Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

Reference: Site: 14/00029/OUT Pieris Place Brentwood Road Bulphan RM14 3TL

Ward: Proposal: Outline Application for Residential Development Incorporating Associated Private Amenity Space, Car Parking, Areas of Public Open Space and Strategic Landscape/Noise Attenuation Buffer. All Matters reserved. [47 dwellings indicated on plan]

Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received (No Nos.) General Documents 10th January 2014 13.2335.MOO Location Plan 10th January 2014 1 13.2335/M00 Site Lay Out 10th January 2014 2 13.2335/SK0 Landscaping 10th January 2014 3 13.2335/SK0 Site Lay Out 10th January 2014 2 13.2335/SK0 Site Lay Out 10th January 2014 1 13.2335/P201 Site Lay Out 10th January 2014 13.2335.E101 Site Lay Out 10th January 2014

The application is also accompanied by:

 Planning Design and Access Statement

Applicant: Validated: Smart Planning 15 January 2014 Date of expiry: 16 April 2014 Recommendation: Refuse

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

1.1 This application seeks Outline permission for residential development incorporating associated private amenity space, car parking, areas of public open space and strategic landscape/noise attenuation buffer. All matters reserved. [47 dwellings indicated on plan].

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 This triangular-shaped site comprises 3.2 Ha and is found immediately East of the village of Bulphan. The site is located to the East of the A128 Bulphan Bypass, and is bordered to the immediate North by Church Road and East by Brentwood Road. A telecommunications mast is situated to the immediate south of the application site.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

The site has the following history:

- 93/00651/FUL - Retention of barn erected on land Refused 12th November 1993

- 94/00296/FUL - Alterations and retention of barn refused 22nd July 1994

- 94/00297/FUL - Alterations and retention of barn Approved 22nd July 1994

- 94/00502/FUL - Proposed excavation of pond and earth to be used for screening, bund and landscaping. Approved 23rd November 1994

- 95/00004/GDO - Personal communications system Approved 21st July 1995

- 96/00906/FUL - Stationing of portakabin for incidental sales/office use erection of a polytunnel Approved 12th December 1996

- 97/00945/FUL - Mobile Home Refused 30th January 1998

- 00/01170/FUL - Retention of dwelling house Refused - 24th May 2002

- 04/00518/LDC - Residential flat conversion in existing barn. Unlawful 16th September 2004

- 10/00058/FUL - Demolition of existing barn and associated buildings and construction of new six bedroom detached house and detached 3 vehicle garage. Withdrawn 19th March 2010 Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PUBLICITY:

4.1 The application has been advertised via letters to adjacent premises, a site notice has been displayed and an advertisement has been place in the local newspaper.

4.2 At the time of writing the report there have been 28 written letters received relating to the proposal. 26 letters have objected to the development on the following grounds:

- the site is located in Green Belt and would contravene Council Policy; - the site is unsustainable; - the site has very poor public transport which will result in more car movements leading to environmental pollution; - highway access to the site from the A128 would be unsafe and cause congestion; - although this is a site that the Council may wish to consider, other more suitable sites should be considered first; - the site is next to Bulphan village and development would be out of character with the village; - proposal would create excessive noise; - proposal would spoil the view; - the local school could not cope with the increase in pupil numbers; - local health services would not be able to cope with more patients; - site is used to dump rubbish; - loss of ecology and wildlife as landowner has already removed many trees on site.

2 letters received have been in favour of the development on the grounds that:

- the development would bring about much needed housing for the area; - the development would increase revenue for the local shop.

4.3 Members will be updated should any letters of representation be received before the meeting. Copies of any letters will also be made available to view in the Members’ Letters Book.

STRATEGIC PLANNING:

4.4 The site is located in the Green Belt where there is a presumption against the construction of new dwellings. This overarching principle is well rehearsed but in this case it needs to be viewed against the Council’s strategic direction of travel.

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

4.5 This site was included in the Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) at the request of Members (LDF Working Group). However the site scored poorly in terms of overarching sustainability/green belt considerations, when compared against other SHLAA sites. In this context it cannot be assumed that the site will be seen at EIP as being a sustainable housing option.

4.6 Furthermore, it should be noted that while the site was included in the SALP, the plan had only reached Issues and Options Stage. This means that if the application is referred to the SOS via the National Planning Casework Unit and “called in”, the Inspector will accord very little weight to the SALP’s status as the plan has not been formally tested.

4.7 The site is shown on the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Local Plan Further Issues and Options (January 2013) as a potential housing site, referenced ORS38 with an indicative dwelling capacity of 12 units. The site is listed as being developed in 11 to 15 years. The number of units was derived from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment; this applied standard typologies considered appropriate to a particular site to give high and low estimates from these a mid point; thus the future does not derive from any detailed site specific measurement.

