Thurrock: A place of opportunity, enterprise and excellence, where individuals, communities and businesses flourish
Planning Committee
The meeting will be held at 7.00 pm on 5 March 2015
Council Chamber, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL
Membership:
Councillors Terence Hipsey (Chair), Brian Little (Vice-Chair), Charles Curtis, Clare Baldwin, Barry Johnson, Tunde Ojetola, Barry Palmer, Robert Ray and Susan Shinnick
Richard Bowyer, Thurrock Business Association Paul Barratt, Campaign to Protect Rural England
Substitutes:
Councillors Chris Baker, Terry Brookes, Tom Kelly, Sue MacPherson, John Purkiss and Gerard Rice
Agenda
Open to Public and Press
Page
1 Apologies for Absence
2 Minutes 5 - 8
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5 February 2015.
3 Item of Urgent Business
To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
4 Declaration of Interests 5 Declarations of receipt of correspondence and/or any meetings/discussions held relevant to determination of any planning application or enforcement action to be resolved at this meeting
6 Planning Appeals
7 Public Address to Planning Committee
The Planning Committee may allow objectors and applicants/planning agents, and also owners of premises subject to enforcement action, or their agents to address the Committee. The rules for the conduct for addressing the Committee can be found on Thurrock Council’s website at https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/democracy/constitution Chapter 5, Part 3 (c).
8 Land adj Railway Line and the Manorway and West of Victoria 9 - 84 Road, Stanford Le Hope - 1401321OUT
9 Land at Thames Haven, The Manorway, Coryton - 1400215FUL 85 - 126
10 36 Victoria Avenue, Grays - 1401411HHA 127 - 134
11 9 Parkside, Grays - 1401342FUL 135 - 146
12 2 Holly Drive, South Ockendon - 1401418HHA 147 - 154
13 Public Conveniences, King George V Playing Fields, Blackshots 155 - 162 Lane, Grays - 1401197TBC
14 Deneholm Primary School, Culford Road, Grays - - 1500003TBC 163 - 172
Queries regarding this Agenda or notification of apologies:
Please contact Jan Natynczyk, Senior Democratic Services Officer by sending an email to [email protected]
Agenda published on: 25 February 2015 Information for members of the public and councillors
Access to Information and Meetings
Members of the public can attend all meetings of the council and its committees and have the right to see the agenda, which will be published no later than 5 working days before the meeting, and minutes once they are published.
Recording of meetings
This meeting may be recorded for transmission and publication on the Council's website. At the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is to be recorded. Members of the public not wishing any speech or address to be recorded for publication to the Internet should contact Democratic Services to discuss any concerns. If you have any queries regarding this, please contact Democratic Services at [email protected]
Guidelines on filming, photography, recording and use of social media at council and committee meetings
The council welcomes the filming, photography, recording and use of social media at council and committee meetings as a means of reporting on its proceedings because it helps to make the council more transparent and accountable to its local communities. If you wish to film or photograph the proceedings of a meeting and have any special requirements or are intending to bring in large equipment please contact the Communications Team at [email protected] before the meeting. The Chair of the meeting will then be consulted and their agreement sought to any specific request made. Where members of the public use a laptop, tablet device, smart phone or similar devices to use social media, make recordings or take photographs these devices must be set to ‘silent’ mode to avoid interrupting proceedings of the council or committee. The use of flash photography or additional lighting may be allowed provided it has been discussed prior to the meeting and agreement reached to ensure that it will not disrupt proceedings. The Chair of the meeting may terminate or suspend filming, photography, recording and use of social media if any of these activities, in their opinion, are disrupting proceedings at the meeting.
Page 1 Thurrock Council Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi is available throughout the Civic Offices. You can access Wi-Fi on your device by simply turning on the Wi-Fi on your laptop, Smartphone or tablet. You should connect to TBC-CIVIC Enter the password Thurrock to connect to/join the Wi-Fi network. A Terms & Conditions page should appear and you have to accept these before you can begin using Wi-Fi. Some devices require you to access your browser to bring up the Terms & Conditions page, which you must accept. The ICT department can offer support for council owned devices only.
Evacuation Procedures
In the case of an emergency, you should evacuate the building using the nearest available exit and congregate at the assembly point at Kings Walk.
How to view this agenda on a tablet device
You can view the agenda on your iPad, Android Device or Blackberry Playbook with the free modern.gov app.
Members of the Council should ensure that their device is sufficiently charged, although a limited number of charging points will be available in Members Services.
To view any “exempt” information that may be included on the agenda for this meeting, Councillors should:
Access the modern.gov app Enter your username and password
Page 2 DECLARING INTERESTS FLOWCHART – QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
Breaching those parts identified as a pecuniary interest is potentially a criminal offence
Helpful Reminders for Members
Is your register of interests up to date? In particular have you declared to the Monitoring Officer all disclosable pecuniary interests? Have you checked the register to ensure that they have been recorded correctly?
When should you declare an interest at a meeting?
What matters are being discussed at the meeting? (including Council, Cabinet, Committees, Subs, Joint Committees and Joint Subs); or If you are a Cabinet Member making decisions other than in Cabinet what matter is before you for single member decision?
Does the business to be transacted at the meeting relate to; or likely to affect any of your registered interests and in particular any of your Disclosable Pecuniary Interests?
Disclosable Pecuniary Interests shall include your interests or those of: your spouse or civil partner’s a person you are living with as husband/ wife a person you are living with as if you were civil partners where you are aware that this other person has the interest.
A detailed description of a disclosable pecuniary interest is included in the Members Code of Conduct at Chapter 7 of the Constitution. Please seek advice from the Monitoring Officer about disclosable pecuniary interests.
What is a Non-Pecuniary interest? – this is an interest which is not pecuniary (as defined) but is nonetheless so significant that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard to be so significant that it would materially impact upon your judgement of the public interest.
Pecuniary Non- pecuniary
If the interest is not already in the register you must Declare the nature and extent of your interest including enough (unless the interest has been agreed by the Monitoring detail to allow a member of the public to understand its nature Officer to be sensitive) disclose the existence and nature of the interest to the meeting
If the Interest is not entered in the register and is not the subject of a pending notification you must within 28 days notify the Monitoring Officer You may participate and vote in the usual of the interest for inclusion in the register way but you should seek advice on Predetermination and Bias from the Monitoring Officer. Unless you have received dispensation upon previous application from the Monitoring Officer, you must: - Not participate or participate further in any discussion of the matter at a meeting; - Not participate in any vote or further vote taken at the meeting; and - leave the room while the item is being considered/voted upon If you are a Cabinet Member you may make arrangements for the matter to be dealt with by a third person but take no further steps
Page 3 Vision: Thurrock: A place of opportunity, enterprise and excellence, where individuals, communities and businesses flourish.
To achieve our vision, we have identified five strategic priorities:
1. Create a great place for learning and opportunity Ensure that every place of learning is rated “Good” or better Raise levels of aspiration and attainment so that residents can take advantage of local job opportunities Support families to give children the best possible start in life
2. Encourage and promote job creation and economic prosperity Promote Thurrock and encourage inward investment to enable and sustain growth Support business and develop the local skilled workforce they require Work with partners to secure improved infrastructure and built environment
3. Build pride, responsibility and respect Create welcoming, safe, and resilient communities which value fairness Work in partnership with communities to help them take responsibility for shaping their quality of life Empower residents through choice and independence to improve their health and well-being
4. Improve health and well-being Ensure people stay healthy longer, adding years to life and life to years Reduce inequalities in health and well-being and safeguard the most vulnerable people with timely intervention and care accessed closer to home Enhance quality of life through improved housing, employment and opportunity
5. Promote and protect our clean and green environment Enhance access to Thurrock's river frontage, cultural assets and leisure opportunities Promote Thurrock's natural environment and biodiversity Inspire high quality design and standards in our buildings and public space
Page 4 Agenda Item 2
Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 5 February 2015 at 7.00 pm
Present: Councillors Terence Hipsey (Chair), Charles Curtis (Vice-Chair), Clare Baldwin, Brian Little, Barry Palmer, Robert Ray, Susan Shinnick and Richard Speight
Apologies: Councillors Barry Johnson and Tunde Ojetola.
P. Barratt (Co-opted Member) R. Bowyer (Co-opted Member)
In attendance: David Bull, Director of Planning and Transportation Andrew Millard, Head of Planning & Growth Leigh Nicholson, Development Management Manager Jonathan Keen, Principal Planner David Moseley Matthew Ford, Senior Engineer Chris Stephenson, Corporate Performance Improvement Manager Janet Clark, Strategic Lead Operational, Resources and Libraries Unit Leanna McPherson, Senior Democratic Services Officer
Before the start of the Meeting, all present were advised that the meeting may be filmed and was being recorded, with the audio recording to be made available on the Council’s website.
32. Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2015 were approved as a correct record.
33. Item of Urgent Business
There was none.
34. Declaration of Interests
Councillor Little declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8, Wick Place Industrial Estate, Brentwood Road, Bulphan as he was a Ward Member.
35. Declarations of receipt of correspondence and/or any meetings/discussions held relevant to determination of any planning application or enforcement action to be resolved at this meeting
Page 5 There were none.
36. Planning Appeals
The report before Members provided information with regard to appeals performance.
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted.
37. Wick Place Industrial Estate, Brentwood Road, Bulphan - 1400888OUT
The Principal Planner introduced the report to the Committee advising that the application sought permission for the replacement of two existing buildings on the site.
The Committee were further advised that the application site lay within the Green Belt and was used for industrial purposes.
In response to questions from the Committee, the Principal Planner advised of the following:
The original application for a saw mill on the site was received in 2001, and this was being used until a recent fire, approximately two years ago. There had been one enforcement enquiry during this time relating to the use of the saw mill, but that this issue had been resolved. The proposed buildings were 7.8m at their highest, the previous buildings were taller.
The Chair invited the Ward Councillor, Councillor Sue Little, to address the Committee who set out her concerns in relation to the proposal including noise pollution, the amount of lorries using the site, the storage and removal of waste and the visual appearance in relation the village.
The Chair then invited the speaker in support to make his statement to the Committee.
The Committee raised concerns in relation to the working hours of the proposal and requested that if the application were to be approved a restriction on working hours be introduced, with working hours being between 8am and 5pm only.
It was proposed by Councillor Hipsey and seconded by Councillor Ray that the application be approved as detailed in the recommendation below.
Page 6 For: Councillor Hispsey, Councillor Little, Councillor Baldwin, Councillor Curtis, Councillor Kelly, Councillor Palmer, Councillor Ray and Councillor Shinnick.
Against: None
Abstain: None
RESOLVED:
That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report and an additional condition in relation to the hours of operation of the saw mill and a condition to prevent ad hoc lorry parking, as requested by Members.
38. Former St Chads School, St Chads Road, Tilbury - 14/01274/FUL
The Principal Planner introduced the report to the Committee which proposed the residential re-development of the former St. Chads School site.
