Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Reference: Site: Land to the north of Godman Road, Cedar Road, 13/01102/OUT Barry Close and adjacent to Heath Place, Chadwell- Ward: St-Mary Orsett Ward + Chadwell St Mary Proposal: Outline application – up to 350 residential units (Use Class C3); formation of access from Heath Road comprising new mini-roundabout and pedestrian / cycle link (including emergency vehicular access via Barry Close; open space including local park, Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and amenity green space; structural landscaping and planting comprising new trees and hedgerows; a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and balancing ponds; and associated services and ancillary works including roads, drainage and utilities.
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received Status 32817-LEA04a Figure 1 – Site Location Plan 15.11.2013 Detailed 32817-LEA07a Figure 2 – Planning Application 15.11.2013 Detailed Site Boundary LLC935_96 Rev A Figure 3 - Masterplan 15.11.2013 Indicative 32817-LEA91 Figure 4.2A – Proposed mini- 21.01.14 Detailed roundabout site access 32817-LEA91 Figure 4.3A – Swept path analysis 21.01.14 Detailed for refuse vehicle 32817-LLC935-45 Parameter Plan 22.01.14 Detailed 32817-LEA92 Bus stop locations and 400m 21.01.14 Supporting isochrones info The application is also accompanied by: Volume 1: Outline Application and Supporting Documents (Amec, Nov 2013) comprising; Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Transport Assessment, Framework Travel Plan, Statement of Community Involvement
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Environmental Statement (Amec, November 2013) comprising Non-Technical Summary, 1. Introduction 2. Proposed development needs and alternatives 3. Proposed development description 4. Approach to preparing the ES 5. Policy and authorisations overview 6. Traffic and transport 7. Air Quality 8. Noise and Vibration 9. Community and Socio-economics 10. Historic Environment 11. Landscape and visual 12. Biodiversity 13. Water 14. Land Quality
Applicant: Validated: 15.11.13 Mr Jonathan Chastney Date of expiry: 07.03.13 CJC Development Company 4 Merus Court, Merdian Business Park Leicester Leicestershire LE19 1RJ Case Officer: David Moseley
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 This outline application with all matters reserved relates to 15.7 hectares site north of the built up area of Chadwell-St-Mary. The formal description of development is detailed below;
Erection of up to 350 residential units (Use Class C3); Formation of access from Heath Road comprising new mini-roundabout and pedestrian / cycle link; Formation of an emergency vehicular access via Barry Close; Creation of open space including local park, Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and amenity green space; structural landscaping and planting comprising new trees and hedgerows; a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and balancing ponds; and associated services and ancillary works including roads, drainage and utilities.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
1.2 This is an outline application with the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent consideration (‘the reserved matters’). The application seeks approval of the means of access to the site (Figure 4.2a). The application does not include details of the internal road networks within the development, such matters being reserved.
1.3 The application is accompanied by an illustrative Masterplan (Figure 3). The application is accompanied by a Parameters Plan, such details includes; Extent and location of residential parcels together with maximum building heights; An approach to the layout of principle roads; Extent and location of proposed public open space, extension to Old House Wood, hedgerow planting along the boundary with Greyhound Lane. The Design and Access Statement also includes building scale parameters to be applied across the site. The following section describes the proposal by reference to the reserved matters and details those elements of the scheme which are proposed to be fixed by way of the Parameter Plan.
1.4 Layout - comprises the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development.
Whilst layout is reserved the indicative Masterplan details that the residential parcel will extend some 11.2ha (71% of the site). This equates to an average density of 31 dwellings per hectare. The Parameters Plan accompanying the application details the location and extent of the residential parcels.
The application includes an indicative dwelling mix detailed in Table 1 below. The Planning Statement advises that ‘the exact number of properties and the mix will be established through the submission of one or more reserved matter applications. At this stage it is envisaged that the properties will be a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties, predominantly semi-detached and detached with some terraces’ (Planning Statement, para 3.2).
The Indicative Masterplan details the proposed vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access from Heath Road continuing through to a central open space. This tree lined Boulevard is proposed to comprise a 6m carriageway with a 2m planted verge and 2m footpath to one side and a 2m footpath within a 6m landscaped corridor on the opposite side forming part. The Boulevard terminates at a junction near the central park from where it continues as a Minor Access Road, forming a loop around the southern part of the site before rejoining the Boulevard near to the site entrance with Heath Road. Houses are illustrated fronting onto this main internal road. Lower category roads are illustrated from
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
the principle internal road. As illustrated, the majority of housing follows a permitted block form with some in-core development.
The Parameters Plan and Illustrative Masterplan details 4.4ha area of open space located principally along the sites northern boundary and extending into the centre of the site. This area is proposed to accommodate a new satellite park at the centre of the site (including children’s play space, seating and landscaping). The open space is also proposed to contain a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) system.
The application details the planting of new trees in a c.30m wide belt running along a 140m section of the site’s north-eastern boundary as an extension to Old House Wood which adjoins part of the east boundary of the site.
The Parameter Plan details four areas of public open space along the southern boundary of the site and adjoining existing amenity greens located to the front of the terraces of existing residential properties in Barry Close, Cedar Road and Goodman Road. The majority of the residential development along this section of the southern and eastern boundary of the site are illustrated to front onto the loop road and back onto the existing residential areas in Barry Close, Cedar Road and Goodman Road.
The Parameter Plan and Illustrative Masterplan detail a 15m to 35m wide ‘green’ corridor formed along the route of Footpath 107 which enters the site from Greyhound Lane and continues in a northerly direction. The development parcels and proposed to wrap around each side of the proposed green corridor. The plans details a 3-4m wide area for hedgerow planting along a 195m long section of the site boundary immediately abutting the rear gardens of properties on the northern side of Greyhound Lane. Within this area of the site the proposed dwellings are illustrated to flank existing dwellings in Greyhound Lane. The hedgerow buffer is detailed to continue along an 80m long section of the site boundary with the eastern side of Greyhound Lane.
1.5 Access - covers accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.
The main vehicular access to the site is proposed from Heath Road via a new mini roundabout adjacent to 90 Heath Road. Land within the curtilage of 90 Heath Road has been included within the application red-line and is within the control of the applicant. In addition to the roundabout, the proposed access design is detailed in Figure 4.2 includes: o 6.0m site access carriageway with 2.0m footways on either side
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
o tie-in of 2.0m footways to existing footway provision on the site-side of Heath Road; o provision of a new raised zebra crossing on Heath Road on the north west side of the proposed site access. This would replace the existing speed cushions; o creation of a carriageway pinch point on Heath Road some 40m south of the proposed mini roundabout. This would narrow the carriageway from c.6m up to 5.5m for a length of 10m.
A secondary emergency and pedestrian/cycle only access is proposed from an existing turning head at the end of Barry Close.
The site is currently crossed by two Public Footpaths; FP107 links Greyhound Lane and Hornsby Lane, and FP95 which links Greyhound Lane to Godman Road via Old House Wood. The indicative masterplan details the realignment of FP95 to connect with FP107 on the northern edge of the site rather than its current connection at Greyhound Lane. FP95 is proposed to be realigned to run along a green corridor proposed along the northern boundary of the site, albeit this would still connect through to Old House Wood. The application proposes on-site improvement to FP107. The applicant is proposing to upgrade FP107 and FP95 to bridleways.
1.6 Scale - relates to the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings.
Whilst scale is a reserved matter, Parameter Plan 5 details maximum building height. Development immediately to the north and east of existing housing lying on the northern side of Greyhound Lane would not exceed 1½ storeys. The D&A states that the first two or three plots detailed along the principle spine road would be two-storey in response to the existing residential properties in Greyhound Lane. The remaining houses fronting the Boulevard are proposed to be 2½ storeys. As are a number of units fronting a public square. The remainder are proposed to be 2 storeys.
1.7 Appearance - comprises the aspects of a building or place within the development which determine the visual impression it makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture. Whilst appearance is reserved, the applicant advises ‘The development will effectively form an extension to Chadwell St. Mary, therefore in order to ensure a smooth transition between the phases, the architectural style and detailing at the southern end of the site will need to relate to but not replicate the architectural style found in the locality. The final appearance of the development will be decided at Reserved Matters stage. The Chadwell St. Mary area as a whole does not give many opportunities to
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
draw an architectural palette from. Consequently the eventual development may draw from the wider Essex vernacular or may indeed be a contemporary scheme. Materials will be representative of those found in and around Chadwell St. Mary and the wider area. Surfacing to roads will generally be in tarmac with block paving used to reinforce character areas or add emphasis’ (D&A, p41).
The D&A Statement envisages the development having four character areas within the proposal; o Character Area 1 - The Boulevard – comprising houses fronting and served by shared accesses off the principle spine road. Lower density, mainly detached 2.5 storey houses, ‘Arcadian’ appearance behind tree planting to road verge and landscape corridor. o Character Area 2 – Perimeter Street – comprising housing on the southern element of the internal loop road. Higher density housing mainly terraced or semi-detached houses served by Minor Access Road. o Character Area 3 – Streets – houses within the core of the development, between the Parkland and Perimeter Street. Forms a transition between the lower and higher density areas. Served by Minor Access, Mews and Private Drives. Medium density; predominantly made up of semi- detached and terraced dwellings. Informal shared surface type roads and more formal conventional roads. More formal landscape treatment with maximum 2m setback. o Character Area 4 – Parkland – houses fronting on to the proposed open space. Lower density housing made up of mainly detached houses served by Minor Access and private drives. Houses are 2 storeys. Informal landscape treatment with minimum 3m setback.
1.8 Landscaping – The indicative details the majority of green spaces along the northern boundary and extending into the centre of the site. The Landscape Strategy incorporates the following components; o a new settlement edge to Chadwell St Mary formed by public open space with associated hedgerows, tree cover and pedestrian links; o an extension to Old House Wood and reinstatement of the existing defunct hedgerow located on the northern boundary of the site; o existing Public Rights of Way retained within green corridors; o new and enhanced habitats for wildlife; o a tree lined boulevard at the site entrance forming a part of a green corridor comprising grassland, footpaths and surface water Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS); o a satellite park incorporating Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP), seating and landscaping set within a multifunctional green corridor; and o Sustainable Drainage Systems including ponds and wetland areas
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
1.9 Planning obligations - Below is the applicants proposed Heads of Terms;
No. Description 1 Affordable Housing 35% affordable housing (size and tenure mix to be agreed);
2 Payment of Planning Obligation Strategy
Payment of £5,000 per residential unit (£5,000 x No Units)(indexed) to Thurrock Council in accordance with the Planning Obligation Strategy. The funding to be used for the purposes indicated in the POS, which may include;
o Local community facilities, sports and leisure - financial contributions towards local community facilities, sports and leisure (c.£680,000);
o Healthcare and emergency services - financial contributions towards healthcare and emergency services (c.£160,000);
o Education - financial contributions towards education (c.£685,000); and
o Transport and Travel Plan - financial contributions towards transport (c.£240,000).
3 Financial contribution towards public footpath and bridleway enhancements in the local area
Prior to the commencement of development the payment of £110,000 to Thurrock Council towards public footpath and bridleway enhancements in the local area. 4 Financial contribution towards off site sports facilities in lieu of on-site provision
Prior to the commencement of development the payment of £160,000 to Thurrock Council towards off-site sports provision. Such monies to be spend on any of the following; - Additional sports pitch(s) or Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) at Chadwell-St-Mary recreation ground and associated maintenance costs - Enhancing sport and recreation provision within the local area
1.10 Procedure
1.11 The development is an EIA development, therefore, the application has been accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
considers the environmental effects of the proposed development during construction and also when completed and includes measures either to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. The findings of the EIA are presented in an Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application. The ES is accompanied by a large number of technical appendices. The contents of the EA are listed in the supporting documents section of this report.
1.12 The Council has a statutory duty to consider environmental matters and an EIA is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development are fully understood and taken into account before development proceeds. EIA is, therefore, an integral component of the planning process for significant developments. EIA leads to improved decision making by providing the development control process with better information. EIA not only helps to determine whether development should be permitted but also facilitates the drafting of planning conditions and legal agreements in order to control development, avoid or mitigate adverse effects and enhance beneficial effects. It is vital that the environmental issues raised by the application are assessed in a robust and transparent manner.
1.13 In order to fulfil the requirements of the EIA Regulations it is necessary to ensure (a) that the Council has taken into account the environmental information submitted, and (b) that any planning permission granted is consistent with the development which has been assessed. To achieve this second objective the Council has the ability to impose conditions and secure mitigation measures by Section 106 obligations.
1.14 With reference to procedure, this application has been advertised as being accompanied by an Environmental Statement, as a departure from the Development Plan and affecting public footpaths. Any resolution to grant planning permission would need to be referred to the Secretary of State under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 with reference to the proposed quantum of development within the Green Belt. The Direction allows the Secretary of State a period of 21 days (unless extended by direction) within which to ‘call-in’ the application for determination via a public inquiry. In reaching a decision as to whether to call- in an application, the Secretary of State will be guided by the published policy for calling-in planning applications and relevant planning policies.
Table 1: Summary of the proposal
1.15 The table below summarises some of the main points of detail contained within the development proposal.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Land Use Allocation: LDF Core Strategy Interim Proposals Map: The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Site Area: 15.7 hectares
Parking 1 bedroom unit = 1 space. 2+ = 2 spaces + 0.25 spaces per dwelling unallocated. To accord with Thurrock Council Parking Review Document, October (2010)(TA, p28).
Indicative dwelling mix Type Percentage Max No. based on 350
1-2 bedroom 20-25% 70-87
3 bedroom 35-40% 122-140
4 bedroom 30-35% 105-122
5 bedroom 5-15% 17-52
Density 31 dwellings per hectare (dph)
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 This 15.7ha site is located on land immediately adjoining the northern boundary of Chadwell St Mary and eastern boundary of Orsett Heath. The majority of the application site is currently in use as arable agricultural land.
2.2 The field boundaries are predominantly hedgerows with a Public Right of Way (PRoW) running along the northern boundary of the Application Site and also crossing the western part of the Site. To the north of the Site is further agricultural land including a former farmhouse (Heath Place), Hornsby Lane and two National Grid power lines and pylons. Bordering the south of the site are residential properties on the northern edge of Chadwell St Mary along Cedar Road and Barry Close as well existing homes on Greyhound Lane, Orsett Heath to the west. The immediate surrounding area is characterised by housing dating from the 1960’s and 1970’s. The western boundary of the site borders existing allotments with further dwellings in Orsett Heath beyond. The north-eastern part of the Site is adjacent to Old House Wood with high-rise flats on Godman Road lying further east.
2.3 The site occupies a relatively flat area of land (lying at around 28m AOD). Land to the north gently falls to around 20m AOD (near Heath Place) before rising gently to 35m AOD at the location of the A1013 west of Southfields. To
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
the west and east of the Site, landform lies around levels similar to that within the Site. Whereas to the south, within Chadwell St Mary itself, landform gently rises to around 30m AOD before falling sharply to meet with the Tilbury Marshes (less that 5m AOD).
2.4 The Site is comprised of one large arable field and the southern part of a field that borders Hornsby Lane and allotments. A remnant hedge-line follows the northern part of the arable field that sits within the site however this is comprised primarily of ruderal vegetation with a handful of individual small trees/shrubs trees. Other than this, vegetation within the Site is associated with its boundary with Chadwell St Mary and Orsett Heath, with Old House wood to the north-east.
2.5 Heath Road forms the main route from the north edge of Chadwell St Mary to the A1013 Stanford Road via Orsett Heath, before continuing to form part of the junction with the A1013 Stanford Road/B188 Baker Street/Heath Road. Heath Road is subject to a weight restriction.
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
3.1 73/01358/OUT - Residential Development – Refused on the following grounds - Green Belt - Loss of good quality agricultural land - The existing drainage in inadequate for the development - The development would require the improvement of the approach roads from the A13 for which there is no proposal - The proposed access from Heath Road is inadequate and unreasonable from a highway viewpoint for an estate of this size.
3.2 The site comprised land to the west of Greyhound Lane and did not extend past the northern boundary of the residential area of Greyhound Lane.
3.3 The appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State who concurred with the following findings of the Inspector;
‘It is certainly true, as the appellants claim, that the development would not materially advance the limits of Chadwell St Mary / Orsett Heath towards any neighbouring settlement, and I am not convinced that it would be particularly prominent or visually intrusive against its background when viewed from the north, although it would undoubtedly have a marked impact upon the landscape of those who live closer to it.
It is apparent however that this part of the Metropolitan Green Belt extension has already been weakened in its purpose by the major and urban industrial areas, the roads, power lines and chimneys that exist in
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
it, and it is likely to suffer further damage to its rural character when the A13 extension to Tilbury is built and a further 1000 houses to the north- east of Grays are erected.
Moreover, although the appeal site is privately owned and the public have no right of entry to it, it does, nonetheless, afford a precious breathing space and source of natural beauty and quite to those who live in the modern residential estates around it. Its loss to development would not only destroy this amenity but would continue the process of erosion of the already limited amount of available open land in the area to the detriment of the purposes for which the green belt was established.
On the agricultural evidence I can see no reason to question the high grade classification that has been given to the land, or its significance as part of a scarce natural resource; the case for its retention as farmland is therefore very strong. It seems to me too, that in an area so heavily built-up, but with an important green belt role to play as in this case, it would be right to preserve the best quality agricultural land for farming so as to obtain the optimum food production on the limited open land available and at the time ensure the best contribution of that land to the rural character of the area.
As to the land available for housing it is clear from Circular 122/73 Annex A para 18 that the requirement for 5 year reserve does not apply to areas subject to special constraint such as green belts, yet it is apparent that South Essex certainly does have that amount and more, and that Thurrock Borough, which is all green belt outside existing built- up areas, approaches it. I am of the opinion therefore that a reasonable stock of housing land does exist in the area.
This being the case and having in mind the state of the present discussions on the draft structure plan I am inclined to agree with the Local Authority that is would be unwisely premature to release unnecessarily to development an area of green belt such as the appeal site before the full requirement and location needs of housing in the county have been determined.
I have not considered the highway or drainage aspects of the case because of the apparent agreement between the parties before the inquiry, nor have I pursued the precedent argument in light of my conclusions on the main issues and my recommendation’
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
3.4 73/01355/OUT - Residential Development – Refused on the same grounds as the above. The site is substantially similar to the current application site, albeit it did not include the area north of Greyhound Lane.
3.5 73/01357/OUT - Residential Development – Refused on the same grounds as the above. The site incorporated the area of the current application site but extended substantially further north towards Hornsby Lane.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 PUBLICITY
4.2 The application was advertised by way of press advertisement and site notices. In addition, neighbours were notified by letter.
4.3 At the time of drafting this report; A petition signed by 1103* people had been received objecting on the following grounds; ‘This petition has been signed by the residents of Chadwell-St-Mary and Orsett Heath to register their objection to any proposals for a housing development on the Green Belt farmland to the north of Chadwell-St-Mary known as Heath Farm. Any such proposal would adversely affect all the surrounding properties, produce unacceptable increases in the level of traffic and further erode our precious Green Belt’. (*Note: The petition contained 1206 signatories, however, 103 signatures are duplicates of other signatures on the petition) Letters of objection have been received from the Chadwell St Mary Community Forum and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Essex. A total of 483 letters have been received, all objecting to the proposal.
4.4 Chadwell St Mary Community Forum objects to the proposal on the following grounds; - The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and is not identified by Thurrock Council for development - The site is Grade II agricultural land, currently under arable cropping. - Local amenities, including a footpath across the site, would be lost as the proposed development would take away the piece of open country available to local residents - There have been significant archaeological finds on the site that merit further investigation, as evidence of Roman occupation has already been discovered. Hornsby Lane is believed to have been part of an historic pilgrimage route
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
- The access point for construction traffic is on an unclassified residential road with significant curvature that would make the extra lorry-traffic a hazard, not least because of the mud that would be deposited from their tyres - Inadequate consideration has been given to he effects of this proposal on local infrastructure, particularly education and medical. A development of this size would entail an increase in the Ward population of at least 15%, yet we have seen GP surgery capacity decrease by a third, dentists are at full stretch and schools up to capacity. Basildon Hospital’s woes are well enough known, and have not been fully addressed. - The effect on the Wards Road and on the local air quality of the traffic increase that would result from the increased population seems to have been deliberately played down by the applicants. Thurrock in general and Chadwell St Mary in particular is known for poor air quality, as well as for a higher than average incidence of respiratory ailments, yet there seems to be an implicit assumption in this proposal that, as the air is already bad, a bit more pollution won’t matter.
4.5 The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex (CPRE) object on the basis that the site is within the Green Belt and the proposal constitutes urban sprawl.
4.6 Of the 483 letters that have been received, 410 are pro forma letters. In addition to re-iterating points made by the Community Forum, the pro-forma letters raise the following additional points; - Why are we using Green Belt land instead of Brownfield sites which are readily available? - The site is not in the Local Development Framework - There is alternative empty housing already available for sale or rent in the ward - There is seriously inadequate road infrastructure which cannot expand or cope - There are inadequate school facilities in the area. Existing schools are at capacity and physically cannot expand further - There is inadequate sewerage or water supplies in the area to meet the increased demands - This will destroy Hornsby Lane, which has listed buildings and associations to the days of pilgrimages to Canterbury - The site is of significant archaeological interest. This will concrete over archaeological remains - Local wildlife will be devastated - Local ancient walkways will be destroyed - A previous identical application in 1978 for this land was rejected - It is in area of Natural Beauty - Loss of amenities (footpaths) and destruction of the environment
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
- The outlying roads in Chadwell could not cope with extra traffic on top of that generated by the new estate being built on the Woodview college site. At peak times Riverview is jammed with long tail backs - Access and 7.5 tonne weight restriction - Five years of lorry traffic during construction on inadequate roads - Elderly people on mobility scooters and cyclists will be in danger from the increased volume of traffic.
