Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
Appeal by Redrow Homes in relation to the non-determination of an outline application on the Former Ingatestone Garden Centre Site Roman Road Ingatestone Essex
Karen Haizelden BSc MSc MRTPI Planning Inspectorate Reference – APP/H1515/W/20/3256968 LPA Reference – 20/00046/NONDET
January 2021
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
Contents
1. Qualifications and Experience ...... 2 2. Introduction and Scope of Evidence ...... 2 3. Planning Policy Context ...... 4 4. The Council’s Case ...... 8 Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt ...... 8 The Harm to the Openness of the Green Belt ...... 11 Prematurity of Decision Making in advance of the Local Plan Process ...... 11 Whether there are Very Special Circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm ...... 15 5. Comments on the Appellants Statement of Case ...... 18 6. Planning Balance ...... 20 7. Conditions ...... 21
1 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
1. Qualifications and Experience
1.1. My name is Karen Haizelden. I am an independent planning consultant and a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I was elected for membership in 1993 and have worked as a Planner since this time in a variety of public and private sector roles. In 2011 I established my own Planning Consultancy – Surrey Planning and Design.
1.2. My main experience is in Development Management where I have worked for numerous Local Planning Authorities on a variety of cases. My role in the private sector has similarly covered many areas of Planning and I have provided planning advice to several property developers and housing associations. I have worked on sites located within Green Belt as well as South Downs National Park and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
2. Introduction and Scope of Evidence
2.1. This proof of evidence on behalf of Brentwood Borough Council (“the Council”) in response to the appeal against non-determination of an application by Redrow Homes Limited (“the Appellant”) for outline planning permission for residential development (“the proposed development”) at Ingatestone Garden Centre, Roman Road, Ingatesone (“the Appeal site”) submitted to the Council in November 2017.
2.2. The outline planning application (“the application”) was validated on 21st November 2017 and given the Council Reference 17/01815/OUT and was supported by the documents identified in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG). A comprehensive list of core documents that will be referred to during the course of the appeal is provided as part of the SoCG.
2.3. The appeal site comprises the former Ingatestone Garden Centre site and measures 3.34ha in area. The site is classified as Green Belt land.
2.4. The site is occupied by the now vacant single storey garden centre building, a number of other built structures associated with the garden centre use and large areas of hardstanding which were previously used as car parking and outdoor sales areas. The Council’s Brownfield Land Register – Part 1 identifies that 0.58ha of the application is previously developed land.
2 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
2.5. There is a residential property broadly in the centre of the appeal site (Roseland) and outside of the red line area of the application site boundary. The land associated with this property is not within the appeal site. 2.6. The site is visible from the access road site entrance but has strong landscape boundaries on all sides. To the north, the site is predominantly bounded by the rear gardens of residential dwellings which front Burnthouse Lane. To the north- west of the site is a plot of land accessed off Roman Road, which falls outside of the application area. To the west, the site is bounded by Roman Road, beyond which lies the A12. Mountnessing Recycling Centre (for household waste), operated by Essex County Council, lies immediately to the south of the application site. To the east, the site is bounded by the Great Eastern Main Line. There is a long view of the site from the south with an urban back drop of Ingatestone. 2.7. This application was submitted in November 2017. Discussions regarding this application ran concurrently with the Local Plan process. At the time of the submission of the application, the Appellants were made aware that, in consequence of its Green Belt location, the principle of housing development would not be supported by reference to the adopted Development Plan. However, given the local housing need in 2017, the understanding between the Appellants and the Council was that, at some future point in time, the site may be considered suitable for housing. At the meetings during the lifetime of the application this was communicated to the Appellants. Discussions continued on detailed matters with the understanding and mutual consent between the Appellants and the Council that the Local Plan process took precedence over the decision-making process in the context of this site. Numerous extensions of time for the Council to make a decision on the application were requested by the Appellants. There were a number of reasons for the requests for extensions of time. These included to allow for the Local Plan process to progress as well as to deal with amendments to the design of the scheme. The last of these agreed extensions ran until 15 May 2020. 2.8. The last email communication with the Appellants prior to the Council receiving the appeal against Non-Determination was sent to the Appellants by the Council on the 30 July 2020. This followed a series of emails in which the Appellant effectively sought to establish whether the Council was prepared to grant permission for the development in advance of the adoption of the Local Plan . In the email of 30 July 2020, the Council explained that that due to the status of the emerging local plan and other outstanding issues, the Council was not in a position to support the application as it was still contrary to current Green Belt policies. The Council confirmed that due to the nature of the application, officers would continue to undertake assessment of the outline application positively and proactively. The Appellant shortly thereafter appealed against non- determination of the application, rather than letting the application proceed to a formal determination by the Council as would otherwise have occurred if no appeal had been made. 2.9. Therefore, the main reason why the application was not determined within the statutory time period was that the Appellant had requested, and the Council had agreed to a number of extensions of time to allow the Local Plan to progress and to address amendments to the scheme proposed by the Appellant. Shortly after 3 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
the last of those agreed extensions in time, at a point in time when it became clear to the Appellant that the application was likely to be refused by the Council, the Appellant decided to appeal against non-determination, rather than allow application to proceed to a formal determination by the Council. Had the Appellant not appealed against non-determination, the Council would have continued to work proactively with the Appellant and, indeed, the Council had expected the Council’s Design Review panel to consider the most recent changes to the proposed scheme at their August 2021 meeting. 2.10. My evidence will focus upon the main areas identified in the Council’s Statement of Case and agreed at the Case Management Conference as being relevant.
