2.3.5.4 Conversions

The draft generally represents a step in the right direction. It may however be the case that there is still insufficient weight behind some of the core principles especially limiting climate change, preserving the Green Belt and producing a desirable environment to live in.

The Committee of the Leigh society welcome this draft Document.
It is clearly laid out, well designed and easy to read.
However, we feel it would be further improved if the sections in the Contents were labelled with page numbers for reference.

All in all this is a very welcome document and we commend the officers for their efforts.

1.1
There may be some confusion in this paragraph - this is an SPD Guide and is 'one of the documents that form the planning policy of the town'. It is therefore policy, it is not guidance, or advice or negotiable and is an approved document. However this paragraph then confuses the issue by stating that 'the purpose of the guide is to provide guidance for developers...' An open invitation to lodge an appeal against a refusal perhaps?
1.1.3/8
We support the definition of good design although our experience is that this is an elusive commodity.
1.1.3/9
We strongly support the intention that 'all new development will have to demonstrate (our emphasis) that the proposed scheme is a high design or it will not be considered acceptable' Again our experience is that this may prove to be problematical but it is clearly better 'in than out'.
1.1.5
We support this commitment to good design.
2.2.3/42
This checklist appers to be based on a traditional housing estate model with vehicular access to the front of the property. Undercliff Gardens does not fall into this category - it is a unique area where access is restricted to pedestrians. We would like to see a small amendment to this paragraph to include such non-conforming areas and developments.
2.2.3/43
This seems a potentially dangerous exception - a planning weakness can be a developer's strength. Who is to decide?
2.3.1.4/59
We suggest that there should be presumptions against conversion to so called chalet bungalows that include the use of dormer windows.
2.3.2.1/80
This paragraph is of fundamental importance to this Society. We suggest that there should be a modest adjustment so that the 3rd sentence reads 'Generally new buildings should respect the established building frontage lines, or line of building, however...'

We are pleased to see that the Guide reinforces the importance of this policy (not guideline) in Para 2.3.4.2/107 by stating 'building frontage lines should be respected'.

Again in Para 2.3.4.3 there is more reference to building frontage lines being respected in order to protect the established street pattern.

However there appears to be no reason why the traditional 'building line' has been changed in this Guide to 'building frontage line'. for the avoidance of doubt we understand the two phrases to have the same meaning which is established in law 'an imaginary line drawn parallel to the highway at a specified distance from the back of the footpath, the dimensions being specified by the local planning authority as part of their overall responsibility for development control. No building or part of a building may be erected between the building line and back of footpath'. This view is supported by the fact that para 2.3.2.1 includes both phrases in a single sentence. We also rely on the Council's own BLP policy document C12 which states 'the preservation of Undercliff Gardens south of the building line as an area free of vehicular traffic and parking' it does not say 'south of the building frontage line'. We therefore suggest that 'building line' should be used throughout to avoid confusion.
2.3.5.4/141
This is an important restriction on conversions. We should like to see clarity on percentages of family homes to be retained - lack of clarity has been used on appeal in some cases (including Undercliff Gardens)
4.8/250
Permitted development was changed on the 1st October 2008 by the introduction of Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment)(No 2)(England)Order 2008. We presume Article 4 Directions will reflect this in due course, although it should remain as policy that there is a permanent restriction on permitted development in Undercliff Gardens.
5.1.1/254
We suggest that all materials should be permanent and short term poor quality materials not used.
5.2.2.1/346
We suggest that the 3rd paragraph should be change to '...where new balconies are proposed...it does not extend in front of the building line, and that the privacy of neighbours is not compromised'
6.2.1/399
In our opinion many planning applications fall short of an acceptable standard, and yet they are frequently accepted in the interests of speed. We suggest that details of all proposals should be clearly shown and that all planning applications include:
a. New and existing ground levels on all elevation and sections
b. Partial elevations of all adjoining properties.
3. Sufficient details to enable a decision to be made.
6.5/480
We would like to see a design brief, reflecting this Guide, prepared for Undercliff Gardens in view of the importance attached to its protection.
OTHER COMMENTS ON SPD 1
A. Grand Parade
Most of the above comments relate to the impact of this document on Undercliff Gardens.
However all plots extend to the north of Undercliff Gardens so that they front Grand Parade. In other words each plot possesses two frontages. It is obvious that clauses. i and ii of policy C12 were drafted with the Grand Parade frontage in mind, whereas clauses iii, iv and v relate to Undercliff Gardens. We suggest that this conflict needs addressing. Policy C12 is out of date in other respects and we have offered to discuss a revised policy document with the council (see our letter dated 9 July 2008). We are aware that it is the council's intention to eventually prepare and adopt a more up to date policy C12 (see your letter dated 7 June 2006).
Appendix A3.19 to C12 addressed many of the design problems referred to above but it has not been saved. We suggest that it might be re-visited in due course when C12 is up-dated.
B. Programme and Policy
As you are aware, this Guide has been under discussion for a very long time. Our understanding is that it is a policy document and therefore it is vital that applicants and residents alike have confidence that all planning matters will be covered by this important document as soon as possible.
C. Patio's and terraces
Hard landscaping is an essential element in any development but in Undercliff Gardens it makes a significant impact on the environment. The use of retaining walls, paving materials to be used, levels and relationships to buildings all need considering - Part 5.1.3/272 - 275 is very brief and could be expanded in this direction to advantage.
D. Planning Applications Generally
It would seem that the Council have recently adopted a more flexible attitude towards applications. It is not uncommon for an application to include the briefest of information which is then approved in principle, subject to details being approved. As we are not consulted when an application for approval of conditions is lodged (e.g 09/0455/ad - 102 Undercliff Gardens) it follows that approval of important details is a matter for negotiation by officers without consultation. Hopefully this Guide will remove the need for such procedures.