4.8 At its meeting of the 12th February 2014, Cabinet agreed to prepare a new Local Plan to guide the future development of over the period to 2013. The LDF Site Specific Allocations and Policies Further Issues and Options Consultation Document will inform the preparation of Thurrock’s Local Plan and the spatial distribution of housing across the Borough. Given that the site has been identified as a potential housing site the contribution of this site towards the current shortfall of housing should contribute significantly towards very special circumstances in this case.

HIGHWAYS:

National Planning Policy Framework

4.9 The site is in a very poor location for public transport provision, with no bus stops or routes located in the vicinity; the site is considered contrary to the aims of paragraphs 34 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework and as a result raises concerns. However, should the applicant propose improved accessibility to public transport links in the area as part of the re- development of this site then these concerns could be allayed.

PMD9 Road network Hierarchy

4.10 The site is adjacent to the A128 Bulphan By-Pass, a Level 1 Corridor of Movement (CoM) that links the A13 and A127; it is also the main link from residential settlements to the south of the Borough with Brentwood to the north. There is a presumption against direct access onto this category of Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT road. Development served by side roads connecting onto a Level 1 CoM will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it will not be adversely affected in terms of highway safety and traffic capacity.

PMD10 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans

4.11 There is no proposed scale of the development, so a proper assessment of the quantum of the site is difficult. Under this policy, any development of 50 units or more will require a Transport Statement and any developments over 80 units will require a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Nevertheless, the site is located in a poor area for pedestrian and cyclist accessibility so a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan is required.

PMD8 Parking Standards

4.12 The site is not served by public transport and is in an isolated area; a higher than average car ownership is therefore more likely in this location and the parking provision should reflect this. A minimum provision of two spaces per unit would be required, with additional spaces for visitors being provided. Those dwellings with four or more bedrooms should ideally provide a minimum of three spaces per dwelling.

Access

4.13 Access will be required from the lower category of road and designed sympathetically to the area and the size of development.

EDUCATION:

4.14 The Council’s Education Department advises that the development falls in a priority admissions area whereby, having regard to the latest forecasts published in the document “Pupil Place Plan 2014-18”, our assessment concludes that additional Nursery, Primary and Secondary Places will be required by 2018. Bulphan Primary school and neighbouring schools in the Rural schools planning area having nil capacity at nursery and reception class level. There is very little capacity within other year groups within the school. Bulphan, Horndon and Orsett Church of Primary schools have a total capacity of 504. Primary forecasts in this area show an increase in demand for pupil places, with numbers rising from 508 in 2014 to 549 in 2018. In reception years there is a total Planned Admission Number (PAN) of 72, with numbers rising from 84 in 2013 to 96 in September 2016.

4.15 The total secondary pupil numbers for William Edwards also rise sharply in September 2015 from 1209 to 1257 in September 2018. In view of the above, it is advised that any permission for this development is granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement to mitigate its impact on education based upon the approach detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy. An education contribution Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT would be required at nursery, primary and secondary level.

HOUSING:

4.16 The application states the site contains significant constraints to make the development costs of the land punitively high, nor is the land known to be contaminated or subject to historic uses which are likely to need extensive mitigation works. It is therefore accepted in principle that 35% of the dwellings as proposed can be used as part of the required affordable housing provision and that the amount and type of dwellings can be met within the proposed mix of dwellings on the site. The scheme has been designed purposefully so that there is both a mix of dwellings and potentially a mix of housing tenures throughout the development in order to create a fully integrated community.

4.17 It will provide a much needed range of housing through the creation of a high quality residential environment including the provision of housing for local affordable housing need.

WASTE AND RECYCLING:

4.18 There is not enough information on waste and recycling provision to provide an appraisal of the proposed development. Each house must be provided with the required three bins, to be stored within the boundaries of the property and present on collection day only. Currently there are no plans showing any communal bin storage area for the houses.

LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY:

4.19 Objects to proposed development due to the lack of any detailed assessment regarding the potential ecological, arboricultural and landscape impacts of the proposal.

4.20 The site contains the remains of a commercial nursery at the northern end of the site; however, the southern part of the site appears to have been principally used as a tree nursery and did not appear to have contained any buildings. The site still retains a largely open rural character which would be lost should it be redeveloped as proposed. It would result in a significant extension of the settlement to the east of the A128.

4.21 The site is enclosed by an established hedge of approximately 3m high. The lack of management in the past has resulted in trees growing either side of the perimeter drainage ditch. It is likely that as part of this development of this site it would be necessary to remove trees along the roadside of the eastern ditch to enable them to be cleaned out. A large number of small trees, mainly silver birch, have been cleared from the southern end of the site. These appear to be self-sown trees or remnant from when it was part of the nursery. A few small tree groups have been retained.