2.11. These areas are:- 1. The inappropriateness of the development within the Green Belt 2. The harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 3. The prematurity of this application in advance of the on-going local plan process. 4. Whether there are Very Special Circumstances (VSC) which outweigh the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness and all other harms arising
3. Planning Policy Context
3.1. Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005 3.2. The Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005 (Saved Policies, 2008) and the Proposals Map form the relevant elements of the adopted Development Plan in relation to this appeal. The relevant specific policies for determination of this application being the policies listed below. Policy CP1 General Development Criteria Policy H6 Small Unit Accommodation Policy H9 Affordable Housing on Larger Sites Policy H14 Housing Density Policy H16 Lifetime Homes Policy T14 Cycling Policy T15 Pedestrian Facilities Policy GB1 Development in the Green Belt Policy GB2 Development in the Green Belt Policy LT4 Provision of Open Space in New Development
4 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
Policy C5 Retention and Provision of Landscape Policy C19 Secure by Design Policy PC4 Noise 3.3. As this is an outline planning permission with all matters reserved aside from access and the Council having no other objections to the proposed development, only the principle of development is disputed between the Council and the Appellant. In this context, and as the appeal site is a Green Belt site, GB1 and GB2 are considered the most relevant and most important policies in the determination of the application.
3.4. The whole of the Borough lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) and, for the most part, has done so since the outer boundary was first defined in the County of Essex Development Plan, approved in 1957. The Green Belt was extended to cover the northern part of the Borough in the subsequent Review, approved in 1976. 3.5. The sensitive wedge of open countryside in which Brentwood is situated is a good example of the Green Belt's success in halting the outward spread of London's built-up area. Brentwood is subject to considerable pressure for new development being the first urban settlement encountered along the main lines of communication running north eastwards from London and being adjacent to the M25. 3.6. GB1 deals with New Development within the Green Belt and planning permission will not be given except in very special circumstance, for changes of use of land or the construction of new buildings or the extension of existing buildings for purposes other than those appropriate to a Green Belt or for the re- use of existing buildings that do not comply. 3.7. GB2 states when considering proposals for development in the Green Belt the Local Planning Authority will need to be satisfied that they do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The precedent created by allowing an individually innocuous or well -merited proposal which cumulatively would undermine Green Belt objectives will be taken into account. Account will also be taken of i) the effect of proposals on public right of way, ii) the need to preserve or enhance existing landscape features, iii) any buildings must be satisfactorily located in respect of the surrounding landscape and any adjoining buildings. 3.8. These policies were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF in 2012. In April 2019 a Planning Inspector dealing with the Brentwood Golf Centre at Herongate (8.6 in Core Documents) came to the conclusion that GB1 and GB2 were inconsistent with paragraph 145(g) of the NPPF and should therefore be afforded limited weight in that case. The Inspector’s conclusion with regard to GB1 and GB2 are currently being addressed within the new Local Plan Policies. GB1 and GB2 are the current Local Plan policies of Brentwood Borough Council and, in my opinion, the spirit and aims of these policies still remain relevant. However, in light of the Inspector’s decision in the Golf Centre Appeal, I accept in the context of NPPF paragraph 11 that these relevant policies are partially out of date. 3.9. Other Material Considerations
5 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
3.10. National Planning Policy • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Feb 2019 • Chapter 13 Protecting Green Belt Land • National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) • National Design Code
3.11. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states:- For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) 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: i. 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 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. 3.12. Within Chapter 13 of the NPPF the following are of relevance paragraph 143. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 3.13. Paragraph 144. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 3.14. Brentwood Borough Council Emerging Local Development Plan (LDP) to 2033: 3.15. The emerging Local Development Plan went through Pre-Submission (Publication Draft) Stage (Regulation 19) consultation early in 2019 with a further focused consultation, following revisions to the detailed wording of some of the proposed housing allocations, ending in November 2019. At Ordinary Council in January 2020 the Council resolved to submit the plan to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State (Regulation 22). Submission of the Local Plan took place on Friday 14 February 2020 and initial questions from the Inspectors were received on the 1 June 2020. The Council provided responses to the initial questions between July and October 2020. Examination hearing sessions commenced on the 1 December and further sessions are due to be held in February 2021. Provided the Inspector finds the plan to be sound, it is projected that it could be adopted by the Council in summer 2021.
