Land at Former Haulage Yard, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey

______LAND AT FORMER HAULAGE YARD, SEWARDSTONE ROAD, WALTHAM ABBEY

Planning Statement

Outline application with all matters reserved other than access, for the demolition of all existing structures except Sewardstone Hall and erection of up to 40 dwellings, with associated parking, gardens, landscaping and infrastructure

Prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of E. W. Davies Farms Ltd.

November 2019

Former Haulage Yard, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Site Name: Abbey

Client Name: E. W. Davies Farms Ltd.

Type of Report: Planning Statement

Prepared by: Sav Patel

Checked by: David Fletcher

Date: 22 November 2019

COPYRIGHT © STRUTT & PARKER. This publication is the sole property of Strutt & Parker and must not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Strutt & Parker. Strutt & Parker does not accept any liability in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage suffered by any party resulting from reliance on this publication.

Strutt & Parker, 66 – 68 Hills Road, Cambridge, Cambs. CB2 1LA [email protected] Tel No: 01223 789391

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 4 2.0 Site Description ...... 8 3.0 Site History ...... 10 4.0 Description of the Proposals ...... 11 5.0 Relevant Development Plan Policies ...... 13 6.0 Planning Assessment ...... 16 7.0 Conclusion ...... 27

Appendix A: Planning Statement for planning application ref: EPF/2088/18

Appendix B: Appeal Decision (APP/J1535/W/19/3224279)

Appendix C: Appeal Statement for refused application ref: EPF/2088/18

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared by Strutt & Parker, on behalf of E W Davies Farms Ltd (hereafter referred to as the applicant) to support an Outline planning application with all matters reserved other than access for the erection of up to 40 dwellings including affordable housing provision at the Former Haulage Yard, Sewardstone Road, Sewardstone Essex (the application site).

1.2 A full description of the development is set out as follows:

‘Outline application with all matters reserved other than access, for the demolition of all existing structures except the farmhouse and erection of up to 40 dwellings (including affordable housing), with associated parking, gardens, landscaping and infrastructure.’

1.3 This planning application follows on from the refusal of planning permission under reference EPF/2088/18 for an outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 40 dwellings. The application was refused on 1 February 2019. The refusal was subsequently appealed against and the Inspector dismissed the appeal essentially on the grounds of the benefits of the proposed development, not out-weighing the harm. A key consideration in the appeal decision, was a lack of mechanism to secure primary school places contribution, contribution towards Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and affordable housing provision.

1.4 This application is materially different from that application and appeal, in that it includes an executed Unilateral Undertaking to secure a number of measures, including:

 Provide Primary School places contribution;  Secure the provision for 40% affordable housing;  Financial contribution to off-set impact on Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC);  Financial contribution towards Lea Valley Regional Park;  Mechanism to secure management of the onsite public open space;  Financial contribution towards bus stop improvements;

1.5 This Planning Statement should be read in conjunction with the previous Planning Statement submitted in support of the previous application (refer to Appendix A).

1.6 The decision notice for the previous planning application (ref: EPF/2088/18) contained the following refusal reasons:

1. ‘The proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development outside the existing urban area which is not well served by public transport or local services, and would therefore result in an increase in vehicle commuting contrary to the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CP1, CP3, CP6 and CP9 of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations and policy SP 2 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

2. The development would result in the loss of undesignated employment space and fails to provide any evidence that the employment site has no reasonable prospect of continuing to be used as such. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SP 2 (E) (i) and E 1 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

3. The proposal will introduce a substantial and prominent suburban form of development into the local area which is in stark contrast to its prevailing rural character, resulting in substantial harm to the appearance of the area. This incongruous form of development will also compromise the setting of the locally listed building which is located within the boundaries of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to polices CP1, CP2, DBE1, HC13A, LL1 and LL2 of the Adopted Local Plan and with policies DM3, DM7 and DM9 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

4. In the absence of a completed s106 planning obligation the proposed development fails to mitigate against the identified impact it would have on local primary school provision in terms of additional places. Failure to secure such mitigation is contrary to policy D 1 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

5. In the absence of a completed s106 planning obligation the proposed development fails to mitigate against the adverse impact that it will have on the Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation in terms of recreational pressure and air pollution. Failure to secure such mitigation is contrary to Policy NC1 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006), Policies DM2 and DM22 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the requirements of the Habitats Regulations 2017.

6. In the absence of a completed s106 planning obligation, the proposed development fails to secure the requirement for affordable housing as defined in policy H 2 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies H 1 and H 2 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.’

1.7 This planning application has sought to overcome the concerns raised by the Inspector to dismiss the last proposed scheme (Appeal ref: APP/J1535/W/19/3224279). The application is accompanied with a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the provision of affordable housing and contributions towards, open space provision, education and SAC. The applicant has also put forward a contribution towards the Lea Valley Regional Park and a contribution towards bus stop improvements. A copy of the Inspector’s decision letter is contained in Appendix B.

Scope of Planning Application

1.8 This planning statement should be read in conjunction with the following supporting documents and drawings, which also accompany this planning application. As there has been no material change to the site or planning policy landscape since the previous application, the scope of the documents to be submitted as part of this application remains as previously agreed with officers at Epping Forest District Council:

 Application Forms

 Environmental Site Constraints Report, prepared by AECOM, which consists of the following:

 Flood Risk Assessment Update

 Phase 1 Land Contaminated Report Update

 Updated Ecology Survey

 Utilities Survey

 Habitat Regulations Assessment

 Air Quality Assessment

 Transport Statement, prepared by I- Transport

 Design & Access Statement Addendum and appropriate plans and drawings, prepared by MSMR

1.9 The planning application is made on the grounds that the proposals are considered to be in compliance with policies of the Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006). In addition, the proposals are also considered to be in accordance with policies as set out within the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version (2017).

1.10 It is considered that planning permission should be granted, as the site would meet an extant housing need, particularly in terms of affordable housing on a previously developed site in a sustainable location. It has been agreed in the recent appeal decision that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would comply with part g of paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

1.11 The scheme would provide a number of significant benefits which would provide enhancement to the site and wider location.

1.12 The following benefits would arise as a result of the housing development. The application proposals will provide a deliverable site that can make a significant contribution towards meeting local housing need, in a District that has an acute housing shortage. Additional housing will provide economic benefits by supporting existing services and facilities, providing additional Council Tax and New Homes Bonus. It will not be harmful to the environment in terms of its location, visual impact or increased need to travel by car over and above that which already exists for the haulage and other commercial uses on the site.

1.13 It is considered that the proposals do constitute sustainable development, having regard to paragraph 11 of the NPPF, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2.0 Site Description

2.1 The entire site area extends to approximately 3.67 ha. The former haulage yard (excluding greenfields to the north) extends to 1.72 ha and comprises a large expanse of hardstanding, large corrugated sheet metal sheds, numerous small buildings and two houses (including Sewardstone Hall) and greenfields. These buildings are let on short-term licenses and are coming to the end of their useful lives. The site consists of uses such as a motor repair/MOT works, car body-work shop, a fireplace and flooring stocklist, as well as outdoor storage. The site is dilapidated and has a negative visual impact on the surroundings due to abandoned vehicles, caravans, tyres and building materials, which are currently stored on site. A substantial part of the site, therefore, comprises previously developed, brownfield land that was previously used as a haulage yard. It is important to note that most of the existing occupiers are planning on either retiring their businesses or relocating to other more appropriate/suitable sites elsewhere.

2.2 All tenants have been fully informed of the planning application and have no objection to the proposals. The business Re-Claimed who have purchased a building at Netherhouse Farm and are in the process of moving to the new location. Capital Stone are in the process of re-locating most of their business to Romford, which started two years ago. In addition, the owner of IPB Motors is close to retirement and has recently brought a dwelling in Cornwall with the intention to move to Cornwall full time.

2.3 There are two existing residential dwellings within the site, a larger two storey dwelling (known as Sewardstone Hall) facing east towards Sewardstone Road and smaller two storey cottage located behind the Hall. The north of the site is bounded by Hawes Lane with Hawes Lane Nursery situated at the end of the lane. To the east of the site lie a number of residential properties and the Sewardstone and Brookfield Nurseries. Approximately 800m to the west, across the Cattlegate Bridge and the River Lea, the large Enfield Island development is connected to the site via a pedestrian and cycle path. The northern half of the site comprises unmanaged, open fields bound by hedgerows.

2.4 The site is designated within the Combined Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) Policy Document as being within part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

2.5 The larger residential dwelling of Sewardstone Hall is a ‘locally listed building’ in the emerging Local Plan (but not recognised as such in the adopted Local Plan). It is however described in the ‘List of Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest - Waltham Abbey Parish’ as being a ‘Large 19th century double piled farmhouse. Rendered, 2 storey with parapet and canted bay windows at ground floor’. However, its setting has been compromised by later industrial buildings to rear. Furthermore, the Hall is run down and requires extensive refurbishment to restore it to its aesthetical and historical value.

2.6 At the site’s frontage are protected trees (TPO) under reference TPO/EPF/18/14. A group on the southern side of the access road off Sewardstone Road lies within the

grounds of Sewardstone Hall. The TPO also includes six Poplars in the field north of the access road.

2.7 There are numerous groups of established trees and hedges on and around the site. The most notable are the two small copses to the east of the site, partially obscuring it from Sewardstone Road. In addition, there are lines of established trees and hedges to the southern boundary, and to the north at Hawes Lane. A line of hedge also separates the open section of the site from the open field to the west.

2.8 Areas in close proximity of the site are designated nature reserves or SSSI’s, the site itself does not fall under either of these categories.

2.9 The site is located off Sewardstone Road, from which is it is accessed.

Figure 1: Aerial view of the site with surrounding development

2.10 Further detail on the site and its surroundings is included within the Design & Access Statement, prepared by MSMR.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has extensive planning history.

3.2 The most recent of which, was an application, reference EPF/2088/18 and subsequent appeal for the following:

“Outline application with all matters reserved other than access, for the demolition of all existing structures except the farmhouse and erection of up to 40 dwellings, with associated parking, gardens, landscaping and infrastructure under application reference EPF/2088/18.”

3.3 This planning application was refused under delegated powers. It was refused on six grounds, which were:

1) The proposal would result in a sustainable form of development;

2) The development would result in the loss of undesignated employment space;

3) The proposal will include a substantial and prominent suburban form of development in the local area which is in stark contrast to its prevailing character and appearance of the area;

4) The absence of a completed S106 planning obligation to mitigate against the identified impact on the local primary school;

5) The absence of a completed S106 planning obligation to mitigate against the adverse impact on Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation; and

6) The absence of a completed S106 planning obligation to secure the requirement for affordable housing.

3.4 Whilst the Inspector dismissed the appeal, the Inspector did not give any weight to reasons for refusal 2 and 3. The Inspector dismissed both reasons due to lack of evidence and adopted policies to support reason 2. The Inspector disagreed with the Council on reason 3 and stated that the proposals would improve the setting of Sewardstone Hall, and be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. . Please refer to Appendix B for a full copy of the appeal decision. In addition as part of this appeal decision, it was confirmed that the proposed development is not inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

3.5 In 2014 an earlier planning application for 72 dwellings on the site, under planning application reference EPF/1556/14, was submitted and subsequently dismissed on appeal for:

“Outline application with all matters except access reserved for demolition of all existing structures except the farmhouse and erection of up to 72 dwellings (50% affordable) with ancillary parking, access and gardens, along with the erection of a community building under application reference EPF/1556/14.”

4.0 Description of the Proposals

4.1 The description of the proposal is for the following:

“Outline application with all matters reserved other than access, for the demolition of all existing structures except Sewardstone Hall and erection of up to 40 dwellings (40% affordable housing), with associated parking, gardens, landscaping and infrastructure.”

4.2 Whilst this application seeks outline planning permission, an illustrative masterplan has been provided with this application to demonstrate how the proposals can be accommodated within the site (17061_112). This is also further explored within the Design and Access Statement. The key change to this application, from that of the planning application submitted in 2018, is that it contains a signed and executed Unilateral Undertaking that will deliver and secure a number of benefits associated with the scheme.

Layout and Design

4.3 The application seeks to establish the principle of residential development, broad location of development and access via the existing junction in the south west corner of the site. This proposed access off Sewardstone Road was not objected to in the previous proposals.

4.4 In terms of design and scale there would be a mix of dwellings of 2 storeys in heights so that existing building heights will not be exceeded. Access will also be provided from the site onto the cycle/footpath to the south.

4.5 A study of the footprint size and mass of the existing buildings on site has been undertaken and demonstrated that, based on comparable house types, a detailed scheme can be achieved on site that will not exceed the existing footprint of 2,571m2, maximum overall building height of 7.7m high, or volume of 12,934m3. Therefore, as a result, an overall reduction of 32% in the area covered by building footprint, hardstanding and open storage has been achieved, when reviewed against the existing buildings on the site.

4.6 The Inspector for the recent appeal scheme considered the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

4.7 The buildings have been kept to the existing developed area and the large green area to the north is proposed to be retained as an open, landscaped area, in which a children’s play area will be provided. In addition, the entrance to the site has been maintained as green open space, following comments received at pre-application stage.

Arboriculture and Landscaping

4.8 In addition to the above, the proposed scheme includes the management and improvement of the existing landscape and tree stock and provision of new playing field and children’s playground.

4.9 It is proposed that many of the established hedgerows and areas of dense mature trees existing at the site are retained and incorporated into the development proposals. An arboricultural survey has been prepared by AECOM and proposes recommendations for managing the existing tree stock.

4.10 The planting of additional trees is proposed within the developed area of the site and along the boundary between the open green space to the north of the access road and built portion. These trees will provide visual softening to the development. Children’s play equipment is proposed along the north/south boundary amongst the proposed tree line and is to be made from natural materials.

4.11 A key aspect of the design proposals is for the northern half to be public open space comprising amenity grassland or wild flower meadow.

Transport

4.12 As previously outlined, access to the site will be via the existing junction in the south west corner of the site. It is proposed that this entrance is improved to ensure it is safe and more efficient by creating a staggered cross road with Mott Street and Sewardstone Road.

4.13 The proposal for the junction has been prepared by I-Transport and would include the realignment of the entrance to Hawes Lane to the north of the site to consolidate traffic before it meets the junction of Sewardstone Road.