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

4.22 No tree report has been undertaken to assess the quality of the trees on the site. As a result it is not possible to properly assess the feasibility of the proposal to select and retain the best trees along the northern boundary. From an initial inspection the trees in that hedgerow have a poor form due to lack of management.

4.23 It appears from the indicative landscape plan that the boundary planting on the eastern boundary. This combined with the proposed treatment for the northern boundary would open up views over the site and would significantly increase the visual impact on neighbours and those using the adjoining roads.

4.24 No ecological assessment has been provided for the site and therefore it is not possible to properly assess the current ecological value of the site. While the site is not likely to be of high ecological value there are features such as rough grassland and the pond area at the northern end of the site that might have potential to support populations of legally protected species such as reptiles and amphibians. Without adequate detail it is not possible to determine whether the proposed features such as the SuDS ponds would provide adequate onsite mitigation to ensure that there is not a net biodiversity loss as a result of this scheme.

4.25 It is considered that due to the lack of any detailed assessment about the potential ecological, arboricultural and landscape effects it is not possible to fully assess the impacts of the proposed scheme in this prominent location and therefore planning permission should be refused.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:

4.26 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that comments cannot be made on the application fully as no detailed layout is included in the application.

Air quality

4.27 There are no implications from the development with regards to air quality.

Noise

4.28 Depending on the layout design a traffic noise survey may be required. Some noise protection measures to some habitable rooms to achieve the required good internal noise standards: with reference to BS8233:1999. Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction For Buildings – Code of Practice may be required if the survey proves it necessary. Also dependant of the final design mitigation measures for the amenity areas may be necessary with regard to achieving the recommended noise levels with reference to Outdoor Living Areas: in the WHO - Guidelines for Community Noise.

4.29 (Since this consultation response was received the applicant submitted a Noise Assessment which at the time of writing this report was under consideration) Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

Contaminated Land

4.30 Although our records do not show any contaminative issues on site it is recommended that if approval is given a watching brief be carried out during ground works for any evidence of unforeseen contamination. If any is discovered then an intrusive investigation should be carried out and a risk assessment and remediation strategy should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority should the investigation and risk assessment find it necessary.

4.31 The following conditions would be recommended:

1. A restriction on the hours of noisy construction and demolition work to 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays, 0800 to 13.00 Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 2. A method statement for controlling fugitive dust during construction and demolition, and details of wheel wash.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

4.32 The Environment Agency (EA) has inspected the application, as submitted, and is raising a holding objection on flood risk grounds. Its detailed comments on this, together with advice on foul water, land contamination and sustainability, are provided below:

Surface Water Management

4.33 Our maps show the site lies in Flood Zone 1, which is the area of low flood risk (1 in 1000 year event), and as the site exceeds 1 hectare, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required, in accordance with Footnote 20 of paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework, that provides details of how surface water is to be managed on the site.

4.34 Whilst the site is outside the floodplain, development in this category (i.e. operational development greater than 1ha.) can generate significant volumes of surface water. The impact and risks posed by this will vary according to both the type of development and the characteristics of the catchment.

4.35 We note that Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are proposed to deal with surface run-off from the site. However, no information has been submitted on the proposed scheme to demonstrate that it will be viable or prevent an increase in flood risk. The EA is therefore raising a holding objection to the application on flood risk grounds.

4.36 The holding objection could be overcome by submitting a FRA which covers the deficiencies highlighted above and demonstrates that the development will not increase risk elsewhere and where possible reduces flood risk overall. If this Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT cannot be achieved the EA is likely to maintain its objection to the application. Production of a FRA will not in itself result in the removal of an objection.

Foul Water Disposal

4.37 No information has been submitted to indicate how foul water will be disposed of. Anglian Water Services should be consulted regarding the available capacity in the foul water infrastructure. If there is not sufficient capacity in the infrastructure then the EA must be consulted again with alternative methods of disposal.

Contaminated Land

4.38 The application form states that the site was previously used as a plant nursery, which has the potential to have resulted in some land contamination. However, the EA considers that the water environment at this site is of low environmental sensitivity, therefore the EA will not be providing detailed site- specific advice or comments with regards to land contamination issues for this site.

4.39 The developer should address risks to the water environment from contamination at the site, following the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and our Guiding Principles for Land Contamination.

FLOOD RISK MANAGER ():

Summary:

4.40 The Council’s Flood Risk Manager objects to the proposal and has requested further information regarding the potential risk associated with groundwater flooding, particularly relating to attenuation/infiltration SuDS.

4.41 The proposed layout is potentially placing properties at risk of flooding from surface water; a flow path crosses the site northeast to southwest resulting in flooding depths of greater than 300mm in the southwest corner.