The Committee were advised that outline permission was granted in February 2012 for the development of up to 133 residential dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping and access. This permission allowed four years for the submission of reserved matters and as such remains capable of implementation.
The Committee were further advised that there had been no objections from highways subject to the conditions and obligations set out in the report and the following additional condition:
32 Prior to the commencement of development (excluding remediation and site clearance) details of the internal estate road layout, based on the approved Masterplan, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include;
Layout and geometry of the internal roads Details of Visibility sight splays and how these are to be retained free from obstruction Siting and design of traffic calming measures Layout of car parking areas (excluding those on-plot) Materials Details of extent of Home Zone / Play Streets and measures to be employed within these areas.
Reason: Further details are required, in the interests of highway safety and amenity and to ensure conformity with LDF Core Strategy Policy PMD2.
The Committee raised issues regarding the parking provision of the site and the loss of the playing field from the former School, however it was noted that the site met the 35% requirement for social and affordable housing.
Page 7 The Chair invited the speaker in support to make his statement to the Committee.
It was proposed by Councillor Hipsey and seconded by Councillor Curtis that the application be approved as detailed in the recommendation below.
For: Councillor Hispsey, Councillor Little, Councillor Baldwin, Councillor Curtis, Councillor Kelly, Councillor Palmer, Councillor Ray and Councillor Shinnick.
Against: None
Abstain: None
RESOLVED:
That the application be approved subject to:
1. The completion and signing of a satisfactory Legal Agreement relating to the Heads of Terms set out in Section 1 of the report 2. The conditions detailed within the report and additional condition 32 as detailed above.
The meeting finished at 7.55 pm
Approved as a true and correct record
CHAIR
DATE
Any queries regarding these Minutes, please contact Democratic Services at [email protected]
Page 8 Agenda Item 8 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Reference: Site: 14/01321/OUT Land Adjacent Railway Line The Manorway And West Of Victoria Road Stanford Le Hope Essex
Ward: Proposal: Stanford Le Hope Outline application with all matters reserved apart from access West for the residential development of up to 153 dwellings.
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received MWY 600/001 Planning application boundary 05.12.14 MWY 600/002 Existing site levels 05.12.14 MWY 600/003 Constraints plan 05.12.14 MWY 600/004 Illustrative Masterplan 05.12.14 MWY 600/005 Illustrative Masterplan – open space plan 05.12.14 201106 128 Proposed highway works (public footpath) 11.02.15 201106 127 Proposed site access and highway works 11.02.15 REV A
The application is also accompanied by: Transport Assessment, 2nd March 2010, Waterman Boreham Transport Note, 25th March 2014, Iceni Projects Framework Travel Plan, May 2014, Iceni Projects Sustainability Statement, March 2014, Iceni Projects Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assessment, 15th February 2010, Waterman Design and Access Statement, November 2014, RI Design Code, November 2014, RI Ecology Assessment, November 2014, Ecology Solutions Letter from Ecology Solutions 11.02.15 Energy Water Statement, March 2014, Iceni Projects Flood Risk Assessment, November 2014, Mayer Brown Landscape Strategy and Visual Appraisal, Revision C, November 2014, Neil Tully Planning Statement, November 2014, Iceni Projects Tree Survey. March 2014, Simon Jones Associates Utilities Statement, 14 July 2014, Waterman Preliminary Risk Assessment, Addendum Report to Desk Study, February 2011, Buro Happold Environmental Noise Assessment at a Site adjacent Manorway – Addendum Report, March 2014, Sharps Acoustics LLP Page 9 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Applicant: Validated: C&S Associates 5 December 2014 Date of expiry: 6 March 2015 Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and s.106 Agreement
1.0 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 Outline Planning permission was granted for ‘Residential development of up to 153 dwellings’ on the 29th March 2012 (Ref. 11/50289/OUT). The outline permission had layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent consideration. The permission agreed the means of access to the site achieved by way of an access road from a new spur from the Southend Road and Victoria Road roundabout.
1.2 Notwithstanding the outline nature of the permission, conditions 3 and 5 required the reserved matters applications to be in accordance with the Illustrative Masterplan (ref: MNY, 100/107, Rev I), ‘Scale’ and ‘Use and Amount’ Parameters. Condition 4 requires that in the event that an area of the site running parallel with the southern embankment of The Manorway is required by the London Gateway Port and Logistics Park through the provisions of the Harbour Empowerment Order (HEO) then the total number of dwellings permissible in the remainder of the site should not exceed 114 dwellings.
1.3 No applications have been made for details pursuant to the reserved matters and therefore this permission has lapsed.
1.4 The approved vehicular access from the Southend Road roundabout was subsequently amended by virtue of a non-material amendment (Ref. 13/00184/NMA). The amendment moved the alignment spur road further north, from the centre to the north-western part of the roundabout.
Current application
1.5 This outline application relates to 6.1 hectares site north-west of the built up area of Stanford-le-Hope. The current application proposes the residential development of the site for up to 153 dwellings.
1.6 This is an outline application with the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent consideration (‘the reserved matters’). The application seeks approval of the means of access to the site. The application does not include details of the internal road networks within the development, such matters being reserved.
Page 10 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
1.7 The current proposal is substantially the same as the 2012 permission as amended in 2013. The proposed access remains off the Southend Road and Victoria Road roundabout as per the 2013 amendment. With the exception of the alignment of part of the access road, the indicative layout of housing, internal roads and distribution of open space are identical on the submitted Illustrative Masterplan to those approved in 2012. The site area is identical to that approved in 2012 with the exception of alterations around the amended access to reflect the 2013 amendment.
1.8 The following section describes the proposal by reference to the reserved matters and details those elements of the scheme which are proposed to be fixed.
1.9 Layout - comprises the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development.
1.10 Whilst layout is reserved the planning application includes details of the approximate location of buildings, routes within the application site and the provision of open space.
1.11 The illustrative Masterplan details that the residential parcel extending 3.5ha ha (58.3% of the site). This equates to an average density of 43.7 dwellings per hectare. The residential parcel is located in the northern and central parts of the site.
1.12 The illustrative Masterplan details the location and extent of c.2.5ha of open space. The area of open space is a near continuous area comprising the southern third of the site and extending along the eastern boundary, parallel with Hassenbrook, up to the point of proposed vehicles access. This area is proposed to accommodate outdoor equipment. The open space is also proposed to contain flood attenuation storage and Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) systems.
1.13 The application includes an indicative dwelling mix as detailed in Table 1 below which is identical to the 2012 permission. The Planning Statement advises that ‘The mix of dwelling types to be provided on site is the subject of determination at the reserved matters stage’ (Para 4.3). The Illustrative Masterplan that accompanies the application is based on the indicative mix.
1.14 The Indicative Masterplan details vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access from the Southend / Victoria Road Roundabout leading onto an internal road running parallel with the site’s northern boundary with the embankment of The Manorway. The principle internal road is illustrated to loop around the central and western parts of the site, with a number of lower category roads illustrated from this principle internal road.
Page 11 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
1.15 The illustrative layout details terraces of housing fronting the principle streets and backing onto the northern and western site boundaries defined by the Manor Way embankment and the railway line respectively. The remainder of the site is illustrated to predominantly follow a perimeter block form characterised by terraces of properties. The exception to this is a series of detached and semi-detached houses fronting onto the proposed open space which in term lead to town houses located on the northern edge of the southern parcel of open space.
1.16 With the exception of the access details, the illustrative layout of the houses and distribution of open space detailed on the Masterplan is identical to that agreed in 2012 and to which conditions on that permission sought reserved matters to adhere.
1.17 Access - covers accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.
1.18 The application proposes the creation of a new spur from the Southend Road and Victoria Road roundabout. The access is identical to the amended details agreed under Ref. 13/00184/NMA.
1.19 A secondary access, serving only pedestrians, is proposed to be provided to the south of the site and linking onto Public Footpath No.36. This is detailed on plan ref: 201106-128. The Masterplan shows a north/south pedestrian links passing through the centre of the application site through an area of open space and linking through the main residential part of the site.
1.20 Scale - relates to the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings. Whilst scale is a reserved matter, the planning application includes details of the upper and lower limit of height, width and length of each building included in the development proposed.
1.21 The illustrative proposal consists of two, two and a half and three storey dwellings. In general the two storey buildings are located to the northern and western edges of the site. The three storey buildings are located along the central boulevard located at the centre of the scheme, a terrace fronting the southern parcel of open space and a terrace on the eastern edge of the scheme.
1.22 The illustrative scale / massing of development detailed on page 32 of the Design and Access Statement is identical to that agreed in 2012 and to which conditions on that permission sought reserved matters to adhere.
1.23 Appearance - comprises the aspects of a building or place within the development which determine the visual impression it makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture. Whilst appearance is reserved, the application is accompanied by a Design Code. Page 12 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
1.24 The Planning Statement advises that the objective of the Design Code ‘is to provide clarity in terms massing, scale, building orientation, and external building materials’ (para 6.65). The Design and Access Statement takes a number of examples to illustrate both traditional Essex Vernacular and more a contemporary scheme.
1.25 The Design and Access Statement describes a number of character areas;
The Northern Green Lung and Primary Streets – this relates to an area at the entrance to the site and the associated open space. The applicant describes a less formal landscape treatment for this area with natural grassland and lines of trees combined with impacted gravel paths and timber bridges. The open space in this area is proposed to act as a managed area for flood water and a sustainable water drainage feature. Secondary Streets – this relates to the western part of the site. The applicant describes how all secondary streets are formed around shared surfaces creating Home Zones to provide a more pedestrian friendly environment. Chicanes, road tables, changes in surface treatments and a reduced speed limit for vehicles characterise these areas. In secondary streets parking spaces are either provided by communal courts interspersed with buffer zones or by private bays on plot. The Drive – this relates to part of the site fronting the open space and Hassenbrook beyond. This area of the site benefits from more established tree growth along the boundary and it is proposed that all trees in this area are retained. It is proposed that the drive is lined along its western edge with additional trees at regular intervals to soften the built edge. The Boulevard – this relates to the central part of the site. The applicant advises that the site constraints relating to sewer easements have created an opportunity to provide a linear space fronted by three storey townhouses. The southern green lung – this relates to the southern area of open space. The applicant advises that this area will provide open space for the development and the wider community. The applicant describes ‘a simple landscape treatment is proposed for the park with meadow grassland, mown paths combined with impacted gravel paths to provide inclusive access. The area will act as a managed area for flood water and provide sustainable drainage for the development…..There will be potential for the integration of exercise areas that could be located along the footpath that follows the periphery of the green lung. These could form a fitness or trim trail and include simple activities for all age groups. A small number of benches and tables could also be provided within the open space to increase usage and promote a sense of ownership from residents’.
