hons) MRTPI

November 2015


SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS (from Planning Officer’s report)

Report Item No: 6

APPLICATION No: EPF/1279/15

SITE ADDRESS: 26 Meadow Way

Chigwell

Essex

IG7 6LR

PARISH: Chigwell

WARD: Chigwell Village

APPLICANT: Mr Peter Argyrou

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed two storey new build house (Revision to EPF/1505/14)

RECOMMENDED DECISION: Grant Permission (With Conditions)

Click on the link below to view related plans and documents for this case:

http://planpub.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/NIM.websearch/ExternalEntryPoint.aspx?SEARCH_TYPE=1&DOC_CLASS_CODE=PL&FOLDER1_REF=576534

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted will be completed strictly in accordance with the

approved drawings nos:

http://planpub.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/NIM.websearch/ExternalEntryPoint.aspx?SEARCH_TYPE=1&DOC_CLASS_CODE=PL&FOLDER1_REF=576534


2015.105.PA-01, 2015.105.PA-02 rev A, 2015.105.PA-03, 2015.105.PA-04,

2015.105.PA-05, 2015.105.PA-06, 2015.105.PA-07, 2015.105.PA-08 rev A,

2015.105.PA-09 rev A, 2015.105.PA-10 rev A, 2015.105.PA-11 rev A, 2015.105.PA-12

rev A, 2015.105.PA-13 rev A, 2015.105.PA-14 rev A, 2015.105.PA-15 rev A,

2015.105.PA-16 rev A

2 The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of

three years beginning with the date of this notice.

3 No construction works above ground level shall take place until documentary and

photographic details of the types and colours of the external finishes have been

submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing. The

development shall be implemented in accordance with such approved details.

4 Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, the proposed window

openings in the first floor of the north eastern flank elevations shall be entirely fitted

with obscured glass and have fixed frames to a height of 1.7 metres above the floor of

the room in which the window is installed and shall be permanently retained in that

condition.

5 No development shall take place until details of foul and surface water disposal have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

development shall be implemented in accordance with such agreed details.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015 (or of any equivalent provision in any Statutory

Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order), the garage indicated on drawing

2015.105. PA-08 rev A for use for number 26a, shall be permanently retained for use

for number 26a so that it is capable of allowing the parking of cars together with any

ancillary storage in connection with the residential use of the site, and shall at no time

be converted into a room or used for any other purpose.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any other Order revoking,

further amending or re-enacting that Order) no development generally permitted by

virtue of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken without the


prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

8 No development shall take place, including site clearance or other preparatory work,

until full details of both hard and soft landscape works (including tree planting) and

implementation programme (linked to the development schedule) have been

submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works

shall be carried out as approved. The hard landscaping details shall include, as

appropriate, and in addition to details of existing features to be retained: proposed

finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other minor

artefacts and structures, including signs and lighting and functional services above and

below ground. The details of soft landscape works shall include plans for planting or

establishment by any means and full written specifications and schedules of plants,

including species, plant sizes and proposed numbers /densities where appropriate. If

within a period of five years from the date of the planting or establishment of any

tree, or shrub or plant, that tree, shrub, or plant or any replacement is removed,

uprooted or destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective another

tree or shrub, or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be

planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written

consent to any variation.

9 No development, including works of demolition or site clearance, shall take place until

a Tree Protection Plan Arboricultural Method Statement and site monitoring schedule

in accordance with BS:5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and

construction - recommendations) has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority

and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out only in accordance

with the approved documents unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written

consent to any variation.

10 The proposed use of this site has been identified as being particularly vulnerable if

land contamination is present, despite no specific former potentially contaminating

uses having been identified for this site.

Should any discoloured or odorous soils be encountered during development works or

should any hazardous materials or significant quantities of non-soil forming materials

be found, then all development works should be stopped, the Local Planning

Authority contacted and a scheme to investigate the risks and / or the adoption of any

required remedial measures be submitted to, agreed and approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority prior to the recommencement of development works.


Following the completion of development works and prior to the first occupation of

the site, sufficient information must be submitted to demonstrate that any required

remedial measures were satisfactorily implemented or confirmation provided that no

unexpected contamination was encountered.

11 No development shall take place until details of levels have been submitted to and

approved by the Local Planning Authority showing cross-sections and elevations of the

levels of the site prior to development and the proposed levels of all ground floor

slabs of buildings, roadways and accessways and landscaped areas. The development

shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

12 The adjacent Public Right of Way must be maintained free and unencumbered

throughout construction and development unless otherwise agreed with Essex County

Council.

13 Prior to the commencement of works, details of how the existing wall along the south-

western boundary that forms part of the Chigwell Village Conservation Area shall be

retained and protected during construction shall be agreed in writing to the Local

Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out and maintained

thereafter in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by

the Local Planning Authority.

14 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a

Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by,

the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout

the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

1. The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

2. Loading and unloading of plant and materials

3. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

4. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays

and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate

5. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction, including


wheel washing.

6. A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and

construction works.

This application is before this Committee since;

- it is for a type of development that cannot be determined by Officers if more than two objections material to the planning merits of the proposal to be approved are received (Pursuant to The Constitution, Part Three: Planning Services – Delegation of Council functions, Schedule 1, Appendix A.(f).)

- the recommendation is for approval contrary to an objection from a local council which is material to the planning merits of the proposal (Pursuant to The Constitution, Part Three: Planning Services – Delegation of Council functions, Schedule 1, Appendix A.(g))

ENDS

Documents

APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION EPF…