One new dwelling at 9 Lakeside Crescent, Brentwood

What was proposed

The application sought to subdivide the existing plot, demolish the garage and shed, and build a new dwellinghouse.

“SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING PLOT AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLINGHOUSE FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE AND SHED OF THE EXISTING HOUSE.”

“Planning permission is sought for the subdivision of existing plot and construction of new dwellinghouse following demolition of the garage and shed of the existing house at (land adjacent) 9 Lakeside Crescent, Brentwood. Policy Context…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a large residential plot in a private cul-de-sac, with spacious gardens, mature trees and a lake contributing to the area’s character.

“The starting point for determining a planning application is the Development Plan, in this case the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033. Planning legislation states that applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Relevant material considerations for determining this application include the NPPF and NPPG.”

“The site comprises the existing dwellinghouse within a large plot and the wider area is characterised by the verdant characteristics and the lake within the rear garden. There is a spacious quality to this street scene. The application site is identified as being located within Settlement Hierarchy 1 (policy MG03) where there is no objection to the principle of new residential development. The site is also located in Flood Zone 1.”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval, considering the design, density, neighbour amenity, sustainability, ecology and highway impacts acceptable subject to conditions.

“The Highway Authority have been consulted for technical input and advise that the proposed development to be acceptable in terms of impacts upon highway safety and efficiency, subject to conditions. These are recommended to secure cycle parking and residential travel packs. Highways do not identify the need for additional street lighting here, which is appropriate given the Crescent has historically been unlit which contributes to its character.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Thirteen neighbours objected, while consultees raised no objection or found the proposal acceptable subject to conditions.

“This application has been advertised by way of neighbour notification letters and public site notice. At the time of writing this report, a total of 13 neighbour representation have been received for this application – all objecting to the development. The applicant has also provided a written response (received 3 October 2025).”

“From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority subject to conditions. Informative recommended.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The senior planning officer presented the report, an objector’s representative opposed the application, and the applicant spoke in support.

Members’ debate

Members disagreed over whether the proposal was suitable development or would harm the Crescent’s low-density, open character.

“Cllr Mynott gave his views that he felt the strong and distinct character of Lakeside Cresent, i.e. the low density and openness, was being exploited by increasing the density of the area. He felt the character of the area is being compromised by this proposal. As a result Policies B14 1 (criteria e and f) and NE07 (b) were not being complied with.”

“Cllr Baldock considered the proposal to be overdevelopment and the development would not be in keeping with the character of the area and referred to the restrictive covenant identified. However, it was identified by Members this covenant was not a material planning reason to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee vote was tied at six for refusal and six against, with no abstentions, so the Chair used a casting vote for refusal.

“AGAINST: Cllrs Barber, [name withheld], Chinnery, Mayo, McCheyne, Patel (6)”

“The Chair had the casting vote, and maintained his original vote to refuse the application.”

Minutes