3.16. The Plan provides a good indication of the Council’s aspirations for growth in the Borough and where development is likely to come forward through housing and employment allocations. As the emerging plan advances and objections are resolved, more weight can be applied to the policies within it. However, at this 6 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
stage there are outstanding objections to be resolved through the Examination in Public. It is still considered that the Local Plan currently has limited weight in the decision-making process.
3.17. In September 2020 The Council produced a response to the questions raised by the Inspectors in relation to Green Belt Policies. This is intended to inform the consideration of the Policies.
3.18. As stated above, the Local Plan Examination Hearing sessions commenced on the 1st December 2020. In terms of the current progress with the Local Plan Examination Hearings, the first set of sessions were held from the 1 to 4 December and 11 December covering strategic matters including Green Belt (Matter 3). Further hearing sessions are currently scheduled to take place 2 to 5 and 9 - 12 February with reserve days on the 24 and 25 February 2021. The Inspector has heard from the Council and a number of interested parties on matters relating to the local plan. Many Policies are now the subject of additional information and in all likelihood, there will be several policies subject to official request for modifications. These modifications will most likely relate to issues with wording of policies as well as change to the Proposals Map regarding boundaries for housing sites and Green Belt release. The Council will consider this in the light of the discussion of the Local Plan Hearings as well as the issues raised by the Inspector with regard to that process. The request for formal modifications will follow the conclusion of the Local Plan Hearing.
3.19. The hearing sessions have been recorded on YouTube and are available for review. A link is available on the examination homepage. On the 4 December, the Hearing Session for Matter 3 Green Belt took place. The approach the Council is taking to recommending the release of Green Belt land to be used for Housing Allocation purposes was questioned extensively by the Inspector and the Council’s response noted. Several interested parties joined in the discussion on this topic and a wide spectrum of views were heard by the Inspector.
3.20. The Appellant has submitted two papers to this Local Plan Inquiry specifically one concerning the Appeal Site. With regards to Hearing Statements submitted by Redrow these have been provided separately for the two sites they are promoting in the Local Plan. This includes site R21 Land South of Ingatestone (part of which comprises the appeal site) being represented by Pegasus. The other is R03 Land north of Shenfield (Redrow are promoters for parcel within this allocation) being represented by Temple Group. The statements submitted by Pegasus are relevant in terms of the position set out by Redrow in respect of the appeal site. I set these out below: 3.21. G1U Redrow Homes (Pegasus Group) Matter 1 (Legal compliance) Hearing Statement (November 2020) 3.22. G3U Redrow Homes (Pegasus Group) Matter 3 (Green Belt) Hearing Statement (November 2020)These are available to view on the Council’s documents library in relation to the Local Plan Hearing Sessions.
7 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
3.23. The Council have not received any hearing statements from Pegasus on behalf of Redrow Homes in response to the forthcoming hearing sessions in February. 3.24. At this stage any potential Policy changes cannot be confirmed until the conclusion of the hearing sessions. Main modifications would be subject to consultation and consideration by the Inspector in producing their report on whether the Plan is sound. As stated above the various topic papers, examination notes and hearing statements represent the current position before any suggested modifications are agreed by the Inspectors. 3.25. The policies in the emerging plan relevant to the application are listed below:- SP01 Sustainable Development SP02 Managing Growth NE9 Green Belt NE10 New Development, Extension and Replacement of Buildings in Green Belt NE11 Established Areas of Development and Structures in Green Belt NE12 Previously Developed Land in Green Belt NE13 Site Allocations in Green Belt HP01 Housing Mix HP03 Residential Amenity HP05 Affordable Housing HP06 Standards for New Housing BE17 Parking Standards HP13 Creating Successful Places HP14 Responding to Context HP15 Permeable and legible Layout HP16 Building Design BE22 Open Spaces in New Development BE23 Open Spaces Sport and Recreational Facilities R21 Site Allocation:
4. The Council’s Case
Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt
4.1. There is extensive planning history relating to the construction, extension and use of the existing buildings in relation to Ingatestone Garden Centre. 4.2. No applications have been submitted previously relating to large scale development on this site. 4.3. The table below details the Planning History relating to this site. Planning Proposal Decision Decision Reference Date 13/00523/FUL New three bed detached 29 Jul Refused dwelling 2013 06/00995/FUL Construction Of Building For 22 Jan Refused The Sale Of Organic Produce 2007 8 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
05/00064/FUL Use Of Coffee Shop Without 24 Jan Approved Complying With Condition 5 2005 Attached To Planning Permission Brw/804/97 03/00753/FUL Extension Of Existing Coffee 02 Feb Refused Shop Within Part Of Shop, 2004 Showroom And Display Building Without Complying With Condition 5 Of Approval Reference Brw/17/2003 03/00435/FUL Formation Of Hard Standing 23 Jun Approved For Car Parking 2003 03/00017/FUL Extension Of Existing Coffee 06 Mar Approved Shop Within Part Of Shop, 2003 Showroom And Display Building 99/00437/FUL Retention Of Storage 12 Jul Refused Container. 1999 98/00532/FUL Retention Of Storage 24 Aug Refused Container 1998 98/00037/ADV Continued Display Of 06 Jul Refused Tethered Balloon. 1998 97/00804/FUL Provision Of Coffee Shop 08 Dec Approved Within Part Of Shop, 1997 Showroom And Display Building 97/00023/FUL Retention Of Temporary Link 24 Feb Approved Between New Garden Centre 1997 And existing Shop. 94/00806/FUL Retention Of Existing 16 Jan Approved Temporary Link Between 1995 New Garden centre And Existing Shop.