1.26 The Design Code accompanying the application seeks to establish key principles for these character areas. It also provides key principles for parking, traffic calming, cycle storage, recycling and refuse storage, building arrangement, details and materials. The Design Code is identical to that submitted as part of the 2012 permission and to which condition 34 of that permission required adherence. Page 13 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
1.27 Landscaping – The indicative masterplan details approximately 2.6 hectares (43% of the total site area) of public open space and landscaping elements. The most significant area is within the southern third of the site and extending along the site’s eastern boundary.
1.28 The applicant advises that the northern section of open space will provide a gateway to the development. The existing brook crosses this area and is proposed to be made accessible with a boardwalk style bridge.
1.29 The southern and the northern open spaces are connected by a linear open space that follows the brook and eastern edge of the site. Both areas are proposed to accommodate sustainable urban drainage systems
1.30 The applicant advises that the southern end of the open space also serves as a managed area for flood water. The D&A Statement advises ‘It is envisaged that the landscape would be maintained as natural meadowland rather than formal cut grass to provide a habitat for existing wildlife and also provide an interesting and sustainable setting for the development. Pedestrian and cycle routes are planned through this area and connect the development with the town centre and train station. Pathways in these areas would be formed in impacted gravel with soft path edges and be illuminated with low-level lighting bollards to enhance useage and security, whilst preserving a natural environment’.
1.31 Planning obligations - Below is the applicants proposed Heads of Terms;
No. Description
1 Affordable Housing 35% of the total number of units as affordable housing. The tenure mix to be 70% Affordable Rented and 30% Intermediate Housing units.
2 Payment of Planning Obligation Strategy Payment of £5,000 per residential unit (£5,000 x No Units) (indexed) to Thurrock Council in accordance with the Planning Obligation Strategy. Not to Commence Development until the Owner has paid to the Council twenty five per cent (25%) of the Discounted Residential Unit Standard Charge per Residential Unit for the Maximum Number of Residential Units. The remaining seventy five percent (75%) of the Discounted Residential Unit Standard Charge per Residential Unit to be paid within ten (10) Working Days of the end of each quarter in relation to Residential Units Completed within the preceding quarter
3 Invertebrate mitigation and management strategy To carry out the Spring Invertebrate Survey in Spring 2015 prior to Commencement of Development the scope of which must have received prior approval from the Council in consultation with Natural England; Page 14 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
To submit an Invertebrate Mitigation and Management Strategy to the Council for its approval and not to Commence Development until the Invertebrate Mitigation and Management Strategy has been approved by the Council (who shall liaise with Natural England) and at all times thereafter to comply with the approved Invertebrate Mitigation and Management Strategy.
4 Exercise equipment Not to Commence Development until details of the Outdoor Equipment to provide a trim-trail route and its location have been submitted to and approved by the Council;
Not to Occupy more than fifty per cent (50%) of the Residential Units until the approved Outdoor Equipment has been provided and installed by the Owner at its own expense within the approved location within the Open Space.
5 Long term management and maintenance of open space / landscaping / SUDS and outdoor equipment Make arrangements to secure the future maintenance of the Open Space, Exercise Equipment, Landscaping and SUDS. To permit public access to the open space free of charge. 6 Highway works Following a Roadside Restraint Risk Assessment (RRRA) for a section of The Manorway, undertake any agreed vehicle restraint measures arising
Enter into a Highways Agreement for; (a) the construction of a new access, (b) any vehicle restraint measures agreed as a result of the RRRA. (c) to provide a new footbridge across Hassenbrook and remove the existing footbridge. (d) carry out landscaping works to the roundabout at Victoria Road and Southend Road. (e) To undertake the Footbridge Works or a commuted sum
Table 1: Summary of the proposal
1.32 The table below summarises some of the main points of detail contained within the development proposal.
Land Use Allocation: LDF Core Strategy Interim Proposals Map: ‘Housing broad location urban extension’
Site Area: 6.1 hectares
Parking Approximate car parking numbers: 230
Ratio of units to car parking spaces: 1 to 1.5 Page 15 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Indicative dwelling mix Type Percentage Max No. based on 153
2 / 3 bedroom 27% 41 house
3 bedroom 54% 82 houses
4 bedroom 19% 30 houses
TOTAL 153 43.7 dwellings per hectare (dph) Density
1.33 The applicant submitted a formal request for a Screening Opinion on 01 September 2014 pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The Council concluded that the proposal was not “EIA development” within the meaning of the Regulations.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
This 6.1 hectares triangular shaped site is located immediately to the north-east of the existing built up area of Stanford-le-Hope. The site has a 360m long northern boundary with the embankment to the Manorway (A1014), the road being elevated from the site along this section. The site has a 350m long western boundary with the railway line to the west. The north-western part of the site is at grade with the rail line. Further south, the rail line is elevated by some 3m from the adjacent site levels.
The 450m long eastern boundary of the site is adjoins a watercourse, beyond which are the residential areas fronting Victoria Road, Ellie Close, Bell-Reeves Close. To the south of the site is the industrial area of Baryta Close.
The site topography is largely flat and falls from the north-west corner to the southern tip. The application is accompanied by a plan of site levels which details levels at 7.92m AOD in the north-western corner of the site, falling to 4.93m AOD in the southern tip of the site.
The site is located approximately 200 metres north of Stanford-le-Hope railway station.
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
Ref Description Decision 10/50146/TTGOUT. Residential development for 185 Withdrawn homes 11/50289/OUT Residential development of up to Approved subject to 153 dwellings’ s106 Page 16 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
The associated s106 agreement secured;
(i) payment of the Discounted Standard Charge; (ii) affordable housing of 35% of the total number of Residential Units to be provided within the Development; (iii) agree an invertebrate mitigation and management strategy; (iv) provide and install £35,000 (Indexed) worth of outdoor exercise equipment within the Open Space; (v) make arrangements to secure the future maintenance of the Open Space; (vi) Enter into a S278 highways agreement for the construction of a new access, to provide a new footbridge across Hassenbrook and remove the existing footbridge, to install a double height crash barrier on Manorway, and carry out landscaping works to the roundabout at Victoria Road and Southend Road.
13/00184/NMA Non-material amendment to Approved access
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
PUBLICITY:
4.1 The application was advertised by way of site notice and press advert. Neighbours were notified by way of letter. The period of consultation has lapsed. A petition and nine letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposal.
4.2 The petition contains 63 signatories and objects to the proposal on the following grounds;
- The site is designated flood plain. Development on this land would risk flooding and result in water flowing into other development areas; - It is former Green Belt. There is less and less Green Belt in Stanford-le-Hope; Page 17 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
- Add pressure to local infrastructure, including transport and traffic, noise and the sewerage system; - Residents already suffer due to bad traffic management and this development will only make matters worse; - This development would add to strains on our already stretched emergency and education service.
4.3 The letters of representation object to the proposal on the following grounds;
- The site is in the Green Belt; - With 350 houses being built on the Butts Lane site, the proposal would exceed the LDF-CS allocation for Stanford-le-Hope. The previously identified very special circumstances regarding housing supply no longer exist; - Development should be on brownfield land first; - Impact on ecology, including invertebrates and reptiles present on the site; - Flood risk posed to future residents and impact of developing on land susceptible to flooding and which acts as flood plain, including risk posed to neighbouring properties; - Southern part of the site is unsuitable for sport and recreation due to flooding and water logging; - Increase in traffic on the local highway network which is already congested, especially at peak times; - Victoria Road has narrow pavements and is unsuitable for additional pedestrian movements; - Lack of infrastructure including doctors, hospitals, schools and sewerage infrastructure to cope with the impact of the additional population; - The development needs a second point of vehicular access for emergency services, particularly as the Southend Road roundabout gets severely congested, especially at peak times; - Formation of the new access would result in the loss of 3 on-street parking spaces, reducing the available parking for existing residents at 77 to 83 Southend Road, leaving just 3 on-street spaces. Suggestion that some of the money derived from the Planning Obligation Strategy be used to fund the redesign and reconfiguration of the roundabout at Southend Road in order to resolve the loss of parking and existing congestion. This could involve reducing the size of the roundabout, installing traffic lights and providing diagonal parking spaces within a widened pavement; - Overlooking of properties in Victoria Road; - Impact on security of properties in Victoria Road - Impact on view; - Litter and smells; - Development being out of character; - Environmental pollution.
CONSULTATIONS Page 18 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
4.4 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. The full text can be viewed on the Council’s website via public access at the following link: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01321/OUT
HIGHWAYS:
4.5 No objection with conditions and S106.
4.6 PMD10 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans - It is recommended that the development makes a proportionate contribution towards the cost of the A13 widening scheme, in line with their impact in this area. It is recommended that this contribution is secured through the existing planning gain contribution strategy.
4.7 Site Access - There are no objections to this arrangement.
4.8 Walking and Cycling – Recommend condition requiring works to footpath 36 and associated bridges.
4.9 Site Layout - DP World has installed replacement crash barrier and noise attenuation barrier along the Manorway. The presence of residential gardens at the base of the embankment and the risk of errant vehicles leaving the Manorway needs to be considered. The need for improved double height safety barriers should be considered by undertaking the Department for Transport's Road Restraint Risk Assessment Process. This should be secured via obligation.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
4.10 Surface Water Management – The basins have been modelled for all duration rainfall events and connected into the pipe network, which shows that they would not flood in any rainfall events up to the 1 in 100 year event including climate change. The outfalls from the basins have been modelled as surcharged up to the level of the 1 in 100 year climate change flood event. This showed that the basins and pipe network will not flood. No objections subject to conditions.
HOUSING:
4.11 Advise that 35% of the dwellings on site should be provided as affordable housing with 70% of the total affordable residential units provided as affordable rented. The balance should be provided at a range of costs that are less than minimum market prices or rents e.g. intermediate housing.
4.12 Provides further comment regarding (1) integration of units, (2) meeting HCA standards, (3) meeting lifetime homes standard, (4) viability, (5) timescales for delivery (6) need for affordable housing.
FLOOD RISK MANAGER: Page 19 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
4.13 No objection with conditions. The applicant is proposing to use attenuation basins to hold the additional runoff created by the development and has provided evidence which shows that the system can meet the required greenfield runoff rates and function with a surcharged outfall. Information on future ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the drainage is outstanding as is future riparian responsibilities for the watercourses running through the site; this information should be supplied in satisfying the suggested condition above.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
4.14 Air Quality – In agreement with the conclusions of the air quality assessment and desk top study.
4.15 Contaminated land – The EHO agrees with the recommendations of the desktop study that an intrusive investigation be carried out in due course with a risk assessment following the survey. A condition is recommended in this regard. A condition is recommended to secure remediation of Japanese knotweed.
4.16 Construction – The EHO recommends a condition requiring a construction management plan (CEMP) to include additional details including noise and dust control, waste management plan and proposed hours of construction activities.