4.7 In addition to the issues identified above, the 73 non-pro forma letters raised the following additional objections; - Visual impacts - Development is unnecessary - There is an up to date development plan. This site was considered as part of the SSADPD and rejected. - Children will have to go out of the area for education, bussing children to school is not sustainable - Devaluation of properties [Note: the impact on property prices is not a planning matter] - If Option C of the proposed Thames Crossing goes ahead, the route of this eight lane motorway could pass within 100m of the site resulting in the whole development being a white elephant - Chadwell St Mary has no train station, a poor bus service and narrow roads - Generate a need for new TV and mobile phone masts - Noise pollution - Lack of any local support - Increase in crime - The proposal would result in the erosion of an already limited amount of open land in the area to the detriment of the purposes for which the Green Belt was established - Loss of identity arising from the merger of Chadwell and Orsett Heath - Impact on Old House Wood - The semi-rural nature of the area is already under attack from the London Gateway Port development, associated road improvements and possible new lower Thames Crossing
4.8 Issues raised in the representations are considered within the body of the report. Members will be updated should additional letters of representation be received before the meeting. Copies of any additional letters will be made available to view in the Members’ Letters Book.
4.9 CONSULTATIONS
4.10 HIGHWAYS AGENCY:
No objection.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
4.11 THURROCK COUNCIL HIGHWAYS:
Recommendation: No objections with conditions and section 106.
Summary - There are some quite significant issues with this development, particularly with regards to public transport provision, but also with regards to:
Viable walking/cycling links to designated routes and public transport links, Safety issues at the junction of Heath Road and the A1013 Stanford Road, and; Design/safety issues with the main mini-roundabout junction from Heath Road into the site.
Nonetheless, there has been an ongoing dialogue with the applicant’s development team and many of these issues could be dealt with by the developer as part of either mitigation measures, or funding through the S106 obligation process. This ensures that the site could be acceptable in terms of Council LDF highways policies and with regard to sustainability issues in National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 34 and 35.
PMD10 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans - The initial information contained within the Transport Assessment (TA) did not adequately assess highways issues associated with this large residential development on Level 1 routes and junctions, and further information was sought. A request for the following information was made in the initial response, these include; 1. Full details of the LINSIG assessment for the Cross Keys junction 2. PICADY accident prediction report for the proposed traffic flows at the A1013 junction with Heath Road and Baker Street. 3. Appraisal of potential increase in accidents arising from proportional traffic increase.
Point 1 - has been provided and shows that the junction is currently nearing capacity, and is worse at peak times. The applicant has proposed that providing dedicated right turn phases at this junction could improve safety at peak times by enabling right turn movements to clear the junction separately. However, it would appear that this is not proposed to be directly funded by the applicant, but rather funded via the S106 obligation strategy. It is conceivable that contemporary systems that are suggested for optimising traffic signals could mitigate this impact. This could be funded either wholly or proportionately through the Section 106 contribution.
With regards to points 2 and 3, these are considered in detail later.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
PMD9 Road Network Hierarchy - Access onto the A1013 Stanford Road/Heath Road junction, was assessed in the TA and identified that the development will increase traffic flows at this junction by a considerable amount. Whilst the PICADY assessment has substantiated that capacity will not be an issue; the accident statistics at this junction have identified that there is a problem with turning manoeuvres. The increase in turning manoeuvres is likely to increase the propensity for accidents on a Corridor of Movement. Further assessment of this issue was requested in the initial response.
The applicant has provided further information from the PICADY assessment, which has identified that there is the potential for accidents at this junction to increase, from the existing 1.35 accidents per annum to 1.904 per annum with the proposed development.
There is clearly an issue at this junction and mitigation measures would be appropriate. However, this issue may not be severe enough alone to require the applicant to directly fund improvements. Nevertheless, funding through the S106 obligation strategy could be used instead to mitigate any impact.
Site Access - The initial site access proposal identified a 12m diameter mini- roundabout arrangement with thermoplastic splitter islands on all approaches. This raised concerns in the initial response and the applicant has subsequently provided revised layout plans. The latest version appears to comply with Council standards, subject to detailed design and safety audit. This should be included as a condition on the application.
PMD8 Parking Standards - The site is located in a remote part of Chadwell-St- Mary, being quite far away from local amenities and public transport links; the site is considered to be in a low accessible area. Using the Council's draft parking standards, a minimum of 2 spaces per dwelling is required, with a further provision of 0.25 spaces per dwelling for visitors. Residential parking spaces should be provided off-street, with the visitor spaces located on-street, where appropriate. Please include this requirement as a condition, should planning permission be granted.
PMD2 Design and Layout - The initial response identified that the development did not comply with the above policy in terms of accessibility, which requires development to integrate with all modes of travel, particularly with regards to walking and cycling. There are designated cycle routes to the north and south of the site entrance, one on the A1013, which links Grays to Stanford-Le-Hope; and the other to the south on Orsett Heath Crescent, which connects over the A1089 to Little Thurrock. However, there are no proposed links to the site for walking and cycling other than public footpath links across fields.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
In order to improve these links, the initial response suggested on-road cycle links along Heath Road, albeit, there are several locations where footways are either too narrow or absent along Heath Road. Any intensification of use of this road will undoubtedly result in accessibility issues for walking and cycling and be contrary to PMD2. However, further discussions have identified a practical solution, through the S106 obligation package, to upgrade strategic public rights of way routes to improve connectivity. These routes are generally off-road and away from vehicular routes.
This could allay some concerns with regards to connectivity; however, the deliverability of these schemes requires third party land, which cannot be guaranteed. Nevertheless, if a ‘fall back’ position for this funding is that it can also be used to upgrade connectivity outside of this area, such as cycle links and footway links on Heath Road or similar, then this would be acceptable.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Paragraphs 34 and 35 state that; "Plans and decision should ensure that developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.", and "Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods and people."
The initial comments raised concern about the suitability of this site, being on the edge of an urban area, particularly with regard to bus facilities to main transport links and major amenities. The applicant has provided further information that suggests that a minimum of 75% of the site is accessible to public transport links that generate a good service. This is achieved by the applicant providing a new bus stop facility closer to the access links to the site and identifying walking links to existing facilities. There are still some reservations about some of the assumptions made, particularly with regards to those dwellings in the north east part of the site and how the applicant identifies a practical and accessible walking route to bus facilities.
A far more appropriate solution would be for the applicant to divert bus services through the development, thereby ensuring that sustainable travel modes are maximised. This could also be in conjunction with a funding package to increase services into the evening and weekends, further maximising sustainable travel modes for residents. It is understood that the applicant now intends to include these suggestions within the Residential Travel Plan, and any improvement would be directly funded through that process. If this is the case, then conceivably, the issues relating to the NPPF would be allayed; please include these details within the condition for the Travel Plan.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Clearly all these demands on the Section 106 funding may mean that the infrastructure requirements will exceed the standard charge for Section 106 contributions. This should be borne in mind during the Section 106 negotiations.
4.12 THURROCK COUNCIL (PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY):
Should this planning proposal be deemed acceptable then there is an opportunity to deliver Strategic Green Links that crosses the proposed development site.
The applicant has stated within this Outline Planning submission to be supportive of the Council's objectives for open space and recreational needs by means of financial contribution to enhance the public rights of way network not only within the boundary of the development but that of other rights of way within the area. Thereby, ideally we would seek to up grade both Footpath 95 and 107 to bridleway status and standards with a suggested compacted, crushed limestone shared surface situated above the flood level of any sustainable flood feature along with appropriate signage, gates and fencing to create a recreational use for not only pedestrians but horse riders and cyclists.
Footpath 107 has had long term access issues in trying to maintain an accessible route through either a ploughed or cropped field. Ideally we would seek consideration from the land owner north of this development for either the possible up grade of this path to a bridleway or it's diversion to an edge of field route commencing westwards within this development then northwards (outside the development boundary) to its present junction with Hornsby Lane. (Shown green on the enclosed plan). Should this proposal meet with the land owners approval then we would seek the applicant’s consideration of a financial contribution towards this scheme.
Public Footpath 79 again is outside this development boundary but has been identified as a strategic north / south green link which ideally we would seek to be changed to bridleway status to provide a safe, improved, accessibility green link route for all users between Chadwell St Mary and Orsett. Consideration will therefore be requested of the applicant towards a financial contributions should consultations with the land owner be proven to be successful and approval granted for the change of use from footpath to bridleway.
Consideration is also requested of the applicant towards the creation of a new bridleway link between properties 114 and 130 Heath Road to allow the continuation of a permissive bridleway over the heath northwards to either point A as shown blue on the enclosed plan to link into the proposed new edge
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
of field bridleway route or to point B to link into the Public Footpath 79 / Bridleway eastwards.
4.13 ESSEX BRIDLEWAY ASSOCIATION:
If application is approved, Essex Bridleways Association wish the following points to be taken into consideration please: - developer to contribute to the costs of upgrading footpath 95 and 79 to bridleway status and to upgrade the crossing link at the northern end of footpath 79 to make it safe for horses and other users to link with footpath 93. This will create a circular route for horse riders and cyclists encompassing bridleways 223 and 112. - developer to ensure that there is an access point onto the road at the far western point of the development. - the bridleway when constructed should be on the open space side of the boundary hedge rather than field side, also to ensure that the surface is on ground which is well drained and not in the lower areas which are designed to flood.
4.14 THURROCK COUNCIL (ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH):
Air Quality - There is no impact on the existing air quality from the operational phase of the proposed development. I will discuss air quality issued during the construction phase later.
Contaminated land - I do not anticipate that any contaminative issues will be encountered on the proposed development site. However as previously stated I would recommend a watching brief be kept during ground works for any unforeseen contamination. A contingency plan for dealing with any such contamination which is encountered should be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
Noise Operational - I do not anticipate any noise impact on existing receptors from the proposed development. Issues of noise from Construction activities will be discussed later. Construction. Section 3.3.2 of the Environmental Statement (reference Amec November 2013) refers to construction management. The introduction states:
“Contractors working on the proposed development would be required to prepare and then implement a CEMP, which would detail working practices and any other measures that form part of the proposed development for which planning permission would have been granted,”
I recommend that a condition requiring the submission of a CEMP be submitted to the LPA for approval prior to work commencing. The plan should deal with the following as a minimum the following:
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
The proposed hours of work as submitted 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 to 13.00 Saturdays with none on Sundays and public holidays; Method for the suppression of fugitive dust during construction activities (no bonfires should be permitted); Wheel wash facilities; Noise control measures to the main requirement of BS 5228 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites; A contingency plan for dealing with unforeseen contamination if encountered during construction; A waste management plan; The siting of security lighting to avoid glare or overspill affecting receptors; A contact procedure for dealing with concerns from existing residents.
4.15 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
We have inspected the application, as submitted, and have no objection provided the condition below, relating to surface water management, is appended to any planning permission granted. Our detailed comments on this are provided below. We have also given advice relating to contaminated land, foul water and sustainability.
Surface Water Management - We refer to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) completed by Amec Environment and Infrastructure Ltd, dated October 2013, including the supporting surface water drainage calculations and Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy referenced in Figure 4.1 of the Report. The FRA has shown that a SuDS drainage scheme will be used on the site, with all surface water being managed for up to the 1 in 100 year Greenfield runoff and stored on site, with discharge from the site restricted to the existing Greenfield runoff discharge rate of 2.8 l/sec/ha (1 in 1 year) for all events up to the 1 in 30 year event (7.4 l/s/ha) inclusive of climate change.
We are aware, from discussions between the consultant and Anglian Water Services (AWS), that the receiving adopted sewer will only receive restricted flows up to the maximum 1 in 30 year Greenfield runoff event inclusive of climate change ( 7.4 l/sec/ha) – 50.3 l/sec for the whole site. This is designed to receive flows from the SuDS devices for the site and ensures that flood risk both on and off site is not increased.
Storage for the scheme highlighted in paragraph 4.22 shall be provided on-site to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm inclusive of climate change. This storage totals 5,035 cubic metres for the development, and shall be provided
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
through devices including infiltration trenches, swales and attenuation trenches and wet ponds (including others), which form the SuDS Management train highlighted in Paragraph 4.3 of the Report.
In light of the information submitted, we are satisfied that a surface water drainage scheme can be delivered. We recommend the following condition is appended to any permission granted:
Condition - Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development as highlighted in the supporting Flood Risk Assessment, completed by Amec Environment and Infrastructure Ltd and dated October 2013, and including the surface water drainage calculations and Outline Drainage Plan referenced in Figure 4.1 of the Report, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion, and detailed plans of SuDS devices, once the finalised drainage scheme has been drawn up. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and to ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system.
Advice to Applicant - Any culverting or works affecting the flow of a watercourse requires the prior written Consent of the Thurrock Unitary Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991/Water Resources Act 1991. The Thurrock Unitary Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) seeks to avoid culverting, and its Consent for such works will not normally be granted except as a means of access.
Contaminated Land - The application form indicates that contamination is suspected for the development site. We consider that the water environment at this site is of low priority, therefore we will not be providing detailed site- specific advice or comments with regards to land contamination issues for this site. 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.
Foul Water Disposal - Anglian Water Services should be consulted regarding the available capacity in the foul water infrastructure. If there is not sufficient
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
capacity in the infrastructure then we must be consulted again with alternative methods of disposal.
Sustainability - 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. We also need to limit the contribution of new development to climate change and minimise the consumption of natural resources. Opportunities should therefore be taken in the planning system, no matter the scale of the development, to contribute to tackling these problems. In particular we recommend the following issues are considered at the determination stage and incorporated into suitable planning conditions:
Overall sustainability: a pre-assessment under the appropriate Code/BREEAM standard should be submitted with the application. We recommend that design Stage and Post-Construction certificates (issued by the Building Research Establishment or equivalent authorising body) are sought through planning conditions; Resource efficiency: a reduction in the use of resources (including water, energy, waste and materials) should be encouraged to a level which is sustainable in the long term. As well as helping the environment, Defra have advised that making simple changes resulting in the more efficient use of resources could save UK businesses around £23bn per year; Net gains for nature: opportunities should be taken to ensure the development is conserving and enhancing habitats to improve the biodiversity value of the immediate and surrounding area; Sustainable energy use: the development should be designed to minimise energy demand and have decentralised and renewable energy technologies (as appropriate) incorporated, while ensuring that adverse impacts are satisfactorily addressed.
These measures are in line with the objectives of the NPPF as set out in paragraphs 7 and 93-108. Reference should also be made to the Climate Change section of the draft National Planning Practice Guidance, in particular: “Why is it important for planning to consider climate change?” and “Where can find out more about climate change mitigation and adaptation?” http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/ Your Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD also requires 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. Policy PMD12 sets out the Code for
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
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). Additional guidance on considering climate change for this proposal is provided in an appendix at the end of this letter.
4.16 THURROCK COUNCIL (FLOOD RISK MANAGER):
Policy contexts; LDF-CS Policies CSTP27 (Management and reduction of flood risk) and PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment.
Sustainable Drainage Application – Recommend the following informative and condition: Informative - Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act is expected to commence from April 6 2014. Therefore, if the application is to be submitted after this date a full Sustainable Drainage Application would be required for this development. If the application is consented before the 31 March 2014 all reserved matters will need to be approved by 31 March 2015, otherwise a new Drainage Application will need to be submitted and construction will not be able to commence until this has been approved.
Condition: Surface Water Drainage development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the below comments has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in full, in accordance with the approved details, before the development is completed. The details shall include finished floor levels and levels of roadways. The following also needs to be submitted as part of any approved works/scheme:
1. Clear details of the ownership and responsibility for maintenance of all drainage elements for the lifetime of the development. If appropriate, details of adoption of any drainage elements of the drainage system should be included. 2. Details of all surface water drainage infrastructure for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority’s s21 Asset Register.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with paragraph 103 of National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with CSTP27 Management and Reduction of Flood Risk.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Summary: The surface water management proposals need revising to reflect the impending requirements of the Draft National Standards for Sustainable Drainage. Noted is the proposal to phase developments, therefore full details of individual plot discharge and storage constraints are required as are details of responsibility for controlling the overall surface water management of the site.
Comments: Run off Destinations - Drainage design should always aim to make as much use of the runoff as practicable and be managed as close to the source as possible. Further use of rainwater harvesting and pervious surfaces is recommended to reduce need for downstream storage.
The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) indicates that the ground conditions are suitable for infiltration and also the presence of a drainage ditch connecting to a local watercourse to the north of the site. Further justification as to why it is not reasonably practicable to use these preferred runoff destinations as the primary drainage discharge destination must be submitted. Information on the status of the drainage ditch and its hydraulic capacity are required. Surface water discharge to the Anglian Water sewer should be avoided where practicable to minimise residents’ future SW disposal charges.
Peak Flow - For greenfield sites the peak runoff rate from the development for the 1 in 1 year rainfall event and the 1 in 100 year rainfall event must not exceed the peak greenfield runoff rate for the same event. Assuming non compliance with the preferred runoff destinations above the FRA indicates that discharge to the AWS will be no more than the 3.33% AEP greenfield run off rate. Whilst this is approved in terms of meeting the 1 in 100 year requirement, further runoff control features are required to meet the 1 in 1 year rate. Further details of additional flow control components should be included in the design.
Volume Control - The FRA highlights the requisite 1 in 100 year runoff volume including 30% climate change allowance is being controlled on site. However, further detailed design should be carried out to identify source control measures to reduce this requirement in the balancing ponds that allows for evaporation, evapo-transpiration and further infiltration by managing water at the surface.
Water Quality - The drainage system must be designed to ensure that surface water discharged meets water quality standards. Sustainable drainage can reduce pollution levels in surface water through the capture and treatment of contaminants using natural processes. The FRA highlights the use of petrol interceptors and silt traps to meet water quality standards. In order for the drainage system to be cost effective to maintain the Council requires the use of vegetated systems instead due to the wider benefits they offer. According to
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
the level of risk associated with this development 2 treatment stages are required to meet the water quality standards, such as filter strips, swales, bio- retention areas and wetlands.
Maintenance and Adoption - Minimising ongoing maintenance responsibilities and requirements should be fundamental to the development of any proposals. Assurance that if offered for adoption all drainage infrastructure will be accessible for monitoring and maintenance and a preliminary operation and maintenance plan will be submitted before construction as part of your full planning application package.
Residual Flood Risk - The design of the drainage system must ensure that flows resulting from rainfall in excess of a 1 in 100 year and up to a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event are managed in conveyance routes that minimise the risks to people and property within and beyond the development, in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.
Plans showing locations of flow paths during exceedance events are required to demonstrate that flooding does not occur in any part of a building.
4.17 NATURAL ENGLAND:
Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection - This application is in close proximity to the Hangman’s Wood and Dene Holes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.
Protected species - We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted.
Green Infrastructure - The proposed development is within an area that Natural England considers could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure (GI) provision. Multi-functional green infrastructure can perform a range of functions including improved flood risk management, provision of accessible green space, climate change adaptation and biodiversity enhancement. Natural England would encourage the incorporation of GI into this development. Evidence and advice on green infrastructure, including the economic benefits of GI can be found on the Natural England Green Infrastructure web pages.
Local sites - If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application.
Biodiversity enhancements - This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
Landscape enhancements - This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.
4.18 LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY CONSULTANT:
The methodology adopted for the Ecological Appraisal generally follows standard guidance. In my Scoping Opinion response of 28th May 2013 I had highlighted the need to obtain biological records from the Essex Field Club as part of the desk study data search; however this was not done. Essex Field Club objected to the application due to this lack of data in its response of 22nd November 2013. In response to this issue a Supplementary Environmental Information technical note was produced which assessed the Essex Field Club records that had been received. It concluded that “the data search presents no records of legally protected or priority/notable species within the site or within a likely zone of influence from the proposed development; as such there is unlikely to be any significant change to the ecological baseline or the impact assessment presented in the Environmental Statement”. On the basis of the results that have been obtained this conclusion is considered appropriate. It is also considered that it addresses the objection made by the Essex Field Club.
With regard to the conclusions reached in the Ecological Appraisal it is agreed that the site has a generally low ecological value due to it being principally arable farmland. The main ecological value within the existing area is the reptiles recorded along the field boundaries. The following detailed points are noted: -
Section 12.7.2 scopes out sites not considered to be affected by the development, including Hangmans Wood and Terrels Heath, citing the A1089 as a barrier. There is a bridleway link which is extremely well used including by children going to school which crosses this road and runs past these sites. With the Woodview development underway there will be a cumulative impact with increasing use. As there is a clearly defined path around these sites the increase in recreational pressures are not likely to be significant although there could be an increase in misuse which could result in increased disturbance. The increased legitimate use however could reduce problems. It is not considered that this increased use would have an increased impact on these sites.
It is agreed that the impact on the SPA is not likely to be significant as there will be increasing areas of public access if the development proceeds on the proposed timescale with the phased opening of Thameside Nature Park and East Tilbury Quarry.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
It is proposed that an Ecological Mitigation and Monitoring Strategy should be included as part of a Reserved Matters application. This is seen as a useful way of securing the mitigation measures proposed. Overall I think that the proposed mitigation is adequate for managing the existing habitat and species of value and for achieving some positive biodiversity benefits.