4.4. As can be seen from the site history there are several refusals of planning permission. On closer examination of these decisions, they all relate to the inappropriate development within the Green Belt. While the majority of the decisions and applications pre-date the NPPF the latest decision for one three bedroom detached dwelling on the site was refused in May 2013. The reason being:-
9 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
4.5. Therefore, the stance with regard to this appeal is consistent with previous decisions on the site where the Council has always sought to protect the Green Belt and all the associated benefits of the Green Belt designation.
4.6. The site forms part of the Green Belt I have noted in my Planning Policy section above that, in light of the appeal decision at Brentwood Golf Centre, Herongate current Local Plan policies GB1 and GB2 are partially out of date and therefore attract limited weight in the decision-making process.
4.7. Therefore, the most up to date and applicable current Planning Policy is the NPPF chapter 13. Protecting Green Belt land where the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Para 133 asserts that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Para 134 goes on to outline five purposes of the Green Belt as follows: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
4.8. Para 136 states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. I will return to this point in relation to the prematurity of the proposed development. 4.9. The site is currently occupied by a garden centre, ancillary buildings and areas of hardstanding. These buildings, combined with two residential dwellings which do not form part of the Appeal site, have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal for redevelopment would result in a greater scale of built form on the site. The introduction of this additional mass and alterations to the existing open spaces clearly mean that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which requires the demonstration of VSC to support development. I will return to this point in my analysis further in this proof. 4.10. The scheme would result in the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt, para 145 of the NPPF advises that such development would be deemed as 10 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
inappropriate subject to exceptions. One such exception is the redevelopment of previously developed land with schemes that do not have greater impact to the openness of the Green Belt where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identifiable affordable housing need within the Local Planning Authority. This scheme will have an unacceptable harm to the existing openness on the Green Belt and this point is expanded in the following section.
The Harm to the Openness of the Green Belt
4.11. This issue is addressed in the proof of evidence of Steve Plumb. . Mr Plumb notes that the Appellants did produce a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in the supporting documentation for the outline application in 2017 and that, although the findings of the LVIA were accepted by the Council in the context of the on-going Green Belt review, the impact on openness was at that stage not specifically referred to or assessed with regard to the impact on the Green Belt. There is no mention in the LVIA with regard to the specific question on impact to the openness.
4.12. Mr Plumb considers that, despite the allocation of the site in the Local Plan and the evidence base supporting that allocation. The extent of the developed area will increase significantly. The majority of new buildings would be constructed in areas that are currently car park and hardstanding and the field to the east. This would extend the developed area approximately 100m further south and 150m east of the existing garden centre structures. It is important to reemphasise that the proposed built form will be substantially taller than that which is currently on site. While the Building Heights Plan does not give exact heights the development will be between two and three storey compared to the single storey buildings that are currently on site. 4.13. It is considered that the scale of the proposed development would have a significant impact on Green Belt openness in spatial terms. 4.14. There are open views across and beyond the site. It is considered therefore that although part of the site is previously developed the site still retains a strong sense of openness. The removal of trees and hedges from within the site would open up views across the new development which would emphasise its size. Steps to mitigate visual effects such as increasing tree planting on boundaries would in time restrict views and further lessen visual openness but there would remain a residual impact on openness notwithstanding that mitigation.
Prematurity of Decision Making in advance of the Local Plan Process
4.15. Through the Local Plan process the Council have identified strategic objectives and developed the Spatial Strategy. This Spatial Strategy identifies where employment housing retail land uses will be encouraged to meet the
11 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
Borough’s need going forward in a sustainable way particularly around transport corridors.
