An application to replace a car showroom at 247 London Road Rayleigh with a care home is being recommended for refusal by officers. The reasons are basically the impact on neighbours and inadequate parking. The application comes to the Development Committee next Thursday.
You can find the full officers report from this page , but here are some extracts:
1.1 The proposal is to demolish the existing commercial garage and work shop buildings on the site and construct a two storey building providing a 50- bedroom care home…..
Rayleigh Town Council object due to the over-development of the site, insufficient parking and inappropriate location for residents due to the location of the main road.
Essex County Council Highways: Object for the following reason:
The proposal does not provide sufficient parking within the site for the proposed development. The lack of parking may well lead to vehicles being displaced onto the highway to the detriment of other road users and general highway safety.
Neighbour Representations 25 letters have been received…
In the main, these representations make the following comments and objections:-
o 50-Bed care home with only 11 car parking spaces beggars belief and woefully inadequate for the number of staff, visitors and services to attend.
o Multi-storey building is not in keeping with surrounding properties, which are mostly bungalows
o Louis Drive estate already used as an overflow car park for events held at the Rayleigh sports centre in London Road, for visitors to Gunn Close, coach trippers and a short distance from the re-development of the E-on
site for 103 homes. The roads on the estate are narrow and excess parking causes problems with access for emergency vehicles, refuse lorries and residents.
o Traffic to a number of schools in the area and general traffic and congestion in the area.
o London Road also used as an alternative when the A127 is blocked.
o Will generate unacceptable traffic, parking and noise issues from staff and visitors associated with the development and other developments on London Road as well as 24 hour working, deliveries and servicing such as cooking smells. The existing garage shuts at 5.30.
o Noise and disturbance through the night.
o Access onto a busy junction opposite a petrol filling station
o Builders just buy the land, make their money and it is us who have to suffer with the road full of traffic, speeding cars late at night and lack of pedestrian crossings.
o Overcrowded schools and doctors.
o Application seems to be an annual event causing undue stress and worry
o Previously dismissed on appeal. Understood the applicants would not be allowed to make another application for the same type of building.
o Nightmare of proposed new developments in the area will detract from the peace and quiet of the area we thought we would enjoy.
o Why not build two or three bungalows that would be in keeping with Louis Drive West and more considerate to local residents.
o Application fundamentally the same as the previous application that was rejected.
o The rooms would be too small.
o Nothing for the residents to look at from the outside sitting space.
o Original deeds to No. 131 Louis Drive West say that no bungalows may be used for commercial use.
o 50-bed care home is massively out of proportion to the neighbourhood.
o Building far too big for the site and totally out of character with existing bungalows and semi-detached houses.
o Overlooking other gardens
o Over-development of small, narrow, prominent corner plot and too near the residents in bungalows. Will be domineering, bulky, overpowering, out of scale and will adversely impact Nos. 1. 3. 5 and 7 Little Wheatley Chase and impact upon the use of gardens to these properties.
o Loss of privacy from upper floor bedrooms proposed to houses and gardens of Nos. 1. 3. 5 and 7 Little Wheatley Chase. The design guide requires a minimum separation of 25m between rear facing habitable rooms, with a separation of 35m with flats. The proposal does not comply with this. As only a separation of 7m will result.
o Loss of light to Nos. 1 and 3 Little Wheatley Chase from the close proximity of the building proposed to the site boundary.
o Street parking problems when there is a school function or event at Rayleigh Social Club.
o 13 flats should be the maximum
o Future of No. 131 Louis Drive West seems rather vague. Shows a treatment room and only pedestrian access, which suggests people will be brought into the building during the rain or poor weather.
o Only small store room shown.
o Concern for 50 unwell people closed in a home completely surrounded by busy roads and a garage across the road and nowhere to be taken for fresh air
o Cannot see how the refuse vehicle will be able to manoeuvre into the site given narrow nature of the street. Are we to experience the same problems as we have with the new Tesco with large vehicles al over the main road?
o Idea that staff will use bus service is pie in the sky as the service is poor and care workers work unsocial hours when service not available.
o Scheme has changed little from that previously refused apart from re-siting the kitchen, a reduction in parking spaces and moving the waste bins to another part of the site.
o Require the hedge with No. 1 Little Wheatley Chase to be retained if the plans are approved.
o The increase in refuse that the development will generate will contribute to an already huge rat problem that occurs in this part of Rayleigh.
o Size, bulk, scale and proximity of the proposed building will devalue the adjoining property, which is unfair and unjust.
o Will destroy the rural look of the area, which is loved.
o Would have no enhancement value to people entering Rayleigh at all, rather than a gateway would look built up and closed in.
Council Officers are recommending refusal:
RECOMMENDATION
It is proposed that the Committee resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:-
1) The proposal, by way of the significant depth of the building proposed on the western side, would by way of the form, height and close proximity to the boundary and the rear walls of the adjoining dwellings nos. 1-7 Little Wheatley Chase prove over dominant, resulting in a poor relationship to those adjoining dwellings contrary to part (ix) to Policy HP6 to the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) as saved by Direction of the Secretary of State dated 5 June 2009 under paragraph 1(3) of schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. If allowed, the proposed building would result in a building proving detrimental to the amenity occupiers of those adjoining dwellings ought reasonably expect to enjoy.
2) The proposal does not provide sufficient parking within the site for the proposed development. The lack of parking may well lead to vehicles being displaced onto the highway to the detriment of other road users and general highway safety contrary to the Council?s requirements as set out in Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice Supplementary Planning Document adopted December 2010.