4.42 There is a lack of consistency between the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the Preliminary Drainage Assessment (PDA). The FRA highlights the potential risk associated with groundwater flooding, but this is not acknowledged in the PDA, especially relating to attenuation/infiltration SuDS. Information on the future ownership and maintenance of the culverted watercourse is required as well as proposed outfall connection location. Confusion exists regarding the proposed discharge rate for the development; this should meet the requirements of the Thurrock Draft SWMP.

Comments:

Flood Risk Assessment

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

4.43 The FRA should take into account the recommendations from the Council’s Draft SWMP, and specifically actions relating to Critical Drainage Area 11 (Bulphan). SWMP policy THU08/09 requires development in this area to attenuate flows/volumes to the 1 in 200 year event. The high risk of surface water flooding on the site requires further mitigation, including further consideration regarding the layout to avoid properties being located on flow paths as well as relocation of SuDS features to attenuate flows.

Run off Destinations

4.44 Subject to review of infiltration tests, discharge to the local watercourse is recommended. However, a full survey of the culvert is required to ensure that further discharge will not compromise it’s integrity. Reports of flooding downstream indicate that flow rates must be minimised as advised below.

Peak Flow

4.45 Discharge rates for the developed site must not exceed the 1 in 1year and 1 in 200 year rates for the _reenfield site.

Volume Control

4.46 The drainage strategy should outline how the development will manage the requisite 1 in 200 year runoff volume on site (THU 09). High groundwater levels in this location will need to be taken into account when designing storage to ensure that devices have required storage or are situated above the water table.

Water Quality

4.47 The proposed management train should address water quality requirements. De- culverting of watercourses is advocated. The section of culverted watercourse to the south of the site could be opened up to become a landscape feature, potentially benefitting the environment/ecology and reducing flood risk and maintenance liabilities. The Council would consider adopting this feature.

Maintenance and Adoption

4.48 A preliminary operation and maintenance plan must be submitted before construction, as part of your full planning application package.

Residual Flood Risk

4.49 The FRA indicates that a free board of 300mm will be applied to address groundwater flooding. Subject to the location of properties and/or SuDS features, this may need increasing in certain locations as surface water mapping indicates a flow path across the site resulting in flood depths in excess of 300mm.

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL- SPECIALIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVICE:

4.50 The Historic Environment Record shows that there are no known archaeological deposits on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area. Therefore no archaeological requirements are being recommended.

ANGLIAN WATER

4.51 No comments received.

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT

NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework CSSP1 - Sustainable Housing and Locations CSTP2 - The Provision of Affordable Housing CSTP22 - Thurrock Design CSTP23 - Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness CSTP24 - Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment CSTP19 - Biodiversity CSTP20 - Open Space CSTP25 - Addressing Climate Change CSTP26 - Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation CSTP27 - Management and Reduction of Flood Risk PMD1 - Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity PMD2 - Design and Layout PMD6 - Development in the Green Belt PMD7 - Biodiversity and Development PMD8 - Parking Standards PMD9 - Road Network Hierarchy PMD10 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans PMD15 – Flood Risk

The Government statement of planning policy included within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will also be considered in the determination of any application.

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:

1. Development plan designation and principle of development 2 Access, traffic and highway impacts 3. Impact of noise upon the development 4. Flood risk 5. Developer contributions and affordable housing

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.2 The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that a Local Planning Authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. The NPPF sets out a limited number of exceptions, namely:

- buildings for agriculture and forestry; - appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, recreation and cemeteries; - proportionate extensions or alterations to a building; - the replacement of a building; - limited infilling in villages; and - the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites.

6.3 The proposed redevelopment of the site for residential purposes does not fall into any of the exceptions listed above. Consequently, the proposal comprises inappropriate development with reference to the NPPF. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF makes it clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in “very special circumstances”. Paragraph 88 goes on to state that local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The NPPF does not seek to define further what ‘other considerations’ might outweigh the damage to the Green Belt.

Harm to the Green Belt and Other Harm

6.4 Having established that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is necessary to consider the matter of harm. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, but it is also necessary to consider whether there is any other harm to the Green Belt and the purposes of including land therein.

6.5 The proposal would involve the construction of a housing development outside what would be commonly considered to be the boundaries of the village of Bulphan and the development would be built upon an area separated from the village by the A128. The encroachment into the countryside surrounding the village would be contrary to the NPPF.

6.6 At paragraph 79, the NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. This site is a former nursery with several small scale agricultural Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

structures, including a barn and a ploy tunnel. Whilst the application is in outline form it is clear from the submitted drawings that the built development would comprise a substantial amount of new buildings in an area which is relatively free from built development. The site has been identified as a potential housing site with an indicative capacity of 12 units. The application seeks outline consent to construct 47 units. It is considered that the amount and scale of development proposed would very considerably reduce the openness of the site. It is considered that the loss of openness, which is contrary to the NPPF, should be accorded significant weight in consideration of this application.