4.16. In the context of the Housing Need and Housing Land supply a balanced decision regarding the loss of Green Belt is currently under consideration within the Local Plan process. The process began back in 2013 when the Council’s Consultants Crest Nicholson were commissioned to consider a number of sites in relation to housing need that are sited within the Green Belt. This evaluation drew no conclusions to the appropriate location of housing but rather evaluated the quality of the existing Green Belt. This was then used as a basis to consider where it might be appropriate to allocate housing sites within the Borough. These sites have been promoted to varying degrees by the Developers and Landowners as is part of the Planning process. Local Interest groups, local neighbours, stakeholders as well as Statutory bodies have also been consulted upon these sites.
4.17. The objections to the proposed policies concerning the Spatial Strategy and whether it is sound in its own right was the subject of the Local Plan Hearing. The matter was discussed in a 3 hours 46 minutes Hearing on the 02 December 2020. The video is available on YouTube via the Council’s website. At this hearing the Inspector asked for further clarity and information on the spatial strategy highlighting where development will occur and where future protection is going to occur. In relation to SP02 there is a need for further information and then this will be assessed and any connotations for further distribution of growth in the Borough will be resolved in due course. This has an impact on the release of Green Belt Land and whether the transport and sustainability issues have been adequately dealt with in the Council’s current proposals.
4.18. The Green Belt issues are complex, and the Council have provided extensive evidence in response to the Inspectors questions that justify the Council’s position with regard to the exceptional circumstances that exist to require the need to change the boundaries of the existing Green Belt in a Boroughwide context.
4.19. The evidence takes into account the housing need housing supply in terms of trajectory affordable housing issues as well as the issue of using some of the Borough’s Green Belt land for Housing purposes. Since the publication of the modifications in February 2020 the Council have responded to matters raised by the Inspector with the production of several papers. These can be found within the Core Documents and consist of the topic paper, examination notes and hearing statements relevant to Green Belt and the site allocation that have been submitted to the Local Plan Inspectors so far: • F8 Green Belt Topic Paper (September 2020) • F9A Suggested Main Modifications (October 2020) – See pages 94 to 106 for suggested mods to Green Belt Policies (NE09 to NE15)
12 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
• G3A Brentwood BC Matter 3 (Green Belt) Hearing Statement (November 2020) • G7AA6 Brentwood BC Matter 7f (Site allocations – Large villages Ingatestone and West Horndon) Hearing Statement (December 2020) – See pages 4-6 for the Councils response to Question 91 which covers site R21 (Land south of Ingatestone). • G13A4 Brentwood BC Matter 13d (Green Belt and rural development) Hearing Statement (December 2020) – These set out some further mods to Policies NE14 and NE15
4.20. These documents form the basis of the Council evidence concerning their approach to the release of Green Belt Land. There are several interlinked issues and broad criticisms of the Council position with regard to Spatial Strategy and the release of Green Belt Land. These controversial issues are outstanding and still to be debated within the Local Plan process. The issues include focus upon transport corridors and the improvements to the M25 junctions 28 and 29 , air quality management and biodiversity issues.
4.21. The Green Belt matters were debated at the 3hour 20-minute Hearing session on the 04 December 2020. The video is available on YouTube Chanel and can be accessed vis the Council website. The Appellants were present at this hearing. The approach the Council is taking to recommend the release Green Belt land to be used for Housing Allocation purposes was questioned extensively by the Inspector and the Council’s response noted. Several interested parties joined in the discussion on this topic and a wide spectrum of views were heard by the Inspector.
4.22. The debate and issues so far largely focus upon paragraphs 133 – 139 of the NPPF. The Inspector’s Agenda for the Hearing session focussed on the robustness of the reasonable options in non-greenbelt locations, the Green Belt’s Assessments methodology, why the Council considers that exceptional circumstances exist to allow Green Belt land to be released and the changes to the Policy map.
4.23. There has been no specific debate as yet with regard to any specific sites. This is scheduled for February 2021. The Representations to the published modifications in February 2020 are set out at the Council’s website Examination to the Local Hearing Documents Library. As can be seen there are 991 pages of Representations. Pages 548-552 deal specifically with the housing allocation R21. There are two support comments and eight objections to the allocation.
4.24. The wide spectrum of views at the Hearing represented those promoting development and those opposing development. The landowners promoting development put forward their points to the Inspector as did those opposing
13 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
development on Green Belt and the Inspector heard the Council’s position on using Green Belt for housing purposes.
4.25. The methodology and robustness of the process for housing allocation were all debated. The Council were criticised by several parties, for various reasons, including, not considering a number of sites and focussing too narrowly on certain sites with specific developer interest. The methodology of the Green Belt Study and the contribution of certain sites whether they made a low moderate or high contributions was also criticised and the Inspector heard from the relevant expert present on the Teams call. Deliverability and timescales were also discussed.
4.26. Green Belt matters are ongoing, and the Inspectors are scheduled to hear more evidence about site specific Green Belt issues and housing allocation in February 2021. This will conclude at the end of February 2021 when the Local Hearing process will conclude, and the Inspectors will consider all the matters before publishing their findings on the Local Plan.