4.17 Noise – The EHO refers to the noise assessment which examines the potential noise and vibration impact on the proposed development from the elevated section of the Manorway to the north and the LT&S railway line to the west. The methodology and assessment criteria employed are appropriate and acceptable. The EHO agrees that vibration is unlikely to be an issue for this development.
4.18 The EHO concludes that if the LPA is minded to give the development approval, a condition to submit a scheme of noise mitigation should be included so that all habitable rooms will achieve the “good” internal levels in BS8233:2014.
ARCHAEOLOGY:
4.19 The Historic Environment Record (HER) shows that the proposed development lies within a potentially sensitive area of archaeological deposits. A programme of archaeological investigation will be required and conditions are recommended.
NATURAL ENGLAND:
4.20 Natural England recommends that a detailed invertebrate habitat management plan, to include arrangements for management in perpetuity and funding obligations, is secured by a suitably worded planning condition. Page 20 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
4.21 Comments on Invertebrate Mitigation Report - It is clear from the planning submission that, as far as invertebrate mitigation is concerned, this application (14/01321/OUT) has not changed the over-arching layout of the development site. This is clear from paragraph 3.24 of the report which states that “the surveys in 2012 recorded a variety of additional invertebrate species but none of these species would be a reason to sufficiently alter the proposed layout and the extant mitigation area for invertebrates.” Natural England has previously accepted the quantum of retained and managed habitat, but sought a justification in support of that conclusion.
4.22 For the most part, the 2014 Invertebrate Mitigation Report repeats the same text of the 2012 Report, but does include some limited information on habitat prescriptions for an additional 15 species, reported in Section 5, paras 5.25 – 5.47.
4.23 On the basis of the information provided to us, it is clear that the fundamental layout of the development has not changed within the current submission, and therefore it cannot be claimed that the development has been significantly influenced by the survey findings. The (for the most part unmitigated) loss of substantial areas of dry neutral grassland (75% according to the report) are evidence of this. The reports claims that the submission represents sustainable development (paragraph 4.10) are therefore questionable. It should also be noted that the addition of SuDS and LEAP facilities will reduce the overall area of invertebrate mitigation. We do however welcome the reduction in the scale of the trim trail, which will benefit the invertebrate mitigation plan.
4.24 Notwithstanding the above, Natural England supports the production of a detailed invertebrate habitat management plan for retained areas, which should be secured by a suitably worded planning condition. This must include details of management in perpetuity, and set out appropriate funding obligations.
4.25 Protected Species - We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species and refer to their Standing Advice.
LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY CONSULTANT:
4.26 The current application is broadly similar to the previous withdrawn application (14/00355/OUT); however the Invertebrate Mitigation Strategy and Open Space Plan have been updated to seek to address issues highlighted on the 2012 draft by Natural England, Buglife and Plumb Associates. These issues included the need to justify that an appropriate mix of habitat features would be provided to support key species that had been recorded; the need to provide recreation provision and the potential conflicts between recreation, amenity and ecological requirements for the open space.
4.27 No new surveys have been undertaken in support of this current application and the strategy is based on surveys undertaken by Colin Plant Associates in 2009, 2011 Page 21 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
and 2012 and records from Peter Harvey of a short survey undertaken in 2010. Essex Field Club and Buglife have maintained their objections to the application as they consider the survey effort and interpretation of the results are inadequate. Natural England in its response to 14/00355/OUT dated 7th May 2014 considered that the invertebrate survey work was incomplete. Natural England had previously accepted the quantum of retained area for mitigation but sought justification in support of that conclusion.
4.28 The original habitat survey was undertaken in 2009 and was checked again in March 2014 at which time it was considered that there had not been “any significant differences from the previous surveys both in terms of habitats present, extent and their species composition, however subtle differences where noted which typically were based around a further extension of some of the scrub areas, and a reduction in sward height and structure associated with horse grazing.” It is unfortunate that these changes had not been quantified to allow a full assessment of what changes are taking place. Having visited the site on a number of occasions there is evidence of scrub becoming more dominant in parts of the site but this has not been quantified.
4.29 The revised Invertebrate Mitigation Strategy has provided some additional detail on what are considered to be significant species. The plan has illustrated the LEAP and SuDs features that need to be incorporated into the 2.64ha area of open space as well as indications of areas of grassland that will be subject to two different cutting regimes. There is a significant concern that the mitigation measures would not achieve the necessary varied structure that are vital to support the diverse range of species currently present on the site. The Strategy does not indicate who it considers would be appropriate to implement such a scheme in the future; this would require sensitive management and is not something that most landscape contractors would be equipped to undertake.
4.30 Formal access through the area will be limited to one main path; however it is likely that informal access, e.g. by dog walkers, will occur through the area due to the limited open space within this part of Stanford-le-Hope.
4.31 The Design Code still has not been amended to show that the green lung areas are being managed to provide invertebrate mitigation. The document states on page 29 that the key functions of the park in the southern green lung are: • Provide safe open space • Support recreation activities and encourage social interaction • Encourage pedestrian links with the train station & town centre • Provide a managed area for flood water • Provide sustainable drainage • Maintain areas of natural habitat
4.32 It states “the landscaping and planting strategy of this area must balance the needs of ecology with informal open space and recreational needs”. Page 22 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
4.33 This suggests that in reality the management requirements of the Invertebrate Mitigation Strategy have not been integrated into the wider scheme and that it is expected that the mitigation area will need to cater for amenity and recreation needs.
4.34 This lack of consistency makes it difficult to have confidence that the mitigation measures proposed would in reality be achieved in the longer term. If there is such limited space for recreation it is likely that there will be pressures from residents to the open space to be ‘improved.’
BUGLIFE:
4.35 Buglife, the Invertebrate Conservation Trust object to the above application on the basis that it would lead to the loss of a significant habitat resource for nationally rare and scarce invertebrates and a site of clear Local Wildlife Site quality. The application does not meet the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment as the development will lead to a significant loss of biodiversity.
4.36 The application suffers both from inadequate invertebrate surveys and from poor interpretation of the limited survey data.
4.37 The application site is of Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) quality as has been confirmed by Essex Ecology Services (EECOS), Essex Wildlife Trust and Natural England in response to survey information provided by the Essex entomologist, Peter Harvey. The LoWS series is inclusive, suggesting that a site of such clear value should be designated and therefore require greater consideration of the potential ecological impacts of the proposed development. The site should be safeguarded by virtue of LDF-CS Policy CSTP19. The biodiversity value, combined with the site’s value to the greenbelt and flood amelioration suggests that it should in fact never have been proposed as a potential housing site.
4.38 The site supports Species of Principle importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006)and approximately 19 Red Data Book and 36 nationally scarce invertebrates, as well as potentially many more rare and scarce species. The site has a strong resource of the UK’s most endangered bumblebees and is one only a handful of sites in the UK for the Canvey Island beetle, most of which lack long-term security and are vulnerable to habitat loss. The vast majority of the habitats that support these species will be destroyed by the development and mitigation plans do not provide measures to retain or create or compensate for the loss of these valuable habitats.
4.39 Inappropriate mitigation and design proposals - The invertebrate mitigation proposed is extremely disappointing, both because the most valuable habitat features are being lost, and because all retained areas are ear-marked for multi- Page 23 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
functional open space, which is incompatible with the invertebrate assemblages present. The result of the current plan would be the loss of nearly 6ha of valuable invertebrate habitat with no meaningful mitigation. The proposed site layout, landscaping plan and mitigation are all wholly unsuitable and will lead to significant ecological impacts.
4.40 Absence of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - This application will have significant effects on the environment due to its impact on Section 41 species and habitats, exacerbated by its urban location, and should be subject to EIA.
4.41 Failure to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework - it is likely that a significant proportion of the invertebrate interest would be lost from the site contrary to para 109 and 118 of the NPPF.
ESSEX FIELD CLUB:
4.42 Object on the basis that the proposed scheme does not provide sustainable development. The proposals will destroy the nature conservation and heritage value and integrity of a site with proven Local Wildlife Site (County) quality which should be acknowledged and designated as a LoWS and protected and treated accordingly.
4.43 The floral composition of the site is almost certainly unique in Thurrock and south Essex, and provides the only surviving example of formerly more extensive habitats in the region. It is likely to support uniquely valuable invertebrate assemblages in the local authority and wider area. It represents ancient open common land.
4.44 EFC do not agree that the proposed scheme can provide sustainable development. The Invertebrate Mitigation Strategy has two attenuation ponds taking up a considerable area of existing terrestrial habitat, "species rich grassland" areas with dry grassland plant species proposed for existing valuable southern floodplain habitats at the site, and a completely unrealistic claim that the proposed mitigation strategy can actually achieve anything but whole scale loss of the nature conservation value of the site.. We do not agree that the quantum of land to be provided as mitigation agreed as 2.5 ha during a meeting between Ecology Solutions, Natural England, and Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation (TTGDC) was a decision that is fit for purpose.
4.45 It is not possible to develop a major part of a complex habitat area like this and conserve the reasons for its value. The gradation of habitats from lower ground in the south to higher ground in the north, the best floodplain grassland would be lost and the mitigation strategy proposes the unsustainable replacement of floodplain grassland with dry grassland currently present at the north of the site.
4.46 The applicant’s assessments have repeatedly tried to diminish the value of the site. An ISIS (2010) analysis of all the results available for the site provides much better Page 24 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
results than the ones which have been suggested by Ecology Solutions and Colin Plant Associates. Five Specific assemblage types (SATs) are identified in SSSI favourable condition, “rich flower resource”, “scrub edge”, “open short sward”, “bark & sapwood decay” and “scrub-heath & moorland”. SATs are characterised by ecologically restricted species and are generally only expressed in lists from sites with conservation value. In addition the Broad assemblage Types “unshaded early successional mosaic”, “shaded field & ground layer” and “permanent wet mire” are all identified in favourable condition, with important assemblages also identified for "grassland & scrub matrix", "arboreal canopy" and "wood decay". The idea which was repeatedly suggested by Ecology Solutions that this wildlife value is of recent origin is incorrect and cannot be supported by evidence. Basically this site provides a habitat area of extremely high value which has almost certainly been present for a very long time.
4.47 The Planning Committee should recognise the Local Wildlife Site status of the application site and the requirement for the alternative nature conservation sites NPPF test and the other nature conservation obligations placed on the planning authority by NPPF, the NERC Act and the LDF. There is for example a large area of set-aside land (nearly the same area as the proposed application site) just over the west side of the railway line north of existing housing with low nature conservation value. There is also the heritage value of the site, the current closure of open recreational access and the loss of an irreplaceable countryside asset to consider.
EDUCATION:
4.48 This development falls in a priority admissions area whereby, having regard to the latest forecasts published in the document “Pupil Place Plan 2014-18”, our assessment concludes that additional Nursery and Primary Places will be required by 2018.