Landscape and visual - The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been carried out in accordance with the revised guidelines. The assessment concludes that the effects of the development on the landscape and visual amenity would generally be low and that the mitigation measures would reduce these further. The site area comprises two arable fields which do not include any significant visual features and the development would largely avoid any trees or hedges. There are long views to the north in particular however existing development limits the views in other directions. The development of the site would have an adverse effect on local residents living in close proximity as it would reduce the open character of the landscape immediately adjacent to the existing residential edge; however the topography and extent of the existing development within the vicinity restricts the views across this area. The proposed mitigation measures should further help to reduce the effects and to achieved an improved edge to the settlement when viewed from the north as there would be a larger landscape buffer provided that would establish over time. It is agreed therefore that the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme would not be of significance and that the proposed layout and mitigation has sought to reduce these impacts.
Landscape Masterplan - The illustrative landscape masterplan includes measures to achieve a more substantial soft landscape edge to the settlement than currently exists. The enhancement to the hedge on the proposed northern boundary and the additional buffer to Old House Wood are considered to be positive benefits. The proposed layout seeks to reflect the existing amenity greens Cedar Road and Godman Road with open spaces in the proposed development.
The scheme incorporates potential green infrastructure benefits, including SUD’s measures, additional habitat, open space and potential improvements to the public rights of way. It will be necessary to ensure that the individual elements do not adversely impact on other functions. There will be a need to ensure that the detailed design of these elements prevent this and achieve the maximum gains.
4.19 THURROCK COUNCIL (CHILDREN’S SERVICES):
This development falls in the Chadwell St Mary Primary Planning area. Looking at all the primary schools in the Planning area, and having regard to
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
the latest forecasts published in the document “Pupil Place Plan 2013-17”, our assessment concludes that additional Nursery and Primary Places will be required by 2017. Due to the migration of young families from London into outer London areas such as Thurrock, the pupil yield at primary level from this development could be quite significant. It is anticipated, using the pupil yield generator for non-affordable homes at 31% of 350 dwellings that this development would yield 109 pupils, It is, therefore, clear that additional school places would be required and that this development would contribute to that need. The “Pupil Place Plan 2013-17’ contains proposals to address the shortfall in school places based on growth planned within the LDF – Core Strategy (2011). As detailed in the “Pupil Place Plan 2013-17”, Section 106 contributions are expected to contribute to the total capital cost for the expansion works. In view of the above, I request 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 will be required at nursery and primary level.
4.20 THURROCK COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEALTH):
We note that the proposal is for 350 residential units, with a possible breakdown of:
20-25% 1-2 Bed dwellings 35-40% 3 Bed dwellings 30-35% 4 Bed dwellings 5-15% 5 Bed dwellings
A residential development of up to 350 residential dwellings will generate its own needs for healthcare and health facilities (e.g. primary care, maternity and health visiting), which if not met by the development, will place additional pressures on existing facilities.
The report notes that there are two GP practices in Chadwell St Mary – serving a population of approx. 7,800. This development has been estimated to generate an additional 875 new residents, however depending on finalised dwelling plans, this number could be in excess of 1,300 additional residents. This development is therefore likely to require additional primary care facilities and it is unlikely that the allocated sum will be sufficient to provide this. Expert advice has been sought from NHS England (Essex team) to formally comment on this.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
The Amec report (6. Traffic and Transport, 2013) noted that the developers see healthcare as out of scope as of their assessment. However evidence indicates that a further review is required.
4.21 NHS PROPERTY SERVICES:
Following a review of the applicant’s submission, including the Planning Statement (PS) and Environmental Statement (ES), NHS Property Services Ltd (NHSPS), on behalf of NHS England (NHSE) has no objection to the application, subject to an appropriate financial contribution being secured for healthcare through a Section 106 Agreement as outlined below.
Please note that the NHSE Essex Local Area Team commissions all healthcare services, incorporating the provision of primary healthcare facilities within its administrative area, including within Thurrock Council’s area.
Background - The proposal includes a development of up to 350 dwellings, which is likely to have a significant impact on the NHS funding programme for the delivery of healthcare provision within this area, and specifically within the health catchment area of the development. NHSE would, therefore, expect these impacts to be fully assessed and mitigated by way of a developer contribution secured through a Section 106 planning obligation.
Review of Planning Application - With regard to the applicant’s assessment of the healthcare impacts arising from the proposed development, it is noted that the ES identifies 2 GP surgeries located within 1km of the application site. Furthermore, the applicant acknowledges that the surgeries have a capacity deficit, and that the increased population arising from the development would place additional demands upon healthcare services, requiring mitigation.
The applicant’s proposed mitigation is based upon the adopted Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation Planning Obligation Strategy, and Thurrock Council’s Discounted Standard Charge of £5,000 per dwelling. The applicant has therefore included financial contributions of £90,300 and £24,150 to mitigate the primary and intermediate healthcare impacts arising, respectively – these are set out in the draft Section 106 Heads of Terms of Agreement.
This consultation response specifically deals with the primary healthcare impacts arising from the proposed development (excluding dentistry provision), and incorporates a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in support of the approach which is outlined below.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Healthcare Impact Assessment - The Capital Funding Implications of the Proposed Development - Table 1 below provides a summary of the capacity position for the catchment GP practices once the additional staffing and floorspace requirements arising from the development proposal are factored in, including an estimate of the costs for providing new floorspace and/ or related facilities.
Table 1: Capital Cost Calculation for the Provision of Additional Health Services Arising from the Development Proposal & Developer Contribution
Premises
3
space (£
List Size (Jan 2014) GP WTE 1 Capacity 2 Spare Capacity Additional Population Growth (350 homes) 4 Additional GPs Required to Meet Growth 5 Additional Floor Area Required to GrowthMeet (m2) 6 Capital Required to Create Additional Floor )7 Chadwell 4,926 2 3,500 -1,426 438 0.25 30 £60,000 Medical Centre, 1 Brentwood Road, Grays, Essex, RM16 4JD The Dilip 2,944 3 5,250 2,306 438 0.25 30 £0⁸ Sabnis Medical Centre, Linford Road, Grays, Essex, RM16 4JD Total 7,870 5 8,750 880 876 0.5 60 £60,000
Notes: 1. Number of whole time equivalent GPs based at the practice. 2. Capacity based on optimum list size of 1,750 patients per whole time equivalent GP. 3. Based on current list size. 4. Calculated using the Thurrock Unitary Authority average household size of 2.5 taken from the 2011 Census: Rooms, bedrooms and central heating, local authorities in England and Wales (rounded to nearest whole number). 5. Additional growth divided by the optimum list size of 1,750. Total column is rounded to 2d.p. 6. Based on 120m2 per GP x additional GPs to meet growth. Total column rounded to 1d.p. 7. Based on standard m2 cost multiplier for primary healthcare facilities in the East Anglia Region from the BCIS Q1 2013 Price Index, adjusted for professional fees, fit out and contingencies budget (£2,000/m2), rounded to nearest £. 8. Surgery has capacity to accommodate planned growth, therefore no contribution required.
As shown in Table 1, there is a capacity deficit in one of the catchment surgeries and a developer contribution of £60,000, to mitigate the ‘capital cost’ to the NHS for the provision of additional healthcare services arising directly as a result of the development proposal, is sought.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
NHSE therefore requests that this sum be secured through a planning obligation linked to any grant of planning permission in the form of a Section 106 Agreement.
Developer Contribution Required to Meet the Cost of Additional Capital Funding for Primary Health Service Provision Arising - In line with the Government’s presumption for the planning system to deliver sustainable development and specific advice within the National Planning Policy Framework and the CIL Regulations, which provide for developer contributions to be secured to mitigate a development’s impact, a financial contribution of £60,000 is sought, which would be payable before the development is first occupied.
NHSE is satisfied that the basis and value of the developer contribution sought is consistent with the policy and tests for imposing planning obligations set out in the NPPF and in Section 122 of the CIL Regulations, which require the obligation to be a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, b) directly related to the development and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Conclusion - In conclusion, NHSE has no objection to the proposed development, subject to a financial contribution of £60,000 being secured in a Section 106 Agreement linked to any approval of this planning application, which is required to mitigate the primary healthcare impacts arising from the development, excluding dentistry.
NHSE notes that financial contributions of £90,300 and £24,150 are included within the applicant’s draft Section 106 Heads of Terms of Agreement to fund primary and intermediate healthcare facilities to meet the Council’s adopted Discounted Standard Charge. This relates to the healthcare infrastructure scoping and costing work previously undertaken in the context of an area based charge. NHSE would therefore have no objection to this additional level of contribution being included in a Section 106 Agreement wherein the specific types of additional capital investment can be agreed.
4.22 THURROCK COUNCIL (HOUSING):
The following comments are with regards to the affordable housing element for the above are pre planning application:
35% of the dwellings on site should be provided as affordable housing; At least 70% of the total affordable residential units should provided as affordable rented accommodation to meet priority housing needs( as based on the up to 80% market rent model). The balance should be
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
provided at a range of costs that are less than minimum market prices or rents e.g. intermediate housing (shared ownership / intermediate rented); Strategic Housing will seek to ensure a similar mix in the private and affordable elements of the scheme to aid visual integration. The affordable housing should be provided in groups of no more than 15% of the total number of units being provided; The affordable housing units should achieve the essential standards set out in the Housing Communities Agency 'Sustainable codes' and Design Standards as well as those set out ion the Local Development Framework. The garden/private amenity areas and the car parking arrangements and the car parking arrangements should be no less than those of the private dwellings; 100% of the affordable housing is required to conform to lifetime homes standards and 3% of affordable housing is required to conform to wheelchair accessibility standards; Strategic Housing expects the cost of the affordable housing obligation to be reflected in the overall financial appraisal in respect of the whole development and in negotiations from the start of the land acquisitions and development process. Hence the assumption the scheme will receive nil grant. Any economic site viability is required to be verified by an independent assessor with numeration coming from the developer; It is requested that the developers partners with a Housing Association, to deliver the affordable housing element of the development as early as possible; The developer should allow for a cascade mechanism in the s.106 with regards to affordable housing to allow for changes and flexibility within the housing market.
General Comments: The Borough is expected to produce 18,500 new dwellings by 2021 with approximately 35% being affordable. A recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment update (undertaken by GVA Grimleys in 2010 for the Thames Gateway South East Housing sub region) stated Thurrock required 439 units of affordable accommodation per annum to meet the backlog of housing need.
There were a total of 3403 households requiring affordable housing in the Thurrock Borough as at 31.3.13 (with 73 allocated the highest priority). There has been an increase of residents requesting affordable housing by 20.2% from 31.3.12. This demonstrates that there is a housing demand and need for an affordable housing supply: The demand for bedroom sizes from the Housing Register is as follows: 53% required 1 bed accommodation 33% required 2 bed accommodation
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
12% required 3 bed accommodation 2% required 3+ bed accommodation
Specific Comments - It was noted in the Design & Access Statement the affordable housing element is supported up to 35%.
4.23 THURROCK COUNCIL (WASTE AND RECYCLING):
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, this is unacceptable. See attached policy guidance for more detailed information.
4.24 SPORT ENGLAND:
The site is not considered to form part of, or constitute a playing field as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No.2184), therefore Sport England has considered this a non-statutory consultation. However, the consultation does fall within the definition of major housing development that Sport England should be consulted on as defined in Annex B of Circular 9/95.
The application involves a residential development of up to 350 dwellings. Sport England has assessed the proposal against objective 3 of its Planning for Sport Aims and Objectives Guide (2013) www.sportengland.org/facilities- planning/planning-for-sport/aims-and-objectives/. Which seeks to ensure that communities have access to sufficient, high quality sports facilities that are fit for purpose. Using evidence and advocacy, we help to guide investment into new facilities and the expansion of existing ones to meet new demands that cannot be met by existing provision. The occupiers of any new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should be required to contribute towards meeting the demand they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by a robust evidence base such as an up to date Sports Facility Strategy, Playing Pitch Strategy or other relevant needs assessment.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
This requirement is supported by the Governments National Planning Policy Framework, which states: “Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. (Principle 12 is) that planning should: Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social, and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.” [Paragraph 17] “To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: - Plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses, and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments…
- Ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.” [Paragraph 70]
In this context, I would wish to make the following comments on sports facility provision associated with the development, in order to ensure that the additional facility needs that are generated by the development are fully considered and provided for before any outline planning permission is granted:
A residential development of up to 350 dwellings will generate its own needs for sports facilities, which if not met by the development, will place additional pressures on existing facilities. As such, I would expect the development to make adequate provision for meeting these needs. In terms of the evidence base, Thurrock Council Outdoor Sports Strategy (2010) and Sport and Active Recreation Strategy for Thurrock (2008) confirm quantitative and qualitative deficiencies in outdoor and indoor sports facility provision throughout Thurrock.
The adopted planning policy context for justifying the principle of sports facility provision is provided by Policy CSTP9 (Well-Being, Leisure and Sports) of the adopted Core Strategy which confirms that proposals for new development will be required to contribute towards the leisure and sports needs generated by new development and address any deficiencies in the locality that they may generate or exacerbate. Policy PMD5 (Open Spaces, Outdoor Sports and Recreational Facilities) confirms that new developments will be required to contribute to the provision of appropriate outdoor sports facilities and the related standards of provision are set out in Appendix 5. Finally, Policy PMD16 (Developer Contributions) confirms that recreational and leisure facilities will be included in the range of matters that will be covered by planning obligations.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
The Council ‘Planning Obligations Strategy’ (April 2010) is also a material consideration as it is being used on an interim basis to inform decisions on planning applications and in negotiations on section 106 agreements. The strategy makes provision for a standard charge to be levied on each dwelling which includes contributions for playing pitches, swimming pools and sports/leisure centres. The strategy makes provision for a full standard charge of £20,073 to be levied on each dwelling which includes £376 for playing pitches, £236 towards swimming pools and £493 towards sports/leisure centres.
There are no proposals for making on-site sports facility provision for either outdoor or indoor sports. While 4.4 hectares of on-site open space provision is proposed this is in the form of parks, amenity open space, children’s play areas etc. and is not intended for or suitable for outdoor sport. In view of the size of the development site and the number of dwellings proposed it would on this occasion be considered more appropriate for off-site provision to be made for sports facilities.
The applicant acknowledges in the Planning Statement the need for the development to make provision for the additional sports facility needs that it generates to meet the core strategy requirements and proposes to make financial contributions towards swimming pools, sports centres and playing pitches in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations Strategy which would equate to £280,000 in total based on the assessment in Table B1 of the Planning Statement. Sport England is supportive of this approach as it would be an appropriate response to meeting the needs of the development.
In the Planning Statement, based on pre-application advice provided by the Council, it is suggested that the contribution could be used towards the reinstatement of pitches and the refurbishment of changing rooms at the nearby Orsett Heath Recreation Ground. While this may seem an appropriate project for a contribution to be used towards due to the close proximity to the development site I would have concerns if the contribution was used towards this in practice. In 2012, £220,000 was secured through a section 106 agreement relating to planning application 11/50403/TTGFUL (South Essex College (Woodview Campus) Redevelopment) specifically towards the reinstatement of the pitches and changing facilities at Orsett Heath to mitigate the loss of the playing fields at the South Essex College site. It would therefore be unacceptable for a developer contribution secured from the current planning application to be used towards funding the same project. However, if the contribution was used towards enhancing the outdoor sports facilities at Orsett Heath beyond the scope of the works that will be funded through the
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
section 106 agreement that is already in place, this may be acceptable although Sport England would wish to be consulted on the proposals.
On this basis of the financial contribution offered by the applicant towards off- site sports facility provision, no objection is made to the proposals for meeting the additional sports facility requirements generated by the residential development. However, this position is strictly subject to appropriate contributions being secured in accordance with the Planning Obligations Strategy.
4.25 THURROCK COUNCIL (SPORT & LEISURE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER);
The current application proposals (below) have taken on board the issues raised regarding a preferred option to provide enhance and more meaningful sports facilities at Orsett Heath to support the local sports infrastructure.
‘…a £160k contribution towards off-site sports provision for the s106 which could go towards: - Additional pitches at Chadwell recreation ground, on top of what is already proposed by Persimmon. Our scheme generates demand for 1ha sports pitch provision, with the Council’s 2010 POS providing a cost of £160k per 1ha, including 10 year maintenance. - An alternative option would be to provide a MUGA (Sport England costs suggest £120k for a 782m2 MUGA with lighting, plus 10 year maintenance at £20k) which may provide a greater range of sports provision at Chadwell recreation ground, facilitating use all year round and taking the pressure off existing pitches. - Alternatively the contribution could go towards wider enhancements to what is already proposed or in addressing any funding gaps’.
4.26 CONSERVATION OFFICER:
The application is in outline, with all matters reserved other than access. There is an indicative layout and a supporting heritage impact assessment.
The site abuts housing to the north side of Chadwell St Mary, to the east of the hamlet of Orsett Health. The landscape is in agricultural use, which is open and rural in character. The wider setting has been intruded upon by housing development and infrastructure, but retains elements of historic landscape features, including fragments of field boundaries, tracks, woodland and historic buildings.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
The site includes no designated heritage assets, but there are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site. Heath Cottage is located approximately 150m north of the western edge of the site. It is a small timber framed cottage with a thatched roof, dating from the late eighteenth century. The cottage fronts onto Hornsby Lane, to the east side of Orsett Health and has a small garden enclosed by hedged and trees. The allotment site lies to the immediate south. The cottage was probably part of the Health Place estate originally and would have had an entirely rural setting. Humble cottages are rare and the building is justifiably grade II listed.
The setting has now been encroached upon by modern housing, roads and power lines, but it still retains an important relationship with the adjacent agricultural land. The cottage is not prominent in the wider landscape, but is visible in glimpse views and adds to the sense of local place. The proposed development would in effect take away part of the rural setting of the cottage, by extending the urban edge of Chadwell St Mary. There would therefore be an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. However, taking account of the wider context, the separation distance and the design measure indicated in the masterplan, in particular the scale of buildings, landscaping and open space to the west the impact on the setting would be minimised.
Heath Place is a historic farmstead, accessed via a long avenue from Hornsby Lane, with the house at right-angles to the avenue and the farm yard (with traditional buildings and modern sheds) beyond. The wider landscape is agricultural, which is an important part of the setting to the house. The list description for the house dates it to the late eighteenth century, to which it’s Date: 28th November 2013 external appearance accords. The farmstead probably has earlier origins indicated by its setting within the remains of an ancient rectilinear field system, the avenue (now with modern planting, but shown on the 1777 map and more typical of earlier sites), random window sizes and pattern (probably positioned to avoid earlier existing timber framing), the slightly earlier mid eighteenth century granary and that it is common for Essex farmhouses to have earlier fabric. In any event the present house is largely of late eighteenth century appearance, with its formal south front forming as an attractive aspect. As a whole this building is justifiably grade II listed, due to its heritage significance, made up by its appearance, fabric, fittings, layout and setting.
Heath Place is approximately 580m north of the proposed development. The scheme would reduce the extent of open rural setting by bringing the urban edge of Chadwell St Mary further north. The development would not intrude in key views, or be close enough to have a dominant impact, but due to the erosion of the rural setting it would have a minor adverse impact on the setting
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
of Heath Place. The separating distance and the design measures mean that the impact would be minimised.
There are a number of listed buildings in the wider landscape, including Whitecrofts Farmhouse, Grays Corner Cottages and Murrells Cottages, but these are sufficiently distant that there would be no adverse impact on their setting.
There would be an impact on the setting of Heath Cottage and Heath Place, due to the erosion of their rural setting. However this impact would be minor due to the separating distance from the development site, there would be no impact on key views and the design proposals would mitigate this impact. This minor adverse impact should be weighted up against any wider benefits delivered by the scheme. If consent were granted there should be detailed control over the layout, scale, design and landscaping to ensure the mitigation measures are incorporated into future detailed proposals.
4.27 ARCHAEOLOGY;
The Historic Environment Record (HER) shows that the proposed development lies within a highly sensitive area of archaeological deposits. The Historic Environment Record shows there are a range of cropmarks known from the site (HER 1801) including an unusually shaped enclosure thought to be of early prehistoric date based on the findings of Neolithic flint artefacts on the site.
The applicants have undertaken archaeological evaluation with the results submitted as part of the planning application including a geophysical survey and trial trenching. They also assessed at a basic level the aerial photographic evidence held on the HER. All of this work has shown that there is a substantial Iron Age settlement on the northern side of the development with the applicant’s preliminary design showing the enclosure protected within the development as green open space. This will require further discussion to ensure preservation on the long term. but the proposal to preserve in situ is appropriate for this important site. Other areas including the probable Bronze Age burial mound would still require excavation in advance of any development.
The following conditions are based on the advice given in the National Planning Policy Framework.
RECOMMENDATION: Archaeological Strategy for Preservation and Excavation
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
1. A detailed plan and long term management strategy shall be provided for the area of the enclosure to be preserved. For those area s not preserved a mitigation strategy detailing the archaeological excavation strategy shall be submitted to the local planning authority.
2. No development or preliminary groundworks can commence on those areas containing archaeological deposits until the satisfactory completion of fieldwork, as detailed in the mitigation strategy, and which has been signed off by the local planning authority through its historic environment advisors.