4.14 Traffic calming measures are proposed throughout the residential development including varied road surfaces, width restrictions and visual narrowing.

4.15 Improved connectivity to the cycle and pedestrian route to Enfield village is proposed to encourage sustainable journeys to the local schools and amenities.

Flood Risk and Drainage

4.16 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore at low risk of flooding.

4.17 A sustainable urban drainage strategy will be developed for the site alongside the environmental consultant to ensure an enhanced environment for local wildlife.

4.18 Within the previously described open space forming the northern half of the site, attenuation ponds could form part of the sustainable urban drainage strategy for the site, providing habitat variation within this part of the site.

Pre-Application

4.19 A pre-application submission has not been made in respect of the planning application.

5.0 Relevant Development Plan Policies

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Act (2008) states that if regard is to be had to the Development Plan, for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, determination must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The current Development Plan for the area is the Combined Epping Forest Adopted Local Plan (1998) and the adopted Alterations, published in February 2008. This is the relevant Development Plan for the determination of this appeal.

5.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, February 2019) represents the most up-to-date central government planning policy guidance document for determining planning applications at a national level.

5.4 The current Combined Policies Local Plan provides the policies framework to assess all planning application.

5.5 The relevant policies are set out within the Epping Forest Local Plan. The original Local Plan was adopted in 1998, some of the policies are still in place however in 2006 the Council adopted the Local Plan Alterations which replaced parts of the 1998 Local Plan.

5.6 The Council is currently engaged in a process of preparing a new Local Plan. The Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version (SV) was submitted to the Inspector in December 2017. The submission version will replace the previous local plan and cover a period of 16 years to meet the economic and housing growth in the District. However, there are significant unresolved objections to the policies which would be amended or deleted a result of the examination or the plan could be withdrawn or found unsound. As such, the policies within the SV should be given very limited weight. This was confirmed within the recent appeal decision from the Planning Inspector.

5.7 Therefore, the main policies are those contained in the adopted Local Plan and Alterations, which are:

Adopted Local Plan: - CP1 - Achieving Sustainable Development Objectives - CP3 - New Development - CP6 - Achieving Sustainable Urban Development Patterns - CP9 - Sustainable Transport - DBE1 - Design of new buildings - HC13A - Local List of Buildings - LL1 - Rural Landscape - LL2 - Inappropriate rural development - NC1 - SPAs, SACs and SSSIs - H2 - Previously Developed Land

5.8 In addition, the previous decision notice references the following emerging Local Plan Policies, albeit they do not form part of the adopted Development Plan and can only be given limited weight, they are as follows:

- SP 2 - Spatial Development Strategy 2011-2033 - E1 - Employment sites - DM2 - Epping Forest SAC and the Lee Valley SPA - DM3 - Landscape Character, Ancient Landscapes and Geodiversity DM 7 - DM9 - High quality design - DM22 - Air Quality - D1 - Delivery of Infrastructure - H1 - Housing mix and accommodation types - H2 - Affordable housing

5.9 In addition, there are a number of paragraphs within the NPPF, which are of relevance to the proposals.

National Planning Policy Framework

5.10 The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019 and represents the most up to date central government planning policy guidance and as such is a material consideration for the determination of planning applications. This replaces the previous iterations of National Planning Policy Framework, published in 2012 and 2018.

5.11 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF ‘requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’. This is reiterated in paragraph 12 of the NPPF.

5.12 The NPPF also emphasises that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the objective of achieving sustainable development (paragraph 7). In terms of how the Framework is to be implemented, paragraph 213 (Annex 1) states that, inter alia, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

5.13 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development, namely: economic; social; and environmental.

5.14 Paragraph 12 states that: “Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.”

5.15 Paragraph 11 states that: ‘Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.’ It states that for decision taking this means:

- Approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

- Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

o the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

5.16 Section 5 of the Framework is entitled ‘Delivering a sufficient supply of homes’ and critically, as far as this application is concerned, paragraph 57 requires the planning system to significantly boost the supply of housing.

5.17 Paragraph 145 of the NPPF (2019) states that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate to the Green Belt. Exceptions to this include:

g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would:

- Not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or

- Not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would reuse previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

5.18 Paragraph 124 states that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.’

5.19 Section 13 of the NPPF draws attention to the protection of Green Belt land. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 143 expresses that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

6.0 Planning Assessment

6.1 In accordance with Section 36(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.2 The recent appeal decision (APP/J1535/W/19/3224279) provides the basis for consideration of the key issues to consider in the determination of this application. Within the Planning Inspector’s decision, four main issues were identified. It is considered that these four main issues are key in determining if the proposed development is consistent with the Development Plan when considered as a whole. The four main issues identified are as follows:

1. Whether an appropriate mechanism exists to mitigate (i) the effect of the proposal on local primary school places and (ii) the Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation (SAC) and (iii) to ensure the proposal would make adequate provision for affordable housing;

2. Whether the proposal is in a suitable location having regard to its accessibility to services and facilities;

3. The effect of the proposal on the supply of land for employment; and

4. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed buildings of Sewardstone Hall.

6.3 Each of the above issues will be considered in turn. In addition to the above matters, paragraph 29 of the recent appeal decision also provides an up to date position in regard to lack of 5 year housing land supply and the delivery of the new housing, including the weight that should be given in planning terms. This states the following:

‘The evidence indicates that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and so the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. If I were to accept the housing land supply shortfall suggested by the appellant 40 new homes would make a significant contribution. This number of homes (including affordable homes) is a significant benefit which carry significant weight in my decision.’

6.4 A detailed overview of the lack of 5-year housing land supply is not provided within this statement, but is provided within the appeal statement prepared in support of the recent appeal (refer to Appendix C).

6.5 In addition, to the significant benefits of the new housing, the Planning Inspector also considered in paragraph 30 that the proposed development would have benefits arising through construction, new customers for the nearest services and facilities, junction improvements at the entrance to the site and a general improvement to the sites appearance.

6.6 Therefore, turning to the four main issues, it is important to consider if this revised application has addressed the previous concerns raised by the Planning Inspector that resulted in him considering that the harm of the development would out-weigh the benefits. These are considered in turn.

Mechanism for Mitigation and Affordable Housing

6.7 The key change to this application from that of the previous application and dismissed appeal is that it includes an executed Unilateral Undertaking. As set out within paragraphs 11 and 12 of the recent appeal decision, the Planning Inspector considered that the proposed development would cause a degree of harm to Epping Forest SAC, given that a mechanism was not in place to secure a financial contribution to off-set the impact on the SAC. This has been fully addressed as part of this revised planning application, with £352 per dwelling provided to off-set the impact of the proposals upon the SAC.

6.8 In addition, the Unilateral Undertaking secures affordable housing provision with 16 affordable units to be provided to meet the housing needs of local people. It also secures provision for the management of a significant new area of open space, a financial contribution towards primary school places, bus stop improvements and makes a contribution towards the Lea Valley Regional Park to help maintain and improve the park.

6.9 The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with policy NC1 of the adopted Epping Forest Local Plan. In accordance with paragraph 176 of the NPPF, the proposed development will not adversely impact upon Epping Forest SAC, and the proposed financial contributions will provide the opportunity to deliver benefits to the SAC. In addition, the provision of a substantial contribution towards primary school places will ensure no additional pressure on school places within the area.

6.10 In accordance with paragraph 54 of the NPPF, it is considered that the benefits delivered as part of the Unilateral Undertaking has a significant impact having regard to the planning balance of whether the proposed development is acceptable in planning terms. It is considered that securing mitigation for the SAC, Lea Valley Regional Park, financial contribution towards school places, bus stop improvements and delivery of the benefits associated with the affordable housing should be given significant weight in the consideration of the planning application.

Services and Facilities

6.11 The second main issue considered in the Planning Inspectors decision, was access to Services and Facilities. As set out within paragraph 12 of the appeal decision, the Planning Inspector was of the view that the appeal site has limited day to day services and facilities. In addition, the Inspector noted that existing pedestrian and cycle links to the services and facilities at The Island Centre are approximately 1km away. With the train station 2km away. The Planning Inspector stated that the services and facilities at the above centre requires walking and cycling along an unlit path, which would be unattractive in hours of darkness or bad weather. The Planning Inspector stated that the proposed development would not reduce the reliance on the private car.

6.12 However, it is important to say here that there are three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. It is not a singular issue. In the appeal decision, the Planning Inspector appears to focus on access and proximity of the site to local facilities. Whilst access to local facilities is a consideration of sustainable development, it is by no means the only consideration for sustainable development. In order for a site or proposal to be considered sustainable development a balanced judgement needs to be made between the three dimensions of sustainable development. In the planning statement and appeal statement for the previous scheme, a considerable amount of detail was provided to demonstrate the site is in a sustainable location in terms of accessibility to local facilities, proximity to local facilities, and traffic movement comparisons with the existing use. The planning statement and appeal statement are contained in Appendices C and D.

6.13 However, noting the comments from the Planning Inspector, this revised application provides a financial contribution towards the up-grade of the bus stops on Sewardstone Road in close proximity to the application site. This will improve the likelihood of residents using the bus and access to services. In addition, the Unilateral Undertaking includes a £50,000 contribution towards Lea Valley Park, which among other things, could be used towards footpath improvements between the application site and The Island Centre to the west. These two financial contributions will assist with improving the accessibility of the site to local services and facilities and reduce the reliance on the motor car.

6.14 The benefits of the proposal such as reuse of a brownfield site to provide significant new housing, which would include affordable housing for local people, create construction jobs and boost the local economy by increasing spending in the local area, which would help to maintain existing facilities, create a new area of public open space for existing and future residents, improve the appearance of the site. All of these are other important factors to be considered in the sustainability assessment. This is considered in further detail in the planning balance section under paragraph 6.41 below.

Employment Land

6.15 As detailed within paragraph 22 of the Appeal Decision, the Planning Inspector concludes that the loss of employment associated with the proposed development would not be harmful in this case. This is therefore considered to be a neutral factor, when considering if the benefits of the proposed development out-weigh the harm.

Character and Appearance

6.16 As set out within paragraph 27 of the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision, it is concluded that the proposed development would result in an improvement to the setting of Sewardstone Hall (Locally Listed Building on site). The Planning Inspector goes on to conclude that the proposed development conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the area, including Locally Listed Buildings and that there is no conflict with policies CP1, CP2, DBE1, HC13A, LL1 and LL2 of the Local

Plan Alterations (2002). Overall this matter is considered to be of minor positive benefit in planning balance terms.

Detailed Planning Matters

6.17 In addition to the four main issues identified in the Planning Inspector’s report, an overview is also provided in relation to detailed planning matters, in turn as follows:

Indicative Housing Mix

6.18 Policy H4A of the Local Plan requires that provision is made for a range of dwellings to meet identified housing need on a site-by-site basis.

6.19 The proposals will provide a mixture of housing to boost the supply of new homes in the area, to satisfy local housing need. These will range from detached, semi- detached or terraced dwellings, apartments and low-rise domestic scale buildings. The varying sizes and affordable housing throughout will promote a diverse demographic of residents. This will be defined fully at reserved matters stage.

Layout and Design

6.20 The proposed development is on the southern half of the site that was previously occupied by the haulage yard. All current structures on the site are proposed to be demolished with the exception of the locally listed house, which has been integrated into the proposed scheme.

6.21 The proposed units will face either the access road of green space to the north and west, accessed via small mew-style courtyards. The outward facing dwellings addresses the countryside edge and ensures it is not dominated by back gardens.

6.22 The existing commercial buildings are unattractive, utilitarian and increasingly run- down in appearance. The detailed proposals will be designed to include features from the local vernacular and reflect an aesthetic in keeping with the local area, in accordance with the ‘Essex Design Guide’ (2005).

6.23 Further information on design and layout considerations is set out within the Design Report prepared by MSMR.

Arboriculture and Landscape

6.24 The site forms a transition from the Lee Valley Regional Park’s landscape (woodland backdrop) to that of the settlement (soft green urban edge lined streets, hedgerow and woodland). The reduced scale of development enables a greater degree of landscaping to soften public views of the site development now proposed. Although the site is prominent from the surrounding roads and footpaths, which existing screening does not fully screen, the reduced scale and significant scope for additional soft landscaping to site boundaries, streets and green space will aid the sympathetic assimilation of the scheme into local views, enhancing public views within the Green Belt. This will be secured through detailed landscaping proposals.

6.25 In support of the planning application, an updated arboricultural survey has been prepared by AECOM, a summary of this is included within the Environmental Site Constraints Report that supports this planning application. A tree protection plan is included and identifies the trees to be removed and how retained trees are to be successfully protected.

Ecology

6.26 Further to the above arboricultural and landscape considerations, it is important to also consider the impact of the proposed development on the ecology of the application site and the opportunities for enhancement.

6.27 As set out in the NPPF, the environmental role is just one aspect of sustainable development. The NPPF contains extensive policy guidance aimed at conserving and enhancing the natural environment. It advises that planning permission should be refused for development result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats.

6.28 As set out within the updated Ecology Survey, the site was found to be in a similar condition when an ecological appraisal was undertaken in 2013. It has been advised that the design of the northern half of the site should achieve a modest enhancement of biodiversity value in the area whilst also avoiding any impact to species such as water vole, otter, badger, reptiles and great crested newt if they are present.

6.29 In addition, demolition works to the light commercial and residential buildings should be undertaken outside of bird breeding season to avoid impacts to breeding birds. Signs of badger activity will also be checked prior to site clearance.

6.30 A Habitats Regulations Assessment forms part of this application submission and identifies if any aspects of the proposed development would be likely to lead to significant effects on any sites afforded protection under Habitats Regulations.

6.31 To inform this assessment, an investigation was undertaken to determine the potential for linking impact pathways between the proposed development and European designated sites and can be found within the Environmental Site Constraints Report.

Transport and Parking

6.32 Policy CP9 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to encourage sustainable transport modes, including giving priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and access to public transport facilities. It also requires schemes to promote and provide for sustainable means of transport, especially to key community facilities, particularly by public transport, cycling and walking. In addition it is required that a safe and efficient transportation network that improves the accessibility of local communities is required.

6.33 An updated transport statement has been prepared by I-Transport and accompanies this application. As identified within the Transport Statement, the proposed junction improvements at Sewardstone Road, provide significant benefits in terms of the planning application. In addition, junction assessments that have been undertaken by

I-Transport, which demonstrate that the junction does and will continue to operate well within its operational capacity.