NHS PROPERTY SERVICES:
4.49 NHS advises that there is a capacity deficit in the catchment practice and a developer contribution of £43,620 secured by s106 is required to mitigate the ‘capital cost’ to NHS England for the provision of additional healthcare services arising directly as a result of the development proposal.
HERITAGE ADVISOR:
4.50 There would be no adverse impact on any designed heritage asset.
NETWORK RAIL:
4.51 Network Rail does not express a view on the application. It advises that noise and vibration impacts should be assessed in the context of the NPPF. The letter refers Page 25 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
to measures to protect Network Rails assets.
BRITISH PIPELINE AGENCY:
4.52 Not in zone of interest.
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF was published on the 27 March 2012.
5.2 Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.3 Annex 1 makes clear that Development Plan policies should not be considered out- of-date simply because they were adopted prior to publication of the Framework. It also sets out how decision-takers should proceed taking account of the date of adoption of the relevant policy and the consistency of the policy with the Framework. Due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
5.4 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.
1. Building a strong, competitive economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 9. Protecting Green Belt land 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Page 26 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
5.5 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:
Air quality
Climate change
Community Infrastructure Levy
Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Design
Determining a planning application
Environmental Impact Assessment
Flexible options for planning permissions
Flood Risk and Coastal Change
Health and wellbeing
Land affected by contamination
Natural Environment
Noise
Open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space
Planning obligations
Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking
Use of Planning Conditions
Water supply, wastewater and water quality
5.6 Detailed below are two extracts from the NPPG with regards to housing land supply and the Green Belt;
5.7 ‘Do housing and economic needs override constraints on the use of land, such as Green Belt? Page 27 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
The National Planning Policy Framework should be read as a whole: need alone is not the only factor to be considered when drawing up a Local Plan.
The Framework is clear that local planning authorities should, through their Local Plans, meet objectively assessed needs unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. Such policies include those relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park or the Broads; designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.
The Framework makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan’. (Paragraph: 044Reference ID: 3-044-20141006)
‘In decision taking, can unmet need for housing outweigh Green Belt Protection?
Unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the “very special circumstances” justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt’. (Paragraph: 034 Reference ID: 3-034-20141006).
Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework (2011)
5.8 The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011. The Adopted Interim Proposals Map accompanying the Core Strategy identifies the application site as ‘Housing broad location urban extension, located within the Green Belt’ wherein Policies CSSP1 (Sustainable Housing and Locations) and CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt) are relevant. The Adopted Interim Proposals Map also details a ‘Green Chain’ crossing the north-eastern corner of the site along the alignment of an existing open water course. This notation refers to LDF-CS Policy CSTP18 (Green Infrastructure). The following Core Strategy policies apply to the site:
SPATIAL POLICIES
- CSSP1: Sustainable Housing and Locations -- CSSP3: Sustainable Infrastructure Page 28 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
- CSSP4: Sustainable Green Belt - CSSP5: Sustainable Greengrid - OSDP1: Promotion of Sustainable Growth and Regeneration in Thurrock1
THEMATIC POLICIES
- CSTP1: Strategic Housing Provision - CSTP2: The Provision Of Affordable Housing - CSTP9: Well-being: Leisure and Sports - CSTP10: Community Facilities - CSTP11: Health Provision - CSTP12: Education and Learning - CSTP13: Emergency Services and Utilities - CSTP15: Transport in Greater Thurrock - CSTP16: National and Regional Transport Networks3 - CSTP18: Green Infrastructure - CSTP19: Biodiversity - CSTP20: Open Space - CSTP21: Productive Land - CSTP22: Thurrock Design - CSTP23: Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness2 - CSTP24: Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment - CSTP25: Addressing Climate Change2 - CSTP26: Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation2 - CSTP27: Management and Reduction of Flood Risk2 - CSTP33: Strategic Infrastructure Provision
POLICIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
- PMD1: Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity2 - PMD2: Design and Layout2 - PMD4: Historic Environment2 - PMD5: Open Spaces, Outdoor Sports and Recreational Facilities3 - PMD6: Development in the Green Belt2 - PMD7: Biodiversity, Geological Conservation and Development2 - PMD8: Parking Standards3 - PMD9: Road Network Hierarchy - PMD10: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans2 - PMD12: Sustainable Buildings2 - PMD13: Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation - PMD 14: Carbon Neutral Development - PMD15: Flood Risk Assessment 2 - PMD16: Developer Contributions2
[Footnote: 1New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2 Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Page 29 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3 Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy].
Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy (2014)
5.9 This Review was commenced in late 2012 with the purpose to ensure that the Core Strategy and the process by which it was arrived at are not fundamentally at odds with the NPPF. There are instances where policies and supporting text are recommended for revision to ensure consistency with the NPPF. The Review was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination in August 2013. An Examination in Public took place in April 2014. The Inspector concluded that the amendments were sound subject to recommended changes. The Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focused Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework Focused Review was adopted by Council on the 28th February 2015.
Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ focused review of the LDF-CS (2013)
5.10 The above was subject to consultation between January and March 2013. The Focused Review was restricted to the single issue of whether or not the Core Strategy should be amended to identify and allocate additional Broad Locations and Strategic Sites for housing-led development including the release of land from the Green Belt. One of the objectives of the review was to provide the opportunity to identify additional Broad Locations or Strategic Sites that may be able to contribute to the 5-year supply buffer and/or medium-term (years 6-10) housing land supply position in Thurrock.
5.11 The focused review accepted that there is a shortfall in the five year housing land supply + 20% buffer requirement. Three sites were identified with an indicative capacity of between 880 and 1,330 dwellings. This document has been parked in light of the preparation of a new Local Plan which will consider how to address future housing land supply.
Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD
5.12 This Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” DPD was subject to consultation commencing during 2012. The Draft Site Specific Allocations DPD ‘Further Issues and Options’ was the subject of a further round of consultation during 2013. In this document the site is detailed as ‘Housing Sites With Permission - STW01 - Land adjacent to A13/ A1014, Stanford-le-Hope’. The Planning Inspectorate is advising local authorities not to continue to progress their Site Allocation Plans towards examination whether their previously adopted Core Strategy is no longer in compliance with the NPPF. This is the situation for the Borough.
Thurrock Core Strategy Position Statement and Approval for the Preparation of a New Local Plan for Thurrock Page 30 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
5.13 The above report was considered at the February meeting 2014 of the Cabinet. The report highlighted issues arising from growth targets, contextual changes, impacts of recent economic change on the delivery of new housing to meet the Borough’s Housing Needs and ensuring consistency with Government Policy. The report questioned the ability of the Core Strategy Focused Review and the Core Strategy ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ to ensure that the Core Strategy is up- to-date and consistent with Government Policy and recommended the ‘parking’ of these processes in favour of a more wholesale review. Members resolved that the Council undertake a full review of Core Strategy and prepare a new Local Plan. It is anticipated that a new Local Plan for Thurrock could be adopted by early 2018.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 There are essentially 13 main issues relating to the consideration and determination of this application: I. Development Plan allocation and the principle of development;
II. Harbour Empowerment Order and delivery of the development
III. Urban design, landscape and visual impacts;
IV. Sustainable design;
V. Affordable housing;
VI. Traffic impact, access, car parking and other transport issues;
VII. Flood risk, drainage, water quality, water resources and utilities;
VIII. Land quality
IX. Ground conditions, contamination and remediation;
X. Noise, vibration, air quality and construction impacts.
XI. Effects upon ecology and nature conservation;
XII. Community and Socio-economics including social infrastructure (schools, healthcare, community facilities, sports facilities, policing etc);
XIII. Archaeology and cultural heritage;
I. DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2 The site is in the Green Belt. The Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation accepted in 2012 that there then existed very special circumstances Page 31 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
which clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt. The Committee Report concluded;
‘13.2 In conclusion, it is considered that Thurrock Council has not clearly demonstrated an up to date five year supply of deliverable sites, as required by PPS3. It is also considered that without development taking place on the site, there is little prospect of sufficient land being identified and available for development to meet the housing needs of the Borough. The proposals offer the benefit of delivering a large number of dwellings as affordable housing, which would assist in meeting a shortfall in supply.
13.3 Assessed individually, the benefits of the proposals in terms of housing supply, the delivery of affordable housing, some regenerative benefits in Stanford-le-Hope and its relationship with London Gateway, would not be of sufficient weight to justify a departure from policies. However, collectively, it is considered that the benefits could comprise the Very Special Circumstances needed to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
13.4 Aside from the harm to the openness of the Green Belt at the site, it is not considered that wider harm would result to the purposes of including land within a green Belt. The site is allocated as a Broad Location for housing in the LDF Core Strategy and is constrained and enclosed by existing development. In these circumstances, it is considered that the harm to the Green Belt would be outweighed by the benefits of the proposals. Consequently, it is considered that Very Special Circumstances justifying a departure from normal planning policies exist in this case’.
6.3 The applicants Planning Statement makes reference to, amongst other matters;
1. The site being identified in the LDF Core Strategy as a Broad Housing location; 2. The lack of a five year housing land supply and the need to review the LDF- CS to assist in addressing this. The acceptance in the AMR (2013) that the site is deliverable within the five year period (2014/15 – 2018/19); 3. The site being previously identified in TTGDC’s East Thurrock Masterplan; 4. The economic gain of planning permission in the context of London Gateway Port and Thames Enterprise Park; 5. Affordable housing supply; 6. The sustainability credentials of the application site.
6.4 The case being made by the applicant’s agent is substantially similar to that advanced in 2012, albeit it has been up dated to reflect changes in policy and circumstances, including current housing land supply and Committee resolution in relation to applications for Green Belt sites. Page 32 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.5 The Adopted Interim Proposals Map accompanying the LDF Core Strategy (2011) identifies the application site as ‘Housing broad location urban extension’, located within the Green Belt wherein Policies CSSP1 (Sustainable Housing and Locations) and CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt) are relevant. Policy CSSP1 provides details of the ‘Spatial Distribution of housing broad locations 2009-2021’. With regards to ‘Stanford-le-Hope and Corringham Urban Extension’ it states;
‘There will be a limited release of greenfield land at two locations on the urban fringe of Stanford-le hope / Corringham. In total the land release on the urban fringe will amount to 330 dwellings approx. No dwelling, including its curtilage, may be located on areas modelled to be Flood Zone 3b, including an appropriate allowance for climate change. There are additional PDL sites available within the urban area. The final site boundaries will be included in the Adopted Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD and identified on the Proposals Map’.
6.6 LDF-CS Policy CSSP4 also identifies a similar quantum of land to be released from the Green Belt for housing within Stanford-le-Hope and Corringham.
6.7 The two Green Belt locations detail on the interim Inset Map for housing are land West of Butts Lane, Stanford-le-Hope and the adjacent Manorway / Gas works field sites. The LDF-CS contains a clear commitment to amend the Green Belt boundary in this location in order to accommodate housing. The inclusion of this site within the LDF-CS shows an in-principle support for its release for housing and as such the application aligns with the Council’s spatial strategy for housing in this area. Whilst the Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD (March 2012) can be afforded little weight, it also included the site within its list of ‘Housing Sites with Permission’, ref: STW01.