3. The applicant will submit to the local planning authority a post- excavation assessment (to be submitted within six months of the completion of fieldwork, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Planning Authority). This will result in the completion of post-excavation analysis, preparation of a full site archive and report ready for deposition at the local museum, and submission of a publication report.
Further recommendations: A recognised professional team of archaeologists should undertake any archaeological work. The archaeological work would consist of the excavation of the identified archaeological deposits outside the area to be preserved. The Council should inform the applicant of the archaeological recommendations and its financial implications. An archaeological brief detailing the requirements of the work can be produced from this office.
4.28 ESSEX AND SUFFOLK WATER:
The Company have no objection to the development subject to compliance with our requirements. We would advise you that our existing apparatus does appear to be affected by the proposed development. We give consent to this development on the condition that new water mains are laid in the highway, and a new water connection is made onto our Company network for each new dwelling for revenue purposes.
4.29 ANGLIAN WATER:
No assets owned by Anglian Water within the development site boundary.
Waste Water Treatment – The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Tilbury STW that will have available capacity for these flows.
Foul Sewage Network - The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We will then advise them of the most suitable point of connection.
Surface Water Disposal - The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. Building Regulations (part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer.
The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is unacceptable. We would therefore recommend that the applicant needs to consult with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency. We will request that the agreed strategy is reflected in the planning approval.
Suggested Planning Conditions - Anglian Water would therefore recommend the following planning condition if the Local Planning Authority is mindful to grant planning approval.
Surface Water Disposal No drainage works shall commence until a surface water management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No hard-standing areas to be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.
[Note: Further to the receipt of the above, Anglian Water were asked to clarify whether they were objecting to the proposal or whether their concern could be addressed by way of the proposed condition. Anglian Water’s response is detailed below].
‘Anglian Water is satisfied that drainage matters can be addressed by the suggested planning condition. Secondly, Anglian Water’s comments outlined in the email dated 04 October 2013 have been misinterpreted. Our response was as follows; ‘You have requested a positive surface water connection to support the exceedance flow from the swales, ponds and soakaways. Unfortunately due to the increased flood risk, neither Anglian Water nor the Environment Agency would be able to support this method of disposal
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
as the exceedance rate would be above the 1 in 100 year storm event. The public system is designed to cater for the 1 in 30 year flow, therefore alternative methods of disposal should be sought for Annual Exceedance Probability.
I am sure you are aware, but there would be several methods of achieving this objective, such as enlarging the ponds, swales and soakaways, installing permeable paving or creating rain gardens etc. Whichever method is utilised, it is suggested that you liaise with the future SuDs Approval Body to discuss the design of the scheme.’
We were not providing acceptance of a discharge equivalent to the 1 in 30 year greenfield run off rate. We were advising your colleague that the proposals were unacceptable as the exceedance flow from the swales, ponds and soakaways would only occur in a storm event greater than the 1 in 100 which our network is not designed to cater for. Therefore, the requirement for an exceedance flow and subsequently the requirement for a surface water connection to the public surface water network at all, would be removed with appropriate design and the methods outlined in the last paragraph of our response’.
4.30 NATIONAL GRID:
National Grid has no objection to the above proposal which is in close proximity to a High Voltage Transmission Overhead Line – YYJ and ZB. I have enclosed a location map to show the location of National Grid’s Overhead Lines within the vicinity of your proposal and associated information below.
4.31 ESSEX FIELD CLUB:
The Essex Field Club is a natural history organisation founded in 1880 to promote the Study of the Natural History, Geology and Pre-historic Archaeology of the County of Essex and its borderlands and included Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace as founder members.
We object to this planning application initially on the basis that the 'desk study' undertaken to inform the ecological surveys, appraisal of the site and planning process is not fit for purpose. As the Essex Biodiversity Validation Checklist published by Essex County Council (Appendix 1 attached) makes clear, and must be well known to the applicant's ecological consultants, a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of the application site must include a biological records search of the application site and a 2 kilometre area extending from the sites boundary, including the Essex Field Club www.essexfieldclub.org.uk/portal/p/Datasearch
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
as the main source of species records. Appendices 2 & 3 also make clear what should constitute an adequate desk study. The results of such a data search should be provided in full as part of the EIA process, and used to inform the planning process. This has not been done, and there is therefore wholly inadequate information available for consultation and on which the planning authority can make a decision about the biodiversity value of the application land and its surroundings, the potential impacts of the proposed development on species' populations and UK BAP species, and on appropriate mitigation.
The reported data-gathering exercise "undertaken to obtain information relating to statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites, priority habitats and species, and legally protected species" (AMEC. 12. Biodiversity), "carried out as part of the EIA process, with the objective of ensuring that sufficient data were collected to identify the designated sites, and habitat areas and species that could be significantly affected by the proposed development (both during its construction and operation), and then to inform the assessment of effects on these potential biodiversity receptors" (AMEC 12.6.1) and "Consideration was also given to the existence and use of the site by other notable fauna such as UK BAP, LBAP or RDB species" (Appendix 12. 2.7) have been clearly quite impossible to undertake in any meaningful way. The result is that the EIA process is not fit for purpose, as evidenced by the incredible lack of species information resulting from their 'desk study'.
4.32 OTHERS
At the timing of drafting this report no response has been received from; Thurrock Council (Travel Plan Co-Ordinator); Buglife: CPRE Essex Wildlife Trust Essex Fire and Rescue; Essex Badger Protection Group Essex Police (Architectural Liaison)
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - The NPPF was published on the 27 March 2012.
5.2 Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.3 Annex 1 makes clear that Development Plan policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to publication of the Framework. It also sets out how decision-takers should proceed taking account of the date of adoption of the relevant policy and the consistency of the policy with the Framework. Due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
5.4 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals. 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 9. Protecting Green Belt land 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
5.5 A recent Ministerial Statement from the Local Government Minister published in July 2013 is also of relevant to this case. Under the heading ‘Protecting the Green Belt’ this statement reiterates the position set out within the NPPF that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The statement continues:
“The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.”
5.6 Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework - The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” on 21st December 2011.
5.7 The key diagram within the Core Strategy identifies the application site as located within the Green Belt. The Adopted Interim Proposals Map
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
accompanying the Core Strategy also shows the entire application site located with the Green Belt. The following Core Strategy policies apply to the site:
Spatial Policies CSSP1: Sustainable Housing and Locations CSSP3: Sustainable Infrastructure CSSP4: Sustainable Green Belt CSSP5: Sustainable Greengrid
Thematic Policies CSTP1: Strategic Housing Provision CSTP2: The Provision Of Affordable Housing CSTP9: Well-being: Leisure and Sports CSTP10: Community Facilities CSTP11: Health Provision CSTP12: Education and Learning CSTP13: Emergency Services and Utilities CSTP15: Transport in Greater Thurrock CSTP18: Green Infrastructure CSTP19: Biodiversity CSTP20: Open Space CSTP21: Productive Land CSTP22: Thurrock Design CSTP23: Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness CSTP24: Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment CSTP25: Addressing Climate Change CSTP26: Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation CSTP27: Management and Reduction of Flood Risk CSTP33: Strategic Infrastructure Provision
Policies for the Management of Development PMD1: Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity PMD2: Design and Layout PMD4: Historic Environment PMD5: Open Spaces, Outdoor Sports and Recreational Facilities PMD6: Development in the Green Belt PMD7: Biodiversity, Geological Conservation and Development PMD8: Parking Standards PMD9: Road Network Hierarchy PMD10: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans PMD12: Sustainable Buildings PMD13: Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation PMD 14: Carbon Neutral Development PMD15: Flood Risk Assessment
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
PMD16: Developer Contributions
5.8 A Focused Review of the LDF-CS was commenced in late 2012 / early 2013. The review was to ensure that the LDF-CS and the process by which it was arrived at are not fundamentally at odds with the NPPF. There are instances where policies and supporting text are recommended for revision to ensure consistency with the NPPF. This focused review was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination on 1 August 2013. An Examination in Public will take place in April 2014.
5.9 A ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ focused review of the LDF-CS (2013) was subject to consultation between January and March 2013. The Focused Review is restricted to the single issue of whether or not the Core Strategy should be amended to identify and allocate additional Broad Locations and Strategic Sites for housing-led development including the release of land from the Green Belt. One of the objectives of the review;
1.13 ‘The Council considers that this Focused Review provides the appropriate opportunity to identify additional Broad Locations or Strategic Sites that may be able to contribute to the 5-year supply buffer and/or medium-term (years 6-10) housing land supply position in Thurrock’.
1.14 The Council has recently published the latest 5-year housing land supply position. In consistency with the provisions of the NPPF the Council has taken account of: spare capacity within the 5-year supply housing sites; spare capacity in the medium-term (6-10 years) housing supply sites that could reasonably be brought forward into the 5-year supply; Density assumptions in relation to the above sites; The availability of sites identified as “Reasonable Alternatives”. However, the Council considers that there remains a requirement to identify a sufficient supply of suitable sites to make up the 20% “buffer” component. The Council considers the identification of new Broad Locations and Strategic Sites would help to secure this “buffer”. (Appendix 2 sets out the current position on the 5-year supply and 20% buffer requirement).
1.15 In order to meet the above objectives the Council have identified several new Broad Locations proposed to be released from the Green Belt to meet the housing supply buffer and several Strategic Sites for sports facilities to be identified within the Green Belt’.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
5.10 The following three Green Belt sites were identified by the focused review as potential sites for housing;
Site area Indicative Indicative delivery (HA) housing numbers Arena Essex Site, 51.8 700-1000 Initial residential and retail Land North Of dwellings development would take A1306, West place within five Thurrock (Site Ref years. The main Wts40/Mra1) development would be over 1-10 years. Site Of Tilbury 2.05 100-200 units Within five years. Football Stadium, St Chads Road, Tilbury (Site Ref Tsc02) Land Including Site 4.97 80-130 units Within 5 years Of East Thurrock Football Stadium, Rookery Road, Corringham (Site Ref Cof14, Cof15, Cof15a)
Total 58.82 880-1330
The focused review accepted that there is a shortfall in the five year housing land supply + 20% buffer requirement. The above sites were identified with an indicative capacity of between 880 and 1,330 dwellings. Part of this additional provision is indicated to be deliverable within 5 years. The above sites identified by the focused review, together with sites coming through monitoring of the housing supply of existing and new sites to 1st April 2013, were considered to ‘effectively close the five year supply gap’ (p53).
5.11 Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD – The Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” SSADPD was subject to 12 weeks of consultation commencing on the 16th March 2012 and concluding on the 8th June 2012. The SSADPD covers all types of development site across the Borough.
5.12 The draft SSADPD ‘Further Issues and Options’ was the subject to a further round of consultation commencing on the 19th January 2013. Pre-submission was expected in October 2013 although this has been subject to delay.
5.13 The Planning Inspectorate is advising Local Authorities not to continue to progress their Site Allocation Plans towards examination whether their previously adopted Core Strategy is no longer in compliance with the NPPF. This is the situation in Thurrock. The report to the 12th February 2014 Cabinet
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
sets out a number of options for taking forward development plan making in Thurrock.
5.14 Thurrock Council has produced a suite of technical studies to provide supporting evidence for the development and policy options. These include; Interim Sustainability Appraisal, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment Report
Interim Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Report
Thurrock Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Update (SHLAA)
5.15 Thurrock Core Strategy Position Statement and Approval For The Preparation Of A New Local Plan For Thurrock
The above titled report was considered at the 12th February 2014 Cabinet. The report highlighted issues arising from growth targets, contextual changes, impacts of recent economic change on the delivery of new housing to meet the Borough’s Housing Needs and ensuring consistency with Government Policy. The report questioned the ability of the LDF-CS Focused Review and the LDF- CS ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ to ensure that the LDF-CS is up-to-date and consistent with Government Policy and recommended the parking of these processed in favour of a more wholesale review. Members resolved that the Council undertake a full review of Core Strategy and prepare a new Local Plan. The report highlights that a new Local Plan for Thurrock could be adopted by early 2018. An updated Local Development Scheme (LDS) setting out a detailed programme and process for undertaking the production of a new Local Plan is to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration in April 2014.
. 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 There are essentially 13 main issues relating to the consideration and determination of this application:
I. Development Plan allocation and the principle of development;
II. Urban design, landscape and visual impacts;
III. Sustainable design;
IV. Affordable housing;
V. Traffic impact, access, car parking and other transport issues;
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
VI. Flood risk, drainage, water quality, water resources and utilities;
VII. Land quality
VIII. Ground conditions, contamination and remediation;
IX. Noise, vibration, air quality and construction impacts.
X. Effects upon ecology and nature conservation;
XI. Community and Socio-economics including social infrastructure (schools, healthcare, community facilities, sports facilities, policing etc);
XII. Archaeology and cultural heritage;
XIII. Human Rights
I. Development Plan allocation and the principle of development;
6.2 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, the proposals to construct 350 dwellings do not fall into any of the exceptions. Consequently, the proposals comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
6.3 Development plan policy, as expressed in the LDF-CS, was adopted in December 2011, shortly before the NPPF was published in March 2012. However, the objectives of LDF policies are still consistent with national policies on Green Belt matters. LDF-CS policy CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt) sets out the objective of maintaining the purpose, function and open character of the Green Belt. Part 1 of this Policy relates to ‘Balancing competing demands on the Thurrock Green Belt’ and states; ‘the Council will;
I. Maintain the permanence of the boundaries of the Green Belt, excepting the proposed Urban Extension Broad Locations Identified in this policy, Policy CSSP 1 and as shown on the Proposals Map. II. Resist development where there would be any danger of coalescence. III. Maximise opportunities for increased public access, leisure and biodiversity.
All without prejudice to and pending: IV. The formal Review of the Thurrock Core Strategy DPD that the Council will commence in 2011 In accordance with the
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
requirements of the proposed Localism Act and the proposed National Planning Policy Framework’.
6.4 The site is not one of the proposed Urban Extension Broad Locations Identified in LDF-CS policy CSSP4. With regards to criteria IV, the application site was not identified as a location for housing as part of the pending focused review of the LDF-CS. The issue around reviewing the LDF-CS to assist in the supply of housing land is considered elsewhere in this report.
6.5 LDF-CS policy PMD6 (Development in the Green Belt) states that permission will only be granted for new development where it meets the requirements and objectives of PPG2. The NPPF has superseded PPG2, however the list of appropriate new buildings in the NPPF remains consistent with the former PPG2. The proposed residential development is not within the listed purposes set out in either the NPPF or LDF-CS Policy PMD6. The proposals constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
6.6 Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states 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; ‘When considering any planning application, 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’.
6.7 Notwithstanding the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 14), Policies in the NPPF clearly indicate that development in the Green Belt should be restricted and sets out the test by which inappropriate development should be judged. The NPPF does not seek to define further what ‘other considerations’ might outweigh the damage to the Green Belt.
6.8 Harm to the Green Belt and other harm - 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.
6.9 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. Whilst the application is in outline form and only matters of access have been submitted for consideration at this stage, it is clear from the submitted drawings that the residential parcel and associated build
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
development will extend some 11.2ha (71% of the site). The proposals would comprise a substantial amount of new buildings in an area which is free from built development. 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.
6.10 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out five purposes which the Green Belt serves: i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ii. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
6.11 With regard to point (i) above, the LDF-CS does not envisage a release of greenfield land in this urban fringe location north of Chadwell-St-Mary. The NPPF does not define what constitutes a ‘large built-up area’. In this instance, the majority of the development would abut existing residential areas to the east, south and west. The extent of the enlarged residential areas would to a significant extent be contained by the existing built up area to the south, east and west. The northern boundary of the residential areas is proposed to be defined by open space and strategic landscape buffer. It is considered that the existing and proposed containment of the site is an important characteristic which ensures that development of the site would not represent unrestricted urban sprawl.
6.12 With reference to the second purpose, development of the site would not bring the built up area of Chadwell-St-Mary closer to Southfields or Orsett, which, at their closest points, are over 1.5km to the north and north-east respectively. Having regard to the above and the extent of the residential element, it is not considered that there would be harm caused by compromising the wider sites role in preventing the merging of neighbouring towns or settlements.
6.13 With regard to the third purpose, the proposal would encroach residential development into what is currently open agricultural land. Whilst the residential element of the scheme would be contained by new structural landscape and open space, the proposal would nevertheless constitute a significant encroachment into the green belt at this point.
6.14 With regard to the fourth purpose, part 12 of this report considers the impact on cultural heritage. Having regard to the ES and the consultation response of the Historic Building’s advisor, it is not considered that the site performs an
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
important function in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.
6.15 The final purpose of including land within the Green Belt is ‘to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land’. The application site could not be seen as assisting the regeneration of urban areas through the diversion of development to brownfield sites as the site is Greenfield. Major Green Belt releases for housing would be injurious to the urban regeneration imperative and contrary to the LDF-CS. This is a matter which needs to be balanced against other key objectives of national policy, of which housing delivery is one. This report assesses the extent of harm in light of the identified need to bolster housing land supply and role that Green Belt sites may play in achieving this aim.
6.16 In light of the above, it is considered that the development proposed would be contrary to purposes (iii) and (v) detailed at paragraph 80 of the NPPF. In addition, there would be substantial harm by reason of loss of openness.
6.17 This report analyses the key issues including the case advanced by the applicant, assesses any additional harm arising, concludes whether there are very special circumstances and whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
6.18 Whether the harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances
6.19 The Planning Statement submitted by the applicant to accompany the planning application sets out the applicant’s case for development. This can be summarised under five headings; 1. Assisting Housing Supply. 2. Deliver part of the housing growth envisaged for Chadwell-St-Mary in the LDF-CS that may not otherwise be delivered. 3. Assist in addressing the need for Affordable Housing 4. Address deficiencies in local open space, sport and recreation provision and the contribution to enhancing green links 5. Limited contribution that the site makes to statutory Green belt purposes
6.20 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 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.21 The section below summarises and considers the arguments advanced. The conclusions of this report will assess whether the harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations, either collectively or individually.
6.22 Part 1: Assisting Housing Supply
6.23 The applicant’s argument is summarised below;
Thurrock’s lack of a demonstrable five year housing land supply (as well as backlog in completions that needs to be met since the start of the plan period) and the positive contribution the development would make to housing supply. Here it is important to note that under NPPF policy, the Core Strategy’s housing policies are clearly rendered out- of-date so the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. The LDF-CS Policy CSSP1 expects Green Belt release to help maintain a rolling five year supply of available and deliverable housing land over the Plan period to 2026. The SSADPD has been subject to delays and is unlikely to come forward until 2015 at the earliest. The LDF-CS Review focussed review is also delayed, and both the Inspector and Council have accepted that the current review will not bring the plan fully into line with the NPPF. The Council’s only mechanism for ensuring five year housing land supply over the next two years is to grant planning consent for sustainable sites which accord with wider policies in the LDF-CS. The application site accords with the LDF Core Strategy’s focus for new development in the Thurrock Urban Area as the most sustainable location for new development and the specific provision that the CS makes for 390 dwellings at Chadwell St Mary.
6.24 Consideration of part 1 of the applicant’s case for very special circumstances;
6.25 The adopted LDF-CS (2011) sets out the Council’s targets for the delivery of new dwellings. LDF-CS 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 1,076 per annum.
6.26 The purpose of paragraph 47 of the NPPF is to significantly boost the 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
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
the requirement, paragraph 47 of the Framework also requires that this should be increased by either a 5% or a 20% buffer. The purpose 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.
6.27 With regards current land supply, detailed below are extracts from the Council’s 2013 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR);
‘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 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)
6.28 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.
[*The NPPS 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].
6.29 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states; ‘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-CS Policy CSSP1 (Sustainable housing and locations) and CSTP1 (Strategic housing provision) cannot be considered to be fully up-to-date. The forthcoming ‘LDF-CS focused review: consistency with National Planning Policy Framework’ would 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 requires a more fundamental review of the
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
LDF-CS. The report to the 12th February 2014 Cabinet considered these issues and Members resolved that the Council will embark on the preparation of a new Local Plan.
6.30 Notwithstanding the status of LDF-CS Policies CSSP1 and CSTP1, the LDF- CS 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’.
6.31 LDF-CS 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); 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).
6.32 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).
6.33 The LDF-CS Policy CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt) Criteria 1(iv) ‘Balancing competing demands on the Thurrock Green Belt’ states that there would be an immediate formal Review of the LDF-CS. Following the adoption of the LDF- CS in December 2011, the Council undertook public consultation between January and March 2013, on a ‘Focused Review of the Core Strategy: Broad
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Locations and Strategic Sites’. One of the purposes of the Focused Review is 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- CS Policy CSTP1. The Focused Review identifies several new locations for housing growth but does not include the current application site.
6.34 The LDF-CS Focused Review accepted that there is a shortfall in the five year housing land supply + 20% buffer requirement. The sites identified in the Focused Review were located within the Green Belt, therefore establishing that Green Belt release will play a part in bolstering land supply alongside with other demand and supply side measures. The three Green Belt sites were identified with an indicative capacity of between 880 and 1,330 dwellings. Part of this additional provision is indicated to be deliverable within 5 years. The sites identified by the Focused Review, together with sites coming through monitoring of the housing supply of existing and new sites to 1st April 2013, were considered to ‘effectively close the five year supply gap’ (p53). Having regard to the 12th February 2014 Cabinet report, it is unlikely that the Focused Review will be found ‘sound’ and as such will not be taken forward. These sites cannot currently be counted as being wholly ‘deliverable’ in terms of the NPPF and cannot presently close the five year supply gap which, according to the AMR (2013), stands at 4,059 (based on residual approach and a requirement for 5 years + 20%).