6.34 In terms of car parking, whilst this will be a reserved matter to be established at reserved matter stage, the Adopted Essex Parking Standards identify that a development of 40 dwellings, will have a requirement for 87 car parking spaces, which includes provision for 25% visitor car parking spaces. The Illustrative Masterplan, reference 17061_112, prepared by MSMR shows indicatively how the provision for 87 spaces could be accommodated on the site.

Drainage/Flood Risk

6.35 As previously stated, the site is located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore at low risk residual risk of flooding. A flood risk assessment has been prepared to accompany the planning application. The flood risks associated with the site have been reviewed following the release of updated information from the Environment Agency.

6.36 The updated report has concluded that the conclusions reached in 2013 remain valid when considering the development proposals forming this planning application. Therefore, the current proposals will not increase to the risk of flooding at the site or within the surrounding areas.

Contamination

6.37 Policy RP4 of the Local Plan relates to contaminated land and will not allow the granting of planning permission for the development of land which is considers to be contaminated unless prior tests are carried out and appropriate methods of treatment or protection are agreed.

6.38 A Phase 1 Land Contamination Report is included within this application submission, this report recommends that a Phase 2 intrusive environmental site investigation is undertaken prior to the commencement of work commencing to further assess potential contamination issues. It is considered that this can be dealt with by way of suitably worded planning condition.

Air Quality

6.39 Following pre-application consultation with the Council it was concluded that an air quality assessment was required. This has been prepared and is included within the Environmental Site Constraints Report and concludes that the overall impact of the proposed development on local air quality would be negligible and non-significant.

Archaeology and Heritage

6.40 As detailed within the original application, the site contains a locally listed building Sewardstone Hall, which will be maintained as part of the proposals. Policy HC13A of the adopted Local Plan does not provide any policy criteria related to locally listed buildings, however it is recognised by the applicants that it provides a building worthy of retention and it has therefore been incorporated into the proposals.

6.41 In terms of archaeology, on the original application reference EPF/1563/14 identified that the site lies on the medieval Pentesary Farm. It was recommended that this matter was dealt with by way of suitably worded planning condition, which requires the provision of preliminary groundwork to take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work. The applicants are happy to accept a similar condition on this application.

Planning Balance

6.42 As set out within Section 4, the emerging Local Plan is in the process of being prepared by Epping Forest District Council. The SV Local Plan in its current form is subject to a number of unresolved objections, particularly in relation to the housing and employment policies. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF the weight that can be given to the SV Local Plan policies listed on the Decision Notice is very limited. This is consistent with the Inspector’s decision notice for the previous appeal scheme. The adopted Epping Local Plan therefore remains the statutory basis for the determination of this planning application.

6.43 When considering if the proposals accord with the Development Plan, it is important to recognise that the Council and the Planning Inspector does not consider the proposals to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. In the delegated report to the last application, the case officer report accepts that through the reduction in volume of development, being on a smaller footprint from the existing former haulage yard, that the proposed development would be of benefit to the Green Belt. The case officer’s report also states that the quantum of development would not be substantially different from the existing use in terms of vehicle movements. The officer’s report concludes that the proposed development, albeit in outline form, would comply with the exception in part (g) of paragraph 145 of the NPPF. This was also agreed to by the Inspector in the recent appeal decision. Therefore, the redevelopment of this brownfield site would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

6.44 In terms of the weight that can be given to the housing policies within the adopted Development Plan, the policies are not up to date as they rely upon out of date housing requirement figures. The adopted Local Plan does not provide an assessment of the current objectively assessed housing needs for the area.

6.45 In addition, only limited weight can be given to the emerging Local Plan due to significant number of unresolved objections that have been received to the main housing policies. The main objections relate to the low levels of housing requirement figures proposed by the Council and an over reliance on larger allocations to meet the housing requirements over the plan period. Insufficient provision has been made for the contribution that small windfall sites could make.

6.46 Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are the most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless:

(i) The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas of assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed;

(ii) Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

6.47 It is particularly important to give significant weight to the benefits associated with the delivery of both market and affordable housing in a District of acute supply.

6.48 As the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and the housing need policies in the adopted Local Plan are out of date, the titled balance of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged and the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out that achieving sustainable development has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways. As set out within Section 4, the three objectives are economic, social and environmental. Accordance with each is assessed in turn.

Economic:

6.49 If the application is approved, the applicant would be seeking to commence construction at the earliest opportunity once the Reserved Matters stage has been completed.

6.50 In terms of the economic benefits of the proposed development, it would deliver a significant boost to the local economy in the short and long term. The construction phase of the development would create a wide range of construction jobs and labour opportunities over a period of 2 to 3 years during build out. This would also lead to indirect labour opportunities in areas such as landscaping and general maintenance of the site.

6.51 Such employment opportunities would result in a spending boost on existing services such as The Plough public-house, which is opposite the junction into the site, which serves food and drinks. In terms of short stay accommodation for any contractors working on the site, there is also a Premier Inn to the north of the site on the opposite side of the road, which is approximately 0.3 miles away. It is a 7 minute away and 3- minute cycle ride away. There is also another public house known as Bakers Arms next to the Premier Inn which serves food and drinks.

6.52 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF clearly states that Councils may give weight to relevant emerging plan policies according to stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections and consistency with the framework. Therefore, the relevant policies of the adopted Local Plan that the inspector referenced in the recent appeal decision are pertinent and significantly hold more weight than the emerging policies. These policies should be considered alongside paragraph 121 of the NPPF (2018), as mentioned previously.

6.53 As detailed in the recent appeal decision, the loss of employment is a neutral impact of the proposed development. In addition, the Planning Inspector places weight on the jobs created by construction, and spending from new residents in the local area. The impact of the proposed development in economic terms is considered to be a positive impact.

Social:

6.54 With regards to the social dimension, the proposal would deliver 40 new homes to the area, of which 40% would be affordable housing. The affordable housing would make a significant contribution towards local housing need in an area where affordability of housing, need for supply of housing and housing mix are fundamental issues. The importance of affordable housing is further emphasised by the Council persistent under delivery of housing during the plan period.

6.55 According to the Council’s own Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Affordable Housing Update (July 2017), which covers West Essex and East Hertfordshire states there is a chronic shortage of those in need for affordable housing. It concluded that 4,851 households are in affordable housing need and unable to afford their own housing. Of these households, 1,959 occupy affordable housing that does not meet current needs primarily due to overcrowding. The assessment states that providing suitable housing for these households will enable them to vacate their existing affordable housing and be allocated to another household with affordable housing needs.

6.56 The bottle-neck has been created by the under delivery of affordable housing units within the District. The assessment also recognises that there are 2,892 households who are currently in need for affordable housing but do not occupy affordable housing, and states therefore there is a need to increase housing.

6.57 In terms of future needs, the assessment states that the total household growth that require affordable housing is projected to be 2,019 households every year over a 5- year projection.

6.58 In terms of local need, the assessment identifies Epping Forest as one of the highest areas of affordable housing need compared to the overall average. To put the supply and future need for affordable housing into context, Epping Forest supplied 228 affordable housing units between 2011 and 2016. In 2013 to 2014 nine (9) units were delivered.

6.59 Aside from the affordable housing need and supply issue, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply (5YHLS). The failure to deliver housing has a significant impact on the amount of affordable housing that comes forward. A detailed assessment of the lack of 5-year housing land supply, was provided in the appeal statement submitted as part of the recent appeal. As detailed by the Planning Inspector in the appeal decision, the new housing including affordable housing is a significant benefit of the proposed development.

6.60 Aside from the housing benefits, the proposal would also provide a large area to open space to the north for the benefit of existing and future residents to enjoy. The area of open space would also act as a buffer between the built and natural environments. This would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and serve all five purposes of the Green Belt in paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The proposal would prevent urban sprawl; reduce the possibility of towns merging; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting of the town; and assist in the urban regeneration through the recycling of other urban land.

6.61 The Unilateral Undertaking will also secure provision for a financial contribution towards primary school places. Overall in Social terms, the proposed development is considered to have a substantial positive benefit.

Environment:

6.62 In terms of the environmental objectives, the NPPF talks about protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, minimising waste and pollution and adopting to climate change by moving to low carbon economy.

6.63 The key change to this application, from that of the recent application subject of the appeal is that the proposed development will secure a contribution of £352 per dwelling to off-set any impact in terms of increased visitor impact and pollution upon Epping Forest. The environmental impact upon Epping Forest is therefore considered to be neutral.

6.64 The benefits of the redevelopment of the site would make a significant contribution to the onsite and local environment, including SuDs features and biodiversity enhancements.

6.65 The existing commercial (former haulage yard) has been developed in an ad-hoc manner over the years. The uses are arranged in a series of unattractive/non-descript tin roof Nissan hut type structures and corrugated roof sheds with large areas of associated open storage and hardstanding. The entire site with the exception of gardens and small patches of greenery on the boundaries, is entirely made up of hardstanding. There is very little vegetation within the site. This is at odds with the greenery to the north and the suburban housing cul-de-sac to the south at Butler Drive.

6.66 The proposal would result in a 32% reduction in the area covered by the build form including hardstanding and open storage areas and 2% reduction in the building volume. The reduction in built form and volume would not only create opportunities for biodiversity and landscape enhancement but it would also make efficient use of land delivering a high quality housing scheme. Adopted Local Plan Policy CP7 (urban form and quality) states that one of the Council’s primary objectives is to make the fullest use of existing urban areas for new development before locations within the

Green Belt. Policy H2A also requires the reuse of previously developed land to deliver at least 70% of all new housing sites. Therefore, in this context, the proposed reduction in built form and use of previously development land is a significant material benefit of the proposal in terms of its impact on the site and surrounding area.

6.67 With regards to drainage, a sustainable urban drainage strategy will be developed for the site alongside the environmental consultant to ensure an enhanced environment for local wildlife. The SuDs features would include a pond and permeable paving to control, improve water quality and reduce floor risk. Other SuDs options have been considered and discounted but any additional measures could be discussed and agreed at the design stage. These measures would transform the manner in which surface water from the site currently drains and so the benefits from the SuDs features would make a significant contribution towards mitigating any flooding on the site and surrounding land.

6.68 In terms of sustainable transport, the proposal contains four links into the existing pedestrian and cycle path that runs along the southern boundary of the site. The path links Sewardstone Road to Blanchard Grove and Island Centre Way. Island Centre Way contains a Tesco express supermarket, gym, doctor surgery and library which can be accessed via the path. The travel distance from the site is approximately 1 km and would take approximately 12 minutes to walk and 4 minutes to cycle. The path also connects into footpaths that lead into Enfield Village where there is a railway station which is approximately 2km away. It would take less than 30 minutes to walk to the station and approximately 9 minutes to cycle. It is important to note that the proposal would enhance connectivity from the site into existing pedestrian and cycle routes.

6.69 The Planning Inspector raised concerns with the desirability of the unlit route during dark and adverse weather. This does not take away from the fact that it is still a route that would provide access to shops and facilities within a short cycling and walking distance. The applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £50,000 towards the Lee Valley Regional Park for the management, maintenance and improvements to the park which could include the provision of lighting along the path which would benefit not only local residents but also local people making it a more attractive route and encourage sustainable modes of travel. Overall the environmental impact of the proposed development is considered to be neutral.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 The recent appeal decision provided a review of the main issues to address as part of any revised application, having regard to whether the benefit of the proposed development would outweigh any harm.

7.2 The Inspector dismissed two of the six main refusal reasons relating to loss of employment land and harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, the inspector also concluded that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and that it would improve the setting of Sewardstone Hall. The key difference from this application and the appeal decision, is that it is accompanied by an executed Unilateral Undertaking, that will mitigate the impact of the proposed development upon the Epping Forest SAC, and provide financial contributions towards education provision, Lea Valley Park and towards bus stop improvements. In addition, the executed Unilateral Undertaking will secure 40% on site Affordable Housing. This Executed Unilateral Undertaking, addresses reasons for refusal 4, 5 and 6 on the previous planning application decision and the first of the main issues as identified by the Planning Inspectorate.

7.3 The remaining issue, therefore relates to whether the proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development, outside of the urban area. In this regard, the provision of bus stop improvements will assist with increasing access to and from the site by public transport. In addition, as explained in section 6 it is important for the sustainability of the development to be considered in context with the three dimensions of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. The significant economic and social benefits of the scheme, with the creation of significant jobs during construction, spending in the local economy and the delivery of much needed affordable housing all weigh heavily in favour of the scheme. In environmental terms, the mitigation of Epping Forest SAC has been secured.

7.4 It is therefore concluded that the proposals would constitute sustainable development when assessed against the three dimensions of the sustainable development in paragraph 8 of the NPPF. In assessing the three dimensions of sustainable development, we have also demonstrated that the proposed development would deliver significant benefits which would outweigh any harmful impact, with the executed Unilateral Undertaking being key to mitigating the impact of the development and tipping the balance in favour of the proposed development.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 October 2019

by L Perkins BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31st October 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/W/19/3224279 Former Haulage Yard, Hawes Lane, Waltham Abbey E4 7RN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Hugh Morgan of E W Davies Farms Ltd against the decision of Epping Forest District Council. • The application Ref EPF/2088/18, dated 27 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 February 2019. • The development proposed is: Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 40 dwellings.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The applicant name given on the application form differs from the appellant name given on the appeal form. It has been confirmed that the appellant is Mr Hugh Morgan who is a partner of E W Davies Farms Ltd and so I have reflected this in the heading above.

3. The proposal has been made in outline and approval is sought only for access. Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for future consideration.

4. Since the application was submitted to the Council the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been revised. I have taken any comments made on relevant implications for the appeal into account in my reasoning.

5. My attention has been drawn to the Submission Version 2017 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (the Submission Version Local Plan). This plan is not adopted and examination of it is not yet complete. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to the policies within it that I have been referred to has not been explained. It is possible its policies could be amended or deleted as a result of examination or that the plan is withdrawn or found unsound. As such, I give the policies within it limited weight in this decision.