6.8 In terms of the five year housing land supply, the 2014 AMR details that the identified five year supply represents 60% (or 3.0 years of supply) of the five year requirement. When the 20% buffer is taken into account, the supply represents 50% (or 2.5 years of supply) of the five year requirement. This site was included within the AMR’s calculation of land supply (detailed as STW01 - Land adjacent to A13/ A1014, Stanford-le-Hope) with an expectation that it would deliver 153 units within the 5 year period up to 2019/20 (p45). In light of this, the development is considered deliverable and would make a positive contribution towards housing land supply. In addition, there remains a need to deliver additional affordable housing to address the borough’s housing needs. The extent to which this site could assist in addressing the shortfall in housing land supply and affordable housing were factors which previously contributed to the case of very special circumstances.
6.9 In light of the above, the residential development of this site aligns with the adopted Core Strategy. There remain valid positive considerations which weigh in favour of the development. These were previously judged to clearly outweigh the harm to the Page 33 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Green Belt and any other harm. It is not considered that there is material change in circumstances or justification which would lead to a different conclusion on the principle of developing this site for housing.
II. HARBOUR EMPOWERMENT ORDER AND DELIVERY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
6.10 The London Gateway Port development was granted planning permission in 2007 by the Secretary of State. To facilitate the development ‘The London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008’ (HEO) was granted. The HEO contains a range of provisions, including the Harbour Authority having CPO powers over certain lands until 18 May 2018.
6.11 Approximately 1 hectare of the application site extending along the northern part of the application boundary is covered by the HEO (referred herein as the ‘blue land’). This equates to approximately 16% of the site area and, based on the applicants indicative design, covers an area shown for 43 new homes.
6.12 The HEO makes provision for DP World, as Harbour Authority, to compulsorily acquire the blue land or part thereof for the purposes of authorised works related to the construction of the London Gateway port. The approved HEO plan identifies the blue land for a “new topsoil and construction area” and an area marked as “access to be maintained all times”.
6.13 Condition 4 of the 2012 permission limited the number of homes permissible on the area outside the HEO Plan to 114 in the event that the blue land is required by London Gateway Port and Logistics Park through the HEO.
6.14 The works to the Manorway interchange required in connection with the Port have been undertaken. The northern part of the application site was not compulsorily purchased. In light of this, the blue land is no longer required in connection with the development of port infrastructure. It is not therefore recommended that a condition similar to that of imposed on the 2012 permission is re-imposed.
III. URBAN DESIGN, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS
6.15 Section 7 of the NPPF sets out the need for new development to deliver good design. Paragraph 57 specifies that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Paragraph 61 states that although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic consideration. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. Page 34 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.16 LDF-CS Policies CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) and Policy PMD2 (Design and Layout) are relevant. LDF-CS Policy PMD1 states that ‘Development will not be permitted where it would cause unacceptable effects on: i. the amenities of the area; ii. the amenity of neighbouring occupants; or iii. the amenity of future occupiers of the site.
6.17 The current proposal is substantially the same as the 2012 permission as amended in 2013.
6.18 To west of the site are residential properties fronting Victoria Road and Bell-Reeve Close. The illustrative Masterplan details how the new development would incorporate green spaces aligned with the site’s eastern boundary with Hassenbrook. New houses are illustrated fronting the open space. This layout creates a perimeter block, ensuring visual continuity of frontage and clear delineation of public and private space.
6.19 With regards to the development along the open space, the separation distances to the existing properties illustrated would provide a sufficient degree of separation not to give rise to overlooking or a sense of overbearing.
6.20 Back to back distances within the development are illustrated at a minimum of 20m which is below the 25m sought in the Annex to the former Local Plan (1997). Whereas the Essex Design Guide recommends a minimum back-to-back distance of 25m, the Urban Place Supplement amended this to 20m for carefully designed, compact urban development development (p99). The 20m back to back distance has been used for other developments in the borough. Whilst the development density is not high, this type of development constitutes a compact urban development whereby the Urban Place Supplement indicated that a reduction from this standard is considered acceptable in certain instances. In light of the above, it is considered that an objection could not be substantiated in this instance.
6.21 The Committee Report on the 2012 application noted that the illustrative alignment of routes and the arrangement of residential blocks are determined to a large extent by the presence of underground sewers and associated easements. It was reported that ‘This could result in a layout that is artificial and contrived. It has not been possible to respond directly to impressive views of the church tower’. The site is subject to a number of constraints and the illustrative plan reflects this.
6.22 In light of the above, the outline nature of the application, and the ability to impose conditions, it is not considered that the design or layout of the development would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area, neighbouring occupants or future occupiers of the site.
6.23 Detailed below is the consideration of the proposal against the relevant criteria CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) and Policy PMD2 (Design and Layout). Part 2 of Policy Page 35 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
PMD2 states that the Council will use the Building for Life criteria to evaluate proposals and as such these criteria are referred to below.
BFL 1 - Connections
6.24 In addition to this criteria, parts (v) ‘accessibility’ and (vi) ‘permeability and legibility’ of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 are also relevant. The development proposes to create foot and cycle path linking from the southern parcel of the site and connecting to public footpath No.36 via a new footbridge across Hassenbrook. The s106 associated with the 2012 permission requires the applicant to enter into a Highways Agreement to deliver the Footbridge Works and in the event that they are unable to commence and complete the footbridge works, to pay the LPA the cost of undertaking the works (up to a maximum of £69,000). The report on the 2012 application stated that the up grading of footpath 36 including the installation of lighting would be met from the £5,000 per unit contribution payable under the POS.
6.25 On-site foot and cycle paths would be delivered as part of the development. The diagram on page 54 of the Design and Access Statement shows a comprehensive network of foot and cycle paths from the access with Victoria Road / Southend Road through to the southern part of the site and the proposed new link onto Footpath 36. The illustrative layout is considered to be legible, providing recognisable routes.
6.26 The Public Rights of Way Officer has requested that the applicant considers providing the definitive route of Footpath 36 within the site together with the provision of a new bridge over the Hope Watercourse. The 2012 permission did not make provision for this. The detailed layout of footpaths and cycleway forms part of the reserved matters and it is recommended that a condition be imposed seeking the alignment of the internal path to facilitate the provision of this link. The funding of a second bridge did not form part of the 2012 legal agreement and as such would have to be funded from the POS contribution.
BFL 2 - Facilities and services & BFL 3 - Public transport
6.27 The NPPF identifies the need to favour sustainable transport modes to enhance travel choice (para 29), and to locate developments that generate significant movement where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised (para 34). The site is within walking distance of the town centre, local bus routes and the rail station.
BFL 4 - Meeting local housing requirements
6.28 The BFL question posed is whether the development has a mix of housing types and tenures that suit local requirements? The development would contain a mix of house types, the majority of which are family sized accommodation. The applicant has agreed to provide 35% affordable housing and agree the tenure mix. It is considered that the development meets BFL criteria 4. Page 36 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
BFL 5 - Character
6.29 In terms of character, the Design and Access Statement details how the development would incorporate distinct character areas described in part 1 of this report. The proposed hierarchy of streets, mews and shared surfaces has the potential to deliver a variety of streetscapes and places with a clear identity.
6.30 Notwithstanding the principle of development, it is considered that the density and ‘urban village’ illustrative approach is appropriate to this context, robust and coherent. The creation of corridors within the development would create local views. The final appearance of the development would be considered at Reserved Matters stage.
6.31 In light of the above, it is considered that the development is capable of contributing to the character of the area in accordance with criteria (i) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2, BFL Criteria 5 and LDF-CS Policy CSTP22.
BFL 6 - Working with the site and its context
6.32 The illustrative Masterplan details a substantial area of open space at the southern and eastern parts of the development. The location of the open space makes it readily accessible for residents of the new development and affords it a high degree of natural surveillance. The area of open space is detailed to accommodate the footpath links and SUD’s. It is considered that the illustrative layout is well considered having regard to the constraints and opportunities of the site and the development is capable of creating a sense of place and as such accords with criteria (xii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2, criteria (iii) of LDF-CS Policy CSTP22 and BFL Criteria 6.
BFL 7 - Creating well defined streets and spaces & BFL 8 - Easy to find your way around.
Within the development, the majority of the houses are proposed to front the principle spine and associated roads to create perimeter blocks. There is a limited number of ‘in-core’ development. It is considered that the illustrative perimeter block layout affords a strong sense of the public and provide domain and would afford natural surveillance of routes and open space. It is considered that the proposal is capable of creating a safe and secure environment in accordance with criteria (vii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and criteria (v) of LDF-CS Policy CSTP22. Furthermore, the illustrative approach promotes continuity of street frontages and accords with criteria (ii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and BFL criteria 7.
BFL 9 - Streets for all
Page 37 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.33 The Illustrative proposal details a variety of street types. The illustrative layout details how key spaces and nodes are marked. It is considered that the illustrative detail show how a coherent and landscaped public realm could be produced and measures can be incorporated to encourage low vehicle speeds to ensure that the development is capable of according with criteria (iii) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and BFL criteria 9.
BFL 10 - Car parking
6.34 The level of parking is proposed to accord with Thurrock Council Parking Review Document, October (2010)(TA, p28). The illustrative material details extensive use of on-street parking and frontage which can give rise to it dominating the street. It is considered that strong landscaping features will be needed to mitigate the potential impacts.
BFL 11 - Public and private spaces
6.35 LDF-CS Policy CSTP20: Open Space – states that ‘Thurrock Council will seek to ensure that a diverse range of accessible public open spaces, including natural and equipped play and recreational spaces is provided and maintained to meet the needs of the local community’. PMD5 (Open Spaces, Outdoor Sports and Recreational Facilities) is also relevant and seeks new open spaces, sport and recreation facilities.
6.37 Appendix 5 of the LDF Core Strategy sets open space standards which based on a population of 375 equates to;
0.26 hectares for parks, gardens and country parks; 0.75 hectares of natural and semi-natural space; 0.3 hectares of amenity green space 0.46 hectares for outdoor sports.
6.38 In total, based on the above methodology this equates to 1.77 hectares. The applicant is seeking to provide 2.6 hectares of open space. The applicant identifies the opportunity to create a ‘trim-trail’ through the open space. The application the agreed heads of terms based on the 2012 s106 Agreement which makes provision for 12 pieces of exercise equipment within the open space. The 2.6 ha of open space is identified to perform a number of functions including flood attenuation, sustainable drainage and for ecological mitigation, most notably for invertebrate interest. Whilst these uses may not be mutually exclusive uses, it is not clear from the information submitted that the open space will be capable of delivering the quantum under each open space typology detailed in Appendix 5 of the LDF-CS, particularly as the ecological mitigation will require extensive areas of species-rich grassland and wildflower habitats and ongoing management to promote their ecological interest. In this instance, it is imperative that the ecological mitigation and enhancement measures are secured on-site. Page 38 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.39 In light of the above, whilst the total quantum of open space exceeds that required, the development may not deliver the quantum under each open space typology. This scenario is not unusual, indeed LDF-CS Policy PMD5 allows developer contributions to improve existing, or provide new, spaces or facilities elsewhere where on-site provision is not feasible or appropriate. The list of infrastructure items comprising the Full Standard Charge under the POS includes open space and playing pitches.