6.35 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 Essex sub-region. Notwithstanding this fact, the Council has 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.
6.36 In March 2012 the Inspectors report for the planning appeal at Butts Lane (ref. 10/50235/TTGOUT) concluded that that the under-achievement of housing land supply against the planned housing supply trajectory was a situation where management action is urgent required to meet current requirements
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
and ensure the later years of the plan period do not overloaded by the projected shortfalls. The Inspector concluded that “this matter contributes significantly towards very special circumstances in relation to development in the Green Belt”. In allowing the Butts Lane appeal in March 2012, the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector’s conclusions on housing land supply and that … “this matter contributes significantly towards very special circumstances in relation to development of the Green Belt and considers that the scheme’s contribution to meeting the shortfall in the 5-year supply of housing is a substantial benefit”.
6.37 The proposals would provide a benefit in contributing towards addressing the shortfall in the supply of new housing as set out in the LDF-CS delivery targets and as required by the NPPF. The matter of housing delivery contributes towards very special circumstances and should therefore be accorded weight in the consideration of this application. 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.
6.38 The second part of the applicant’s argument is that the application site accords with the LDF Core Strategy’s focus for new development in the ‘Thurrock Urban Area’. The Thurrock Urban Area was identified as a key centre for development and change in Policies ETG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) and SS3 (Key Centres for Development and Change) of the former East of England Plan (RSS). The extent of the ‘Thurrock Urban Area’ was defined as ‘stretching from Purfleet in the west to Tilbury and Chadwell St Mary in the East’ but was not given spatial expression on the associated key diagram. In broad terms, the policies sought to achieve an urban renaissance, re-using previously developed land and making best use of the Thames riverside.
6.39 The LDF-CS identifies that ‘The great majority of new housing, employment and associated infrastructure will be located within the Thurrock Urban Area Key Centre for Development and Change’ (para 3.17). Part 1(i) of LDF-CS Policy CSSP1 (Sustainable Housing and Locations) states;
‘New residential development will be directed to Previously Developed Land in the Thurrock Urban Area, Outlying Settlements and other existing built-up areas to protect the surrounding countryside and Green Belt. Over the period 2009 to 2021 the Council will seek to ensure that up to 92% of new residential development will be on Previously Developed Land (PDL)’.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.40 Notwithstanding the implications of paragraph 49 of the NPPF on LDF-CS Policies, this site is agricultural land within the Green Belt, is located outside the settlement boundary, is not previously developed land and is not identified for release for housing in the LDF-CS or the emerging SSADPD.
6.41 The focus on developing the Thurrock Urban Area is, in part, to bring about regeneration by directing development to previously developed land. As detailed in the initial section of this report, the application site could not be seen as assisting the regeneration of urban areas through the diversion of development to brownfield sites as the site is Greenfield. Major Green Belt releases for housing would be injurious to the urban regeneration imperative and contrary to the LDF-CS.
6.42 With regard to the sustainable credentials of the proposed site, the location of the site adjacent to the urban area of Chadwell-St-Mary does not mean that it is an inherently sustainable location. Notwithstanding this, a core planning principle of the NPPF is to ‘focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’ (para 17). The extent that the proposal is or is not a sustainable location for housing should not be considered a ‘very special circumstance’, although it constitutes an important material consideration in the determination of the planning application.
6.43 Appendix D of the Planning Statement contains a ‘Sustainability Appraisal’. This appraisal provides a commentary on how the development performs against the Sustainability Framework included in the SA Scoping Report underpinning the LDF-CS. Of the 16 SA Objectives, the applicant’s assessment concludes that the development would have a positive effect against 14 objectives, the only negative being on the objective of ‘making the best use of land in the borough, including previously developed land’. The applicant points out that the LDF-CS allows for greenfield and Green Belt release where required to maintain a five-year housing land supply. The subsequent sections of this report assess the details of the application against other relevant development plan policies.
6.44 Part 2: Deliver part of the housing growth envisaged for Chadwell-St-Mary in the LDF-CS that may not otherwise be delivered
6.45 The applicant’s argument is summarised below;
The ‘Spatial Distribution of Housing Broad Locations 2009-21’ within LDF-CS Policy CSSP1 identified 390 additional dwellings in Chadwell- St-Mary. Two previously developed sites with an identified capacity for 276 dwellings (SHLAA ‘preferred sites‟ EAT01 and EAT03) have current active uses on them, are safeguarded by the Council’s own
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
LDF-CS policy CSTP6 for employment and so are not deliverable in the plan period. There is a need for a deliverable site which can contribute towards the delivery of the 390 dwellings at Chadwell-St- Mary envisaged in the LDF Core Strategy which will otherwise not be delivered during the plan period. The Council’s only immediate mechanism to enable a response is to grant planning consent for a deliverable and sustainable scheme such as Heath Place.
6.46 Consideration of part 2 of the applicant’s case for very special circumstances;
6.47 Part 3 of LDF-CS Policy CSSP1 (Sustainable Housing Locations) details the ‘Spatial distribution of proposed housing broad locations 2009 – 2021’. Within the ‘Thurrock Urban Area’ comprising Chadwell-St-Mary this includes 390 dwellings. As detailed above, this Green Belt site has not been identified for housing development to assist in meeting this target.
6.48 The quantum of additional dwellings for Chadwell-St-Mary in the LSD-CS was informed by the evidence base and emerging SSADPD; The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Final Report (SHLAA, Feb 2010) - this identified sites in Chadwell-St-Mary with a dwelling capacity estimate of 120 (midpoint)(p20). In addition to the SHLAA sites, the draft Site Specific Allocations DPD has identified, amongst others; o EAT01 ‘St Johns Road’ with an indicative capacity of 176 units o EAT03 ‘Sandy Lane’ with an indicative capacity of 100 units The ‘Employment Land Review (URS, 2007) identified the aforementioned sites EAT01 (St Johns Road) (referred to as EAT01 – Coward Bros cluster) and EAT03 (Sandy Lane) (referred to as ‘Sandy Lane Pit’) as ‘employment land recommended for re-designation to other land uses’.
6.49 The SHLAA sites plus sites ref: EAT01 and EAT03 equate to c.396 dwellings, in line with the additional housing envisaged by the LDF-CS for Chadwell-St- Mary between 2009-2021. The applicant’s argue that EAT01 and EAT03 are not deliverable during the plan period.
6.50 Both sites ref: EAT01 and EAT03 were suggested for housing in the Thurrock Urban Capacity Study (2005). The subsequent ‘Employment Land Review (URS, 2007) identified both sites as ‘employment land recommended for re- designation to other land uses’. Page 111 provides a rationale. The Further Issues and Options of the draft Site Specific Allocations DPD identified both sites for housing. In terms of EAT01 (‘St Johns Road’), there has been interest expressed in bring this site forward for housing. In terms of EAT03,
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
representations received from the landowners as part of the SSADPD supporting the emerging designation for housing.
6.51 Part of the applicant’s argument is that LDF-CS policy CSTP6 (Employment Land Provision) requires the retention of these sites for employment. Part 2 (I) of that Policy states;
‘2. Primary and Secondary Industrial and Commercial Areas I. The Council will safeguard existing Primary and Secondary Industrial and Commercial land and premises in, or last used for employment purposes, where it is required to maintain a sufficient supply of employment land in the Plan period. The Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD will include policies and identify existing Industrial and Commercial land that will be protected for employment purposes, as well as existing employment land to be allocated to other uses. These areas and sites will be shown on the Proposals Map’.
6.52 As detailed above, the Council’s ‘Employment Land Review (URS, 2007) identified both sites as ‘employment land recommended for re-designation to other land uses’. These sites are not required to maintain a sufficient supply of employment land in the Plan period and are proposed to be re-designed for housing as detailed in the Further Issues and Options of the draft Site Specific Allocations DPD (2013). In light of the above, both sites fall out with the employment land safeguarding provision of LDF-CS Policy CSTP6.
6.53 In light of the above, it is not considered that the application site is required to meet the planned housing growth for Chadwell-St-Mary detailed in the LDF- CS. Notwithstanding this, even if the sites identified were not to come forward, this should not automatically imply that any shortfall should be made up by Green Belt release in this location. It is not considered that any weight should be afforded to this part of the applicant’s argument.
6.54 Part 3: Assist in addressing the need for Affordable Housing
6.55 The applicant’s argument is summarised below;
There is an acute shortage of affordable housing. The provision of up to 122 new affordable housing units is a significant benefit against a backdrop of limited affordable housing completions since the start of the plan period and other developments which have recently been consented without meeting the 35% target (e.g. 501 dwellings at Aveley with just 5%).
6.56 Consideration of part 3 of the applicant’s case for very special circumstances;
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.57 Adopted Core Strategy Policy CSTP2 states that the Council will seek the minimum provision of 35% of the total number of residential units built to be provided as affordable housing. This section of the report focuses on the delivery of affordable units in Thurrock, the extent to which the proposal would address an identified need and whether this should contribute to very special circumstances.
6.58 The Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2008) includes an assessment of the need for affordable housing in Thurrock. A further Update Report was produced in May 2010 (SHMA-UR). The Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership produced a ‘Fundamental Review of Strategic Housing Market Assessment Review’ in 2013 (SHMA-FR).
6.59 In terms of delivery, in the last decade 581 affordable housing completions have been achieved at an average rate of 58 dwellings per year.
Table detailing net Affordable Housing Completions 2003 – 2013
Year Affordable housing completions 2003-4 35 2004-5 111 2005-6 49 2006-7 63 2007-8 27 2008-9 44 2009-10 29 2010-11 57 2011-12 28 2012-13 138 TOTAL 581 (annual average of 58)
(Source: Thames Gateway South Essex SHMA Update 2010 and Thurrock Council’s AMR’s 2010 + 2013).
6.60 The Housing Needs Survey (HNS) from 2004 produced by consultants on behalf of Thurrock Council identified an annual level of affordable housing need of 204 units and recognises that the supply of affordable housing has historically been well below this figure. The SHMA (2008) identified that the annual net affordable housing need for Thurrock had increased to 524 per annum (p208). The SHMA-UR (2010) recognised that Thurrock will have to increase housing output substantially in order to meet housing targets (para 4.8). The SHMA-UR goes on to state that;
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
‘The individual local authorities’ housing delivery performance against RSS target will have implications for the ability of the TGSE Housing Market to meet overall housing demand and deliver the levels of affordable housing required to meet extant and future predicted housing needs. This is particularly focused within Basildon and Thurrock without adequate land allocations through planning policy and direct intervention in development projects to support new housing delivery’ (para 4.9).
6.61 With regard to affordable housing need the SHMA-UR (2010) concluded; ‘Measured in proportional terms, the percentage of affordable housing need against the total housing requirement continues to show an extensive and acute affordable housing need requirement in each of the five constituent local authority areas, with Castle Point Southend and Rochford all above 85%. Basildon and Thurrock show more modest proportional requirements, which in Thurrock’s case have decreased from the 2008 SHMA position. However, the emphasis remains on sustaining the delivery of affordable housing to meet need across all five local authority areas’ (para 5.8).
6.62 The SHMA-UR’s conclusions highlight the ‘continued need to support housing supply to address the structural imbalance between housing supply and demand in the TGSE sub-region’ (para 6.15). One of the recommendations is to; ‘R3. Proactive Work to Support the Five Year Housing Land Supply - Maintaining a five year supply of deliverable sites as required through PPS3, and working proactively in partnership with landowners and developers to address site and infrastructure constraints to development remains at the forefront of local authority activities’.
6.63 As highlighted above, there have been low levels of affordable housing delivery and targets have not been met to date. The SHMA-UR (2010) identified that there remains an acute level of housing need (6.19). The (SHMA-FR (2013) set out future housing requirements and the affordable housing target for the period 2011-31 which identifies higher levels of affordable housing delivery than those achieved to date (i.e. 36% of an annual housing requirement of 1,030).
6.64 The applicant has highlighted the shortfall in five-year housing land supply in Thurrock. It is considered that this will continue to limit the ability to address identified need for affordable housing within Thurrock.
6.65 The planning application proposes affordable housing provision of 123 dwellings, or 35% of the maximum number of units. The proposed affordable housing provision would make a valuable contribution to meeting the ‘extensive and acute affordable housing need requirement demand’ in
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Thurrock identified in the SHMA-UR (2010) and assist in increasing the rate of affordable housing delivery.
6.65 The provision of affordable housing on qualifying developments is a well- established planning policy requirement in the LDF-CS. The applicant contends that the particular benefits of this site are its availability and ability to deliver a large number of affordable units to help address the shortfall and meet identified housing needs. It is considered that this is a significant benefit which adds weight to the case of very special circumstances and this view is consistent with other decisions, notably; - the decision in relation to the Aveley By-pass site (ref:09/00091/TTGOUT), - the Inspectors Report in relation to the appeal at Bata Field, East Tilbury which concluded ‘There is also a demonstrable shortfall in affordable housing completions measured against need which weighs substantially in favour of allowing the scheme [75]’ (Para 3.62) - The Secretary of State’s decision in relation to Butts Lane
In light of the above, the delivery of affordable housing has to be viewed a positive factor in the balancing exercise undertaken in the concluding part of this report.
6.66 Part 4: Address deficiencies in local open space, sport and recreation provision and the contribution to enhancing green links
6.67 The applicant’s argument is summarised below; a) Responding to identified deficiencies in local open space provision in both Chadwell St Mary and Orsett Heath. b) Supporting implementation of the Strategic Green Links identified in the GI Strategy via the proposed s106 contribution c) Helping to improve Old House Wood through an extension to it in response to CS evidence which identifies it as high value and low quality.
6.68 Consideration of part 4 of the applicant’s case for very special circumstances;
a) Responding to identified deficiencies in local open space provision in both Chadwell St Mary and Orsett Heath.
6.69 LDF-CS Policy CSTP20 (Open Space) is relevant. Part III of that Policy requires ‘proposals for new development must ensure the adequate provision of a range of accessible, high quality open space, including natural and semi- natural green space’. It refers to the standards for open space provision within new developments set out in Appendix 5.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.70 The applicants planning statement (para 3.3.1) details how the development plans to meet the standards. This is summarised in the below table;
Table: Open space provision against standards expressed in LDF-CS
Standard per 1000 On site requirement from population this development Parks / Gardens / 0.7ha 0.6ha Country parks Natural / Semi- 2ha 1.7ha natural greenspace Green Corridors standards cannot be expressed but reference should be made to Greengrid Strategy Amenity open space 0.8ha 0.7ha Children’s 1 piece of equipment 5 pieces of play equipment Playing Space for every 33 children aged 5 – 16, augmented by good quality amenity greenspace Outdoor sports 1.247ha 1.1ha Allotments 15 plots per 1000 5 households TOTAL 4.747 Ha 4.1ha
6.71 The development includes 4.4ha of on-site open space. In terms of the above typologies, the illustrative plan details a sizable area of natural / semi-natural greenspace running along the site’s northern boundary. This also provides a green corridor following a realigned public footpath. Illustrated at the centre of the development is a children’s play space set within a sizable area of amenity open space.
6.72 As detailed in the table above, in terms of quantum, the development is some 7% (0.3ha) above the standards specified in the LDF-CS. It should also be borne in mind that the applicant does not propose that outdoor sports facilities would be provided on-site. This approach is not unusual, particularly given the land requirements and the benefits of providing and managing such facilities together. The provision of outdoor sports facilities is considered below. This does mean that the quantum of other forms of open space is some 46%
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
(1.4ha) above the standards specified in the LDF-CS. In light of this, the proposal accords with Part (iii) of LDF-CSP Policy CSTP20 (Open Space).
6.73 Part (ii) of LDF-CSP Policy CSTP20 (Open Space) encourages the provision of open space ‘particularly to address areas of deficiency as identified in the Open Space Strategy’. It goes onto identify areas, including ‘Parts of Chadwell St Mary’.
6.74 The Council’s Open Space Strategy 2006-2011, used accessibility standards and geographical barriers to movement to map areas deficient in each type of park and garden. The plan on page 27 of the Strategy details that the northern part of Chadwell-St-Mary is an area deficient in Local, Satellite and Community Parks. Table 4: details ‘Opportunities to address deficiencies’ and identifies the role that existing amenity greens could play in addressing deficiencies in provision of open space. In terms of Chadwell-St-Mary, it identifies the amenity green bounding Claudian Way / Brentwood Road as an opportunity to create ‘Satellite Park/ Natural & Semi Natural Greenspace’. Despite the Open Space Strategy having run its time period, it does not appear that this opportunity has been taken up to date. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the deficiencies identified above remain.
6.75 Whilst the quantum of open space is above the standards specified in the LDF-CS, a significant proportion of this is located on the periphery of the site and forms part of the Green Corridors and landscape buffer. Having regard to the typologies of park (p22 of the Open Space Strategy), the proposed open space illustrated at the heart of the development is most akin to a satellite park (the smallest of the 3 types). This has the shortest walk time (400m). The level of play equipment proposed has been based on the needs arising from the development. In light of this, it is not considered that the proposal makes a contribution to addressing identified deficiencies in Community Parks within the wider area. Furthermore, the on-site provision is unlikely to make a meaningful contribution in addressing identified deficiencies in the provision of Satellite Parks to serve the existing population.
6.76 The applicant is offering to pay the discounted Planning Obligation Strategy (POS) of £5,000 per unit (i.e. £1.75 million). Annex A of the POS details the components of the full Standard Charge. Around 10% of the Full Standard Charge is made up of the following components; district parks, sports/leisure centre, swimming pool, playing pitches, green infrastructure. The level of discount applied to the full standard charge means that funding from the POS has to be prioritised. In this instance, there is an identified need for additional school places and health provision which would take a significant proportion of the funding secured via POS.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.77 In addition to the paying the discounted POS, the applicant is proposing a supplementary contribution of £160,000 towards off-site sports provision. The applicant advises that this ‘could go towards: 1. Additional pitches at Chadwell recreation ground, on top of what is already proposed by Persimmon. Our scheme generates demand for 1ha sports pitch provision, with the Council’s 2010 POS providing a cost of £160k per 1ha, including 10 year maintenance. 2. An alternative option would be to provide a MUGA (Sport England costs suggest £120k for a 782m2 MUGA with lighting, plus 10 year maintenance at £20k) which may provide a greater range of sports provision at Chadwell recreation ground, facilitating use all year round and taking the pressure off existing pitches. 3. Alternatively the contribution could go towards wider enhancements to what is already proposed or in addressing any funding gaps’.
6.78 In terms of point 1, the re-development of the Woodview Campus (ref: 11/50403/TTGFUL) secured the following works to Orsett Heath Recreation Ground to mitigate the loss of sports pitches arising from the redevelopment; • Convert c.4.66 hectares of the site for playing field use by undertaking major groundworks that would re-grade the surface of this area to address the significant variations in surface levels and improve the quality of the surface for football pitch use; • Marking out the area for a range of football pitches to allow use by South Essex College during the week and for community use at weekends. An indicative pitch layout shows four football pitches (two senior and two junior); • The refurbishment of the changing pavilion on the site • Management and maintenance of the site by Thurrock Council as a public playing field and for use by the college
6.79 It is considered that there are merits in the provision of outdoor sports facilities off-site and in this instance, as part of the wider planned enhancement of the Orsett Heath Recreation Ground.
6.80 Thurrock Council Community Needs and Open Spaces Study (2006) identified a deficiency of 2 junior football pitches in Tilbury / Chadwell. The subsequent Thurrock Outdoor Sport Strategy (2010) identified Chadwell Recreation Ground/Orsett Recreation Ground as a potential Secondary Hub sports site (p239). Hub sites are considered primarily as facilities which provide multi- sport and multi-activity opportunities. Objective 2 contained in the associated Action Plan is ‘To meet shortfalls in the provision of youth football pitches in part through the development of additional sports pitch provision and in part by converting existing pitches of types that are assessed to be surplus to current demand (senior football) into those types for which there is a deficit
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
(youth/junior football, mini-soccer)’. The Action Plan detailed this as a high priority (p247).
6.81 The applicant has based the calculation of the level supplementary funding (£160,000) on the demand arising from the development.
6.82 In light of the above, the £160,000 contribution towards playing pitches can be seen in lieu of on-site provision in order to mitigate the impacts arising from the increased residential population. Whilst there may be a wider public use of the sports facilities funded by the development, this needs to be seen in the context of the increased residential population arising from the development creating greater demand on existing facilities. Therefore, whilst the applicants offer does little more than mitigating the impact of the proposed development and is unlikely to make a significant contribution to addressing an identified deficit in sport and recreation facilities within the wider area.
6.83 In light of the above, whilst the applicants approach complies with LDF-CS Policy CSTP20 (Open Space) it is not considered that it would make a significant contribution in address deficiencies in sport and recreation provision within the wider area or make a significant contribution in addressing identified deficiencies in the provision of open space. It is not considered that these parts of the applicant’s case should make a contribution to very special circumstances, although they do constitute material considerations in the determination of the planning application.
b) Supporting implementation of the Strategic Green Links identified in the GI Strategy via the proposed s106 contribution
6.84 The applicant cites the potential for the development to support the implementation of Strategic Green Links / Green Grid.