Main Issues

6. The appeal site is within the Green Belt. The Council has taken the view that the land where the new dwellings are proposed is previously developed and that, subject to the reserve matters (over which the Council would have control), the proposed development would not have a materially greater impact

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/19/3224279

on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. Consequently, the Council considers that the appeal scheme is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Considering all of the information before me and in light of paragraph 145 (g) of the Framework, I am satisfied this is a reasonable assessment that I have no reason to disagree with.

7. Therefore, the main issues are:

- whether an appropriate mechanism exists to mitigate (i) the effect of the proposal on local primary school places and (ii) the Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation (SAC) and (iii) to ensure the proposal would make adequate provision for affordable housing,

- whether the proposal is in a suitable location having regard to its accessibility to services and facilities,

- the effect of the proposal on the supply of land for employment, and

- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the locally listed building of Sewardstone Hall.

Reasons

Mechanism for Mitigation and Affordable Housing

8. It is common ground between the main parties that a planning obligation is needed as the mechanism to secure mitigation for the effect of the proposal on (i) local primary school places and (ii) recreational pressure on the Epping Forest SAC and (iii) to ensure adequate provision would be made for affordable housing. I see no reason in this case to disagree with this view and in my judgement a planning obligation to secure these items is necessary and would be compliant with the tests set out in paragraph 56 of the Framework.

9. In respect of the SAC, the Council has confirmed that the proposal would not cause substantial harm as a result of air quality impacts but that residents may seek to use the SAC for recreation given the site is in close proximity to it. A mitigation strategy developed by the Council with Natural England and the Conservators of Epping Forest seeks a financial contribution of £352 per new dwelling to fund mitigation measures.

10. Despite the appellant’s willingness in this regard, a draft planning obligation has been provided which is not complete. In particular, it is not signed or dated. As such it cannot be taken into account. Accordingly, on this main issue I conclude no appropriate mechanism exists to secure the above necessary mitigation as well as adequate provision for affordable housing. Accordingly, in respect of the SAC I cannot conclude the proposal would not be likely to have significant effects on the SAC either alone or in combination with other projects and the proposal would be likely to adversely affect the integrity of the SAC as a protected site.

11. In the absence of a completed planning obligation the proposal would not comply with the infrastructure, biodiversity or affordable housing policies of the Framework or Policy NC1 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 1998 (the Local Plan). This resists development which could harm Special Areas of Conservation. My attention has been drawn to policies of the Submission Version Local Plan in respect of this main issue. As stated above I give them

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/19/3224279

only limited weight. Nevertheless this does not change my conclusion on this main issue.

Services and Facilities

12. The area around the appeal site has limited day to day services and facilities. The evidence indicates the closest bus stops are served only on Saturdays. An existing pedestrian and cycle route links the appeal site to services and facilities at Island Centre Way, approximately 1km away. These include a small supermarket, gym, doctor surgery and library. Further afield in the same direction is a railway station, approximately 2km away from the appeal site.

13. Access to the above services and facilities requires walking or cycling an unlit path lined with heavy vegetation in a secluded area. In my judgement, this is not an attractive route for unaccompanied children or other vulnerable people, particularly during the hours of darkness or in bad weather. Furthermore, the distance involved is likely to deter many people from walking and cycling.

14. I appreciate an increase demand for services and facilities as a result of new housing development could lead to an increase in provision, but there is no certainty of this. Consequently, the appeal proposal is likely to be reliant on private cars.

15. Compared with the existing development on the site, the evidence indicates the proposal would result in 15 fewer trips across a 12 hour period but a slight increase during the morning and evening peak hours. The appellant regards this effect on the highway network as neutral and not severe in terms of paragraph 109 of the Framework. They also note the existing commercial use has the capability of being extended, indicating existing trips may exceed those expected for the proposal.

16. However, the Framework states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth to support walking, cycling and public transport. In my judgement, the location of the proposal would not achieve this and would not reduce reliance on private cars or the need to travel, which are key components of the policies identified by the Council in respect of this main issue.

17. Other schemes have been referred to by the appellant in support of the proposal. However, based on the information provided I cannot be certain the circumstances of these schemes are directly comparable to those of the proposal before me and so I give them limited weight. I conclude on this main issue that the proposal is not in a suitable location having regard to its accessibility to services and facilities.

18. Accordingly, it would not comply with Policies CP1, CP3, CP6 and CP9 of the Local Plan Alterations 2006 (the Local Plan Alterations). Together seek to reduce reliance on the use of the private car, reduce the need to travel, ensure access by sustainable means of transport and generally promote sustainable patterns of development.

19. My attention has been drawn to policies of the Submission Version Local Plan in respect of this main issue. As stated above I give them only limited weight but this does not change my conclusion on this main issue.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/19/3224279

Employment Land

20. In respect of this main issue the Council’s decision notice refers to Policies E 1 and SP 2 of the Submission Version Local Plan. The Council considers substantial weight should be afforded to emerging Policy E 1 in particular but it has not been explained why. Given the aforementioned uncertainty around policies of this emerging plan, I give them limited weight.

21. The Council’s decision notice does not direct me to any adopted development plan policies to support its position on employment land and as such I find no conflict with the development plan in this regard. Paragraph 121 of the Framework states that a positive approach should be taken to proposals for alternative uses of land which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose in plans, where this would help to meet identified development needs.

22. In particular, the Framework states that proposals to use employment land for homes in areas of high housing demand should be supported, provided this would not undermine key economic sectors or sites. I appreciate the Council’s concern about the loss of employment space. But in light of limited evidence regarding adopted development plan support for the Council’s position or detailed evidence explaining how the loss in this particular case would be harmful, I give more weight to the Framework as a material consideration. Based on the information provided, I therefore conclude that the effect of the proposal on the supply of land for employment would not be harmful in this case.

Character and Appearance

23. The area has a mixed character. To the west and north is open grassland, trees and hedges with some sporadic development along Hawes Lane. To the east and south is a mix of residential and commercial development along Sewardstone Road and Mott Street. Side roads branch off of Sewardstone Road including Butlers Drive which is immediately to the south of the appeal site but separated from it by a public footpath. Butlers Drive consists mainly of suburban semi-detached 2 storey dwellings set back from the road with long back gardens.

24. The northern part of the appeal site is open grassland which is free of buildings and surrounded by trees and hedges. The southern part of the appeal site is currently occupied by a mixture of industrial buildings (some of which are large), open storage, hardstanding, car parking areas and 2 dwellings including Sewardstone Hall which is locally listed.

25. The appeal proposal would broadly replace the existing industrial buildings and uses on the southern part of the site with dwellings, leaving the northern part of the site undeveloped. Given the existing industrial character and appearance of the southern part of the site and the intension to contain the proposed dwellings within the previously developed part of the site, I am satisfied the proposal would not result in a significantly urbanising effect.

26. Moreover, based on the information provided, in my judgement the proposal would reflect the character and appearance of Butlers Drive and so would not appear incongruous in its context, particularly when viewed from the public footpath along the southern side of the site. Nor would it be particularly

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/19/3224279

prominent given the land is flat, surrounded by vegetation and the proposed dwellings would be set significantly back from Sewardstone Road. The evidence indicates the height and volume of buildings proposed would not exceed the existing and so I do not consider the quantum of development proposed to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area either.

27. The existing dwelling at Sewardstone Hall is currently sited close to industrial development on the site which compromises its setting. In my judgement, other residential development within its setting instead of the current industrial context would result in an improvement to its setting, particularly with the hall left to retain a prominent position near the entrance of the site as is proposed. I therefore conclude the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area or the setting of the locally listed building of Sewardstone Hall.

28. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies CP1, CP2, DBE1, HC13A, LL1 and LL2 of the Local Plan Alterations. Together these seek that development conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the area including locally listed buildings. My attention has been drawn to policies of the Submission Version Local Plan in respect of this main issue. But as stated above I give them only limited weight.

Planning Balance

29. The evidence indicates the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and so the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date. If I were to accept the housing land supply shortfall suggested by the appellant 40 new homes would make a significant contribution. This number of homes (including affordable homes) is a significant benefit which carry significant weight in my decision.

30. There would also be benefits arising through construction, new customers for the nearest services and facilities, junction improvements at the entrance to the site and a general improvement in the site’s appearance. However, even with paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework engaged and the weight I give to the conflict with development plan policies identified above reduced, in my judgement the benefits would not outweigh the harm.

31. Moreover, paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework sets out that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide clear reasons for refusing the development. In this case, such policies include those relating to SACs and so there is a clear reason to refuse the development in this case.

Conclusion

32. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. L Perkins

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appendix C

______LAND AT FORMER HAULAGE YARD, SEWARDSTONE ROAD, WALTHAM ABBEY Planning Appeal Statement – Written Representation Prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of E. W. Davies Farms Ltd. March 2019

Former Haulage Yard, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Site Name: Abbey

Client Name: E. W. Davies Farms Ltd.

Type of Report: Written Representation Appeal Statement

Prepared by: David Fletcher

Checked by: Paul Sutton

Date: March 2019

Strutt & Parker, 66 – 68 Hills Road, Cambridge, Cambs. CB2 1LA [email protected] Tel No: 01223 789391

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 4 2.0 Site Description ...... 6 3.0 Site History – Previous and Relevant Planning Applications ...... 8 4.0 Description of The Proposals ...... 10 5.0 Relevant Local Plan Policies ...... 11 6.0 Grounds for Appeal ...... 13 Reasons for Refusal ...... 13 Development Plan ...... 13 Sustainability ...... 16 Loss of Employment ...... 19 Impact on the Rural Character and Setting of the Locally Listed Building 21 Section 106 ...... 22 Planning Balance ...... 22 7.0 Conclusions...... 28

Appendix A: Epping Forest District Council Decision Notice ref: EPF/2088/18; Appendix B: List of Existing Tenants and number of worker Jan 2019; Appendix C: Inspector’s decision letter for previous 2015 appeal (ref: APP/J1535/W/15/3033482) Appendix D: Strategic Housing Market Assessment – Affordable Housing Update 2017; Appendix E: Housing Implementation Strategy – Update 2019 Appendix F: Employment Land Supply Assessment – 2017; Appendix G: Employment Review December 2017

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This appeal statement is written by David Fletcher MRTPI of Strutt & Parker, on behalf of E. W. Davies Farms Ltd. This written representation appeal relates to the decision, under delegated powers, by Epping Forest District Council to refuse application reference EPF/2088/18 for ‘Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 40 dwellings’ on the 1st February 2019, following the submission of the application on the 27th July 2018.

1.2 The decision notice provides the following grounds for refusal:

1.3 The appeal is made on the grounds that the proposals are considered to be in compliance with policies of the Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006). In addition, the proposals are also considered to be in accordance with policies as set out within the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version (2017), although for reasons set out later in this Appeal Statement, this can only be given limited weight in planning terms.

1.4 The grounds for appeal are set out in full at Section 6.0 of this statement. It addresses each refusal reasons and sets out the Appellant’s rebuttal to each point raised in turn.

1.5 Having regard to these factors it is considered that planning permission should be granted, as the site would meet an extant housing need, particularly in terms of affordable housing on a previously developed site in a sustainable location. There are no justified adverse impacts and the scheme would provide a number of significant benefits which would provide enhancement to the site and wider location.

1.6 The following benefits would arise as a result of the housing development. The application proposals will provide a deliverable site that can make a significant contribution towards meeting local housing need, in a District that has an acute housing shortage. Additional housing will provide economic benefits by supporting existing services and facilities, providing additional Council Tax and New Homes Bonus. It will not be harmful to the environment in terms of its location, visual impact or increased need to travel by car over and above that which already exists for the haulage and other commercial uses on the site.

1.7 It is not considered that Epping Forest District Council made a balanced planning assessment of the planning application, as they have not demonstrated significant harm which would demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposals. Against this background, it is considered that the proposals do constitute sustainable development, having regard to paragraph 11 of the NPPF, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and as such this Appeal should be allowed.

2.0 Site Description

2.1 As detailed within the Planning Statement, the entire red line site area extends to approximately 3.67 ha. The former haulage yard (excluding greenfield to the north) extends to 1.72 ha and comprises a large expanse of hardstanding, large corrugated sheet metal sheds, numerous small buildings including stables and two houses (including Sewardstone Hall). These buildings are let on short-term licenses and are coming to the end of their useful lives. The site consists of uses such as a motor repair/MOT works, car body-work shop, a fireplace and flooring stocklist, as well as outdoor storage. The site is dilapidated and has a negative visual impact on the surroundings due to abandoned vehicles, caravans, tyres and building materials, which are currently stored on site. A substantial part of the site, therefore, comprises previously developed, brownfield land that was previously used as a haulage yard. It is important to note that most of the existing occupiers are planning on either retiring their businesses or relocating to other more appropriate/suitable sites elsewhere.

2.4 The site is designated within the Combined Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) Policy Document as being within part of the Green Belt.

2.5 The larger residential dwelling of Sewardstone Hall is a ‘locally listed building’ in the emerging Local Plan (but not recognised as such in the adopted Local Plan). It is however described in the ‘List of Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest - Waltham Abbey Parish’ as being a ‘Large 19th century double piled farmhouse. Rendered, 2 storey with parapet and canted bay windows at ground floor. However, its setting has been compromised by later industrial buildings to rear. Furthermore, the Hall is run down and requires extensive refurbishment to restore it to its aesthetical and historical value.

2.6 At the site’s frontage are protected trees (TPO) under reference TPO/EPF/18/14. A group on the southern side of the access road off Sewardstone Road lies within the

grounds of Sewardstone Hall. The TPO also includes six Poplars in the field north of the access road.

2.8 Areas in close proximity of the site are designated nature reserves or SSSI’s, the site itself does not fall under either of these categories.

2.9 The site is located off Sewardstone Road, from which is it is accessed.

Figure 1: Aerial view of the site with surrounding development

2.10 Further detail on the site and its surroundings is included within the Design & Access Statement, prepared by MSMR and the Planning Statement, prepared by Strutt & Parker.

3.0 Site History – Previous and Relevant Planning Applications

3.1 As detailed within the Planning Statement submitted as part of the planning application and within the officers delegated report, the application site has a detailed planning history.

3.2 The most recent of which, was an application and subsequent appeal for the following:

Outline application with all matters except access reserved for demolition of all existing structures except the farmhouse and erection of up to 72 dwellings (50% affordable) with ancillary parking, access and gardens, along with the erection of a community building under application reference EPF/1556/14.