6.40 The level of discount applied to the full standard charge means that funding from the POS has to be prioritised. In this instance, whilst there is an identified need for additional school places and highway infrastructure which is likely to significantly reduce funding available for other infrastructure items, however this would not preclude part of the POS contribution being used to fund open space and playing pitches should the need arise.
6.41 In terms of layout, the illustrated open spaces would be afforded a degree of natural surveillance by the proposed housing. The open space would be readily accessible from areas within the site. Subject to the s106, it is considered that the development is capable of according with criteria (iv) of LDF-CS Policy PMD2 and BFL standard 11.
BFL 12 - External storage and amenity space
6.42 It is considered that the development is capable of providing adequate private amenity space. Given the illustrative material and density, the development is considered capable of providing adequate external storage space for bins and recycling as well as vehicles and cycles to accord with BFL criteria 12.
6.44 Given the outline nature of the application, the parameters and the ability to impose conditions, it is considered that the development demonstrates a strong degree of conformity with the Building for Life Standards and the Urban Design and Layout conform with criteria (i-vii) of LDF-CS Policies PMD2 (Design and Layout) and LDF- CS Policy CSTP22.
Landscape and visual impacts
6.45 Part 11 of the NPPF states that ‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by….. protecting and enhancing valued landscapes’ (para 109).
6.46 LDF-CS Policy CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness) is relevant. Part II states; ‘The Council requires the retention and enhancement of significant natural, historic and built features which contribute to the character of the Borough as defined by their value, quality, cultural association and meaning or their relationship to the setting and local context’. Part III states; ‘The Council requires the retention Page 39 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
and enhancement of strategic and local views, which contribute to a distinctive sense of place. Where development will affect these views, their sensitivity and capacity for change must be adequately assessed and the effect of the development on them appropriately tested’.
6.47 PMD2 (Design and Layout) criteria 1 relates to character and states; ‘Development must contribute positively to the character of the area in which it is proposed, and to surrounding areas that may be affected by it. It should seek to contribute positively to local views, townscape, heritage assets and natural features, and contribute to the creation of a positive sense of place’. Criteria vii seeks the protection and enhancement of landscape features.
6.48 The application is accompanied by a ‘Landscape Strategy and Visual Appraisal’ (2014). The appraisal assesses the visual impact along the majority of the site boundary on nearby properties as ‘medium magnitude and moderate significance’. The scheme proposals include a wide belt (15-20m deep) of woodland mix planting along the line of Hassenbrook Creek. The report concludes;
‘The proposed development would have a long term, irreversible effect on the landscape of the application site and throughout the surrounding landscape. To residential occupiers of properties bordering the site the degree of change would be high and must be considered an adverse effect. However, the careful design and layout of the building forms throughout the site would ensure that the magnitude and significance of this impact would be minimised. In addition, the continued growth of the proposed structural planting would provide additional screening of the lower building storeys over time’ (Para 13.06).
6.49 The LDF-CS Adopted Interim Proposals Map does not contain any landscape designations for the site. The Thurrock Landscape Capacity Study (TLCS) (2005) sought to assess the ability of the landscape to accommodate potential development scenarios to inform the LDF-CS. The TLCS tested the sensitivity of the different landscape character areas of the borough to a generalised increase in development and then tests the capacity of the landscape to accommodate various development options including urban extensions. The LDF-CS allocation of this site had regard to that landscape assessment.
6.50 The introduction of new development would permanently alter a part of this character of the area. The site is bordered on two sides by existing settlement form and on the remaining two sides by the railway and embankment to the Manorway which reduces the scale of any sense of encroachment beyond the existing built edge of the wider landscape. The Landscape and Ecology advisor does not make adverse comment in relation to landscape harm.
6.51 The application has appropriately assessed the impact of the development and the sensitivity and capacity for change. Having regard to this and the findings of the Thurrock Landscape Capacity Study (TLCS) (2005), the landscape is of low sensitivity to change of the type sought. Whilst there would be negative impacts on Page 40 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
local views, particularly from the urban areas to the east, the applicant has sought to minimise impacts and it considered that an objection based upon visual effects on existing residents could not be substantiated.
6.52 The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Report (2014) which contains a tree survey, arboricultural impact assessment and tree protection plan. The main arboricultural feature of the site is the belt of trees growing alongside Hassen brook. The site contains 78 trees and 6 groups. The development proposes the removal of 12 individual trees, one group and part of another group. The majority of the trees proposed to be removed are along the site’s western boundary with the railway or along the section of the open watercourse that bisects the north- eastern corner of the site. Of the twelve trees, eight are category ‘C’ trees (Trees of low quality) and three an category ‘U’ (should be removed). One tree oak tree (Oak No.26) proposed to be removed is adjacent to the brook and is a category ‘B’ tree and as such is deemed to be of moderate quality or value capable of making a significant contribution to the area. This tree adds to the character of the environment and appears to be in good condition. The indicate layout shows a house in close proximity to this tree. However, there would appear to be an opportunity to site this terrace further away from the tree.
6.53 The Landscape and Ecology advisor does not object to the proposed works. In light of the above, subject to conditions which include measures to retain Oak 26, it is considered that the proposal would not be contrary to part 11 of the NPPF, LDF-CS Policies CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness) and PMD2 (Design and Layout).
IV. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
6.54 LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing Climate Change), CSTP26 (Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation), PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings), PMD13 (Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation) and PMD14 (Carbon Neutral Development) are relevant.
6.55 The application is accompanied by an Energy and Water Statement (2014) and a Sustainability Statement (2014). The development is proposed to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, achieve 25% reduction in carbon emissions relative to 2010 Building Regulations and incorporate roof mounted PV panels amongst other measures. Subject to conditions, the development is capable of incorporating measures to adhere with the LDF-CS Policy requirements for renewable / low carbon energy generation, sustainable homes (including the applicable Code for Sustainable Homes).
V. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
6.56 LDF-CS Policy CSTP2: (The Provision of Affordable Housing) seeks the minimum provision of 35% of the total number of residential units built to be provided as Page 41 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Affordable Housing. The applicant proposes a s.106 Head of Term to secure 35% Affordable Housing with a tenure mix of 70% Affordable Rented and 30% Intermediate housing (e.g. shared ownership / intermediate rented). Thurrock Council (Housing) raise no objection to the total number and tenure mix and subject to a number of stipulations. Subject to securing the stipulations in Housing’s consultation response, it is considered that the development would comply with LDF-CS Policy CSTP2.
VI. TRAFFIC IMPACT, ACCESS, CAR PARKING AND OTHER TRANSPORT ISSUES
6.57 Part 4 of the NPPF relates to the promotion of sustainable transport. One of 12 core land use planning principles in the NPPF is that planning should “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.” The NPPF identifies the need to favour sustainable transport modes to enhance travel choice, and to locate developments that generate significant movement where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.
Paragraph 32 identifies that plans and decisions should take account of whether:
The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure. Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
Paragraph 35 identifies that developments should be located and designed where practical to: accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and have access to high quality public transport facilities; create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.
The following LDF-CS Policies are relevant;
CSTP15 (Transport in Greater Thurrock) Page 42 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
PMD2 (Design and Layout) PMD8 (Parking Standards) PMD9 (Road Network Hierarchy) PMD10 (Transport Assessments and Travel Plans) PMD16 (Developer contributions)
6.58 The application is accompanied by the Transport Assessment accompanying the 2011 application together with a Transport Note (March 2014) and Travel Plan (May 2014).
Sustainable transport - From the site access points, the site has the potential to create good footway and cycle links to Stanford-le-Hope.
6.59 Part (ii) of this section of the report considers the proposal against Building for Life criteria 1 (Connections), 2 (Facilities and services) and 3 (Public transport). The site is located close to a range of community facilities and offers very good access by public transport to jobs, key services and infrastructure. The applicant has produced a revised Travel Plan to which the Council’s Travel Plan Co-ordinator has previously raised no objection.
6.70 The application also proposes works / contribution to a new bridge, works to upgrade footpath 36 and a tactile crossing. In light of paragraph 32 of the NPPF it is considered that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up. It is considered that the proposal accords with criterion viii of Policy PMD9 whereby ‘development will make a positive contribution to accessibility by sustainable transport’.
6.71 Car and cycle parking – Car parking is proposed in line with the Council’s standards and, subject to conditions, accords with LDF-CS Policy PMD8 (Parking Standards). The majority of Victoria Road is single yellow lines with defined parking bays for permit holders only. It is not considered that the proposal would adversely impact on on-street parking.
6.72 Access and internal road layout – The application proposes a junction off the roundabout in a manner previously agreed. Thurrock Council Highways raise no objection to the design of the junction to serve the development.
6.73 LDF-CS Policy PMD9 states that ‘The Council will only permit the development of new accesses or increased use of existing accesses where: (i). There is no possibility of safe access taken from an existing or proposed lower category road. The proposal fulfils this criteria. In terms of criteria (ii), it is considered that the design of the development minimises the number of accesses required.
6.74 Whilst this is a reserved matter, the illustrative masterplan details how the routes within the site are well structured. It is considered that the type of arrangement could create accessible, safe, permeable and legible layout which minimise Page 43 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians and accords with LDF-CS Policy PMD2.
6.75 Since the last application was considered DP World has installed a replacement crash barrier and a new noise attenuation barrier along the Manorway. Highways advise that the presence of residential gardens at the base of the embankment and the risk of errant vehicles leaving the Manorway needs to be considered. The legal agreement associated with the 2012 permission required the installation of double height crash barrier along the section of Manorway located to the north of the site. Highways advises that ‘The need for improved double height safety barriers should be considered by undertaking the Department for Transport's Road Restraint Risk Assessment Process. This has already been undertaken by WS Atkins in respect of the recent replacement safety barrier, but needs to be reviewed, given the change in circumstances if consent is granted’. Highways recommend an obligation for this assessment to be undertaken and any recommended work implemented along the Manorway. This forms part of the Heads of Terms of the s106 agreement.