6.7 The application has not been accompanied with all the necessary supporting reports and studies. It is therefore not possible to assess the impact of 47 new residential units upon the ecology or landscape of the site. The Council’s Landscape and Ecology specialist advisor has identified features such as rough grassland and pond area at the northern end of the site that might have potential to support populations of legally protected species such as reptiles and amphibians. Without adequate detail it is not possible to determine whether the proposed features such as the SuDS ponds would provide adequate onsite mitigation to ensure that there is not a net biodiversity loss as a result of this scheme. Given the lack of any detailed assessment about the potential ecological, arboricultural and landscape impacts, the Council remains unconvinced that the development would not lead to harm to the local ecology, arboriculture and landscape.

6.8 Furthermore, the development would potentially place properties at risk of flooding from surface water because a flow path crosses the site northeast to southwest resulting in flooding depths of greater than 300mm in the southwest corner. The Council’s Flood Risk Manager has objected to the proposal and has requested further information regarding the potential risk associated with groundwater flooding, particularly relating to attenuation/infiltration SuDS.

6.9 In addition, the EA has placed a holding objection on the application. Without the assurance that the proposal would not lead to harm to the locality due to flood risk, the potential harm caused by the development by flood risk should weigh against the proposal.

Whether the harm to the green belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances

6.10 Neither the NPPF nor the LDF-CS provide guidance as to what can comprise ‘very special circumstances’, either singly or in combination. Some interpretation of very special circumstances has been provided by the Courts. The rarity or uniqueness of a factor may make it very special, but it has also been held that the aggregation of commonplace factors could combine to create very special circumstances. Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

6.11 The applicant’s principal point of argument is that the Council has identified the site as a potential housing site and has accepted that Green Belt sites will need to be released to achieve housing delivery.

6.12 The Site Specific Allocations and Policies Further Issues and Options Consultation of January 2013 did identify the site as a Housing Site Without Permission. The indicative housing density of the site is 12 and the likely phasing 11-15 years. However notwithstanding the identification of the site, given the status of this document very little weight can be given to it. The site scored poorly in terms of overarching sustainability / Green Belt considerations when compared to other SHLAA sites. The Council’s Strategic Planning team have advised that in this context it cannot be assumed that the site will be seen at EIP as being a sustainable housing option. Coupled with the fact that the SALP has not been subject to formal examination, it follows that the identification of the site should be given only limited weight when considering this application.

6.13 With regards to housing supply, the adopted LDF-CS (2011) sets out the Council’s targets for the delivery of new dwellings between 2001-2021 and for an additional five year period up until 2026. Policy CSTP1 states that between April 2009 and March 2021, 13,550 dwellings are required to meet the overall minimum target of 18,500 dwellings (2001-2021). In addition, provision is made for a further 4,750 dwellings between 2021-2026. This is a total of 18,300 for the period 2009-2026, equating to an average of 1076 per annum.

6.14 The NPPF urges Local Authorities to significantly boost their supply of housing. To this end it includes a number of provisions. Amongst these is the need for Local Authorities to identify and update a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing, as measured against the objectively assessed housing requirement. In addition to identifying the requirement, paragraph 47 of the Framework also requires that this should be increased by either a 5% or a 20% buffer. The purpose of both is to ensure choice and competition in the market for land, but the additional purpose of the latter figure is to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply.

6.15 With regards current land supply, detailed below are extracts from the Council’s 2013 Annual Monitoring Report;

‘Housing requirements to 2026

‘The Adopted Thurrock Council Core Strategy sets out a requirement for 23,250 dwellings to be built between 2001 and 2026. The total number of completions between 2001 and 2013 was 5,980. This leaves a residual of 17,270 to be built to 2026. The annual average rate of completions required to deliver the residual build to 2026 is 1,328 per annum.

The Five Year Supply of Sites for Housing Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

The five year requirement using the residual method would be 6,640 (this being 5 times 1,328). The five year requirement with a 20% buffer is 7,968.

From the updated SHLAA, the identified five year supply of deliverable sites is 3,909 dwellings. This represents 59% (or 2.9 years of supply) of the five year requirement’. (p13)

6.16 Thurrock has a 2.9 year supply of deliverable* housing land using the residual method of calculation. Given paragraph 47 of the NPPF, this is less than 50% of that required and as such comprises a substantial shortfall in the supply of specific deliverable sites.

6.17 [*The NPPF states that to be considered deliverable, sites should be; (1) available now, (2) offer a suitable location for development now, (3) be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable].

