Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT

Reference: Site: 14/00912/OUT Land Adjacent To Thatched Cottage Baker Street

Ward: Proposal: Chadwell St Mary Outline application for 14 dwellings with garages (all matters reserved)

Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received 1116-03 Elevations 1st July 2014 1116-LP Location Plan 1st July 2014 1116-01 Planning Layout 1st July 2014 1116-02 Roof Plans 1st July 2014

The application is also accompanied by:

- Design and Access Statement

Applicant: Validated: Mr Tony Cole 12 August 2014 Date of expiry: 11 November 2014 Recommendation: To Refuse

1.0 SUMMARY:

At the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 23 October 2014 Members considered a report on the above proposal. The report recommended that planning permission be refused for reasons based upon:

- Development constituting inappropriate development in the Green Belt; harmful by (i) reason of definition and (ii) actual harm to openness; - Absence of completed legal agreement to secure financial contributions to mitigate pressure of development on local infrastructure; - Identified harm to amenity of future occupiers resulting from road noise; - Highways concerns

1.1 A copy of the report presented to the October 2014 meeting is attached. During debate Members requested a site visit which was held on 5th November 2014. The application was further reconsidered at the Planning Committee meeting held on 13th November 2014. Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT

1.2 After debate, the Committee indicated their support for the application on the basis that they considered the site to be previously developed land, that the history of the site supported development, on the basis of housing need and other similar applications being permitted in close proximity.

1.3 However, the Head of Planning and Growth stated that the reasons were tentative on planning grounds. In instances where the Committee’s reasoning is deemed to be tentative, the constitution requires: “that the application should be deferred to enable the Planning Officer to draft a further report, outlining the implications of making a decision contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation” before a formal decision can be made.

2.0 ASSESSMENT

2.1 As required by the Constitution, an outline of the implications of making a decision contrary to the Officer recommendations is provided below. The recommended reasons for refusal are set out in italics below and the implications are considered subsequently.

2.2 REASON 1: PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND HARM TO GREEN BELT

The application site is located within the Green Belt as defined within the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2011). Policy PMD6 applies and states that permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings, or for the change of use of land or the re-use of buildings unless it meets the requirements and objectives of National Government Guidance.

The NPPF (at paragraph 89) sets out the forms of development, which may be acceptable in the Green Belt. The proposed development of the site for residential purposes does not fall within any of the appropriate uses for new buildings set out by the NPPF and Policy PMD6. Consequently, the proposals represent “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt and are a departure from development plan policy. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF sets out a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt and states that such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 87 also states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

i) The information put forward by the applicant has been considered. However, these matters, neither individually nor taken together, are considered to constitute the very special circumstances necessary to allow a departure from policy being made in this instance. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF in principle.

ii) Notwithstanding the in-principle harm identified above, by reason of the mass, bulk and serious incursion into the open land, the proposals are also harmful to the character and openness of the Green Belt at this point, contrary to Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy and criteria within the NPPF. Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT

2.3 During debate, Members drew attention to other sites in proximity to the application site that had been developed for residential purposes. The following table includes those sites as a comparison with the application site.

Site Previous Previous New Very Special Circumstances Use Floorspace Floorspace Thatched No lawful use 0 1120 sq.m. To be determined Cottage other than (internal for (APPLICATION agriculture dwellings) SITE) 246sq.m. garages Former Baker Operating Approx. 1973sq.m. Loss of unsightly and Street Garage centre for 600sq.m plus unneighbourly uses; (08/01106/OUT) vehicle external improvement to the character recovery activities and and appearance of the area, storage no further intensification Nevilles Farm Lawfully 1672sq.m. 1672sq.m. Removal of lawful non- (97/00277/FUL) operated as conforming Green Belt use for industrial (industrial) purposes (since demolished) 246 Heath Hostel N/A – N/A – N/A - Change of use Road Change of Change of (10/00630/FUL) use (to 3 use residential units) The Hotel N/A – N/A – N/A – Change of use Whitecroft, Change of Change of Stanford Road use (to care use of (94/00503/FUL) home) premises

[N.B. The planning reference in brackets are the most relevant to the consideration of the current application]

2.4 The table above illustrates that there are no direct comparisons or precedents set in relation to the developments quoted. Either the sites in question contained existing buildings and non-conforming Green Belt uses or the developments involved changes of use of existing buildings. This application does not involve a change of use, the site does not contain any substantial buildings and it has no lawful use other than agriculture.

2.19 The applicant has not forwarded any additional information since the application was most recently considered. Officers have reconsidered the case put forward but remain of the opinion that it falls some considerable way short of constituting the very special circumstances that are required to allow a departure to be made from national and local planning policy to permit the construction of 14 dwellings on this site.