3.3 This application was refused, and the subsequent appeal dismissed on the grounds, summarised below:

1. Inappropriate development in the Green Belt and effect on its openness.  The Inspector concluded that the development would be inappropriate given the greater footprint, heights and massing.

2. Effect on character and appearance of the area.  The Inspector distinguished between openness of the Green Belt and visual impact. He remained of the view that the development would result in loss of openness.  The site forms a transition from the Lee Valley Regional Park’s landscape (woodland backdrop) to that of the settlement (soft green urban edge lined streets, hedgerow and woodland).  The existing buildings are agricultural in appearance, well-related to each other and low in height, screened by existing landscaping. They do not detract from the rural character of the area.  The overall proportions of the site covered and increased heights of buildings was deemed harmful.  The site is prominent from the surrounding roads and footpaths which existing screening does not fully screen.  Breaking up the buildings’ massing did not address the overall visual harm.

3. Location on relation to access to services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport.  The Inspector did not consider the site to be a sustainable location due to the distance and rural, largely secluded nature of the path to Enfield Village Island; and lack of frequent bus services, resulting in convoluted trips.  A scheme for 16 dwellings elsewhere locally had been approved on grounds that other matters outweighed the harm.

3.4 The Inspector’s decision letter is contained in Appendix E.

3.5 Aside from the refusal reasons above, the following significant matters were also analysed within the previous appeal, but were not reasons for dismissal of the appeal:

1. Effect on local employment provision

 The site has 10 businesses and around 40-50 employees.  Occupiers have not been hard to find, despite the age and suitability of the buildings for commercial uses.  He gave limited weight to this issue, as the Council did not provide contradictory evidence; and Policy E4A of the Local Plan allows for redevelopment of unsuitable employment sites.

2. If harm is clearly outweighed by very special circumstances.  Lack of a five-year housing land supply and provision of affordable housing weighed heavily in favour of the development.  Sustainable development criteria did not outweigh Green Belt considerations.  The proposed community building and open space did not mitigate need arising from the development and so were not considered.  Highway improvements given significant weight.  Very special circumstances did not exist to outweigh the harm that would be caused.

3.6 Prior to the submission of this application, Lawful Development Certificates had previously been established for the following:

Application for established use certificate for parking and storage in connection with haulage contractors’ business.

Lawful 08/04/88, under application reference EU/EPF/0001/88

CLD/EPF/0679/04

HAULAGE YARD, SEWARDSTONE HALL, SEWARDSTONE ROAD, WALTHAM ABBEY

Certificate of lawfulness for continued use of site as haulage yard with B1, B2 and B8 uses and as stables.

Not lawful 26/05/04.

EPF/1826/04

Change of use of site to a mixed use for B1(c), B2 and B8 use and storage and parking in connection with haulage contractors business (retrospective application).

Approved/conditions 08/06/05.

4.0 Description of The Proposals

4.1 The description of the proposal on the decision notice was for the following:

“Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 40 dwellings.”

4.2 Further information on the proposal, constraints and pre-application discussions is contained in Section 3 of the Planning Statement.

4.3 Important to note is that the proposals are located solely on land that has been established as brownfield land within the Green Belt and that the proposals would result in a reduction in floor space when compared to the existing buildings on the site. In addition, as acknowledged within the officer’s report, the proposals will also provide the opportunity to remove some of the existing areas of hard standing and provide significant opportunities for additional landscape planting.

4.4 As detailed within the Design & Access Statement, following the receipt of the positive pre-application advice from Epping Forest District Council (refer to Appendix A of the Planning Statement), the scheme was revised with the removal of development to the east of the site in order to protect the setting of both the Green Belt and Sewardstone Hall.

4.5 A full description of the development proposals is set out within the Planning Statement and the officers delegated report.

5.0 Relevant Local Plan Policies

5.1 As set out within Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Act (2008) states that if regard is to be had to the Development Plan, for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, determination must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in July 2018 and represents the most up-to-date central government planning policy guidance document for determining planning applications at a national level.

5.4 The current Combined Policies Local Plan provides the policies framework to assess all planning application.

5.6 The Council is currently engaged in reviewing the adopted Local Plan. The Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version 2017. The submission version will replace the previous local plan and cover a period of 16 years to meet the economic and housing growth in the District. However, for reasons explained within section 6 the emerging Local Plan is of limited weight.

5.7 The main policies for consideration are those that have been set out in the Council’s Decision Notice which are:

5.8 In addition, the Decision Notice references the following emerging Local Plan Policies, albeit they do not form part of the adopted Development Plan and can only be given limited weight, they are as follows:

- SP 2 - Spatial Development Strategy 2011-2033 - E1 - Employment sites

- DM2 - Epping Forest SAC and the Lee Valley SPA - DM3 - Landscape Character, Ancient Landscapes and Geodiversity DM 7 - DM9 - High quality design - DM22 - Air Quality - D1 - Delivery of Infrastructure - H1 - Housing mix and accommodation types - H2 - Affordable housing

5.9 In addition, there are a number of paragraphs within the NPPF, which are of relevance to the proposals, as set out within section 6.

6.0 Grounds for Appeal

6.1 This section sets out the applicants reasoning for the grounds for appeal and provides justification for why the proposed development should be granted under the following broad headings:

 Development Plan

 Sustainability

 Loss of Employment

 Impact on the Rural Character and Setting of the Locally Listed Building

 Section106 Matters

 Economic Social and Environmental Considerations

Reasons for Refusal

6.2 The application has been refused by Epping Forest District Council on the following grounds:

- Unsustainable form of development outside the existing urban area;

- Loss of an undesignated employment space;

- Introduction of a substantial, prominent and incongruous suburban form of development which would be out of keeping with the rural character;

- Absence of a completed S106 agreement to mitigate against the impact on local primary schools, Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation, and failure to secure affordable housing provision;

6.3 The full reasons are contained in the decision notice which is included in Appendix A. I set out below my response to each grounds for refusal below in turn:

Development Plan

6.4 The starting point for this appeal is consideration of whether the proposals are consistent with the Development Plan when considered as a whole. In the event that the proposals are not considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan when considered as a whole, it will be necessary to consider the material considerations and whether they indicate that the proposals should be approved otherwise.

6.5 In this regard, as set out within, section 5, the emerging Local Plan is in the process of being prepared by Epping Forest District Council. At the time of writing the emerging Local Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State for approval, with

the Examination in Public due to commence from February – June 2019. The emerging Local Plan in its current form is subject to a number of unresolved objections, particularly in relation to the housing and employment policies. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF the weight that can be given to the emerging Local Plan policies listed on the Decision Notice is very limited. This is assessed further when considering each reason for refusal within this section. The adopted Epping Local Plan, remains the statutory basis for the determination of these appeal proposals.

6.6 When considering if the proposals accord with the Development Plan, it is important to recognise that the Council does not consider the appeal proposals to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The Council accepts that through the reduction in volume of development and being on a smaller footprint from the existing former haulage yard, that the proposed development would be of benefit to the Green Belt. The officer also finds that the quantum of development would not be substantially different from the existing use in terms of vehicle movements. The officer concludes that the proposed development, albeit in outline form, would comply with the exception in part (g) of paragraph 145 of the NPPF. Therefore, the appellant and Council agree that there are no Green Belt issues with the proposed development.

6.7 In terms of the weight that can be given to the housing policies within the adopted Development Plan, the policies are not up to date as they rely upon out of date housing requirement figures. The adopted Local Plan does not provide an assessment of the current objectively assessed housing needs for the area.

6.8 In addition, only limited weight can be given to the emerging Local Plan due to significant number of unresolved objections that have been received to the main housing policies. The main objections relate to the low levels of housing requirement figures proposed by the Council and an over reliance on larger allocations to meet the housing requirements over the plan period. Insufficient provision has been made for the contribution that small windfall sites could make.

6.9 Therefore, in accordance paragraph 11 of the NPPF, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are the most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless:

(i) The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas of assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed;

(ii) Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

6.10 In this case, as outlined in paragraph 6.4 above, it has been acknowledged by the Council that the proposed development is not inappropriate development within the Green Belt and it is acknowledged by the Council that this does not provide a clear reason for refusing the application. It is also important to consider that the Council did

not provide a reason for refusal relating to the setting of the locally listed building in the previous application. The Inspector for the previous appeal (Appendix E) also did not raise any concerns in this regard. Therefore, it is surprising that this has been raised as a reason for refusal on this amended scheme. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the Illustrative Masterplan, reference 17061_112 is purely indicative at this stage. The applicants would be happy to review the proximity of the new proposed dwellings to the locally listed building at reserved matters stage, to ensure protection of the heritage asset.

6.11 In addition, The Epping Forest District Council Housing Implementation Strategy – Update 2019 contains the latest position on the Council’s 5-year housing land supply. It states the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply (4.2 years) and has an over-reliance on allocated sites to meet housing need. However, in paragraph 3.23 of the Strategy, it states that the total amount of projected housing supply over the next 5 years has been reduced from 3,486 to 2,776 to reflect the reduction in the amount of available committed sites which are deliverable. Surprisingly, the Council is expecting to be able to supply 1,204 new homes in 2022- 2033. The housing target for the year before (2021-2022) is 479 dwellings. Therefore, the delivery of 1,204 dwellings in 2022-23 would represent a 250% increase. Between 2011 and 2018, the Council has an extant shortfall of 1,770 dwellings which equates to approx. 253 dwellings per year.

6.12 Therefore, no demonstrable evidence has been provided to say with certainty that the Council will be able to achieve the ambitious annual housing target in the emerging Local Plan. Given the Council historic and persistent under-delivery, it should use a more realistic target of 518 per annum, which is the annual housing requirement figure over the plan period. This would reduce the total project amount of housing over the next 5 years to 2,092, and give the Council a more realistic 5-year housing land supply figure of 3.1 year. I set out below a table to show this clearly:

Housing target Completed Project Housing 5 year (2011 to 2033) homes housing supply housing between supply requirement land supply 2011-2018 (5 year) (5 year) 11,400 new 1,856 (shortfall 3,340 2,092 2,092/3,340 homes (518 per of 1,770) x 5 = 3.1 annum) (Source: Figures have been taken from Table 1 and Appendix 1 of the Housing Implementation Strategy – Update 2019)

6.13 Furthermore, in light of the recent Housing Delivery Test, it demonstrates that Epping Forest District Council only delivered 49% of new homes against the total number of homes required between 2015 and 2018. The following table demonstrates the housing requirement and housing delivery figures for the last three years.

Number of homes required 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total number required 654 661 667 1,982 Number of homes delivered

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total number delivered 267 149 564 980 (Housing Delivery Test: 2018 Measurement).

6.14 In this context, therefore, as the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and the most important policies for determining applications are out of date the titled balance of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is engaged. Therefore, this application should be considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless any adverse impacts would significant and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the framework taken as a whole.

Sustainability

6.15 In the season reason for refusal, the Council is concerned that the site is located in an unsustainable location to deliver the quantum of housing due to the accessibility to essential services and public transport links. The Council argues that this would increase the number of vehicle movements to and from the site. The severity of the Council’s concern in this regard is disputed and we do not consider these concerns to be significant enough to have warranted refusal of the application.

6.16 The quantum of development has been significantly reduced from that in the previously refused scheme which was for 72 units and included development on the greenfield to the north. The layout of the appeal scheme as shown on the submitted parameter plan reference 17061_10, prepared by MSMR does not include any development within the greenfield land to the north. Whilst the greenfield is included within the red line boundary, it is proposed to be used as open space thus maintaining its openness as a Green Belt. Therefore, focusing the development of up to 40 dwellings on previously developed land would represent a sustainable form of development.

6.17 Furthermore, in the pre-application response letter from the Council (dated 16 May 2018), the case officer with regards to sustainability, recognises that the reduction in number of proposed dwellings (from 72 to 40) would “reduce the harm from the scheme” and produce similar vehicle movements to the existing commercial use.

6.18 In terms of vehicle movements, the submitted Transport Statement by i-Transport dated 25 July 2018 has surveyed the existing vehicle flows from the commercial use and compared them to the proposed flows using trip rates from TRICS. It states that the proposed development will result in 15 fewer trips across a 12-hour period (334 two way movements for existing and 319 for proposed) but a slight increase during the morning (+2) and evening (+7) peak hours. The overall impact between the existing and proposed is regarded as to be neutral. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe. The overall impact on the highway from vehicles movements would not be regarded as being severe. It should also be noted that the

existing commercial has the capability of being expanded with additional uses which would bring an increase in vehicle movements. The proposal would provide up to 40 dwellings which would limit the amount of vehicle movements entering and leaving the site. The assessment has also modelled the long term impact on the site access and junction other nearby junctions (Hawes Lane, Mott Street). It concludes that the site access and junctions will continue to operate without causing any significant delays or queues and have spare capacity in future.

6.19 Notwithstanding the above, proposal includes junction improvement works which include pedestrian crossing points, and ghost island for right hand turning into the site on Sewardstone Road. These works would improve vehicle visibility splays at the junction and provide safe crossing for pedestrian and cyclists. The highway improvement plan is contained in the i-Transport report titled “Potential Site Access Arrangements – Ghost Island Junction” drawing no. ITB6205-GA-002 rev D. This is considered to be a planning benefit of the scheme, which will improve the existing access arrangements into the site.

6.20 In terms of sustainable transport, the appeal proposal contains four links into the existing pedestrian and cycle path that runs along the southern boundary of the site. The path links Sewardstone Road to Blanchard Grove and Island Centre Way. Island Centre Way contains a Tesco express supermarket, gym, doctor surgery and library which can be accessed via the path. The travel distance from the site is approximately 1km and would take approximately 12 minutes to walk and 4 minutes to cycle. The path also connects into footpaths that lead into Enfield Village where there is a railway station which is approximately 2km way. It would take less than 30 minutes to walk to the station and approximately 9 minutes to cycle.

6.21 It is generally accepted that walking offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips particularly those under 2km. As referred to on page 25 of the Transport Statement, Table 5.2 sets out the distances to the various destinations by walking and cycling. This demonstrates that the most of the essential services are within 2km walk and cycle distance of the site. The four connections into the pedestrian/cycle path would also promote exercise and access to local shops and services via non- motorised journeys.