4.27. With regard to the Appeal site specifically this has not yet been debated. Issues relating to specific sites are to be debated at a Local Plan Hearing scheduled for the end of February 2021. The Local Plan Inspector has raised several questions with regard to Green Belt and Spatial Strategy and noted the answers of the Interested Parties that took part in the Hearing sessions as well as this the Council has provided written responses with regard to changes to the proposals map with regard to Green Belt and the possibility of an immediate review to account for the sites not included in this plan but being promoted by developers elsewhere on Green Belt sites in the Borough .
4.28. Ultimately, whether there are the exceptional circumstances to justify releasing the land from the Green Belt is an issue in the examination of the emerging Plan. The Local Plan has been submitted for examination, the issue of the Council’s Green Belt strategy has been identified by the Inspectors as requiring further explanation and there are outstanding objections to the Council’s proposed housing strategy, the release of Green Belt land in general and the proposed allocation of this site for housing. The beginning of this debate commenced on 1st December 2020 when the Local Hearing to Examine the Local Plan began. The Appellants have been a part of this process in the promotion of the Appeal site as a housing site. The Council considers that, notwithstanding the stage that the Plan has reached, limited weight can be accorded to the policies of the emerging Plan at the current time, in accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF.
4.29. Furthermore, the Council considers that the question of the release of Green Belt land should be addressed through the Local Plan process. This appeal is premature within the meaning of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. In particular, the grant of planning permission for this development would undermine the plan- 14 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
making process by predetermining decisions about the scale and location of new development that are central to the emerging plan process and, in particular, the question of whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of the appeal site from the Green Belt (along with other Green Belt land in the Borough). The emerging plan is at an advanced stage for the purpose of paragraph 49(b) of the NPPF.
4.30. It is clear that the Green Belt issues cannot be conveniently separated from the other matters concerning general spatial strategy. The issues are intertwined, and, in this context, Green Belt issues are substantial and central to the Local Plan process. Determination of this Appeal based upon these emerging policies at this time would be premature as the debate and issues have not been fully considered in the context of the Local Plan Hearing.
4.31. The Inspectors dealing with the Borough wide development strategy for Brentwood are best placed to determine these issues as they have the benefit of examining all the relevant evidence pertaining to the relevant issues.
Whether there are Very Special Circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm
4.32. Within the NPPF Paras 143-145 refer to proposals affecting the Green Belt. Para 143 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Further, para 144 highlights that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.’ Para 145 offers seven exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
4.33. It has been agreed by both parties that the proposed development for outline planning permission for up to 110 houses is inappropriate development. With this in mind it is necessary to examine if very special circumstances exist with this application that will overcome the definitional harm and other harm that will be caused to the Green Belt by this development.
4.34. The Position Statement agreed by the Parties (7.5 of the Core Documents) lists the matters which are capable of amounting to Very Special Circumstances (VSC) in this case.
15 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
4.35. Taking each of these agreed points in turn and using the agreed weight terms for each matter in the order used in the agreed position statement I make the following comments:- 1. This site does have a draft housing allocation and is being promoted by the Developer and the Council as a suitable housing site. In preparing the necessary evidence to justify the exceptional circumstances that will allow the site to be built upon the Council have prepared lengthy and robust evidence relating to Green Belt. The local plan examination hearing has begun and the Green Belt issues and housing allocation of this and other sites have started to be debated. The Council have provided evidence to demonstrate why the land is suitable for housing. As part of this evidence the evaluation of the whole Green Belt within the Borough has been undertaken. The issues and options for this site and others, as well as the general approach Brentwood is taking towards its future housing supply and utilising existing Green Belt to meet housing targets, is currently under debate. This is as part of the statutory processes concerned with Local Plan making. The exceptional circumstances do exist with respect to future allocation however at this stage the Local Plan is not at an advanced enough stage to afford full weight to the emerging policy. In this respect the emerging local plan allocation would have limited weight. 2. The extent of the brownfield land within the site is VSC. The site has been partly allocated on the Council’s Brownfield land register. Therefore, the redevelopment of this brownfield land would be encouraged. However, given the Green Belt status the redevelopment must not compromise the other benefits associated with the existing allocation. The reuse of the land would have a limited to moderate weight in the consideration as a VSC. 3. The existence and derelict condition of structures on the site. The NPPF does allow for the extension and alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions. Also, the replacement of buildings is only encouraged where the same use will occur, and the buildings should not be materially larger to the one that it replaces. T these criteria are not applicable with regard to the whole scale redevelopment of the site for housing. The existing structures would have very limited weight as consideration as a VSC. 4. The proposal would deliver market housing and contribute to the Council’s housing land supply deficit. The LPA’s most recent annual statement as to the five-year housing position is the “Five-Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2019 (January 2020)” (Core Document ref 5.11). 3.11 This Statement identifies that the Council consider that they can demonstrate a 2.36 year housing land