6.18 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five- year supply of deliverable housing sites’. In light of this, parts of LDF-Core Strategy Policy CSSP1 (Sustainable housing and locations) and CSTP1 (Strategic housing provision) cannot be considered up-to-date. The forthcoming ‘LDF-CS focused review: consistency with National Planning Policy Framework’ will not amend Policy CSSP1 and CSTP1 in a manner which will ensure compliance with Paragraph 47 of the NPPF’s requirement to identify a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, to do so would require a more fundamental review of the LDF-Core Strategy.

Notwithstanding the status of LDF-Core Strategy Policies CSSP1 and CSTP1, the LDF-Core Strategy identifies a number of management actions to deliver and maintain a five year housing land supply. CSSP1 (Sustainable Housing and Locations), Part 1 (III) states;

‘III. The Council has and will continue to identify Broadly Defined Locations for the release of land within the Green Belt in accordance with Policies CSTP 1 and CSSP 4 to help maintain a rolling 5-year supply of available and deliverable housing land over the Plan period to 2026 and will maintain this rolling 5-year supply through an Annual Refresh of the SHLAA and the Annual Monitoring Report’.

6.19 LDF-Core Strategy Policy CSTP1 states that the Council will:

 identify deliverable sites for 5 years and developable sites within the 10 and 15 year period that will underpin the Annual Monitoring Report (part iii); Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

 allocate housing sites as part of the Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD (part iv);  use a Managed Delivery Approach to the calculation and maintenance of a continuing deliverable five year housing land supply; this approach is based on a ‘plan, monitor, manage’ regime using the key tools of the Annual Monitoring Report and the SHLAA to monitor and review the Housing Trajectory. Through this process the Council will track the progress in housing delivery and the continuing maintenance of a deliverable 5-year housing land supply in accordance with the current PPS3 or its statutory successor (part v);  actively seek to increase the supply of deliverable housing sites where it appears that the five year housing supply will not be meet the required dwelling provision (part vi).

6.20 In terms of (v) The Managed Delivery approach resulted in unrealistically high housing targets for the later parts of the plan period. The latest version of the AMR (2013) uses a residual method of calculation (based on what is referred to as the ‘Liverpool approach’ which spreads the residual shortfall to date over the remaining plan-period).

6.21 The LDF-Core Strategy Policy CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt) Criteria 1(iv) ‘Balancing competing demands on the Thurrock Green Belt’ stated that there would be an immediate formal Review of the LDF-Core Strategy. Following the adoption of the LDF-Core Strategy in December 2011, the Council undertook public consultation between January and March 2013, on a ‘Focused Review of the Core Strategy: Broad Locations and Strategic Sites’. One of the purposes of the Focused Review was to ensure a continuing supply of suitable housing sites to address an identified shortfall in the five year housing land supply. This is in line with part vi of LDF-Core Strategy Policy CSTP1.

6.22 Considerations to be reflected upon in the decision on ‘very special circumstances’ is the scale of the shortfall, the planning context and the prospect of addressing the shortfall. It can be argued that some degree of shortfall in housing land supply can be attributed to market conditions over proceeding years which have built up a large number of unimplemented permissions. The Council commissioned the consultants GVA to undertake research into identifying the reasons behind the decline in housing completions in Thurrock. In their report “Five Year Housing Supply Study” the consultants put forward evidence which suggests that the failure to deliver additional housing growth relates to a combination of wider economic and housing market weaknesses which have impacted upon the scale and rate of house-building activity not only within Thurrock, but also across the wider Thames Gateway and South sub- region. However, demand alone does not account for the current shortfall in land supply and supply issues play a part. There remains no adopted SSADPD. Furthermore, the Council accepted, through the need to review the LDF-Core Strategy, the need to bolster housing land supply by the allocation of additional sites in the Green Belt.

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

6.23 At present there is little prospect of the housing supply targets being achieved. The overall undersupply will not only have an adverse effect on short term housing supply, but the transfer of the shortfall in the early years to later years of the plan period will substantially increase the target requirements for the later years.

6.24 The proposal would provide some benefit in contributing towards the shortfall in the supply of new housing as set out in the LDF-Core Strategy delivery targets and as required by the NPPF. Nevertheless, Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis has stated that that the "single issue" of unmet demand for housing or traveller sites would be unlikely to justify otherwise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This statement has been encapsulated within DCLG’s Planning Practise Guidance (March 2014)

6.25 Taking all relevant factors into account (including the site’s identification as a potential housing site in the SALP), it is not considered that the contribution towards housing supply clearly outweighs the harm to the Green Belt arising from the proposed development. In conclusion under this heading, the proposal is contrary to both national and local Green Belt planning policies and the harm arising would therefore be significant.

2. ACCESS, TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAY IMPACTS

6.26 The Council’s Highway Team have expressed concern that the site is remote and lacks public transport provision. The commenting Highway Engineer has advised however that should the applicant be able to improve accessibility to public transport links in the area as part of the re-development of this site then these concerns could be allayed.