Overall I would like to say that this is excellent document and the revisions that have been made add a lot of value however I have made a few suggested comments sorry for the delay in coming back to you:

Update of introduction in light of recently adopted policy and guidance - no comment
Cross links to the Core Strategy, East of England Regional Spatial Strategy and saved Borough Local Plan Policies - no comment
Improved guidance on
Scale, Height and Massing - could include a recognition that within streets there may be a character within individual street block ie chalkwell esplanade or a characteristic row of properties in a street ie where there is a run of bungalows in a street that is predominantly 2 storey semis.
Sustainable Development and Design - I could not see any where where it is emphasised that these options should be incorporated into the design and not left to be a condition, reference could be made to the local list and that this could be a reason to invalidate the application
The Historic Environment - no comments
Amenity Space - amenity decks and roof terraces - mention a common design solution to prevent overlooking from roof terraces is to set the boundary in from the edge of the roof which removes the need for unsightly obscure panels whilst retaining views of the townscape - the prevention of overlooking can effectively be shown using cross sections
Backland and Infill Development - no comments
Tall Buildings - could maybe add a comment about what you said at the 22 the Leas meeting about have the odd building in strategic locations breaking though the general height of buildings, direct reference could be made to the tall building locations identified within the Central Area Master Plan
Pavement Cafes - no comments
Space Standards including Lifetime Home Standards - this does not go so far as to state a standard for flat sizes (not room sizes) which I thought we were heading towards, maybe we could just adopt those as our standard, I know it is a common thought that the market should determine appropriate sizes however surely we could link the flat sizes to the delivery of a range of accommodation sizes which were identified in the background information that fed into the core strategy
How to Submit an Application - reference that the council's local lists provide further information as to when additional supporting documentation is required which can be found on the council's web site
2.3.2.1 Overshadowing - I think we need to make a commitment to a shadowing school of thought ie P J Littlefair's 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight a guide to good practice' as a method that the authority agrees to (this was the guy who came in to do the talk and is nationally renowned in this field)
2.3.4.5 Public Art - I think the word typically is not strong enough for the 1% contribution, it should be more like a 1% contribution will be required unless otherwise agreed with the Council
2.3.5.4 Conversions - houses into flats - Viv may want to look at strengthening this up as I think there is a general push to stop this outside of town centre areas, maybe can be achieved by referencing the Core Strategy
2.3.2.2 Overlooking and privacy - cross sections can be an effective tool to demonstrate overlooking is not possible the Council uses a height of 1.7 metres for eye lines
5.3.8 beach huts - roller shutters are not acceptable in any circumstance even where there is repeat vandalism. When I contacted a number of other authorities with beach huts they do not allow roller shutters as they look like garages. In speaking with colleges in building control they are satisfied that using better hinges and locks on the doors will be just as effective. Staining of beach huts is unacceptable and was accidently included in the first version of the design and townscape guide and should now be omitted. The colour of the beach huts must be vibrant pastels going further than just 'will be welcomed'. I know there are a lot of examples of pretty poor design including roller shutters and staining however over time as these are replaced (generally every 10-15 years) it will be possible to really improve there appearance.
4.5 conservation areas - I could not see it but did we mention about the window grants scheme the council offers - there should be a paragraph stating "Traditional windows are essential to the character of historic buildings and conservation areas. Many need repairing; others have been replaced by inappropriate designs. Window Grants are, therefore, available to help repair and reinstate traditional windows in Conservation Areas. Window Grants provide 40% of the cost of repairing and reinstating traditional windows in Conservation Areas. Grants are up to £500 per property and are restricted to traditional windows facing the street which contribute to the area's character. Grants are discretionary and will depend on funds being available when an application is made. Grant application forms are available from Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council telephone 01702 215004 or can be downloaded from this page. Estimates from two contractors based on the same specification must be enclosed with the application. The offer of a grant is discretionary and will be subject to acceptable estimates and to funds being available. A grant cannot be offered for work that has already been started or carried out. If a grant is offered, it will be in writing and will be subject to appropriate conditions. Subject to agreement, work may be deferred for up to a year following a grant offer. Payment of a grant will normally be made after the work has been completed satisfactorily and receipted invoices have been submitted. Interim payments for larger projects may be made in some instances. Consent under planning legislation and the Building Regulations may be needed before work starts. The Council will advise and help you make any necessary application."
2.3.1.3 - internal arrangements and space standards - all habitable rooms 'must' not 'should' have natural ventilation and daylight