6.85 The site is currently crossed by two Public Footpaths; FP107 links Greyhound Lane and Hornsby Lane, and FP95 which links Greyhound Lane to Godman Road via Old House Wood. The indicative masterplan details the realignment of FP95 to connect with FP107 on the northern edge of the scheme rather than its current connection at Greyhound Lane. FP95 is proposed to be realigned to run along a green corridor proposed along the northern boundary of the site, albeit this would still connect through to Old House Wood. The application proposes on-site improvement to FP107. The applicant is proposing to upgrade the on-site sections of FP107 and FP95 to bridleways and create a Pegasus crossing on Heath Road.
6.86 The upgrading of sections of FP107 and FP95 to bridleways needs to be seen in the context of the wider network. At present, the bridleway network does not
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
link onto these sections and therefore these works would be of limited benefit in their own right unless wider connections can be made. In this regard, the applicant is offering a financial contribution of £110,000 towards improvements to footpaths, cycle links and bridleways off-site. The applicant’s agent advises ‘Not only would this contribute towards strategic priorities for bridleway provision in the area, it would also provide an enhanced pedestrian and cycle route through Chadwell Recreation Ground to the footbridge crossing the A1089 to Woodside Academy. Clearly, we don’t control the land associated with these routes but it is a significant contribution which could benefit the upgrading of these routes’. Based on £55 per meter upgrade costs, the applicants offer could upgrade c.2km of public footpath.
6.87 The Greengrid Strategy is set out in the Greengrid Strategy (Thames Gateway South Essex, 2005), The Greengrid Strategy for Thurrock 2006-2011 and ‘The Green Infrastructure Plan for Thurrock 2006-2011’. LDF Policies CSSP5 ‘Sustainable Green Grid’ and CSTP18 ‘Green Infrastructure’ seeks to deliver the Greengrid Strategy.
6.88 Figure 1 ‘Green Grid Opportunities’ contained in the Greengrid Strategy for Thurrock 2006-2011 details ‘a proposed strategic green link’ running through the site from the built up area of Chadwell to Orsett, via a new bridge over the A13 (p4). Figure 4.8 and 4.12 in ‘The Green Infrastructure Plan for Thurrock 2006-2011’ has the same notation. These documents detail a desire to enhance the current north / south connections.
6.89 The Essex Bridleway Associations representation, set out in Section 4 of this report, seeks that the developer contribute to upgrading footpath 79 to a bridleway and the provision of a crossing link over Stanford Road to connect with FP93. The PROW Officer also highlights the potential to upgrade existing public footpaths.
6.90 In terms of connections north, at present FP79 continues northwards from Old House Wood to A1013 Stanford Road. This is a 1.2km section of unsurfaced public footpath which goes across agricultural fields. Upgrading this route to a Bridleway / cycle route through the provision of a made track would provide a good enhancement to this strategic connection with the footpath / cycleway along Stanford Road. This section of footpath is outside of the applicant’s ownership and control. Whilst the applicant has offered funding, given the 3rd party ownership, it is not evident that it would be possible to secure such works. FP107 continues to Hornsby Lane. Whilst it may be desirable to upgrade this link, given the 3rd party ownership, it is not evident that it would be possible to secure such works.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.91 In terms of connections south, FP107 and 95 terminate at the point at which the site bounds Greyhound Lane. There is a path that continues alongside properties on the northern side of Greyhound Lane which presently affords access to Heath Road. Whilst the application proposes a Pegasus crossing on Heath Road, there is at present no adopted Bridleway route through to the site. An option would be to create a formal public footpath / Bridleway link from the end of FP107 and FP95 to the proposed Pegasus Crossing. To establish this link, a PROW would have to be created along the section of Greyhound Lane that runs north / south. This is at present a private access. If an area of land is required to be adopted by the Council, for reasons such as facilitating further development, the Council may exercise the Highway Authority's functions under Section 228 of the Highway Act 1980 in respect of adopting the area of land as highway maintainable at the public expense. The procedure involves notices and, should objections be received, these may be determined by a Magistrates Court. In light of this, whilst the creation of such a route may be in the wider public interest, it is subject to a separate process for which there is no guarantee that such a link could be created.
6.92 In terms of connections south of the proposed Pegasus crossing on Heath Road, footpath 109 continues alongside the southern boundary with Orsett Heath, parallel with Harding Road. It would be feasible to create a bridleway connection along FP109 which would then connect to existing Bridleway 112 (which crosses A1089 Dock Approach Road and continues to the Lodge Lane roundabout on Stanford Road).
6.93 In light of the above, due to third party ownership and the reliance on the Council being able to successful exercise powers, there remains uncertainty as to the extent to which the applicant’s contribution would secure enhanced connections out with the site. In the event that these wider improvements to connections cannot be made, the works on site would offer little public benefit.
c) Helping to improve Old House Wood through an extension to it in response to CS evidence which identifies it as high value and low quality.
6.94 The north-eastern part of the site is adjacent to Old House Wood, a small block of semi-natural broadleaf woodland. The Parameters plan details an area of 125m x 25m (0.31ha) of additional woodland planting in the north- eastern corner of the site as an extension to Old House Wood.
6.95 The additional woodland is highlighted in the ES, in part, to mitigate the landscape and ecological impacts of the development (p181). Notwithstanding this, enhancement measures form a key component of a range of LDF-CS Policies; structural landscape enhancement is a requirement of LDF-CS Policy CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt), CSTP18 (Green Infrastructure) seeks a net
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
gain in Green Infrastructure and CSTP19 (Biodiveristy) encourages measures to contribute positively to overall biodiversity. It is considered that landscape and ecological enhancements are for the most part mitigation measures or a normal requirement of policy. It is not considered that this should be afforded weight in the consideration of very special circumstances.
Part 5: Limited contribution that the site makes to statutory Green Belt purposes:
6.96 The applicant’s argument is summarised below;
The site has been appraised against the 5 statutory Green Belt tests to show the limited contribution that it makes (refer section 4.3.4 of the Planning Statement). In addition, new development and related tree and landscape planting presents and opportunity to repair the harsh urban edge to Chadwell St Mary (noted in Thurrock’s landscape work) and create a longer term defensible GB boundary.
6.97 Consideration of part 5 of the applicant’s case for very special circumstances;
6.98 The Green Belt as a whole serves five purposes. In light of the analysis in the initial section of Part 8 of this report detailed above, the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness is acknowledged, and this report concludes that there would also be harm to purposes (iii) and (v) of the Green Belt and substantial harm to openness. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF is clear as to the test that should be applied; ‘When considering any planning application, 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’.
6.99 Whilst this report concludes that the development would not be injurious to purposes (i), (ii) and (iv) of the Green Belt and as such are not negative attributes of the development, nevertheless, this should not imply that these are materially beneficial.
6.100 Whilst the provision of a greener urban edge would be appropriate treatment from a landscape perspective, this is in part to mitigate the impact of the development which would encroach housing into the Green Belt. The LDF-CS defines Green Belt boundaries and sets a framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. This site was considered alongside others as part of the preparation of the LDF-CS and was not identified for release for housing. It is considered that the landscape benefits arising from the introduction of a modest landscape buffer should not be afforded weight.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
II. Urban design, layout and associated impacts;
6.101 LDF-CS Policy PMD1 states that ‘Development will not be permitted where it would cause unacceptable effects on: i. the amenities of the area; ii. the amenity of neighbouring occupants; or iii. the amenity of future occupiers of the site.
6.102 Adjacent to the south and south-east of the site are residential properties on the northern edge of Chadwell St Mary and eastern part of Orsett Heath. The Parameter Plan and indicative Masterplan details how the new development would incorporate four green spaces aligned with existing amenity greens to the front of properties in Barry Close (No12 and 14), Cedar Road (No29 and 31) (No49 and 51) and Godman Road (No.103 and 105). The majority of the new houses are illustrated backing onto the rear or flank of existing properties. There are also a number of houses illustrated to flank onto existing properties. This layout creates a perimeter block, ensuring visual continuity of frontage and clear delineation of public and private space. The majority of these proposed greens along the southern boundary are not proposed to form pedestrian routes, which does not assist in permeability.
6.103 With regards to the development along the southern boundary, the back to flank distances illustrated would provide a sufficient degree of separation not to give rise to overlooking or a sense of overbearing. In relation to the eastern boundary with 131-157 Godman Road, the majority of the proposed houses maintain at least 25m separation, albeit there are instances where this is reduced. Given that the layout is illustrative, it is considered that adherence to standards could be addressed through reserve matters.
6.104 With regards the site’s western boundary with Greyhound Lane, the illustrative scheme details the majority of the new houses in this area sited so they flank existing properties in Greyhound Lane. The illustrative scheme details a house adjacent to and set at a 45 degree angle to 90 Heath Road / ‘Marvalosa’, Greyhound Lane. It is considered that this illustrative relationship has the potential to give rise to a loss of amenity by reason of overlooking. However, given that the layout is illustrative, it is considered that such matters could be addressed through reserve matters.
6.105 The development immediately to the north and east of existing housing lying on the northern side of Greyhound Lane are not proposed to exceed 1½ storeys and the existing boundary reinforced with hedgerow planting. It is considered that this arrangement together with the layout would preclude overlooking or the proposed dwellings being overbearing.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.106 Back to back distances within the development are generally illustrated at 20m which is below the 25m sought in the Annex to the former Local Plan (1997). Whereas the Essex Design Guide recommends a minimum back-to-back distance of 25m, the Urban Place Supplement amended this to 20m for carefully designed, compact urban development development (p99). The 20m back to back distance has been used for other developments in the borough. Whilst the development density is not high, this type of development constitutes a compact urban development whereby the Urban Place Supplement indicated that a reduction from this standard is considered acceptable. In light of the above, it is considered that an objection could not be substantiated in this instance.
6.107 In light of the above, the outline nature of the application and the ability to impose conditions, it is not considered that the urban design or layout of the development would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area, neighbouring occupants or future occupiers of the site.
6.108 Detailed below is the consideration of the proposal against the relevant criteria CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) and Policy PMD2 (Design and Layout). Part 2 of Policy PMD2 states that the Council will use the Building for Life criteria to evaluate proposals and as such these criteria are referred to below.
BFL 1 - Connections
6.109 In addition to this criteria, parts (v) ‘accessibility’ and (vi) ‘permeability and legibility’ of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 are also relevant. The development proposes to create green corridors incorporating re-aligned and surfaced public footpaths bordering the northern and eastern boundaries. The development illustrates links from the public footpaths through the development to Heath Road and the link with Barry Close. Internally, the Illustrative scheme could ensure a high degree of permeability for walking, cycling and vehicles. Issues around accessibility out with the site are considered in the highway section of this report. The illustrative layout is considered to be legible, providing recognisable routes.
BFL 2 - Facilities and services & BFL 3 - Public transport
6.110 One of 12 core land use planning principles of the NPPF is that planning should: “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.” The NPPF identifies the need to favour sustainable transport modes to enhance travel choice (para 29), and to locate developments that generate significant movement where the
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised (para 34).
6.111 Table 3.1 in the TA contains a summary of local services and facilities and their distance from site access. The TA states that approximately 80% of walk journeys and walk stages in urban areas are less than one mile and the average length of a walk journey is 1km (0.6 miles). The average length for cycling is 4km. The site is with 1km of Chadwell Children’s Centre, a local pub, Herringham Academy Primary School, Woodside Academy Primary School, Chadwell Dentist Surgery, Esso Petrol Station/Tesco Express, Chadwell St Mary Primary School 1.0km, Chadwell Library and GP Surgery the second GP surgery being 1.2km. Other facilities within 1.7km include Palmers Sports and Fitness Club, Leisure Centre and The Gateway Academy Secondary School.
6.112 Whilst a range of facilities would be reasonably accessible to the occupants of the proposed dwellings on foot, including day-to-day convenience provision, nevertheless this is a peripheral village whereby supermarkets are located in the principle settlements and workplaces tend to be outside of the settlement.
6.113 Table 3.10 of the TA summarises Local Bus Services, their frequency and destination. There are several services that offer frequent services to a wide range of local and strategic locations during Monday to Saturday. Tilbury Town train station is located approximately 4km south of the Site, and is accessible by the numbers 66, 73, 73a and 374 bus services which operate near the site. Parts of the development would be within the recommended 400m maximum walking distance of an existing bus stop. The applicant has agreed that one of the Travel Plan measures should be to secure the diversion of local bus services through the site to ensure better accessibility.
6.114 The LDF-CS envisages 390 new homes within the plan period on allocated sites. Whilst a degree of growth will be required in settlements to meet the needs of the existing population, nevertheless the LDF allocation presumes a reasonable measure of sustainability, which in terms of service provision and accessibility would equally apply to the application site.
6.115 While it is acknowledge that there are more sustainable locations for housing development in Thurrock than Chadwell St Mary, it is consider that the location offers a reasonable range of community facilities and reasonable access by public transport to jobs, key services and infrastructure for a settlement of this size.
BFL 4 - Meeting local housing requirements
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.116 The BFL question posed is whether the development has a mix of housing types and tenures that suit local requirements? The development would contain a mix of house types, the majority of which are family sized accommodation. The applicant has agreed to provide 35% affordable housing and agree the tenure mix. It is considered that the development meets BFL criteria 4.
Creating a place
BFL 5 - Character
6.117 In terms of character, the Design and Access Statement details how the development would incorporate four distinct character areas; (1) The Boulevard, (2) Perimeter Street, (3) Streets and (4) Parkland. the plan illustrates a variety of houses. In the southern part of the site the houses are mainly joined together as either short terraces or semi-detached with parking provided on-plot arranged to provide maximum continuity of frontage to spaces. Around the open space, there is a predominance of detached properties. The proposed hierarchy of streets, mews and shared surfaces has the potential to deliver a variety of streetscapes and places with a clear identity.
6.118 Notwithstanding the principle of development, it is considered that the density and ‘urban village’ illustrative approach is appropriate to this context, robust and coherent. The creation of corridors within the development would create local views, albeit this needs to be seen in the wider context of the creation of a substantial urban extension.
6.119 The final appearance of the development would be considered at Reserved Matters stage. The applicant advises that ‘Chadwell St. Mary area as a whole does not give many opportunities to draw an architectural palette from. Consequently the eventual development may draw from the wider Essex vernacular or may indeed be a contemporary scheme’ (Design and Access Statement).
6.120 In light of the above, notwithstanding the principle of development, it is considered that the development is capable of contributing to the character of the area in accordance with criteria (i) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2, BFL Criteria 5 and LDF-CS Policy CSTP22.
BFL 6 - Working with the site and its context
6.121 The illustrative Masterplan details a park at the centre of the development. The location of the park makes it readily accessible for residents of the new
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
development, safeguards the areas of archaeological interest and affords it a high degree of natural surveillance. The area of open space along the site’s northern boundary is detailed to accommodate the public footpath links and SUD’s. It is considered that the illustrative layout is well considered having regard to the constraints and opportunities of the site and the development is capable of creating a sense of place and as such accords with criteria (xii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2, criteria (iii) of LDF-CS Policy CSTP22 and BFL Criteria 6.
BFL 7 - Creating well defined streets and spaces & BFL 8 - Easy to find your way around.
6.122 Within the development, the majority of the houses are proposed to front the principle spine and associated roads to create perimeter blocks. There is a limited number of ‘in-core’ development. It is considered that the illustrative perimeter block layout affords a strong sense of the public and provide domain and would afford natural surveillance of routes and open space. It is considered that the proposal is capable of creating a safe and secure environment in accordance with criteria (vii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and criteria (v) of LDF-CS Policy CSTP22. Furthermore, the illustrative approach promotes continuity of street frontages and accords with criteria (ii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and BFL criteria 7.
Street & Home
BFL 9 - Streets for all
6.123 The Illustrative proposal details a variety of street types. The illustrative layout details how key spaces and nodes are marked by the use of paved squares. It is considered that the illustrative detail show how a coherent and landscaped public realm could be produced and measures can be incorporated to encourage low vehicle speeds to ensure that the development is capable of according with criteria (iii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and BFL criteria 9.
BFL 10 - Car parking
6.124 The level of parking is proposed to accord with Thurrock Council Parking Review Document, October (2010)(TA, p28). The illustrative material details extensive use of on-plot / garage parking which would greatly assist in integrating parking so that it does not dominate the street.
BFL 11 - Public and private spaces
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.125 The public open space, with the exception of sports pitches, exceeds LDF requirements. This matter is further considered elsewhere in this report. The illustrated open spaces would be afforded a degree of natural surveillance by the proposed housing. The open space would be readily accessible from areas within the site and from the majority of the existing areas bounding the site, albeit there are no pedestrian or cycle links through the south-western boundary of the site. It is considered that the development is capable of according with criteria (iv) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and BFL standard 11.
BFL 12 - External storage and amenity space
6.126 It is considered that the development is capable of providing adequate private amenity space. Given the illustrative material and density, the development is considered capable of providing adequate external storage space for bins and recycling as well as vehicles and cycles to accord with BFL criteria 12.
6.127 Matters relating to landscaping criteria (viii) ‘utilities’ and (x) energy and resource use of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and criteria (vii) ‘sustainability and green infrastructure’ of Policy CSTP22 are considered elsewhere in this report.
6.128 Given the outline nature of the application, the parameters and the ability to impose conditions, it is considered that the development demonstrates a strong degree of conformity with the Building for Life Standards and the Urban Design and Layout conform with criteria (i-vii) of LDF-CS Policies PMD2 (Design and Layout) and LDF-CS Policy CSTP22.
III. Landscape and visual impacts
6.129 Part 11 of the NPPF states that ‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by….. protecting and enhancing valued landscapes’ (para 109).
6.130 LDF-CS Policy CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness) is relevant. Part II states; ‘The Council requires the retention and enhancement of significant natural, historic and built features which contribute to the character of the Borough as defined by their value, quality, cultural association and meaning or their relationship to the setting and local context’. Part III states; ‘The Council requires the retention and enhancement of strategic and local views, which contribute to a distinctive sense of place. Where development will affect these views, their sensitivity and capacity for change must be adequately assessed and the effect of the development on them appropriately tested’. PMD2 (Design and Layout) criteria 1 relates to character and states; ‘Development must contribute positively to the character of the area in which it
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
is proposed, and to surrounding areas that may be affected by it. It should seek to contribute positively to local views, townscape, heritage assets and natural features, and contribute to the creation of a positive sense of place’. Criteria vii seeks the protection and enhancement of landscape features.
6.131 Part 11 of the ES considers Landscape and visual impacts.
6.132 The site currently comprises a relatively flat area of arable farmland with no mature trees within the main site boundary that would be affected by development. Chadwell St Mary immediately adjoins the site to the west, south and east. Orsett Heath lies immediately to the west of the site and extends as a ribbon development northwards. The settlement pattern to the north of the site comprises principally of a few scattered farmsteads and cottages. The area some 0.3km north of the site (0.3km) is crossed by overhead power lines and associated pylons. The LDF-CS Adopted Interim Proposals Map does not contain any landscape designations for the site.
6.133 The ES considers the various documents supporting the LDF and the landscape quality of the site and wider area. It concludes that ‘the landscape of Chadwell / Orsett LLCA (within which the site lies) also shows signs of a declining landscape with few positive elements / features, a fragmented hedgerow pattern (largely as a result of intensive arable farming) and a high presence of visual detractors and urbanising elements. The key objectives identified within the LLCA include enhancements to existing hedgerows and woodlands including their structure and condition. The landscape (physical) quality of this landscape is considered to be poor (p117)).
6.134 The ES highlights the conclusions of the Thurrock Landscape Capacity Study (TLCS) (2005) which sought to assess the ability of the landscape to accommodate potential development scenarios to inform the LDF-CS. The TLCS tested the sensitivity of the different landscape character areas of the borough to a generalised increase in development and then tests the capacity of the landscape to accommodate various development options including urban extensions. The TLCS concluded that the ‘Whitecrofts/Orsett Heath Urban Fringe LCA’ in which this site is located was of low sensitivity to the introduction of a small-scale urban development and that this would ‘not degrade the character of the landscape which is strongly influenced by adjacent urban areas’ (p24). Furthermore, was of low sensitivity to substantial- scale urban development and that this ‘would leave some areas of farmland untouched and a sense of openness would be retained. There would be some visual intrusion to receptors on the fringes of existing settlements’ (p24). As part of this study, the following key qualities were identified as desirable to keep; Remnant hedgerow lined lanes;
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
County Wildlife Sites Local Nature Conservation Sites Narrow Lanes Character of the hamlet of Orsett Heath (p24)
6.135 The ES considers the adjacent Local Landscape Character Areas to be of low value. It goes onto assess the visual receptors with views of the site and the proposed development, such locations including the Public Rights of Way, nearby roads and nearby residential areas.
6.136 The ES assesses the impact of the development on landscape. In terms of the Chadwell/Orsett LLCA in which the site is located, it concludes that the landscape of the site and defined character areas are of low sensitivity. The introduction of new development would permanently alter a part of this character of the area. The majority of the built development is bordered on three sides by existing settlement form which reduces the scale of any sense of encroachment beyond the existing built edge of the wider landscape. The incorporation of a landscaped gap between Chadwell and Orsett Heath would maintain the existing character of Orsett Heath. The ES sees the introduction of a new landscaped edge along the northern boundary of the development as beneficial, restoring parts of the existing landscape framework (hedgerow) and introducing new positive landscape elements ( woodland, tree groups) softening the edge of Chadwell St Mary. This part of the ES concludes ‘Whilst the proposed development would provide some benefit to local landscape character and the removal of some of the negative characteristics, it would result in an increase and encroachment of built form within the area – a change that would be adverse. However, effects would be slight and not significant’ (p137).