6.27 For development of 50 units or more a Transport Statement is required from the applicant and any developments over 80 units require a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Whilst the application proposes 47 units, the site is located in a poor area for pedestrian and cyclist accessibility and as such it is considered necessary to require a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan in this instance. These documents were not submitted with the original application but were provided later at the request of Officers; at the time of writing this report the Transport Assessment was under consideration by the Council’s Highway Team.

6.28 Notwithstanding the above, the Council’s highway team have raised an objection to the proposed access serving the site from Church Road, leading from the A128 Bulphan Bypass. The A128 is designated within the LDF CS as a Level 1 Corridor of Movement. The provision of an access at this point would increase vehicle delays and would be detrimental to road safety.

6.29 In conclusion under this heading, at the time of writing this report it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated methods to improve accessibility to public transport in this location and the proposed access poses a risk to road safety and efficiency. The development is therefore considered Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT contrary to paragraphs 34 and 35 of the NPPF and PMD9 of the Core Strategy.

3. IMPACT OF NOISE UPON THE DEVELOPMENT

6.30 The site is located to the East of the A128 Bulphan Bypass, a Level 1 Corridor of Movement that links the A13 and A127. The A128 is also the main link from residential settlements to the south of the borough with Brentwood to the north. Noise pollution could be a significant issue emanating from this development and the Council needs to be satisfied that the development would not cause any detriment by virtue of noise.

6.31 At the time of writing the report, a Noise Assessment had been submitted and comments on the Noise Assessment were awaited from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. As a consequence it is not yet known if the Noise Assessment is suitable or acceptable for the site. An update will be given to Members at Committee.

4. FLOOD RISK

6.32 Climate change is one of the biggest threats to the economy, environment and society. New development should therefore be designed with a view to improving resilience and adapting to the effects of climate change, particularly with regards to already stretched environmental resources and infrastructure such as water supply and treatment, water quality and waste disposal facilities. It is important to limit the contribution of new development to climate change and minimise the consumption of natural resources. Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD requires sustainable these measures to be incorporated into new development. In particular policy CSTP25 supports climate change adaptation being considered early in a development proposal and advises that developers must considered the effect of climate change on their development.

6.33 Policy PMD12 sets out the Code for Sustainable Homes level / BREEAM rating the development should reach as well as requiring the application to be supported by an Energy and Water Statement. Other relevant policies include CSTP18 (green infrastructure); CSTP19 (biodiversity); CSTP26 (renewable and low carbon energy generation), CSTP29 (waste), PMD13 (Decentralised, renewable and low carbon energy generation) and PMD14 (carbon neutral development).

6.34 The site lies in Flood Zone 1, which is the area of low flood risk (1 in 1000 year event), and as the site exceeds 1 hectare, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required, in accordance with Footnote 20 of paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework, that provides details of how surface water is to be managed on the site. Whilst the site is outside the floodplain Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

development greater than 1ha can generate significant volumes of surface water. The impact and risks posed by this will vary according to both the type of development and the characteristics of the catchment. The applicant has submitted a FRA and a Preliminary Drainage Assessment (PDA). Prior to the submission of the FRA the EA objected to the proposal on flood risk grounds. At the time of writing the report the EA had been re-consulted following the submission of the FRA and PDA.

6.35 The EA objection could be overcome if the FRA covers the deficiencies identified and demonstrates that the development will not increase risk elsewhere and where possible reduce flood risk overall. If this cannot be achieved the EA is likely to maintain its objection to the application. Production of a FRA will not in itself result in the removal of an objection. An update will be given to Members at Committee.

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

6.36 Policy CSTP2 of the Core Strategy states that in order to meet the overall affordable housing target, the Council will seek to achieve, where viable, 35% affordable housing on all new housing developments capable of accommodating 10 or more dwellings or sites of 0.5 ha or more irrespective of the number of dwellings.

6.37 The Thurrock Council Core Strategy indicates that the Council will seek to secure planning obligations towards the cost of local infrastructure when new development is proposed. The Policy states that the Council will seek to ensure that development proposals contribute to the delivery of strategic infrastructure to enable the cumulative impact of development to be managed and to meet the reasonable cost of new infrastructure made necessary by the proposal.

6.38 On 7 March 2012, the Council adopted the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation Planning Obligations Strategy (POS) as interim policy pending the adoption of the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule.

6.39 The POS applies to all residential developments, regardless of the size or number of units. For residential units a Discounted Standard Charge of £5000 is payable per new additional residential unit. The POS recognises that the full standard charges of £20,070, which more fully reflected the cost of the infrastructure needed to support the planned growth of Thurrock, could not be met in the current market and that seeking to levy charges at these levels would inhibit regeneration and development. The Council will apply the DSC of £5000 per unit for this development.