2.20 The stringency of that test has recently been reiterated in Case Law (Cherkley Campaign Limited) v Mole Valley DC [2013]). That case states that Local Planning Authorities must ask three separate sequential questions when applying Green Belt Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT

policy:

1. Is “inappropriate development” proposed? 2. Do “very special circumstances” exist? 3. Do such circumstances “clearly outweigh” the potential harm caused by the inappropriateness of the development and any other harm?

2.21 Local Planning Authorities are also required to give “substantial weight” to any harm which might be caused to the Green Belt by the “inappropriate development”. It is only if a local planning authority has conscientiously considered each of these three questions and answered each “yes” and given substantial weight to any harm caused, can it be said properly to have applied Green Belt policy as laid down in the NPPF.

2.22 In relation this application the proposal is, by definition, inappropriate development. The matters put forward by the applicant (in summary - part of the land being covered by the remains of the old A13, antisocial behaviour, potential traveller incursions and other similar sites nearby) are not considered either individually or collectively to constitute very special circumstances. In fact, they fall someway short of that stringent test. As a result, these cannot clearly outweigh the harm arising. Accordingly the application fails the relevant Green Belt tests and should be refused.

2.24 REASON 2: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (S.106 AGREEMENT)

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

The applicant has failed to include a legal agreement with the submitted application. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy PMD16 of the Core Strategy.

2.25 In relation to the required legal agreement, as of 30th December 2014, the Council’s legal officer advises that no completed planning obligation has been received by the Council as the draft has not been executed by the mortgagee. Therefore, there is no s.106 in place at this time.

REASON 3: AMENITY IMPACTS TO POTENTIAL OCCUPIERS (ROAD NOISE)

2.26 Policy PMD1 of the Core Strategy (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity) indicates that developments will not be permitted where it would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area; the amenity of neighbouring occupants, or the amenity of future occupiers of the site.

Policy PMD2 of the Core Strategy (Design and Layout) requires that all design proposals should respond to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings.

Policy CSTP22 of the Core Strategy (Thurrock Design) indicates that development proposals must be founded on a thorough understanding of, and positive response Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT

to, the local context.

By reason of its proximity close to the A1013 (Stanford Road) the proposed site would be subject to high levels of traffic noise. The applicant has not demonstrated that this could be mitigated and as such it is considered that the proposal fails to respond to the sensitivity of its surroundings and would result in poor quality living conditions that would be harmful to the prospective residential occupiers of the site contrary to the above referenced policies.

2.27 The applicant has not put forward any measures to address the identified harm that would be caused to the amenities of potential occupiers of the dwellings on the site. In addition to the Green Belt objections, Officers remain concerned the proposal would result in substandard living conditions for future occupiers of the new dwellings.

REASON 4: HIGHWAY IMPLICATIONS

2.28 Policy PMD9 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy states that the Council will only permit the development of new vehicular accesses or increased use of existing accesses onto the road network where, amongst other, there is no possibility of a safe access being taken from an existing or lover category road, the development minimises the number of accesses required and the development makes a positive contribution to road safety or road safety is not prejudiced.

Policy PMD2 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy indicates that all development should allow safe and easy access while meeting appropriate standards.

Baker Street a Level 2 Rural Road where an intensification of use would normally only be accepted for small scale uses, permissible within the Green Belt, which do not affect road safety or limit capacity. In addition, Baker Street connects onto the A1013 Stanford Road, a Level 1 Corridor of Movement where new development will only be accepted where it can be demonstrated that the proposed impact would not adversely affect the free flow of traffic or highway safety.

2.29 The applicant has put forward no further information in relation to the highways impacts of the scheme. Therefore, there remains an objection from the Highway Authority (in addition to the Green Belt and amenity issues set out above).

OTHER MATTERS

2.30 The analysis above centres on the recommended reasons for refusal and covers the issues relating to the nature, use and history of the site, plus the contention that other similar applications had being permitted in close proximity.

2.31 In relation to the other reason put forward by Members in support of the application (that of housing need), the Committee is reminded of the fact that National Planning Policy Guidance states:

“The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT

housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.”

2.32 Notwithstanding the above, (a) current projections in relation to the 5 year housing supply are much more positive that in the recent past and (b) if sites are to be taken out of the Green Belt for residential use, this should be via the Local Plan process. The Committee will be aware the current review of the Local Plan affords the applicant the opportunity to engage in that relevant process.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS

3.1 The reasons for supporting the application, as put forward by the Planning Committee on 13 November 2014, are not considered to provide sufficient grounds to approve the application. The application falls some way short of providing the very special circumstances that are required to warrant an exception to local and national Green Belt policy. In addition, objections on highways grounds and the unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupants of the proposed dwellings remain unaddressed and the necessary s.106 agreement has not been completed.

Documents:

All background documents including application forms, drawings and other supporting documentation relating to this application can be viewed online: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/00912/OUT

Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, , Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL. Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT