Four affordable houses at Land To The East Of Ballards Walk, Basildon

What was proposed

The application proposed four two-and-a-half-storey houses, with parking, landscaping and nine parking spaces.

“PLANNING APPLICATION 25/01327/FULL PROPOSED ERECTION OF 4NO. TWO AND A HALF STOREY HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON LAND EAST OF BALLARDS WALK (NORTH OF SELLARS WAY), BASILDON.”

“The surrounding area is residential in character, with to the south and west of the site 1960s housing developed by the Basildon Development Corporation, this is generally in the form of two storey terraces houses fronting Ballards Walk. To the north-west is a three-storey flatted block of flats in Markhams Chase. Whilst to the north and east comprises recently developed housing forming part of the Redrow Homes ‘St.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a grassed, irregularly shaped area beside Sellars Way, within a mainly residential neighbourhood, and had previously been used as a contractors’ yard.

“The site is of an irregular shape, approximately 0.089 hectares in area, and currently is a grassed area, contains a couple of immature trees, enclosed by a knee height low timber rail fencing. The site has in the past been used as the contractors’ yard to develop the adjoining residential estate.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions included housing schemes on the wider site and approval for two houses on this site in 2022.

“The following applications has been determined in respect of the application site, as part of larger site on land east of Ballards Walk, which includes the application site:-”

“06/00737/FULL Construction of 15 No. x 2 bed flats and 5No. x 2 bed houses with associated housing…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the housing principle acceptable and found the scheme would provide affordable homes without unacceptable effects on character, neighbours or highways.

“As the site is located within a primarily residential area and development of the site for residential purposes has previously been granted by the Council, the principle of developing a residential scheme on this site is considered acceptable.”

“The proposed scheme whilst seeking to increase the number of units on this site is generally in character with the surrounding properties, will include sufficient parking, without causing unacceptable harm to the amenities of the wider locality.”

Officer report

Professional advice

consultees raised no objections overall, subject to conditions covering drainage, ecology, highways, construction, trees, environmental health and security.

“Anglian Water Services No objections to development subject to proposed drainage layout being listed in approved plans if permission is granted.”

“Environmental Health - No objections, subject to conditions relating to hours of construction, dust suppression measures, and burning of materials on site.”

Officer report

Neighbour concerns

Sixteen neighbours objected, citing design, privacy, loss of openness, parking, traffic, green space, wildlife and construction disturbance.

“Loss of green space and wildlife habitat. . (Officer comments - discussed in section 5.7.2-5.7.4of this report.)”

“The proposal will lead to noise and disturbance during the construction period. (Officer comments – 5.6.6.with a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Method Statement as part of any permission, which will cover amongst other, noise, dust management, working hours, and construction traffic parking.)”

Officer report

Support for the scheme

The applicants said the homes would support the social and affordable housing programme, meet space standards and reduce construction disruption through modular building.

What members discussed

Members regretted that an NHS surgery would not be provided, differed on the scheme’s fit with its surroundings and welcomed housing on non-Green Belt land.

“Members regretted that an NHS surgery would not be provided on the site as previously envisaged, but understood that the decision had been made by the NHS. Opinions differed about whether the development would be in keeping with its surroundings but all members welcomed use of non-Green Belt land for housing.”

Minutes