6.40 The supporting documentation with the application indicates that the applicant is aware of the need to provide affordable housing and financial continuations. The applicant has stated he would be willing to enter into a legal agreement but at the time of writing the report no agreement had yet been received. Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

As such the proposal would fail to provide any mechanisms to secure affordable housing or to support the delivery of strategic infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, contrary to Policies CSTP2 and PMD16 of the Core Strategy.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL

7.1 The main issues for consideration by Members in this case relate to the compliance of the proposal with national and local planning policies for the Green Belt and whether any harm to the Green Belt would be clearly outweighed by very special circumstances to justify a departure from established planning policy.

7.2 The proposal constitutes inappropriate development and the NPPF makes it clear that such development is harmful to the Green Belt. This factor should be given significant weight in the balance of planning considerations. The proposal is considered to harm the openness of the Green Belt and would be contrary to a number of the purposes of including land in a Green Belt. Weight should also be placed on these factors.

7.3 There are a number of unresolved concerns. The development would clearly reduce the openness of the site and has the potential to seriously affect biodiversity and the landscape. The development could potentially also increase the risk of surface water flooding. The EA’s present holding objection prevents planning permission from being granted.

7.4 In addition, there are unresolved highway issues; the application proposes an access which poses a risk to road safety and efficiency and the applicant has not demonstrated methods to encourage sustainable modes of travel to and from the site.

7.5 Counterbalancing the harm, there are considerations which weigh in favour of the proposal. The applicant’s case for very special circumstances makes reference to the issues of housing delivery and housing land supply. Whilst the development would contribute towards housing supply, it is not considered that these factors are sufficient in this case to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt arising from this proposed development. It follows that the proposal is contrary to both national and local Green Belt planning policies.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The application site is located within the Green Belt, as identified on the Thurrock Local Development Framework Adopted Interim Proposals Map. National and local planning policies for the Green Belt set out within the NPPF and Thurrock LDF Core Strategy (2011) set out a presumption Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposals are considered to constitute inappropriate development with reference to policy and would by definition be harmful to the Green Belt. It is also considered that the proposals would harm openness and be contrary to two of the five purposes the Green Belt served as detailed at paragraph 80 of the NPPF, namely; (iii) ‘to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ and (v) ‘to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land’. It is considered that the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposals are therefore contrary to Part 9 of the NPPF and Policies CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt) and PMD6 (Development in the Green Belt) of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD.

2. Policy PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment) of the Core Strategy indicates that all applications where the development site is 1 Hectare or greater in area and in Flood Zone 1 areas should be accompanied by an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which indicates how flood risk can be managed for the life of the development and that development which does not make adequate provision to address floor risk issues is not appropriate.

The NPPF indicates that where development is proposed in flood risk areas development can be approved provided that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access routes and that any residual risk can be safely managed.

The applicant has submitted a FRA and a Preliminary Drainage Assessment (PDA) which provide conflicting flood risk information. The Environment Agency has issued a holding objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds and as such the Council is not satisfied the development can be accommodated whilst also adequately mitigating flood risk at the site .

3. Policy PMD16 of the Core Strategy indicates that where needs would arise as a result of development; the Council will seek to secure planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other relevant guidance. The Policy states that the Council will seek to ensure that development proposals contribute to the delivery of strategic infrastructure to enable the cumulative impact of development to be managed and to meet the reasonable cost of new infrastructure made necessary by the proposal.

On 7 March 2012, Cabinet approved a report in relation to financial contributions which indicated that the Council would adopt the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation Planning Obligations Strategy as interim policy pending the adoption of the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule. The Strategy applies to all residential developments, regardless of the size or number of units. For residential units a sum of £5,000 is payable per new unit formed. Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

No Unilateral Undertaking has been received. Therefore the applicant has failed to secure the provision of 35% affordable housing on the site or the required financial contributions.

The proposal would therefore fail to provide any mechanisms to secure affordable housing or to support the delivery of strategic infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, contrary to Policies CSTP2 and PMD16 of the Core Strategy.

4. The site is in a remote location with poor links to public transport provision. The applicant has not demonstrated methods to encourage sustainable modes of travel to and from the development, contrary to the aims of the NPPF. Additionally the proposed access serving the site would significantly adversely impact on the free flow and safe movement of traffic on the A128, which is designated within the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy as a Level 1 Corridor of Movement. This access would increase vehicle delays and would be detrimental to road safety.

The development is therefore contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF and Policy PMD9 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD.

Documents: All background documents including application forms, drawings and other supporting documentation relating to this application can be viewed online: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/00029/OUT

Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT

Planning Committee 10.04.2014 Application Reference: 14/00029/OUT