This application has been referred to committee following a request

of Ward Councillor Rigby with the following reasons:

Highway safety and traffic levels

The parking scheme will effectively require any vehicles to reverse on and off a narrow frontage at both 264 and 264A onto the main road, the fast flowing Rayleigh Road / A129. I believe a physical inspection of the property will demonstrate that. The absence of any objection by the highways authority does not conclusively dispose of this objection as per the previous application and would result in potential harm to highway safety. I do not believe the widening of existing access from Rayleigh Road to be used by both dwelling houses will achieve the results sought and inspection will demonstrate this.

Design, appearance and layout/ effect on the area

The proposed development changes the status of the dwellings from semi-detached to terrace which is out of context with the surrounding character of the site and represents a significant change from the chalet style developments prevalent in this section of Rayleigh Road from Goodwood Avenue to Havering’s Grove. No evidence is offered by the planning officer in support of the application of approved, named, previous planning applications other than bare

assertion. Furthermore, the comparison with terraced developments to the east of the site is inappropriate, as no examples of terracing in that style can be seen in the immediate area, which are of a detached or villa style. The development is out of character with the immediate surrounding area, as opposed to the more built-up elements of Hutton East from Rayleigh Road as it meets St Peter’s Church. The comparison is therefore misleading.

The boundary of the site runs behind the dwellings of Goodwood Avenue, and

separated by a strip of land as shown upon drawing No. 22-1349 -08-D02. The proposed development is within close proximity of the dwellings and has effectively incorporated, the drainage ditch, a historic and known wildlife corridor to Hutton Country Park, in excess of curtilage.

The latest application basically seeks to divide into two, leaving a very narrow but very long rear garden for one, and a truncated garden for the other, on which a number of houses in Goodwood Avenue back on to either one, or the other, from No 2 to No. 12 Goodwood Avenue. The space provided as a result of the split is cramped and narrow at 50sqm and 5.4m wide which is barely indicative of good garden quality. It is totally out of context with surrounding gardens, and does not provide a good level of amenity, as the plot of 264A is only 2.5 m wide at the north end.

Need to safeguard the countryside or protected species of plant or animal

The application will impact on the unregistered land which acts as a drainage ditch, owing to heavy clay soil, shown in the plans which extends from the rear of 264 Rayleigh Rd until 18 Goodwood Avenue, when it appears in a culvert, re-

surfacing before it joins a stream in Hutton Country Park and thence the River Wid, acting as a potential soakaway It has been a wildlife corridor for hedgehogs, badgers and foxes and was the site of a historic hawthorn hedge bordering the ditch, which needs to be protected for drainage, water absorption and benefit of wild life. While the hedge was razed to ground level in May 2020, it now shows signs of recovery.

The planning history of the site

There has been a catalogue of applications for this property, stretching back twenty years, of which this is the latest attempt to capitalise on the value of the property without regard for the overall neighbourhood, with a long history of applications, failed and withdrawn, of which only the most recent have been listed. This property has benefited from extensive additions in excess of 50% since build in 1962, and should be preserved as a single dwelling house. An approval of this application would be to condone the destruction of the drainage ditch and also the improper adoption of land.

Ms Brooke Pride presented the report.

Mr Goodwin was present at the meeting and addressed the Committee objecting to the application.

A statement on behalf of the Applicant was also read by the Chair.

Ward Cllr Rigby was present at the meeting and spoke objecting to the application.

Following a full discussion Cllr Mynott MOVED a motion to APPROVE the application.  This was SECONDED by Dr Barett.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Bridge, M Cuthbert, N Cuthbert, Laplain, McCheyne, Munden, Mynott (8)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Barber, Mrs Francois, Gelderbloem, Heard (4)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The application was APPROVED subject to conditions outlined in the report.