6.22 In terms of public transport, there is a bus stop to the south of the site junction which is served by the 505 provides 6 services a day Monday to Saturday (1st service is at 7:21am and the last service is at 18:30pm). This service provides a public transport link to Harlow to the north and Chingford to the south. This service provides access to and from the site to larger conurbations which offer more amenities.

6.23 With the increase in local residents and potential users of the bus service, it could be argued that more, improved services should be created to encourage more sustainable transport movements. The justification for such potential change would not be otherwise possible without the delivery of additional housing. Other long term economic benefits would come from future occupiers also spending money on the local services such as the public houses and farm shops / restaurant that are nearby. The local shops and services that serve settlements such as Sewardstone rely on

local residents, and rely on the sustainable growth of the settlement to provide economic stability.

6.24 In terms of the railway station, as mentioned above, this is located 2km away walk and cycle distance away and therefore it is accessible from the appeal site.

6.25 In these terms, therefore, it is the appellants view that the site is located within a relatively sustainable distance to local services, shops and public transport links. However, no matter how close services and shops are it is unlikely to overcome the reliance and dependence on private motorised travel. Therefore, unless there are significant improvements in public transport that offers low cost, efficient and comfortable travel to it users, there will always be a place for private vehicles. Whilst in city centre and high street locations, the need for private vehicles is not as significant and measures can be taken to discourage ownership, this is not possible in suburban and rural locations mainly due to lack of funding.

6.26 Therefore, consideration should be given to reducing pollution/carbon emission and improve air quality by encouraging the use of electric charging points in new residential developments or developments that require car parking. This would also help to future proof development in line with technological advances. Whilst Policy T1 (g) of the LPSV requires all new development to make provision for charging point, it lacks details and so undermine the strength and effectiveness of its implementation. The introduction of an effective and robust vehicle charging point policy would align the Council with the government’s direction of travel on motor-vehicles. The government is commitment is to cease manufacturing of petrol and diesel cars by 2040.

6.27 It is also useful to highlight a recently approved development in the village. A comparable scheme for 16 dwellings at Netherhouse in Sewardstone (ref. PF/2370/14) was approved on grounds that other matters outweighed the harm. This appeal was approved on grounds that the site partly re-used existing buildings; would enhance the openness of the Green Belt by removing hard surfacing and frontage car parking; did not increase building heights; retained large open areas; and was rural in design and layout; and that it would improve the setting of a Listed building. The site is further away from the nearest main town, Waltham Abbey, bus stops, and the Enfield Island Train services than the Former Haulage Yard. In light of these considerations, we consider that the Sewardstone Hall Farm site is more sustainable and better suited for residential development and so should be consider more favourably.

6.28 In responding to the issue about the site being in an unsustainable location, the officer in his report agrees with the applicant that the issues about accessibility and sustainable travel should be determined by the competent authority, Essex County Council. They concluded on the original appeal scheme back in 2014, and the recently approved appeal in the village, that there is no reason why either of these proposed developments should be refused on grounds of accessibility or transport sustainability.

6.29 Also, in 2016, planning permission (ref: EPF/0099/16) was granted for 8 dwellings on land north of Marshfield Services Station. Unfortunately, the case officer’s report is not available to view but again, Essex County Highway’s Authority did not raise any objections to the proposal on the grounds of the site being in an unsustainable location.

6.30 Therefore, for the Council to refuse the appeal proposal on the basis that it is in an unsustainable location without an objection from the Essex County Council Highway Authority, demonstrates that refusal reason 2 is unreasonable and inconsistent. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that the site is within a sustainable location.

6.31 The appeal proposal would represent sustainable development where the benefits arising from the new homes would outweigh the harm that would be caused.

Loss of Employment

6.32 The third reason for refusal relates to the loss of employment at the site. This reason for refusal appears to be predicated on two policies within the emerging Local Plan that are not yet adopted. Both policy E1 and E15 are subject to a number of unresolved objections and can only be given very limited weight in planning terms. The key planning policy in the appellant’s case relevant to unallocated employment sites relate to paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The key employment policies in the adopted and submission local plans are considered to be inconsistent with paragraph 121 and have significant unresolved objections to them. Therefore, policies E1 and E15 cannot be given any material weight in the consideration of the appeal proposal.

6.33 To understand the impact from the potential loss of this employment site, it is important to review the Council’s employment land growth strategy. As part of the evidence base for the submission Local Plan, the Council via ARUP has produced an Employment Land Supply Assessment (the assessment) dated December 2017 to inform the allocation of employment sites. An Employment Review (the report) was also conducted alongside the assessment to inform the Council’s understanding of residual employment land requirement.

6.34 The assessment carried out an audit of all existing and potential employment sites (91 identified) within the District to understand their capacity and condition. However, the appeal site does not feature in this assessment even though other nearby sites were considered. Therefore, the site does not feature or form part of the Council employment land growth strategy.

6.35 Nevertheless, the assessment identified a total of 676,408sqm of existing employment floor space within the District across 65 sites. Of which 27 sites have the potential to expand to create an additional 132ha of employment land which would create 552,529sqm of floor space (excluding allocated sites). In this regard, the assessment states that over half of the identified additional employment land could be realised through the expansion of existing employment site and a third sourced

from the development of new sites. The assessment also identifies 23,923sqm of vacant employment floor space and 3.4ha of unused derelict employment land. Therefore, it is clear that there is a significant under-utilisation of existing and derelict employment land that could be exploited to help contribute towards future growth.

6.36 In terms of new sites, the assessment identifies the opportunity for ten new employment sites which could yield and additional 311,660sqm of employment space (existing total 676,408sqm). These new sites would make a significant contribution towards the future supply of employment floor space.

6.37 The report acknowledges that eight employment sites were identified as at risk from being lost. This is primarily due to prior approvals and planning permission being granted by the Council. However, the total loss of would equate to 23,000sqm floor space.

6.38 In total, there is a requirement for 65 hectares of employment land over the plan period of 2016-2033. In view of the above, the potential total employment floor space from expanding and better utilising existing employment sites (552,529sqm) and the introduction of ten new sites (311,660sqm) would provide over 86 hectares of employment floor space. This would satisfy the future requirement for employment floor space for the district. Therefore the loss of the appeal site, which is poor condition would not have a material impact on the Council’s future employment growth strategy.

6.39 A total of 33 staff are employed at the site and all employees currently travel to the site by car. All tenants have been fully informed of the planning application and have no objection to the proposals. The business Re- Claimed who have purchased a building at Netherhouse Farm and are in the process of moving to the new location. Capital Stone are in the process of re-locating most of their business to Romford, which started two years ago. In addition, the owner of IPB Motors is close to retirement and has recently brought a dwelling in Cornwall with the intention to move there full time. Appendix B contains a list of the existing businesses and number of employees at the site, as of January 2019.

6.40 The site is not a protected employment site within the adopted or submitted Local Plan. Therefore, paragraph 121 of the NPPF is an important consideration. It states that Council’s should take a positive approach to application for alternative uses on land which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose where it would help to meet an identified development need. In particular, the Council should support proposals to use employment land for homes in areas of high housing demand and make more effective use of the site that provide community services or improves the quality of services provision and access to open space. The appeal proposals are fully compliant with these objectives.

6.41 Furthermore, it should be noted that the Inspector for the previous appeal on the appeal site (Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/W/15/3033482) concluded in paragraph 32 of the decision letter that

“…whilst it would be regrettable that local employment would be lost, I find no conflict with policies CP1, CP3, CP6 and E4A of the LP…notwithstanding objectives to promote local employment and avoid the need to travel”.

6.42 The Inspector referenced the policies of the adopted Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) which was published in 2008. The case officer in refusal reason 2 has referenced policies SP 2(E) and E 1 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

6.43 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF clearly states that Councils may give weight to relevant emerging plan policies according to stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections and consistency with the framework. Therefore, the relevant policies of the adopted Local Plan that the inspector referenced in the previous appeal decision are pertinent and significantly hold more weight than the emerging policies. In this regard, whilst there has been no material change to the policy landscape at a local level, the comments made by the Inspector in the 2015 appeal are material. These policies should be considered alongside paragraph 121 of the NPPF (2018), as mentioned previously.

6.44 In these terms, therefore, the Appellant is of the view that the harm from the loss of this unallocated, uncontrolled employment site should be given very limited, if any weight, in planning terms. The Council does not recognise the site as a strategic or important employment, as it does not feature within the assessment

Impact on the Rural Character and Setting of the Locally Listed Building

6.45 The fourth refusal reason claims the appeal proposal would introduce a substantial and prominent suburban form which is in stark contrast to the prevailing rural character. The Appellant finds this assessment of the proposal and local context strange, unrepresentative and contradictory. The housing development to the south in Butler Drive, which consists of approx. 30 dwellings, is characterised by two storeys, pitched roof housing consisting of terraced, semi-detached and detached housing set back from the road with deep rear gardens. Many of the dwellings have been allowed to be considerably extended.

6.46 Nevertheless, it has a suburban character, which the appeal proposal would seek to follow particularly in terms of housing typologies and a low density layout. Also, the detailed proposals will be designed to include features from the local vernacular and reflect an agricultural aesthetic, in accordance with the ‘Essex Design Guide’ (2005) to ensure the design stage achieve high quality and visually attractive development that would enhance the appearance of the site whilst given careful consideration to the heritage importance of the Locally Listed Building (LLB) on the site, known as Sewardstone Hall. The Proposed Parameter Plan shows that the proposed dwellings would be arranged to ensure the prominent appearance and setting of the Hall is not unsympathetically diluted or irrevocably lost. However, the detailed design and layout will be saved for the Reserved Matters stage.

6.47 In terms the long term preservation of the LLB, the appeal proposal for residential development represents a better and more a compatible environment to achieve this. Currently, the former haulage yard with its poor quality buildings and comings and goings detract from the Hall’s special architectural and historic character. The appeal proposal would present the opportunity from the Hall to flourish for the benefit of the site and wider context.

6.48 The appeal proposal would sustain the rural environment and protect the countryside for its own sake. It would also safeguard and enhance the setting, character and townscape of the urban environment, and provide opportunities to enhance biodiversity and networks of natural habitats.

Section 106

6.49 Refusal reasons 4, 5 and 6 all relate to the failure to secure S106 contribution towards education, mitigation measures to Special Area for Conservation, and affordable housing. The Appellant has accepted to make provision for contributions towards these obligations. The reason the agreement was not completed was due to the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

6.50 A Unilateral Undertaking is in the process of being prepared as part of the appeal process to address these matters.

Planning Balance

6.51 Having assessed the proposed development against the reasons for refusal, it is important to undertake a review of the planning balance of the proposed development, having regard to the Development Plan when considered as a whole. It is particularly important to give significant weight to the benefits associated with the delivery of both market and affordable housing in a District of acute supply.

6.52 As the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and the housing need policies in the adopted Local Plan are out of date, the titled balance of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged and the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out that achieving sustainable development has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways. As set out within section 4, the three objectives are economic, social and environmental. Accordance with each is assessed in turn.

Economic:

6.53 If the appeal proposal is approved, the appellant would be seeking to commence construction at the earliest opportunity.

6.54 In terms of the economic benefits of the proposed development, it would deliver a boost to the local economy in the short and long terms. The construction phase of the development would create a wide range of construction jobs and labour opportunities over a period of 2 to 3 years during build out. This would also lead to indirect labour opportunities in areas such as landscaping and general maintenance of the site.

6.55 Such employment opportunities would result in a spending boost on existing services such as The Plough public-house, which is opposite the junction into the site, which serves food and drinks. In terms of short stay accommodation for any contractors working on the site, there is also a Premier Inn to the north of the site on the opposite side of the road, which is approximately 0.3 miles away. It is a 7 minute away and 3- minute cycle ride away. There is also another public house known as Bakers Arm next to the Premier Inn which serves food and drinks.

6.56 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF clearly states that Councils may give weight to relevant emerging plan policies according to stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections and consistency with the framework. Therefore, the relevant policies of the adopted Local Plan that the Inspector referenced in the previous appeal decision are pertinent and significantly hold more weight than the emerging policies. In this regard, whilst there has been no material change to the policy landscape at a local level, the comments made by the Inspector in the 2015 appeal are material. These policies should be considered alongside paragraph 121 of the NPPF (2018), as mentioned previously. (REMOVE)

6.57 In these terms, therefore, the Appellant is of the view that the harm from the loss of this unallocated, uncontrolled employment site should be given limited if any weight in planning terms, which is consistent with the approach taken on the 2014 appeal on the site. The loss of employment, would not override the potential economic benefits that would arise from the appeal proposal which would make a significant contribution to the local economy through the creation of local job opportunities and increased spending in the local economy.

Social:

6.58 With regards to the social dimension, the proposal would deliver 40 new homes to the area of which 40% would be affordable housing. Within the officers delegated report, reference is made to the provision of 40% affordable housing having a ‘neutral’ impact in planning terms. The applicants strongly disagree with this assessment and consider that insufficient weight has been given to the provision for affordable housing. This is supported by the previous Inspector, who considered affordable housing to “weigh significantly in favour of granting planning permission”.

6.59 Whilst the affordable housing provision is policy compliant, it is a significant contribution towards local housing need in an area where affordability of housing, need for supply of housing and housing mix are fundamental issues. The importance of affordable housing is further emphasised by the Council persistent under delivery of housing during the plan period.

6.60 According to the Council’s own Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Affordable Housing Update (July 2017), which covers West Essex and East Hertfordshire states there is a chronic shortage of those in need for affordable housing. It concluded that 4,851 households are in affordable housing need and unable to afford their own housing. Of these households, 1,959 occupy affordable housing that does not meet current needs primarily due to overcrowding. The assessment states that providing suitable housing for these households will enable them to vacate their existing affordable housing and be allocated to another household with affordable housing needs.

6.61 The bottle-neck has been created by the under delivery of affordable housing units within the District. The assessment also recognises that there are 2,892 households who are currently in need for affordable housing but do not occupy affordable housing, and states therefore there is a need to increase housing.

6.62 In terms of future needs, the assessment states that the total household growth that require affordable housing is projected to be 2,019 households every year over a 5- year projection.

6.63 In terms of local need, the assessment identifies Epping Forest as one of the highest areas of affordable housing need compared to the overall average. To put the supply and future need for affordable housing into context, Epping Forest supplied 228 affordable housing units between 2011 and 2016. In 2013 to 2014 nine (9) units were delivered.

