Larger restaurant pergola at Alec's Navestock Side Navestock, Navestock Side

What was proposed

The application sought to replace the restaurant’s existing rear pergola with a larger single-storey pergola and alter nearby paths and hardstanding.

“Planning permission is sought for the replacement of the existing single storey pergola to the rear of the existing restaurant. The proposed extension would take the form of a larger pergola and would include alterations to the existing pathways and areas of hard standing around the rear of the building.”

Officer report

The site

The restaurant has a 66-space car park, lies beside a Grade II listed building and is within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

“Alec’s is a detached two storey restaurant set on the western side of Navestock Side opposite The Green (Cricket Ground). The site is situated at the end of a row of residential development which lies to the south, and to the north and west boundaries are adjacent to open rural fields and wider countryside setting of the site. On site is a two storey building with single storey out-shots and a 66 space car park which expands around the side and front of the building.”

“The application site lies adjacent to Black Cottage, a Grade II Listed Building and is washed over by the Metropolitan Green Belt.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Previous permissions covered rear extensions, alterations, an outbuilding, replacement windows, associated details, a bin store and a terrace shelter.

“08/00782/FUL: Single Storey Rear Extensions, Ramp To Front Elevation And Alterations To Fenestration – Application Permitted • 09/00244/FUL: Variation Of Condition 9 Of Planning Permission Reference Brw/782/2008 (Single Storey Rear Extensions, Ramp To Front Elevation And Alterations To Fenestration) To Retain An Existing Outbuilding (Former Function Room) At The Site Beyond The Commencement Of Development.”

“– Application Permitted • 14/01310/FUL: Construction of demountable terrace shelter – Application Permitted…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval, finding no adverse impacts and considering the proposal consistent with relevant local and national planning policies.

“There are no identified adverse impacts arising from the proposal which would warrant the refusal of planning permission. The development is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016–2033 and the national decision-making policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out below.”

Officer report

Parking and neighbours

No neighbour representations were received, while the Parish Council said extra diners without more parking could worsen existing roadside parking problems.

“Where applications are subject to public consultation those comments are summarised below. The full version of each neighbour response can be viewed on the Council’s website via Public Access at the following link: http://publicaccess.brentwood.gov.uk/online-applications/”

“No neighbour representations were received for this application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, the agent described its limited scope and accessibility benefits, and the ward councillor explained her parking concerns.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed parking pressures, consultation, parking calculations and the absence of planning reasons to refuse the application.

“Cllr Barber queried the consultation process and asked how many neighbouring properties had been notified of the application, noting that several dwellings in the vicinity could potentially be affected by parking associated with the restaurant. The officer advised that a site notice had been displayed and confirmed that details of the number of neighbouring properties consulted could be checked and provided.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted unanimously in favour, with no votes against and no abstentions.

“Cllr Barber acknowledged the explanation and indicated that he generally agreed with the comments made by previous speakers. Following further discussion a Motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Mayo and SECONDED by Cllr Mynott. A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:”

“ABSTAIN: (0) The Motion to APPROVE the application was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY subject to the conditions outlined in the report.”

Minutes