16 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
supply when adopting the Government’s standard methodology to determine the housing need requirement and then applying a 20% buffer as housing delivery has fallen under 85% as calculated by the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. Using the same methodology as set out in the Council's published housing land supply statement (Core Document ref 5.17), this updated information indicates a five-year supply figure for the period 20/21 to 24/25 of 2.53 years . The delivery of market housing would be a benefit of the scheme, having regard to the extent and duration of that deficit. The site would bring forward a number of units and in the context of the existing housing need this is a positive benefit of the proposal. This benefit has been agreed in the position statement. The Council’s latest position with regard to the housing trajectory is a matter of debate in the Local Plan Hearing. Delivering market housing would have moderate weight as a consideration as a VSC. 5. Affordable Housing Delivery The outline proposal under consideration would deliver the existing Local Policy Requirement of 35% of the units as affordable housing. In the emerging Local Plan this figure is 35% as it has been demonstrated that Brentwood Borough Council has historically undelivered on affordable housing. The delivery of sufficient affordable housing is an important issue within the borough, with house prices significantly higher than average prices for England. Whilst local wages are above the national average, house prices and rental levels are well above what many households can afford. The affordable housing need is calculated to be 107 household per year representing 30.6%. However, Brentwood has historically underprovided the affordable housing required. In the last 5 years Brentwood has provided 92 affordable units which equates to 10.7%. This is significantly less than the identified need, of 535 dwelling over a 5-year period. Therefore, there is need to push the affordable requirement up to 35%. Providing the affordable housing at the existing percentage of 35% rather than 35% as required in the emerging Local Plan would have significant weight as a consideration as a VSC. 6. Other Benefits The further benefits would include cessation of anti-social behaviour/fly- tipping, would have limited weight as this is an issue that can be resolved with other means apart from development. Delivery of open space more than minimum requirements would have very limited weight given the open space being lost. Public transport improvements, this is a sustainable location so any improvements would of course be beneficial but in VSC terms have limited weight.
17 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
The local environmental improvements to the underpass would have very limited weight as a consideration as a VSC. Improvements to local services desirable but of limited weight in the context of VSC. The VSC and the corresponding weight must be balanced against the harm that future development will have on the openness of the Green Belt and all the reasons that the land has been designated as Green belt. The various benefits that the current designation has in terms of open green space is manifold.
4.36. While the Council accepts that there would be a number of benefits to the appeal proposals, including the delivery of market and affordable housing, the re-use of previously developed land, the delivery of open space and public transport improvements, these would not amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the approval of the scheme for the purpose of paragraph 143 of the NPPF. In particular, the harm to the Green Belt by reason of in appropriateness and the other harm caused is not clearly outweighed by other considerations for the purpose of paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
5. Comments on the Appellants Statement of Case
5.1. The following paragraph numbers and headings will refer to those in the Appellant’s Statement of Case. • 3.5 Material Considerations – the Appellants are currently debating these issues in the Local Plan Inquiry process • 3.7 The appeal site forms a part of the R21 allocated site it is not the only land to be included in the designation. The R21 ‘Land south of Ingatestone’ comprises both the garden centre site and land further to the south of the Appeal site. The total number of dwellings expected to be delivered from the site is 161. • 4.1 The site allocation process – as previously stated is currently being considered at the Local Plan Hearing. There is no need to rehearse the same arguments in this appeal as the appropriate consideration of the Borough wide and site-specific issues is being undertaken by a different Inspector at the Local Plan Hearing. The appropriate debate regarding housing trajectory, housing land supply and subsequent release of the Borough’s Green belt is a wider area of debate than narrowly focussing on this site alone. • The Appellants are promoting this site through the Local Plan process and are familiar with the various arguments and objections to the Council’s wider strategy to support the appeal site and other sites as appropriate housing sites necessarily involving the release of Green Belt land. • 4.6 Benefits of the Scheme - Redevelopment of Brownfield Land - This should not be confused with considerations in relation to the emerging Local Plan allocation and
18 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
consideration in relation to the current status of the site within the Green Belt. This is partially a Brownfield site however a large part is open and in formerly nursery use. Market Housing Provision - The Council are working towards demonstrating an acceptable housing land supply within the context of the Local Plan process and this site is no more or less special than the other sites currently being considered in the context of the Local Plan process Affordable Housing Provision - the provision of 35% of affordable housing would fulfil current Policy requirements and is not over this minimum requirement. Open Space Provision – there is no additional open space provision within the site as a result of this proposal. The development will provide open space for the new residents of the development and will result in a loss of green open space.