6.64 Aside from the affordable housing need and supply issue, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply (5YHLS). The failure to deliver housing has a significant impact on the amount of affordable housing that comes forward.

6.65 The Council’s Housing Implementation Strategy Update (January 2019) reported that for the period 2017-2033, the District is expected to provide a minimum of 13,103 new homes over the plan period. In paragraph 2.4, it states that the Council is committed to supporting the governments aims for significantly boosting housing supply and help to deliver a significant number of new homes in areas where development opportunities are heavily restricted by local constraints such as Green Belt and Special Area of Conservation.

6.66 In terms of delivery, the update states that 1,856 new dwellings have been completed since the part of the plan (from 2011 to 2018). However, the Council have consistently under-delivered on its housing targets (518 units per year). They achieved the target once in seven years of recording which has resulted in an undersupply of 1,770 dwellings needing to be added to the 5-year supply figure. However, the Council accepts that the projected housing supply over the next five years has reduced from 3,486 homes to 2,776 due to a reduced pool of available committed sites. Therefore, the latest five-year housing requirement figure according to Council’s figures stands at 4.2 years. However, as set out in paragraph 6.9 above, 4.2 year is based upon an ambitious target being achieved in the 2022-23 (1,204 dwellings) which is unrealistic.

Aside from this, the Council is still not able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply.

6.67 However, the Council accepts that the lead in time for the larger committed housing sites i.e. more than 500 increases to between 5 and 7 years. In Appendix 4 (List of Local Plan Housing Allocations and phasing) in the HIS 2017, it states that this year (2018/2019) expects 61 dwellings to be delivered and 129 the following year. This is then expected to jump to 661 in 2020/2021. In the 2019 update, the Council housing trajectory, which looks at housing commitments and allocations, states that this year 480 new homes will be provided and in year 5 will provide 1204 homes. The Council’s windfall allowance of 35 homes is proposed to start in 2022/23 until the end of the plan period.

6.68 In light of the Council’s persistent under-delivery of housing, there can be no confidence in the 2022/2023 projections being achieved. Furthermore, there are significant unresolved objections to many of the housing allocations and so they cannot be given material consideration.

6.69 The NPPF makes clear that sites with outline planning permission, permission in principle, allocated in the development plan or identified on a brownfield register should only be considered deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years.

6.70 However, the case officer argues that the LPSV will deliver a 5-year housing land supply over the plan period to meet housing need. The case officer’s justification for being able to deliver and maintain housing supply is based upon the Council being in advanced discussions with site promoters in developing masterplans for strategic sites and engaging in planning performance agreements. Whilst this is commendable, this is no guarantee or tangible basis to argue the Council will deliver such ambitious housing targets/requirements, particularly based upon their past performance and the significant unresolved objections to housing allocations that the Council is relying on.

6.71 According to the Annual Monitoring Report for 2017-2018, Epping Forest permitted 33 affordable housing units. Also, the Council’s annual housing target of 518 has been achieved only once in the last 7 years, which was last year (2017/2018). However, the Council acknowledges that this is an anomaly which reflects a large number of windfall sites being delivered in the year. This is likely to be due to the Council being unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and developers successfully appealing refusals. Therefore, the position has not changed. Based upon previous housing delivery statistics, the Council has consistently under-delivered on meeting it’s housing needs and there is no demonstrable certainty or evidence to suggest this will change moving forward which will therefore continue to deprive local people with housing, particularly affordable housing and force them out of the District.

6.72 In this context, therefore, any affordable housing contributions towards the acute affordable housing shortage in Epping should be regarded as a significant benefit. On this basis, we strongly dispute the case officer finding that the affordable housing

benefit arising from the appeal proposal should be given ‘neutral’ weight. It is clear from the Council’s own evidence base that supply of affordable housing within Epping to meet the extant needs has been a difficult issue to contend with. The Council has not been able to keep up with the demand for affordable housing which their own evidence base suggests will be getting worse over the plan period (2016-2033). Therefore, for the case officer to attach neutral weight to such an in demand form of housing is considered to be inappropriate and unreasonable. The 16 affordable housing units that the appeal proposal would contribute to the local areas would have a significant and proportionate impact to maintain the sustainable growth of Sewardstone. Therefore, significant weight should be attached to the affordable housing provision of the proposed development in terms of the social benefit.

6.73 Aside from the housing benefits, the appeal proposal would also provide a large area to open space to the north for the benefit of existing and future residents to enjoy. The area of open space would also act a buffer between the built and natural environments. This would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and serve all five purpose of the Green Belt in paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The proposal would prevent urban sprawl; reduce the possibility of towns merging; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting of the town; and assist in the urban regeneration through the recycling of other urban land.

Environment:

6.74 In terms of the environmental objectives, the NPPF talks about protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, minimising waste and pollution and adopting to climate change by moving to low carbon economy.

6.75 The case officer again plays down the significant benefits that the proposed development would bring to the site and local area. The case officer argues that the reduction in built form over the existing, the incorporation of SUDS and the reuse of a brownfield site are all “small benefits”. The Appellant strongly disputes this. The benefits of the redevelopment of the site would make a significant contribution to the onsite and local environment.

6.76 The former haulage yard has been developed in an ad-hoc manner over the years. The uses are arranged in a series of unattractive/non-descript Nissan hut and timber structures and corrugated roof sheds with large areas of associated open storage and hardstanding. The entire site with the exception of gardens and small patches of greenery on the boundaries, is entirely made up of hardstanding. There is very little vegetation within the site. This is at odds with the greenery to the north and the suburban housing cul-de-sac to the south at Butler Drive.

6.77 The appeal proposal would result in a 32% reduction in the area covered by the build form including hardstanding and open storage areas and 2% reduction in the building volume. The reduction in built form and volume would not only create opportunities for biodiversity and landscape enhancement but it would also make efficient use of

land deliver a high quality housing scheme. Adopted Local Plan Policy CP7 (urban form and quality) states that one of the Council’s primary objectives is to make the fullest use of existing urban areas for new development before locations within the Green Belt. Policy H2A also requires the reuse of previously developed land to deliver at least 70% of all new housing sites. Therefore, in this context, the proposed reduction in built form and use of previously development land is a significant material benefit of the appeal proposal in terms of its impact on the site and surrounding area.

6.78 With regards to drainage, a sustainable urban drainage strategy will be developed for the site alongside the environmental consultant to ensure an enhanced environment for local wildlife. The SUDS features would include a pond and permeable paving to control, improve water quality and reduce floor risk. Other SUDS options have considered and discounted but any additional measures could be discussed and agreed at the design stage. These measures would transform the manner in which surface water from the site currently drains and so the benefits from the SUDs features would make a significant contribution towards mitigating any flooding on the site and surrounding land.

6.79 In terms of sustainable transport, the appeal proposal contains four links into the existing pedestrian and cycle path that runs along the southern boundary of the site. The path links Sewardstone Road to Blanchard Grove and Island Centre Way. Island Centre Way contains a Tesco express supermarket, gym, doctor surgery and library which can be accessed via the path. The travel distance from the site is approximately 1 km and would take approximately 12 minutes to walk and 4 minutes to cycle. The path also connects into footpaths that lead into Enfield Village where there is a railway station which is approximately 2km way. It would take less than 30 minutes to walk to the station and approximately 9 minutes to cycle. It is important to note that the appeal proposal would enhance connectivity from the site into existing pedestrian and cycle routes.

6.80 It is therefore concluded that the appeal proposal would constitute sustainable development when assessed against the three dimensions of the sustainable development in paragraph 8 of the NPPF. In assessing the three dimensions of sustainable development, we have also demonstrated that the proposed development would deliver significant benefits which would outweigh any harmful impact.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The site is a former haulage yard located at the northern end of Sewardstone. To the south is Butler Drive, which is a residential cul-de-sac consisting of approximately 30 two storey dwellings, there is a public house to the east, hotel to the north-east to the north-east, Hawes Lane to the north. The site is also within close proximity to bus stops which are located adjacent to the entrance into the site, a farmshop/restaurant, and a care home to the south.

7.2 The appeal site is a former haulage yard which contains several small commercial operators with areas of open storage. The site contains various unattractive buildings and structures. There are also two dwellings on the site. Sewardstone Hall is one of the dwelling which the Council has identified as a locally listed building. The hall is in a state of disrepair internally and located near the front of the site. To the north of the site is an open field. The site is also located within the Green Belt which would not be impacted as the proposal involves the redevelopment of previously developed land and so would comply with paragraph 134(d) and 145(g) of the NPPF.

7.3 The appeal proposal seeks outline planning permission for up to 40 dwellings with all matters (except access) saved for the reserved matter stage. Therefore, at this stage, aside from the illustrative masterplan and parameter plans, the proposal is to establish whether the principle of residential development is acceptable on this site.

7.4 The Council accepts that they cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply due to persistent under-delivery of housing to meet their annual target. In addition, the Council has only been able to deliver 49% of its housing requirement under the recently published Housing Delivery Test. They therefore need to implement a 20% to their housing requirement. Therefore, the most important policies in the current adopted Local Plan are out of date and the weight that can be given to the relevant policies in the Submission Version is limited due to the significant number of unresolved objections attached to them. Therefore, the titled balance of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged and planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact in doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the framework as a whole.

7.5 The application has been refused by Epping Forest District Council on six grounds. The first relating to the site being in an unsustainable location. The second, loss of employment space. The third, impact on the rural character and appearance of the area and the incongruous impact on the LLB. Grounds four to six relate to the absence of S106 contributions. These reasons for refusal have been addressed in the grounds of appeal.

7.6 However, the Council has not justified adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that the appeal proposal brings to the site and wider context. The Council consider that the proposal represents a form of development that is unsustainable due to its location outside an urban area and not being well served by public transport or local services. Within this appeal statement, the appellants have demonstrated that this is not the case. The site is located within

a sustainable location which has good access to public transport (bus stops less than 20 metres from the junction of the site) and local services such as two public houses, farm shop / restaurant, petrol station with small convenience store and hotel all of which are within reasonable walking and cycle distance from the site. The proposal would also provide four pedestrian/cycle connections from within the site to the path that runs along the southern boundary of the site and provides a link to Enfield Lock which is the nearest urban area that is less than 2.5km from the site when using the path. The Council is ultimately concerned that the appeal proposal would generate increased vehicle movements. However, we are of the view that they have failed to take into consideration the existing vehicle movements from the former haulage site, some of which involve articulated lorries. The potential vehicles movements from the residential use would be comparable with the former haulage site. Therefore, the Council has failed to demonstrate the significant and demonstrable harm that would be caused from the appeal proposal over and above the existing impacts in terms of vehicle movements.

7.7 The Council has not demonstrated the harm that would be caused by the loss of an unallocated employment site. Paragraph 121 of the NPPF clearly states that Councils should take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses on land currently not allocated for specific purposes. The appellants have demonstrated that the loss of the employment site would not lead to significant loss of employment in the local area. Again, the Council have not demonstrated the significant and demonstrable harm that would be caused from the change of use to residential use. We are of the view that the residential use of the land would provide the opportunity to significantly improve the site’s appearance, how it relates to the openness of the Green Belt and land to the north, and provide a compatible use adjacent to the existing housing estate to the south. The residential use of the site is also likely to improve the residential amenity of the existing occupiers to the south particularly in terms of noise and disturbance.

7.8 The proposed quantum of development on the site; up to 40 dwellings, would be a proportionate and appropriate quantum of development for this site, as it would make efficient and effective use of a previously developed site within the Green Belt. Also, the quantum of development would reduce the area of built form over and above the existing use which would in itself is a significant improvement but would also allow for considerably landscaping to be incorporated. The housing development would sympathetically assimilate into the site whilst also preserving the character and appearance of the hall. Again, the Council have failed to demonstrate the significant and demonstrable harm that would be caused by the appeal proposal.

7.9 With regards to the planning obligations that needs to be provided to in ensure there is sufficient capacity in for early learning schools, towards mitigating the impact on Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation, and delivering affordable housing, the Appellant is willing to secure contributions to these.

7.10 The appeal proposal would provide much need housing, particularly affordable housing, within the District on a previously developed, available and deliverable site

in a sustainable location. On this basis, the Inspector is kindly requested to allow this appeal.

Appendix A – EFDC Decision Notice

Appendix B – List of Existing Tenant and Number of Works Jan 2019

Sewardstone Hall workers Jan 2019

Garage/office Essex Stoves 4 staff, 3 usually opposite house out on site Workshop by CAE Diesel 4 staff stables Stables A,Thoirs 4 horses & owners Shed storage Tom Smith 2 usually out Workshop IPB Motors 5 staff Workshop S & S 2 staff Old workshop IPB Motors See above 2 Nissen sheds Essex Stoves See above 1 Nissen shed S & S See above 1 Nissen shed, Along the Grain 2 usually out on site storage Large shed in Reclaimed 4 staff bottom yard, part part Capital Stone 10 staff

Table 1

1 Appendix C – Previous Appeal Decision Letter

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 25 August 2015 Site visit made on 25 August 2015 by Michael Boniface MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 14 September 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/W/15/3033482 Former Haulage Yard, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey, Essex, E4 7RH  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by E W Davies Farms Ltd against the decision of Epping Forest District Council.  The application Ref EPF/1556/14, dated 26 June 2014, was refused by notice dated 19 November 2014.  The development proposed is demolition of all existing structures except the farmhouse and erection of up to 72 dwellings with ancillary parking, access and gardens, along with the erection of a community building.

Decision Estates

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The application is submitted in outline form with access to be considered. Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for subsequent consideration. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

3. During the Hearing, the appellant withdrew a number of the drawings submitted with the planning application, relying only on drawings ‘Site Location Plan’, 13027_010, 13027_101A and ITB6205-GA-002D from the original submissions. Drawings 13027_110E, 13047_102B and 13027_112B accompanied theRichborough appeal documentation and were said to replace the previous drawings. All parties had the opportunity to consider the new drawings, which are in any case indicative, and I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced. I have determined the appeal with regard to the drawings listed.