6.137 In terms of the adjacent LLCA’s, the ES concludes that for the Orsett / Saffron Gardens LLCA the ‘change is considered to be beneficial and effect negligible and not significant’ (p138). For the Brentwood Road Urban Green Space TCA, the ‘overall effects would be slight and not significant’. For the ‘Brentwood Road Post War Residential TCA’, the ES acknowledges that there would be changes to the key characteristics of this TCA with the rural edge being removed but concludes that the landscape impacts would be slight and not significant (p139).
6.138 In terms of the effects on visual receptors, the ES assesses overall negative impacts for three receptors; (1) Users of Old House Wood Public open space and footpath 78, (2) Users of Heath Road albeit the effects are judged to be slight and not significant and (3) residential community on the northern edge of Chadwell St Mary. Other receptors neither have a not significant neutral effect or a positive effect.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.139 In terms of the visual effects on residential community on the northern edge of Chadwell St Mary, the ES states that the ‘changes to those views as a consequence of the proposed development would be widespread, permanent and substantial….Overall the magnitude of change may be considered to be high and effects would be adverse, representing an increase and encroachment of built form within the view. The visual effects upon the settlement outlook would be moderate and are not considered to be significant’ (p152-3).
6.140 Thurrock Council’s Landscape advisor considers that the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been carried out in accordance with guidelines and raises no issue with the conclusions. The assessment concludes that the effects of the development on the landscape and visual amenity would generally be low and that the mitigation measures would reduce these further. The Landscape advisor concludes that ‘The development of the site would have an adverse effect on local residents living in close proximity as it would reduce the open character of the landscape immediately adjacent to the existing residential edge; however the topography and extent of the existing development within the vicinity restricts the views across this area. The proposed mitigation measures should further help to reduce the effects and to achieved an improved edge to the settlement when viewed from the north as there would be a larger landscape buffer provided that would establish over time. It is agreed therefore that the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme would not be of significance and that the proposed layout and mitigation has sought to reduce these impacts’.
6.140 The proposal would not be contrary to part 11 of the NPPF. The proposal would not give rise to the loss of significant natural, historic and built features and as such accords with part II of LDF-CS Policy CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness). The ES has appropriately assessed the impact of the development and the sensitivity and capacity for change. Having regard to this and the findings of the Thurrock Landscape Capacity Study (TLCS)(2005), the landscape is of low sensitivity to change of the type sought and the development has sought to respond to the key objectives of the Chadwell and Orsett LLCA. Whilst there would be negative impacts on local views, particularly from the urban areas to the south and west, the applicant has sought to minimise impacts and it considered that an objection based upon visual effects on existing residents could not be substantiated.
IV. Sustainable design;
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.141 LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing Climate Change), CSTP26 (Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation), PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings), PMD13 (Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation) and PMD 14 (Carbon Neutral Development) are relevant.
6.142 Appendix E of the Planning Statement contains an ‘Energy and Water Statement’. This details a range of measures that could be employed to reduce water use, promote energy efficiency and water recycling. The applicant advises that the requirements of the above LDF-CS Policies would need to be reflected in subsequent reserved matters applications. Subject to conditions, the development could incorporate measures to adhere with the LDF-CS Policy requirements for renewable / low carbon energy generation, sustainable homes (including the applicable Code for Sustainable Homes).
V. Affordable housing;
6.143 LDF-CS Policy CSTP2: (The Provision Of Affordable Housing) seeks the minimum provision of 35% of the total number of residential units built to be provided as Affordable Housing. The applicant proposing a s.106 Head of Term to secure 35% Affordable Housing with the size of units and tenure mix to be agreed. Thurrock Council (Housing) raise no objection subject to a number of stipulations, including a minimum of 70% of the total affordable units being affordable rented to meet priority housing need and the remaining being intermediate housing. Subject to securing the stipulations in Housing’s consultation response, it is considered that the development would comply with LDF-CS Policy CSTP2. The contribution of affordable housing to the applicant’s case of very special circumstances is considered elsewhere in this report.
VI. Traffic impact, access, car parking and other transport issues;
6.144 Part 4 of the NPPF relates to the promotion of sustainable transport. One of 12 core land use planning principles in the NPPF is that planning should “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.” The NPPF identifies the need to favour sustainable transport modes to enhance travel choice, and to locate developments that generate significant movement where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.
6.145 Paragraph 32 identifies that plans and decisions should take account of whether:
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure. Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
6.146 Paragraph 35 identifies that developments should be located and designed where practical to: accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and have access to high quality public transport facilities; create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles; and consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.
6.147 The following LDF-CS Policies are relevant;
CSTP15 (Transport in Greater Thurrock) PMD2 (Design and Layout) PMD8 (Parking Standards) PMD9 (Road Network Hierarchy) PMD10 (Transport Assessments and Travel Plans) PMD16 (Developer contributions)
6.148 The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment. Part 6 of the ES considers Traffic and Transport.
6.149 Sustainable transport - From the site access point, Heath Road has good footway provision either side of the carriageway providing pedestrian connections to the centre of Chadwell St Mary. There is a Public Right of Way (PRoW) / cycle route from Orsett Heath Crescent which passes over the A1089 Dock Approach Road and provides a direct dedicated traffic free route to Woodside Primary School and the residential area of Little Thurrock.
6.150 Part (ii) of this section of the report considers the proposal against Building for Life criteria 2 (Facilities and services) and 3 (Public transport). While it is acknowledge that there are more sustainable locations for housing development in Thurrock than Chadwell St Mary, subject to the measures set
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
out in the Travel Plan (including re-routing of bus services), it is consider that the location offers a reasonable range of community facilities and reasonable access by public transport to jobs, key services and infrastructure for a settlement of this size. In light of paragraph 32 of the NPPF it is considered that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up. On balance, it is considered that the proposal accords with criterion viii of Policy PMD9 whereby ‘development will make a positive contribution to accessibility by sustainable transport’.
6.151 Car and cycle parking – Car parking is proposed in line with the Council’s standards and, subject to conditions, accords with LDF-CS Policy PMD8 (Parking Standards)
6.152 Access and internal road layout – The application proposes a mini-roundabout at the corner of Heath Road together with a Peagasus crossing. Thurrock Council Highways raise no objection to the design of the roundabout or its ability to service 350 houses.
6.153 LDF-CS Policy PMD9 states that ‘The Council will only permit the development of new accesses or increased use of existing accesses where: (i). There is no possibility of safe access taken from an existing or proposed lower category road. Routing traffic directly on to Heath Road minimises the potential amenity impacts for residents on Barry Close and Cedar Road. In addition, the Corridor of Movement will not be adversely affected in terms of highway safety and traffic capacity. In terms of criteria (ii), it is considered that the design of the development minimises the number of accesses required.
6.154 Whilst this is a reserved matter, the illustrative masterplan details how the routes within the site are well structured. It is considered that the type of arrangement could create accessible, safe, permeable and legible layout which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians and accords with LDF-CS Policy PMD2.
6.155 Impact on the local road network - The Traffic Impact Assessment based on 2020 baseline flows concludes that the following junctions would operate without concerns in regards capacity, delay and queuing;
- Heath Road / Proposed development access
- Brentwood Road / River View / Linford Road / Chadwell Hill junction
6.156 In terms of the A1013 Stanford Road / Heath Road / B188 Baker Street junction (a staggered priority junction located approximately 1.1km north-west of the proposed site access), whilst the assessment has substantiated that capacity, delay and queuing will not be an issue, the increase in traffic making
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
turning manoeuvres is likely to increase the propensity for accidents on a Corridor of Movement. Thurrock Council Highways considers that some improvements at this junction would be necessary to mitigate the potential safety impact of the development traffic. Such measures would need to be informed by a safety audit of the junction which has yet to be undertaken. Highways are confident that the funding secured through the POS would be sufficient to undertake measures to address the impact.
6.157 In terms of the Brentwood Road / Heath Road mini-roundabout located approximately 0.7km south-east of the site, the results show that the junction is operating at 0.892 Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) which is over the capacity threshold of 0.85RFC on the Brentwood Road South arm of the junction. Both of the other arms on the junction operate within the capacity threshold, and there are no concerns with queuing on any arm of the junction, it can be concluded that the junction can accommodate the additional development traffic.
6.158 With regards the Brentwood Road / River View / Linford Road / Chadwell Hill Junction (‘The Cross Key’s junction’ located approximately 1km south-east of the site), the junction is currently nearing capacity. The applicant undertook an exercise which models the junction operating with filter lights so that right turners have no vehicle movements obstructing them. The results indicate that the junction can accommodate the development traffic with the operation of the signals with right turn filter lanes. Thurrock Council Highways advise that a contemporary system for optimising traffic signals could mitigate the impact on queue length on other arms of this junction and recommends that part of the POS contribution towards highways is used to undertake such works to this junction.
6.159 In light of the above, subject to mitigation, it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice road safety. Furthermore, subject to mitigation, the proposal would not have an undue impact on congestion as measured by link and junction capacities. In light of this, the proposal accords with criteria iii and v of LDF-CS Policy PMD9.
6.160 Criteria iv of Policy PMD9 requires ‘The development preserves or enhances the quality of the street scene’. The roundabout and crossing would be introduced into an area of Heath Road fronted by existing housing. A similar roundabout exists at the junction of Heath Road and Bedgers Mount. It is not considered that a roundabout in this location would appear out of character with the area.
6.161 Road traffic effects - The ES contains an assessment of road traffic effects (para 6.8). The majority of the predicted percentage increases in peak traffic flows are below the 30% IEMA threshold for all routes except Heath Road
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
North, situated north of the proposed development access which experiences a 55.1% increase in the AM peak, and a 50.3% increase in the PM peak. The ES concludes that although predicted traffic flows along Heath Road North exceed the IEMA threshold, existing future baseline peak flows are very low. The assessment concludes ‘Heath Road is an extremely low trafficked road with presently only 245 vehicles in the AM peak and 298 vehicles in the PM peak for the future baseline flows, which equates to 4 vehicles per minute in the AM and 5 vehicles per minute in the PM peak. The proposed development would produce additional two-way flows along Heath Road North of 135 (AM peak) and 150 (PM peak) vehicle movements. This equates to an additional 2 vehicles per minute in the AM peak and 3 in the PM peak. The modelling undertaken as part of the TA has shown that there are no capacity issues on the local road network nor would any occur as a result of the proposed development. There is sufficient capacity along Heath Road to accommodate the additional flows from the development. Therefore drivers would experience no additional delay due to the traffic volumes experienced along Heath Road and at the surrounding junctions as a result of the proposed development. Therefore effects in terms of driver delay would not be significant’.
6.162 The ES concludes; - significant effects on local people in terms of severance and pedestrian delay would not occur - Those using Heath Road North are unlikely to experience significant amenity or fear and intimidation effects.
6.163 Traffic Regulation Order - A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is enforced throughout the area of Chadwell St Mary, and extends north to the junction with the A13 and the A1013 Stanford Road/Heath Road/B188 Baker Street Junction. The purpose of the TRO is to restrict HGV through traffic (goods vehicles over a maximum gross weight of 7.5 tonnes) although an exception is made for access to the buildings within the area or construction operations.
VII. Flood risk, drainage, water quality, water resources and utilities;
6.164 With regard to flood risk, NPPF Part 10 and LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing climate change), CSTP27 (Management and Reduction of Floor Risk), PMD2 (Design and layout) and PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment) are relevant. With regards utilities, LDF-CS Policy CSTP13 is relevant.
6.165 Part 13 of the ES considers water. Appendix E of the Planning Statement contains an ‘Energy and Water Statement’. Appendix 13 of the ES contains a Flood Risk Assessment.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.166 Flood Risk – The site is within Flood Zone 1 and therefore at low risk from fluvial or tidal flooding and therefore passes the Sequential Test set out in para 100 of the NPPF and part 1 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP27. 6.167 The FRA has not identified a risk of flooding from surface water or groundwater, however finished ground floor levels at the development are proposed to be set 0.15m above local ground levels to manage any residual risk of groundwater flooding.
6.168 Surface Water - The FRA outlines a Surface Water Management Strategy to manage surface water run-off from rainwater. It is proposed that soakaway trenches will be included to maximise natural infiltration into the ground. Remaining flows would be routed via surface based swales to attenuation features such as ponds and detention basins. Attenuated flows are proposed to be discharged to the Anglian Water surface water sewer at a rate restricted to the existing Greenfield runoff discharge rate.
6.169 The south-eastern part of the site is in a shallow depression , it is proposed to raise levels in this part of the site to allow drainage by gravity to the north-east corner of the site. The FRA advises that ‘this will be done in such a way so as not to direct flood water off-site’ (para 2.1)
6.170 The FRA details that the north-eastern part of the site is on the total catchment zone of a groundwater protection zone. The FRA details pre-treatment measures that will be taken prior to discharge.
6.171 The Environment Agency raise no objection are satisfied that a surface water drainage scheme can be delivered that will ensures that flood risk both on and off site is not increased. Thurrock Council’s Flood Risk Manager raises no objections subject to conditions. Anglian Water is satisfied that drainage matters can be addressed by a suggested planning condition.
6.172 Subject to conditions, it is considered that surface water drainage will comply with the requirements of the NPPF and supporting Technical Guide and LDF- CS Policies CSTP12, CSTP27, PMD1 and PMD15.
6.173 Foul drainage – Anglian Water advises that the foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Tilbury STW that will have available capacity for these flows. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal conforms with the relevant criteria of LDF Policy CSTP13.
VIII. Land quality
6.174 Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states; ‘Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality’.
6.175 LDF-CS Policy CSTP21 (Productive Land), Part 1 (II) states; ‘Development of the best and most versatile land (DEFRA Grades 1, 2 and 3) will not be supported except in exceptional circumstances. Developers will need to demonstrate that:
i. there is no suitable site in a sustainable location on land of poorer agricultural quality; or ii. alternative sites have greater value for their landscape, biodiversity, amenity, heritage or natural resources or are subject to other constraints such as flooding’.
6.176 Whilst Policy CSTP21 pre-dates the NPPF, it is not proposed to be amended as part of the LDF-CS Focused Review: consistency with National Planning Policy Framework.
6.177 Part 14 of the ES considers land quality. Appendix 14 of the ES contains a ‘Phase 1: Land Quality Assessment’.
6.178 The site is 15.7ha and the majority comprises arable agricultural land. The agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system classifies land into five grades (grade 1 = excellent to grade 5 =very poor, inclusive) with grade 3 subdivided into subgrades 3a and 3b. ‘Best and most versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land is defined as “land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification” (DCLG, 2012). According to the ES ‘The Provisional ALC mapping (MAFF, date unknown) of the Site is Grade 2. Grade 2 is described as “very good quality agricultural land’.
6.179 With regards predicted effects and their significance, the ES states ‘The loss of 15.7ha would therefore represent a maximum of 0.5% of the 3363ha of grades 1 and 2 BMV land within Thurrock (i.e. on a worst case basis, treating all grade 3 land as 3b and therefore not BMV land, so that the total extent of BMV is minimised and the percentage loss maximised). Given that the maximum possible loss of BMV land at the Unitary level is so small, this loss is assessed as not being significant’.
6.180 “Significant development” is not defined in the context of paragraph 112 of NPPF. Where proposals for development are promoted outside of land allocations made in development plans, and the effect BMV in excess of 20ha, there is a statutory requirement (Article 16 DMPO 2010) to consult the national agricultural interest, currently Natural England. It is implicit in this procedure that potential losses on a scale of 20ha and above might raise issues of more than local importance. The proposal does not trigger this requirement. Much of
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
the land around Chadwell comprises BMV. It is questionable whether the proposal would entail ‘significant development’ of BMV. There is no meaningful evidence to support a proposition that the proposal would harm the security of food supply.
6.181 LDF-CS Policy CSTP21 (Productive Land), Part 1 (II) does not support the development of BMV land except in exceptional circumstances and sets out a sequential test, seeking development of land of poorer agricultural quality. There is an identified housing shortfall (when measured in terms of delivery) and shortfall in the five year housing land supply. The NPPF is clear that, where necessary, LPA’s should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. The Council has yet to commence work on the replacement Local Plan which will need to consider the implications of addressing housing need and part of this process may involve undertaking a Green Belt boundary review. Whilst the application is not accompanied by an assessment of the relative merits of alternative sites, this could be a difficult exercise in light of the lack of the lack of guidance as to the extent of potential future Green Belt release to address housing land supply issues.
6.182 Whilst the prospective loss of BMV land is another negative factor in the overall planning balance, it is not considered that on its own it would warrant refusal of planning permission.
IX. Ground conditions, contamination and remediation;
6.183 LDF-CS Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity) is relevant. Appendix 14 of the ES contains a ‘Phase 1: Land Quality Assessment’ which concludes that there are two potential contaminant linkages associated with the bordering historic landfill site, located to the south of Heath Road. It recommends undertaking a review of old landfill records and some intrusive site investigation along the site’s western boundary. The Environment Agency considers that the water environment at this site is of low priority and has not provided advice on land contamination issues. Thurrock Council’s EHO does not anticipate that any contaminative issues will be encountered on the proposed development site and recommends a watching brief be kept during ground works for any unforeseen contamination. With regards to contamination, subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal complies with LDF-CS Policy PMD1.
X. Noise, vibration, air quality and construction impacts;
6.184 LDF-CS Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity) is relevant and starts that developments will not be permitted where they would
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area, the amenity of neighbouring occupants or the amenity of future occupiers of the site. LDF-CS Policy PMD9 (Road Network Hierarchy) indicates that developments will only be permitted where measures have been taken to mitigate all adverse air quality impacts in or adjacent to AQMAs and where the development will minimise the impacts on the quality of life of local residents, such as noise, air pollution, and the general street environment. 6.185 Part 7 of the ES considers Air Quality. Part 8 considers Noise and Vibration and Part 6 considers Transport matters, including construction traffic.
6.186 Air Quality - In terms of operational impacts, Part 7 of the ES focuses on Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) as these are of concern to health associated with road traffic and emissions. The ES reviews potential air quality effects from the proposed development and concludes that no significant effects are likely (para 7.5.2). Thurrock Council’s EHO conclude that there is no impact on the existing air quality from the operational phase of the proposed development.
6.187 Noise – In terms of operational impacts, the ES (Chapter 8) considers that the proposed development comprises housing and open spaces which in themselves are not significant sources of noise. The ES considers the impact on ambient noise levels at key receptors in the vicinity of the Site in light of noise from the increase in road traffic resulting from the development. The ES concludes that the predicted impact of +1 to 2.2 dB increase for Existing Residential Properties in close proximity to Heath Road central and north respectively are not significant. Thurrock Council’s EHO concludes does not anticipate an adverse noise impact on existing receptors from the proposed development.
6.188 Construction impacts - Part 6 of the ES states that HGV construction traffic would only access the Site via the Heath Road access and approach the Site from the north, mainly via the A13/A1013. It details that the contractor would submit and agree a Construction Environmental Management Plan and Traffic Management Plan. In addition, construction would be phased to reduce impact on the highway network. A Traffic Regulation Order is in place across Chadwell St. Mary (restricting goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes), however this does not apply to construction traffic accessing works within the TRO zone. Thurrock Council Highways raise no objections to the impact of construction traffic subject to conditions, including the measures set out in the ES.
6.189 Part 7 of the ES considers the potential for effects on nearby residents from construction dust and recommends that the dust management measures (outlined in Table 7.9) are secured via a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Part 8 of the ES considers the impact of noise and
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
vibration from construction and also recommends a CEMP controlling such matters as hours of construction, noise limits, vehicle routing, piling methods (table 8.2). Thurrock Council’s EHO does not object subject to the imposition of conditions.
6.190 Part 13 of the ES considers the effects on surface water quality from construction and operational activities. CEMP management measures are proposed to minimise the risk of pollution events occurring. The ES also considers the effects on flood risk during construction and operation and concludes that significant effects in relation to on-site and off-site flood risk are unlikely.
6.191 In light of the above and subject to conditions, it is not considered that the proposed construction phase would have an unacceptable impact on air quality, the noise environment, sensitive receptors, flood risk and ground water and as such complies with the relevant criteria of LDF-CS Policies PMD1 and PMD9.
XI. Effects upon ecology and nature conservation;
6.192 Part 11 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’. LDF-CS CSTP19 (Biodiversity) and PMD7 (Biodiversity and development) are relevant. The contribution of the proposal to the creation of green Infrastructure and linkages are considered elsewhere in this report.
6.193 Part 12 of the ES considers Biodiversity. Appendix 12a contains an Ecology Appraisal. The ES details the data gathering, including ecological desk and field studies. The Essex Field Club’s response set out in Part X of this report objects on the basis that they consider the desk study undertaken is not fit for purpose as it has not referred to EFC records. The applicant has subsequently undertaken an ecological data search using EFC records and submitted a Technical Note ‘Heath Place – Supplementary Environmental Information: Updated Data Search’. The Supplementary Information concluded ‘The data search presents no records of legally protected or priority/notable species within the site or within a likely zone of influence from the proposed development; as such there is unlikely to be any significant change to the ecological baseline or the impact assessment presented in the Environmental Statement’. This information was sent to EFC who have not supplied further comment. The Council’s Ecology adviser considers that the ES, as supplemented, is fit for purpose.