• 5 The Case for the Appellant • 5.5 There is much agreement in the points made by the Appellant. However, without wanting to simply repeat the Council’s case, the weight and emphasis on certain parts of the case particularly the existing Green belt allocation in relation to the VSC do not outweigh the harm to the Green belt. Also, many of the points the Appellants are asking to be considered such as the emerging plan status and housing supply are currently the subject of consideration at the Local Plan Hearing. In this respect the facts are being debated as to whether this site will be removed from the Green Belt in the future and although the Plan is at an advanced stage it can still not be afforded full weight. • 5.7 The Council disagrees that VSC in this case outweigh the inappropriate development in the Green Belt being proposed.
5.2. As can be seen from the Statement of Common Ground there are many areas that the Council and the Appellants agree upon in relation to the proposed development. However, the weight to be applied to the Very Special Circumstances considerations varies between the parties for the reasons, that have been explained. Primarily while this site is allocated as a Housing Site in the emerging Local Plan, currently it remains Green Belt. The test for acceptability of inappropriate development in the Green Belt is onerous. In this respect the tests cannot be fitted around the Appellants and Council’s desire to see the site developed in the future. The VSC that do exist do not outweigh the ham to the openness of the Green Belt. 5.3. Furthermore, it is felt that the detailed arguments around Boroughwide housing supply and housing trajectories while relevant to this site are part of a wider consideration in the Borough’s Local Plan Hearing. Therefore, it is not appropriate to decide these issues in this Appeal in advance of the outcome of the deliberations of another process within the Plan led Town Planning system. 5.4. The Appellant’s Case relies solely upon the fact that there are VSC that allow the favourable consideration of the application. Unfortunately, part of their reliance on the VSC is the weight to be given to the emerging local plan rather than the consideration of the development of the site as it’s current status as Green Belt.
19 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
5.5. In some respects, because of the Local Plan process and the negotiations that have occurred between the Council and the Appellants, the impact upon the Green Belt openness has not been fully addressed before this Appeal. This material consideration was left out of the LVIA, submitted as part of the Application and the Appellants Case has sought to retrofit arguments for the development in this context.
6. Planning Balance
6.1. The Council has demonstrated that the proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and that the VSC do not outweigh the harm that will be caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, the harm to openness and the harm by reason of prematurity .
6.2. The Council does agree that there would be many positive benefits of the proposal and the increased housing numbers to be an overall gain to the Borough’s housing supply.
6.3. The agreed Position Statement between the parties outlined the VSC and the weight of each of these factors has been assessed in the Council’s Case section above. Here I have outlined my Planning judgement on each of the matters and have concluded that the VSC taken both individually and combined do not outweigh the harm that will be caused to the openness of the Green Belt.
6.4. The emerging Local Plan is at an advanced Stage and it is hoped that the Local Plan Inspector will support the Council in their promotion of various housing sites on existing Green Belt Land throughout the Borough. This Local Plan process is on-going and the formal adoption of the Plan with any formal modifications is expected to occur sometime in 2021. 6.5. While the Council considers that there are “exceptional circumstances” to justify removal of the appeal site through the emerging Local Plan process, this is a less demanding test than the development control test for permitting inappropriate development in the Green Belt: Compton Parish Council v Guildford Borough Council [November 2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin). (Core Document Reference 8.3) This was a judgment Approved for the Courts for handing down. The judicial review case concerned was whether the Inspector had erred in law in his approach to what constituted the “exceptional circumstances” required for the redrawing of Green Belt boundaries on a local plan review. This had a number of aspects, including whether he had treated the normal as exceptional, and had failed to consider rationally, or with adequate reasons, why Green Belt boundaries should be redrawn so as to allow for some 4000 more houses to be built than Guildford BC objectively needed. 6.6. In this judgement paragraph 70 specifically says
20 Brentwood Borough Council
Ingatestone Garden Centre CM4 9AU Brentwood Borough Council Proof of Evidence
6.7. “Exceptional circumstances” is a less demanding test than the development control test for permitting inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which requires “very special circumstances.” That difference is clear enough from the language itself and the different contexts.
6.8. The Appellants have outlined many benefits that the scheme will bring forward. The Council do not disagree that these are benefits of the scheme. The scheme will have many benefits for increased housing supply within the Borough, affordable housing, transport improvements. There will be mitigation measures to counter the loss of Green Belt and open space. As well as financial contributions to the local Education and Health care provision.
6.9. However, in undertaking its necessary and statutory duty, in balancing all aspects of National and as well as emerging local policy, the Council have reached the conclusion that it is not appropriate to grant planning permission at this time.
7. Conditions
7.1. The Council is satisfied that all other matters can be dealt with through the imposition of suitable conditions and the agreement of an appropriate planning obligation. The Council has provided the Appellant with a list of suggested conditions. It is also anticipated the S106 Agreement will be signed shortly. The Council will work with the Appellant to agree a set of suitably worded conditions in advance of the inquiry in the event that the appeal is allowed.
21 Brentwood Borough Council