Four affordable flats at Garage site, Castell Road, Loughton

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing 18 garages and building four two-storey flats, with eight parking spaces, cycle stores and bin stores.

“The proposal is for the demolition of existing garages and the addition of four new build flats; 2 1B2P & 2 2B4P (2 storey), designed to achieve Passivhaus standards, with new 8 no. parking spaces, standalone bin stores to the front of the property, private standalone cycle stores in rear gardens for the ground floor units and shared cycle store to the front for the first floor units.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site was a garage site in a built-up area, accessed between two houses, with no listed building, conservation area or planning history.

“The site comprises 18 garages accessed via a road in between No’s 11 & 13 Castell Road. It is located within a built-up area of Loughton. It is not listed nor in a conservation area. No protected trees lie within the site.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended approval, finding that the design, parking, neighbouring amenity, accommodation and environmental effects could be acceptable with measures and conditions.

“The proposal also meets the requisite parking provision as recommended by the Essex Parking Standards 2024 ensuring that the development would not result in undue pressure on local parking infrastructure.”

“The application proposal has the potential to result in a net increase in traffic using roads through the EFSAC. However, the Council, through the development of the Air Pollution Mitigation Strategy (APMS), has provided a strategic, district wide approach to mitigating air quality impacts on the EFSAC through the imposition of planning conditions and securing of financial contributions for the implementation of strategic mitigation measures and monitoring activities.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the planning officer, the agent, a town councillor and Ward Councillor W Kaufmann.

Members discussed the application

Committee members discussed the merits of the application before proposing and seconding reasons to refuse it.

“The Committee then discussed the merits of the application.”

“The Committee then voted against the officer’s recommendation to approve the application. Reasons for refusal of the application were proposed, seconded and voted for by the Committee.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because its scale, massing, siting and height would harm local character and neighbouring living conditions through an overbearing impact and loss of privacy.

“(1) The proposed development, by reason of its excessive scale, massing and bulk, would result in a visually dominant and incongruous form of development that fails to respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would appear overbearing and out of keeping with the established pattern of development, thereby causing harm to the visual amenity of the locality.”

“(2) The proposed development, by reason of its siting, height and proximity to neighbouring properties, would result in an overbearing impact and unacceptable loss of privacy through actual and perceived overlooking of private amenity spaces.”

Minutes