6.194 Impact of designated or non-statutory sites - A single internationally important site is located within 5km (at approximately 4.5km distant) of the site: Thames
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) / Ramsar [the SSSI component of the SPA is Mucking Flats and Marshes SSSI]. The ES concludes that ‘it is considered highly unlikely that the increase in population planned at the proposed development would significantly affect the qualifying interest species of the SPA or Ramsar site due to recreational disturbance’ (12.8.2).
6.195 A single national statutory designated site (for ecological interest) is located within 2km of the Site – Hangman’s Wood Dene Holes SSSI. The ES concludes that the distance and severance (by A1089) would limit any potential increase in recreational pressure arising from residents of the development. In addition to which, the qualifying interest features - remnant ancient woodland and caves used by bats for hibernation and roosting – are unlikely to be sensitive to low level increase in recreational pressure at this site (12.7.2). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified.
6.196 There are also two non-statutory biodiversity sites located within 1km of the Site boundary - Terrels Heath Local Wildlife Site (LWS) located 650m to the south west and Mucking Heath LWS located 1km to the north-east. .The ES concludes that the distance and severance from the site would limit recreational pressure arising from residents of the development. The Council’s Ecology advisor concludes that the proposal would not adversely increased impact on these sites.
6.197 Other impacts - The majority of the Site comprises arable fields (one large arable field and a small section of an adjoining arable field to the north-west of the Site). Small garden hedgerows are present along the boundaries of the Site adjacent to residential properties in the south-west corner of the Site and along the western boundary adjacent to the allotment gardens. A small number of trees (none mature) are present within the Site boundary.
6.198 In terms of species, the ES assesses the presence of legally protected and/or priority species on, over or adjacent to the site. It concludes’ the site does not contain badger setts however tracks and latrines were recorded along the edge of the fields. The ES concludes that the site is of moderate potential for foraging and that the measures proposed would ensure compliance with relevant legislation No bat roosts are recorded albeit three bat species were recorded foraging and commuting within the site. The ES concludes that given the lack of habitat/commuting corridors between Hangman’s Wood and the proposed development, as well as a lack of suitable habitat features present within the site, it is unlikely that these species would be adversely affected as a result of the development.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
Twenty one bird species were recorded. The populations on Site are unremarkable and both wintering and breeding bird assemblage on-site are of no more than a Site value of conservation importance; therefore impacts of development to a small numbers of pairs that were recorded would not be significant. An ‘exceptional’ population of slow worms and a ‘low’ population of common lizard were recorded within the site. The ES details measures to relocate all displaced reptiles from within the construction zone within the Site to a receptor area (adjacent to the Site) (12.10.2). No ecologically important hedgerows were identified within the Site. Those present comprise either garden boundary hedgerows or contained non-native species only. These hedgerow borders would not be removed as a result of the proposed development and the now defunct hedgerow along the northern boundary of the Site will be reinstated.
6.199 The ES advises that the proposal includes a number of measures designed to minimise effects on biodiversity, ensure compliance with legislation an enhance biodiversity. These are summarised below; Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy (EMMS) – this would include a reptile mitigation strategy informed by further survey work Pre-construction badger survey trapping and translocation of reptiles from all suitable reptile habitats affected by construction of the scheme to a suitable receptor area comprising grassland mosaic habitat located outside the construction zone (located in the north-west of the site) Protection of hedgerows during construction. Creation of green corridors with creation of new hedgerows, woodland and grassland habitats. This would allow commuting and foraging bats to move within and around the site, ensuring that connectivity to key suitable foraging areas would be maintained within the Site and wider area. Creation of roost spaces. Increase foraging provision. Provision of hedgerow creation and woodland creation (and additional landscape planting) Semi-natural habitats would be enhanced through management, in order to improve their value for reptiles Specific lighting measures Creation of five SUD’s water bodies Long term management of the site
6.200 The ES considers that overall the cumulative effect of the habitat enhancement and creation proposed has the potential to result in a positive
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
(but not significant) effect to the wider biodiversity resource in the local area (p180). The Council’s Ecology Adviser concludes ‘Overall I think that the proposed mitigation is adequate for managing the existing habitat and species of value and for achieving some positive biodiversity benefits’. It is considered that, subject to securing the mitigation and enhancement measures set out in the ES, the proposal accords with part 11 of the NPPF, LDF-CS CSTP19 (Biodiversity) and PMD7 (Biodiversity and development).
XII. Community and Socio-economics including social infrastructure (schools, healthcare, community facilities, sports facilities, policing etc);
6.201 NPPF advises that here are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental (para 7). Para 8 advises that ‘to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system’. The LDF- CS contains a number of relevant policies including; CSSP2 (Sustainable employment growth);
CSTP6 (Strategic employment provision);
CSTP10 (Community Facilities); Supports the provision of new/improved facilities to serve new and existing communities and requirement for new development to contribute financially towards community needs generated by the development.
CSTP11 (Health Provision); Seeks to ensure health care facilities that meet existing and future community needs, including those needs arising from new housing and employment development over the lifetime of the plan
CSTP12 (Education and Learning); Proposals for new development would be required to contribute towards education
CSTP13 (Emergency Services and Utilities) seeks adequate provision of emergency services and utilities to meet existing and future needs
PMD16 (Developer Contributions): details the wide range of matters that may be covered by obligations
6.202 Matters relating to highways, green infrastructure, open space, outdoor sport and recreation are considered elsewhere in this report. Part 9 of the ES considers Community and Socio-economics.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.203 Thurrock Council’s approach to planning obligations as set out in the Planning Obligations Strategy (POS) is to ensure that development contributes, either financially, or in kind, towards the infrastructure that needs to be provided. The overall objective of the POS, therefore, is to enable Thurrock to seek a reasonable level of contribution from development and where relevant to pool s106 funds, together with other public sector funding, to secure delivery of the necessary infrastructure and services.
6.204 The POS identified a full standard charge per dwelling based on an assessment of the overall costs of providing much of the essential infrastructure for the area, divided by the amounts of such development anticipated. The Council recognises that, in most cases, the full standard charge could not be met in full by developments in the current market and that seeking to levy charges at these levels would inhibit regeneration and development and therefore set a discounted standard charge of £5,000 per dwelling. It should be recognised that the level of POS contribution is significantly lower than the assessed infrastructure cost. As detailed in Annex A of the POS, the financial contribution may be used towards elements that comprise the standard charge including Education, Libraries, Sport and Leisure, Health Care, Emergency Services, Transport where there is an identified need.
6.205 The emerging allocation of housing sites through the plan making process had regard to the capacity of the existing and planned infrastructure together with cumulative impacts. The development would be in addition to the planned development within Chadwell up to 2026 envisaged in the LDF-CS and give rise to a significant increase in population in its own right. It is therefore relevant to consider whether the impacts of the impacts of the development can be mitigated and the extent to which this can be achieved through the contribution derived from the POS.
6.206 Health provision - There are two medical centres approximately 1km south of the Site. The ES states ‘The Department of Health recommends that to ensure adequate primary care provision for a population, GP practices have a maximum of 2,000 weighted population per whole time (WTE) equivalent GP. The 2011 weighted population per WTE GP per practice indicates that both surgeries exceed this limit with Chadwell Medical Centre having approximately 2,750 weighted population per WTE GP and Dilip Sabnis Medical Centre having approximately 2,900 weighted population per WTE GP’ (para 9.3). The ES concludes; ‘Potential effects on existing users of local healthcare: The developer would be required to provide financial contributions towards local healthcare and dentists (£327 per dwelling) via TC’s Standard Development Charge to help ensure that the demands from the proposed development on local healthcare facilities can be met. Furthermore as part of the LDF process,
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
TC and the healthcare bodies are already aware of the need to ensure healthcare provision for 18,500 new homes between 2001- 2021 Thurrock- wide and approximately 390 new homes at Chadwell St Mary which the proposed development is in accordance with. Overall with financial contributions in place significant effects on local healthcare facilities are unlikely’ (p81).
6.207 NHS Property Services Ltd (NHSPS) consultation response detailed in Section 4 of this report acknowledges the capacity deficit and seeks a developer contribution of £60,000, to mitigate the capital cost to the NHS for the provision of additional healthcare services arising directly as a result of the development proposal. NHSPS raises no objection to seeking a financial contribution in line with the above.
6.208 Having regard to the above, subject to a financial contribution, the healthcare needs arising from the committed, planned and proposed development within the area could be met. In light of this, the POS payment would ensure that the development accords with part 8 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP11 (Health Provision) and PMD16 (Developer Contributions).
6.209 Highways - Approximately 13% of the POS is derived from the need to fund highway infrastructure. The works to the Cross Keys junction and A1013 junction with Heath Road and Baker Street are estimated to be in the region of £180,000.
6.210 Education - It is estimated that the proposed development would give rise to 86 primary age children (4-11) and 62 secondary age children (11-16). The site lies within the ‘Chadwell St Mary’ planning area for primary school education and the ‘Chadwell St Mary and Tilbury’ planning area for secondary education. The ES states that Woodside, the closest primary school to the site, is the most popular school in Chadwell St Mary (in terms of first preference) and is projected to be oversubscribed from 2014 onwards. Advice received from the Council’s education officer is that Herringham and Chadwell St Mary schools are expected to help meet any oversubscription at Woodside in the short term. In terms of secondary school provision at Gateway Academy, this is projected to be oversubscribed from 2017.
6.211 Thurrock Council Education advises that ‘additional school places would be required and that this development would contribute to that need. The “Pupil Place Plan 2013-17’ contains proposals to address the shortfall in school places based on growth planned within the LDF – Core Strategy (2011). As detailed in the “Pupil Place Plan 2013-17”, Section 106 contributions are expected to contribute to the total capital cost for the expansion works’. Thurrock Council Education advises that additional nursery and primary school
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
places are required. They raise no objection subject to a section 106 agreement to mitigate its impact on education based upon the approach detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy.
6.212 The cost of providing 25 additional nursery places and 126 primary school places (c.£1,996,481) would exceed the totality of the contribution derived from the POS. Based on other demands, some £1.51m of the POS contribution could be used for Education. Having regard to the above, the financial contribution would not be sufficient to fully meet the education needs arising from the proposed development within the area. However, such a situation is recognised by the POS.
6.213 Other provision - Part 4 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP10 (Community Facilities) states that ‘Proposals for new development will be required to contribute towards the community needs generated by the development and address the identified deficiencies in the locality that they may generate or exacerbate’. The applicant has identified that part of the POS contribution could be used towards local community facilities. The level of discount applied to the full standard charge means that funding from the POS has to be prioritised. In this instance, there is an identified need for additional school places which is likely to significantly reduce funding available for other infrastructure items.
6.214 In terms of socio-economic impacts, the ES highlights the positive impacts of addressing local housing need (p82). This matter forms part of the applicant’s case for very special circumstances and is considered elsewhere in this report. The ES also identifies the benefits of employment and investment derived from the construction phase of the development, including the creation of 525 construction jobs and the benefit of additional spending within the local economy.
XIII. Archaeology and cultural heritage
6.215 Part 12 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. LDF-CS Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment) are also relevant. Part 10 of the ES considers Historic Environment.
6.216 Archaeological remains within the site - The ES has been informed by a field reconnaissance survey and field evaluation comprising geophysical (detailed magnetometer) survey and trial trenching. Detailed below is a summary of the known archaeological remains within the site and their value; The main feature identified is a sub-rectangular Iron Age enclosure, measuring some 110m by up to 60m, which lies within the centre-north of the Site which is likely to represent the remains of round houses
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
and/or other structures. The ES considers that the enclosure is of high archaeological value and judges the heritage significance to be Medium. It is proposed to be retained within the proposed new central green space. The ES concludes that this would not effect this asset, although given the future deteriorating baseline, as a result of ploughing, the effect of the development on this archaeological remain would be beneficial. The remains of a trackway, on a similar alignment to the enclosure and broadly contemporary to it, although apparently later, extend to the north-west and south-east. Both these remains have been confirmed by the trial trench evaluation as dating to the late Iron Age period into the first century AD. The ES considers that the heritage significance of the enclosure is Low. A ring ditch, which is thought to mark the location of an early Bronze Age burial mound, is located in the north-eastern part of the Site. The ES considers that the heritage significance of the enclosure is Low.
6.217 The ES advises that the development would result in the loss of all archaeological remains within the site outside the area protected as green space. The assessment identifies the need for detailed excavation and recording of the areas of archaeological interest. The ES states that ‘the total loss of the Bronze Age ring ditch would involve a change of high magnitude. Given the established low heritage significance of the remains the effect would be not significant in EIA terms. The effect should also be seen in light of the future deteriorating baseline, as a result of ploughing, where the development would provide the opportunity realise the evidential value of the Site through archaeological excavation and dissemination of the results, prior to any further deterioration’.
6.218 ECC Archaeology advises that the investigations show that there is a substantial Iron Age settlement on the northern side of the development with the applicant’s preliminary design showing the enclosure protected within the development as green open space. They go onto advice that the proposal to preserve in situ is appropriate for this important site. Furthermore, those other areas including the probable Bronze Age burial mound would still require excavation in advance of any development and go onto recommend conditions.
6.219 In light of the comments from ECC Archaeology, it is considered that those significant non-designated heritage assets would be protected and that no object would be raised to the loss of the other heritage assets subject to detailed recording. The approach accords with Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment).
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
6.220 Effect upon the setting of listed buildings - The site includes no designated heritage assets, but there are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site. The ES considers the impacts of the development on the setting of these Heritage assets would be negligible and the overall impact not significant. The Council’s Historic Building advisor’s consultation response is set out in Part 4 of this report. Whilst he concludes that there would be an impact on the setting of Heath Cottage and Heath Place, due to the erosion of their rural setting, this impact would be minor due to the separating distance from the development site, there would be no impact on key views and the design proposals would mitigate this impact. Having regard to para 132 of the NPPF, it is considered that the justification for the development outweighs the limited harm to these heritage assets. It is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposal complies with Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment).
XIV. Human Rights
6.221 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Residents may argue that their scope for enjoying the amenities of their homes (Article 8) is interfered with by reason of the activities giving rise to noise, dust, vibration or visual intrusion. Having regard to the ES and the conclusions outlined in this report, it is considered that these impacts can be satisfactorily controlled by condition, that granting permission would be in pursuance of a legitimate aim and that any remaining impact on residents would not be disproportionate.
6.222 The right which might be applicable to the applicant would be that which protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of the First Protocol) which can include an economic interest which arises as the result of a planning permission. Refusal of planning permission, or the grant of permission subject to conditions, might interfere with this right. However, the right cannot be preserved in all circumstances, especially where it would conflict with the legitimate aim of controlling the use of property in accordance with the general interest. In this case, it is considered that the measures to control the development are necessary and legitimate.
6.223 In relation to Article 2(I) (Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law) the effects of emissions from road traffic and the impact on road safety are considered to be within acceptable levels and within the margin below which it would not be ‘proportional’ to dismiss the application on the basis of Article 2(i).
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON FOR REFUSAL
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
7.1 Having regard to the above analysis;
7.2 Urban design, layout and associated impacts;
- It is not considered that the urban design or layout of the development would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area, neighbouring occupants or future occupiers of the site.
- Given the outline nature of the application, the parameters and the ability to impose conditions, it is considered that the development demonstrates a strong degree of conformity with the Building for Life Standards and the Urban Design and Layout conform with criteria (i-vii) of LDF-CS Policies PMD2 (Design and Layout) and CSTP22.
7.3 Landscape and visual impacts
- The proposal would not be contrary to part 11 of the NPPF. The proposal would not give rise to the loss of significant natural, historic and built features and as such accords with part II of LDF-CS Policy CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness). Having regard to the ES and the findings of the Thurrock Landscape Capacity Study (TLCS)(2005), the landscape is of low sensitivity to change of the type sought and the development has sought to respond to the key objectives of the Chadwell and Orsett LLCA. Whilst there would be negative impacts on local views, particularly from the urban areas to the south and west, the applicant has sought to minimise impacts and it considered that an objection based upon visual effects on existing residents could not be substantiated.
7.4 Sustainable design;
- Subject to conditions, the development could incorporate measures to adhere with the LDF-CS Policy requirements for renewable / low carbon energy generation, sustainable homes (including the applicable Code for Sustainable Homes).
7.5 Affordable housing;
- Subject to securing the stipulations in Housings consultation response, it is considered that the development would comply with LDF-CS Policy CSTP2.
7.6 Traffic impact, access, car parking and other transport issues;
- Subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal accords with criterion viii of Policy PMD9 whereby ‘development will make a positive contribution to accessibility by sustainable transport’. - Car parking is proposed in line with the Council’s standards and, subject to conditions, accords with LDF-CS Policy PMD8 (Parking Standards) - The design of the access complies with the relevant Council standards.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
- The illustrative layout could create accessible, safe, permeable and legible layout which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians and accords with LDF-CS Policy PMD2. - Subject to mitigation, it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice road safety or have an undue impact on congestion as measured by link and junction capacities. In light of this, the proposal accords with criteria iii and v of LDF-CS Policy PMD9. - Significant effects on local people in terms of severance and pedestrian delay would not occur. Those using Heath Road North are unlikely to experience significant amenity or fear and intimidation effects.
7.7 Flood risk, drainage, water quality, water resources and utilities;
- The proposal passes the Sequential Test set out in the NPPF and part 1 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP27.
- Subject to conditions, it is considered that surface water drainage will comply with the requirements of the NPPF and supporting Technical Guide and LDF-CS Policies CSTP12, CSTP27, PMD1 and PMD15.
- There will be available capacity for foul water and the proposal conforms with the relevant criteria of LDF Policy CSTP13.
7.8 Land quality
- Whilst the prospective loss of BMV land is another negative factor in the overall planning balance, it is not considered that, on its own, would warrant refusal of planning permission.
7.9 Ground conditions, contamination and remediation;
- With regards to contamination, subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal complies with LDF-CS Policy PMD1.
7.10 Noise, vibration, air quality and construction impacts;
- There would be no demonstrable impact on the existing air quality from the operational phase of the proposed development.
- It is not considered that noise generated would have an adverse impact on existing receptors.
- Subject to conditions, it is not considered that the proposed construction phase would have an unacceptable impact on air quality, the noise environment, sensitive receptors, flood risk and ground water and as such complies with the relevant criteria of LDF-CS Policies PMD1 and PMD9.
7.11 Effects upon ecology and nature conservation;
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
- Subject to securing the mitigation and enhancement measures set out in the ES, the proposal accords with part 11 of the NPPF, LDF-CS CSTP19 (Biodiversity) and PMD7 (Biodiversity and development).
7.12 Community and Socio-economics including social infrastructure; - Subject to a financial contribution, the healthcare needs arising from the committed, planned and proposed development within the area could be met. In light of this, the POS payment would ensure that the development accords with part 8 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP11 (Health Provision) and PMD16 (Developer Contributions). - Part of the POS would be needed to find highway infrastructure. - Based on other demands, some £1.51m of the POS contribution could be used for Education. Having regard to the above, the financial contribution would not be sufficient to fully meet the education needs arising from the proposed development within the area. However, such a situation is recognised by the POS. - In terms of other provision, the level of discount applied to the full standard charge means that funding from the POS has to be prioritised. In this instance, there is an identified need for additional school places which is likely to significantly reduce funding available for other infrastructure items.
7.13 Archaeology and cultural heritage
- Those significant non-designated heritage assets would be protected and the specialist advisor raises no objection to the loss of the other heritage assets subject to detailed recording. The approach accords with Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment). - With regards the effect upon the setting of listed buildings, it is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposal complies with Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment).
7.14 Human Rights
- It is not considered that the recommendation is contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998
7.15 Green Belt and overall conclusions
7.16 The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states 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; ‘When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
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’.
7.17 Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. In light of the analysis in part (i) of this report, 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.
7.18 It is considered that the development proposed would 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’.
7.19 Having regard to the case advanced by the applicant, it is considered that there are factors which weigh in favour of the proposal; - There is an unfulfilled need having regard to the supply of specific deliverable sites. The proposals would provide a benefit in contributing towards the shortfall in the supply of new housing as set out in the LDF-CS delivery targets and as required by the NPPF. - Its ability to deliver a large number of affordable units to help address the shortfall and meet identified housing needs.
7.20 The applicant has put forward other arguments as part of their case of very special circumstances. In light of the above analysis; - It is not considered that the application site is required to meet the planned housing growth for Chadwell-St-Mary detailed in the LDF-CS - The applicant’s proposed funding towards playing pitches is to a substantial extent in lieu of on-site provision and in order to mitigate the impacts arising from the increased residential population and is unlikely to make a significant contribution to addressing an identified deficit in sport and recreation facilities within the wider area. - Due to third party ownership and the reliance on the Council being able to successful exercise powers, there remains uncertainty as to the extent to which the applicant’s proposed financial contribution would secure enhancements to the footway / bridleway connections out with the site. In the event that these wider improvements to connections cannot be made, the works to upgrade the footpaths on-site would offer little public benefit. It is considered that only very limited weight can be placed on the potential benefits that may arise.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT
- It is considered that landscape and ecological enhancements are for the most part mitigation measures or a normal requirement of policy. It is not considered that this should be afforded weight in the consideration of very special circumstances
7.21 In light of the above, the balancing exercise is whether the development’s contribution towards the shortfall in the both the supply of general housing and affordable units clearly outweighs the harm which would be caused to the Green Belt. On balance, 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 proposals are contrary to both national and local Green Belt planning policies.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE planning permission 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 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.
Documents: Applications can be viewed online: http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/ Documents also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Planning Committee 13th March 2014 Application Reference: 13/01102/OUT