Main Issues

4. The main issues are: (a) Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework and whether it would have a greater effect on the openness of the Green Belt; (b) The effect on the character and appearance of the area; (c) Whether the development would be suitably located in terms of access to services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport; (d) The effect on local employment provision;

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

(e) If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Reasons

Whether inappropriate development and the effect on openness

5. Policy GB2A of the Epping Forest District Local Plan1 (LP) restricts development in the Green Belt other than for specified purposes. This approach is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) but it was highlighted by the appellant that less stringent restrictions are imposed by the latter. I agree that the policy is not entirely consistent with that of the Framework and as much more recently published national policy, I attach it greater weight.

6. Paragraph 79 of the Framework makes it clear that the Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt and the protection of its essential characteristics, those being openness and permanence. Paragraph 87 confirms that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. New buildings are to be regarded as inappropriate development, subject to a number of express exceptions outlined in paragraph 89.

7. It is agreed between the parties that the southern part of the site, which contains a series of commercial buildings, alongEstates with large areas of hard standing, would constitute a previously developed site for the purposes of the Framework. I have no reason to disagree. Paragraph 89 allows for the redevelopment of such land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings). However, this is subject to the caveat that development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

8. According to the appellant, the proposed development would involve a combined building footprint of 3169sq.m compared to the existing combined footprint of 2539sq.m. It is also confirmed that that the combined area of hard standing and built footprint would increase on the site as a result of the development, albeit to a lesser extent. In addition to this, I was told that the proposed dwellingsRichborough would extend up to 2.5 storeys in height, with ridge heights exceeding that of even the tallest building currently existing on the site. Consequently, it is clear that the volume of buildings would be much greater than the existing structures, many of which are single storey and low level.

9. Openness is epitomised by the absence of buildings and whilst the existing buildings on the site undoubtedly have an impact in this respect, the proposed increase in volume, height and massing would, in my view, result in a greater impact on openness. I also noted that parts of the site were currently void of built development, including the grassed area towards the front of the site. The indicative drawings indicate that these areas would necessarily be built over to accommodate the number of dwellings sought and this would dramatically alter the openness of these parts of the site.

1 Comprising the Epping Forest District Local Plan (1998) and Local Plan Alterations (2006) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

10. The appellant suggests that the site does not perform a function as Green Belt land but the site is washed over by the Green Belt and any impact on its openness would be at odds with its essential characteristics of openness and permanence. Whilst the part of the site to be developed is not undeveloped countryside, it nevertheless contributes to the characteristics and purposes of the Green Belt.

11. I note the appellant’s assertion that the development would involve reconfiguration of the built form within the site, increasing permeability and creating green fingers through the development so as to maximise views compared to the large planned buildings existing. However, these are largely matters relating to the visual impact of the development and the character of the area. The courts have established2 a clear distinction between the concept of openness and visual impact and the appellant recognised this distinction during the Hearing.

12. Whilst I have had regard to the comments of the appellant that matters of openness and visual impact are interlinked and I recognise that parallel conclusions might often be reached on the two matters, this does not alter the need to make a distinct judgement on both in the overall balancing exercise required by the Framework. For the reasons set out above, the development would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with its defined purposes, specifically to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 13. As a consequence, the development does notEstates fall within the exceptions outlined in the Framework and the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition, harmful. In accordance with paragraph 88 of the Framework, I attach substantial weight to this harm.

Character and appearance

14. The appeal is accompanied by a ‘Landscape and Visual Issues relating to the Green Belt’ (Landscape Appraisal) report dated May 2015. This recognises the linear form of the existing settlement and the varied landscape characteristics surrounding the site. With reference to a landscape appraisal carried out by the Council3 it is concluded that the northern edge of the settlement has a low overall sensitivity in terms of both its landscape character and visual prominence. That said, it is also highlighted that the northern edge of the settlement, inRichborough the location of the site, is characterised by a soft green urban edge lined with trees, hedgerows and woodland.

15. The Lee Valley Regional Park provides a woodland backdrop beyond the site to the west, whilst the undeveloped pasture land in the northern part of the site provides a distinctly rural and verdant appearance on approach to the built-up area of the settlement. In my view, the developed part of the site offers a visual transition between these areas. The existing buildings are set well back from the public highway behind a group of trees (subject to an area Tree Preservation Order) and grassed area. The commercial buildings are rural in their appearance, owing to their largely agricultural origins. The structures are well related to one another, generally low in height and screened on the boundaries by existing landscaping. Whilst some of the buildings have large

2 Timmins v Gedling Borough Council [2014] 3 Epping Forest District Council Landscape Character Assessment (2010) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

footprints, this is not uncommon for agricultural or similar rural buildings and this does not detract from the rural character of the area.

16. The proposed development would involve up to 72 dwellings which are shown indicatively to comprise a mix of house types, including detached, semi- detached and terraced properties over 2 or 2.5 storeys. Although smaller in footprint than many of the existing buildings on site, the proposed dwellings would cover a greater proportion of the site, including currently open areas. The buildings would also extend to a greater height across much of the site.

17. The development would appear as a large residential development in the context of this rural settlement, resulting in an urbanising effect on its edge. This would be prominent from Sewardstone Road and Hawes Lane despite proposals for increased landscaping on the northern part of the site, which would take some time to mature. Furthermore, I walked the footpath along the southern boundary of the site and a further path within the Lee Valley Regional Park, shown as Viewpoint 6 in the appellants Landscape Appraisal. The site was clearly visible from the latter and whilst established landscaping on the southern boundary provided some screening, the development would remain a prominent feature in gaps and on approach from the direction of Enfield Island Village.

18. The residential appearance of the development, its scale and visual prominence would be visually intrusive and harmful to the rural character of the area. Whilst the nature of the surrounding landscape, which is reasonably flat with field boundaries well enclosed by trees and hedgerows,Estates would restrict long distance views of the development, it would nonetheless have significant and adverse impacts locally.

19. I note that the development would serve to break up the massing of the existing large buildings by replacing them with buildings of a domestic scale, that views would be possible between gaps in the built form and that permeability would improved for pedestrians on to the adjacent footpath. However, these matters do not alter my overall conclusions as to the visual impacts of the proposal. The development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies CP1, LL1 and LL2 of the LP which require that development minimise impacts on the environment, respect or enhance the character of the landscape and conserve the character and appearance ofRichborough the countryside. I attach significant weight to this harm. Accessibility

20. Sewardstone is a small rural settlement which the appellant recognises as offering limited services and facilities compared to larger settlements. However, whilst encouraging sustainable patterns of development that encourage sustainable modes of travel such as walking and cycling, the Framework recognises that the opportunities for meeting these objectives will differ between urban and rural areas.

21. The Transport Accessibility and Sustainability Report accompanying the application identifies two public houses/restaurants and a hotel within Sewardstone and in close proximity to the site which would be accessible to future residents. It is also identified that a petrol station/convenience store is located around 1000m from the site. Whilst I acknowledge this, the presence of a petrol station is unlikely to promote the use of sustainable modes of

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

transport and the associated shop is likely to provide only a very limited range of goods that would not meet the day to day needs of future residents.

22. A wider range of services and facilities is available at Enfield Island Village to the west of the site and accessible via the footpath and cycle route on the southern boundary of the site. This provides a Tesco Express store, gym, library and a doctor’s surgery all within around 1,100m of the site according to the appellant. This wider range of services can be seen as accessible on foot or bicycle for many people but I noted the currently unlit nature of the paths leading from the site (though a developer obligation might be used to light the route) and its rural, largely secluded nature. It is unlikely that this would be an attractive route for unaccompanied children or other vulnerable people. Furthermore, the distance involved is likely to deter many people from walking and cycling.

23. The nearest bus stop to the site is located around 60m away on Sewardstone Road. The 505 route from these stops provides a 2 hourly service to Harlow and Chingford on Mondays to Saturdays with no service on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Services towards Chingford and its railway station commence at 7.14 with the latest return journey leaving Chingford station at 18.55. This offers a realistic opportunity for commuting, and making use of rail services to London but would offer limited flexibility given the infrequency of the service. A wider range of bus routes is provided at Enfield Island Village but again, this necessitates walking or cycling to an area that feels somewhat remote to Sewardstone itself. Estates 24. It seems to me that there are limited opportunities for those committed to using sustainable modes of travel or that rely on such means to access some services and facilities in this way. However, access to many day to day facilities such as schools, hospitals and employment centres would require a lengthy or convoluted journey. I heard from local people that the existing bus services and facilities were not adequate and that elderly of immobile people find it very difficult to meet their day to day needs. In my view, the site cannot be seen as a location for residential development on this scale that is sustainable in accessibility terms. The distances from, and options for reaching day to day services and facilities, are likely to discourage sustainable patterns of movements and would instead lead to a reliance of private cars. 25. This would be Richboroughcontrary to the objectives of the Framework; as well as Policies CP1, CP3, CP6 and CP9 of the LP which, amongst other things, seek to minimise the impacts of development on the environment, reduce reliance of private cars, reduce commuting, ensure access by sustainable means of transport and generally promote sustainable patterns of development. This matter weighs against the grant of planning permission and I attach it significant weight.

26. I have had regard to the Council’s resolution to grant planning permission (subject to S106) for 16 dwellings at Netherhouse Farm, close to the site. However, I do not agree with the appellant that this lends support to the appeal proposal in terms of the Council’s conclusions on accessibility. The Council’s Committee Report, provided during the Hearing, concludes that the site is not a sustainable location for development but that other matters outweigh the harm that would result in that case. As such, the resolution does not alter my conclusions on this matter.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

Local employment

27. The proposal would include complete redevelopment of the site which is currently occupied by around 10 businesses and approximately 40-50 employees according to the appellant. The Council highlight the need to provide for a working countryside and facilitate local employment for people in rural areas. This approach is synonymous with the accessibility considerations set out above in that providing local employment opportunities reduces the need to travel.

28. A Commercial Viability Assessment (May 2015) accompanies the appeal documentation which involves an analysis of the existing buildings. It concludes that he predominantly former agricultural buildings are poorly suited to the commercial uses currently operating, that they do not meet modern day requirements and are reaching the end of their economic life. It highlights the availability of other commercial premises in the local area that could accommodate the relocation of displaced businesses. I also heard that existing occupiers were holding over on expired leases and that they were aware of the potential redevelopment.

29. I heard from an existing business owner occupying the site who found the existing buildings and facilities to be adequate for his business needs. Furthermore, it was suggested that the location of the unit was vital to maintaining the largely local trade that was attracted.

30. Whilst this is so, the Council was unable to offer any contrary evidence as to the commercial viability of the buildings or withEstates respect to local employment needs in the area. Under these circumstances I can attach only limited weight to the need for retention of the employment use, particularly given the general unsuitability of the existing buildings for modern requirements. This is particularly so, given that Policy E4A specifically makes provision for the release of employment land for housing under these circumstances.

31. However, the weight that I attach to the Commercial Viability Assessment is all limited given that the site currently accommodates 10 businesses and there appeared to be no difficulty in the appellant finding occupiers for the buildings. Whilst the buildings may not meet modern requirements for many businesses, the site is clearly providing important employment opportunities for local people and contributing to a prosperous rural economy, a key objective of the Framework. Richborough

32. Overall, whilst it would be regrettable that local employment would be lost, I find no conflict with Policies CP1, CP3, CP6 and E4A of the LP, which whilst seeking to protect local employment where possible, allow for redevelopment where the site is unsuitable or uneconomic to redevelop for employment purposes. This is notwithstanding objectives to promote local employment and avoid the need to travel. Whilst I have not found a conflict with the development plan based on the evidence before me, the loss of employment cannot be considered to weigh in favour of the development and this is a neutral factor in my determination.

Other considerations

33. It is agreed between the parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing sites as required by paragraph 47 of

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

the Framework and that consequently there is a housing need, including for affordable housing. In the context of the need to boost significantly the supply of housing and to deliver a mix of quality house types, the provision of up to 72 dwellings, 50% of which would be affordable units, weighs significantly in favour of granting planning permission, particularly as the site involves previously developed land.

34. The appellant highlights the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the Framework and suggests that the decision taking criteria set out in paragraph 14 should apply in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply and up to date policies for the supply of housing. However, footnote 9 associated with this paragraph makes it clear that land designated as Green Belt is one example of a specific policy in the Framework which indicates that development should be restricted. Given the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified, the decision taking criteria set out in paragraph 14 are not engaged.

35. I have noted the proposed provision of a community building and a large area of open space as part of the development for use by future residents and existing people in the area. However, it was accepted during the Hearing that these elements of the scheme were offered as planning obligations as a benefit to local people rather than to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. This was agreed to be the case by both parties and no evidence is before me to suggest that such facilities are needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms or that they are fairly and reasonably related to the development in scaleEstates and kind. As such, the obligations would not meet the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and I cannot take them into account.

36. Other planning obligations are proposed and a Unilateral Undertaking was provided during the Hearing. There is no dispute between the parties that these obligations are necessary but I need only consider this matter in detail in the event that planning permission is granted.

37. A series of highway improvements are proposed as part of the development in order to facilitate safe access to the site and these would have broader safety benefits for existing users of the highway according to the Local Highway Authority. ThisRichborough is a benefit to which I attach significant weight. 38. I have had regard to the petition supporting the proposed development but as this does not explain the reasons for support, I can attach it only limited weight. This is particularly so as I have also received a number of detailed comments from local people objecting to the proposal.

Conclusion

39. I have identified that the proposed scheme would harm the openness of the Green Belt and represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework. In addition, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would lead to a reliance on the use of private vehicles as opposed to sustainable modes of travel. I have considered the grounds presented in support of the development but together they do not outweigh the harm the scheme would cause. Consequently, the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have not been demonstrated. As such, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Michael Boniface

INSPECTOR

Estates

Richborough

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/15/3033482

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Alan Simmonds Agent

Gary Soltys Landscape Architect

Neil Marshall Transport Consultant

Hugh Morgan Chartered Surveyor

Andrew Davies Appellant

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Dominic Duffin Planning Officer

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Ian Barnard Local resident

Mr Hardy Local resident Estates

Mr Houghton Local resident

Mrs Houghton Local resident

Councillor Lea Local Councillor

Councillor Shiels Local Councillor

DOCUMENTS

Document 1 Richborough Unilateral Undertaking dated 24 August 2015

Document 2 Timetable for bus route 505

Document 3 Appellant’s floor area calculations and comparisons

Document 4 Landscape Strategy Plan (1:500 @ A1 copy)

Document 5 Committee Report relating to proposal at Netherhouse Farm

Document 6 Updated Personal Accident Injury Data