6.76 Impact on the local road network – With regards PMD10 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, a Transport Addendum has been provided that refers to an earlier 2010 Transport Assessment (TA) and concludes that there are no adverse impacts and that intervening changes in transport and planning policy does not change this opinion. Since the last application the London Gateway Local Development Order has been made. Whilst the LDO proposals are not significantly different from the 2007 London Gateway consent, it does provide a contemporary view of the anticipated traffic conditions on the A13. Highways advises that this shows that in 2023 with the Port and Park operational, the A13 link between the A128 and the A1014 will be significantly over capacity leading to significant delays on the A13. A scheme is being developed to widen this link to dual 3 lanes in both directions to which the London Gateway Port will contribute. Highways recommend that this development makes a proportionate contribution towards the cost of this scheme, in line with their impact in this area and such a contribution is derived from the POS payment.
6.77 In light of the above, subject to mitigation, it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice road safety. Furthermore, subject to mitigation, the proposal would not have an undue impact on congestion as measured by link and junction capacities. In light of this, the proposal accords with criteria iii and v of LDF-CS Policy PMD9.
6.78 Criteria iv of Policy PMD9 requires ‘The development preserves or enhances the quality of the street scene’. The access would be introduced into an area between the houses on Victoria Road and the bridged section of the Manorway. It is not considered that an access in this location would appear out of character or unduly impact on the street scene.
Page 44 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
VII. FLOOD RISK, DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, WATER RESOURCES AND UTILITIES;
6.79 With regard to flood risk, NPPF Part 10 and LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing climate change), CSTP27 (Management and Reduction of Floor Risk), PMD2 (Design and layout) and PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment) are relevant. With regards utilities, LDF-CS Policy CSTP13 is relevant.
6.80 The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (November 2014) and a Utilities Statement (July 2014).
6.81 The Environment Agency maps show that parts of the site lies in Flood Zones 1 (little to no risk), 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk of flooding). The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) includes breach modelling which shows that the site is not at risk from a breach of the Thames defence. Therefore the flood risk status derives from the risk of flooding from the watercourses which comprise Hassen Brook running across the north eastern part of the site and along the south eastern boundary and Stanford Brook which runs from the north-west, both water courses join close to the southern boundary of the site. The combined watercourse then flows south through Stanford-Le-Hope to join the Thames at Mucking Sluice. There are also a number of sewer pipes that cross the site.
6.82 The applicant undertook a site specific detailed hydraulic model. Mitigation measures are proposed, which will remove proposed dwellings within the development from Flood Zone 3 (+climate change). All of the proposed dwellings will be located in Flood Zones 1 (70%) and 2 (30%). Condition 15 of the previous permission stipulated that no dwelling including it’s curtilage shall be situated within the functional floodplain.
6.83 The site is detailed on the interim LDF-CS Inset Map for housing. The LDF-CS contains a clear commitment to amend the Green Belt boundary in this location in order to accommodate housing with such an allocation being informed by the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The development plan has therefore applied a sequential approach to the location of development which demonstrated a need to develop in main urban areas.
6.84 In light of the above, the Exception Test set out in the NPPF needs to be applied. For the Exception Test to be passed:
● it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and ● a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.
Page 45 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.85 The SFRA demonstrates the need for development within these areas in order to meet housing targets and regeneration. In terms of the site specific flood risk assessment, the applicant proposes to set finished floor levels at a minimum of 6.732m AOD (para 2.40), which is above the 1:100 year fluvial and 1:200 year tidal flood levels.
6.86 The detailed design of the proposed development will include bridge structures over the existing watercourse, which intersects the two proposed highways in the north- east corner of the site. Flooding as a result of the 100 year storm event and for the effects of climate change could affect highways at these locations, depending on detailed design highway levels. A condition is proposed requiring further detailed assessment and a design that ensures that access and agrees can be maintained free of flooding in a 1:1000 year flood event.
6.87 With regards to whether the proposal would increase flooding risk elsewhere, the FRA states that the development would displace 19.167m3 from the 1 in 100 year floodplain plus climate change and floodspace storage compensation will be provided within the open space. This is achieved by lowering the existing land and extending the extent of floodplain in part of the open space area. The FRA concludes that ‘there will be no significant interference to any known flood paths for the 1 in 100 year flood event (allowing for climate change) in the implementation of this development, as a result of which there will be no impact on flood risk elsewhere’ (6.6).
Surface water drainage
6.88 A sustainable drainage system is proposed to be used which restricts run-off rates to existing Greenfield run off. Part of the drainage strategy includes the formation of two attenuation ponds within the open space associated with the development. One located in the north-east corner of the site in the proposed landscape area and the other situated in the open space area in the southern area of the site. The ponds are proposed to have an outfall to the adjacent watercourse. The Council’s Flood Risk Manager and the Environment Agency raise no objections subject to conditions.
6.89 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal passes the Sequential and Exception Tests. Subject to the conditions, it is considered that the proposal complies with the NPPF Part 10 and LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing climate change), CSTP27 (Management and Reduction of Floor Risk), relevant criteria of PMD2 (Design and layout), PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment).
Foul water
6.90 The applicants Utilities Statement advises ‘Anglian Water has prepared a Pre Planning Assessment Report which is enclosed within Appendix J. Within this document, they confirm that while the sewerage treatment works at Tilbury Water Page 46 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Recycling Centre has capacity, a direct connection to the public foul sewerage system is likely to have a detrimental effect on the existing sewerage network. AW will carry out a further Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) to establish the level of any upgrade works to their network to accommodate the additional flows from site’.
6.91 LDF-CS Policy CSTP13 (Emergency Services and Utilities) contains a number of relevant criteria;
I Proposals for development will not be permitted unless the Council is satisfied that any consequential loss or impact on utility infrastructure or emergency services is fully mitigated. VI. Proposals for development will not be permitted unless the Council is satisfied that mechanisms to ensure the co-ordinated and timely delivery of utility infrastructure has been put in place. VII. Proposals for development must provide for the phased delivery of any necessary new infrastructure linked to the phasing of development, particularly water supply and waste water treatment.
6.92 Condition 17 of the previous outline permission required the agreement of a foul water strategy prior to the commencement of development and precluded occupation until the works contained therein have been carried out.
6.93 Anglian Water were consulted but have not responded at the time of drafting this report. Members will be updated at Committee.
VIII. LAND QUALITY
6.94 Paragraph 112 of the NPPF is relevant as is LDF-CS Policy CSTP21 (Productive Land). In this instance, the development accords with a spatial allocation in the LDF-CS which would have considered the relative merits of this site, including the loss of agricultural land. In light of this, no objection is raised in relation to the loss of agricultural land.
IX. GROUND CONDITIONS, CONTAMINATION AND REMEDIATION
6.95 LDF-CS Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity) is relevant. The application is accompanied by an addendum (2011) to the previous desk top study (2009). The 2009 report assessed the risk from contaminants to workers as very low and the risk to future site users as moderate/low to low. The 2009 recommended that an intrusive investigation be carried out in due course with a risk assessment following the survey. If the risk assessment indicates that a scheme of remediation is required then such a scheme should be submitted and agreed prior to work commencing. Also validation documents should be submitted on any remediation works. Thurrock Council’s EHO agree with the report’s conclusions and recommendations and request the re-imposition of condition 20 of the previous permission. In addition, that a scheme is agreed to deal with Japanese Knotweed. The EA have not made any comment regarding ground conditions. With regards to Page 47 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
contamination, subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal complies with LDF-CS Policy PMD1.
X. NOISE, VIBRATION, AIR QUALITY AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
6.97 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF is relevant. LDF-CS Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity) is relevant and starts that developments will not be permitted where they would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area, the amenity of neighbouring occupants or the amenity of future occupiers of the site. LDF-CS Policy PMD9 (Road Network Hierarchy) indicates that developments will only be permitted where measures have been taken to mitigate all adverse air quality impacts in or adjacent to AQMAs and where the development will minimise the impacts on the quality of life of local residents, such as noise, air pollution, and the general street environment.
6.98 Air Quality – The application is accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment (2014). The report advises that since the 2010 report and 2011 addendum policies and methodologies have changed for undertaking Air Quality Assessments and a new assessment has, therefore, been undertaken. The Assessment concludes that ‘additional traffic flows associated with the development have the potential to have impacts of negligible magnitude in terms of increases in levels of NO2 and PM10 over baseline levels’. Furthermore, ‘given that the anticipated pollutant levels are considerably below objective levels, the implications of the operational traffic impacts are not considered to be significant’ (para 7.3). The Council’s EHO raises no objection on air quality grounds. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental effect on air quality or lead to exceedance of air quality objective levels.
6.99 Noise – The application is accompanied by an Addendum to an Environmental Noise Assessment (March 2014) which includes a copy of the March 2010 report submitted with the 2011 application. The report sets out changes to the scheme and the impact this would have on the findings of the previous assessments together with an update on changes in guidance. It concludes;
‘The changes to the proposed residential development have been positive, both in relation to noise and vibration impacts on the development (from road and rail) and from noise impacts as a result of the development (due its reduced size). These various factors mean that the findings of our previous assessment in 2010 and 2011 are reinforced’ (Para 3.5-6, p6) 6.100 The 2010 report examines the potential noise and vibration impact on the proposed development from the elevated section of the Manorway to the north and the LT&S railway line to the west. The Council’s EHO advises that the report indicates that vibration is unlikely to be an issue for this development and so need not be considered further.
Page 48 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.101 The 2010 report considers the impact of noise generated from road traffic and the adjacent railway on the proposed houses and external spaces. The addendum states in section 2.20 that it is unnecessary to revise the recommendations regarding glazing specifications which were proposed in the earlier reports. Since the publication of the 2010 report noise barriers have been erected along this part of the Manorway. In light of this, it is considered that subject to the glazing specification, the internal noise environment would be acceptable.
6.102 The 2010 report advises that ‘The noise levels within gardens would be above the recommended limits in BS8233 at dwellings adjacent to the corner of the site formed by Manorway and the rail line’ (para 6.4). The addendum report highlights the changes in the BS8233 standard which now states;
‘For traditional external areas that are used for amenity space, such as gardens and patios, it is desirable that the external noise level does not exceed 50 dB LAeq,T, with an upper guideline value of 55 dB LAeq,T which would be acceptable in noisier environments. However, it is also recognized that these guideline values are not achievable in all circumstances where development might be desirable. In higher noise areas, such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network, a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors, such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted. In such a situation, development should be designed to achieve the lowest practicable levels in these external amenity spaces, but should not be prohibited’. 6.103 The 2014 report concludes that ‘Although the current version of BS 8233 is much better and provides more flexibility in relation to external amenity areas this makes no difference to the previous conclusions reached by SAL at this site: SAL concluded that the noise levels within gardens adjacent to the corner of the site formed by Manorway and the rail line would be above the BS 8233:1999 design level but that this was not material (because the design level of 55 dB was unreasonably stringent)’.
6.104 Given that no objection was raised in relation to the previous applications and the amendment to BS8233 recognising that the guideline values are not achievable in all circumstances, it is considered that an objection based on the external noise environment in part of the site closest to the rail line and Manorway would be difficult to substantiate.
6.105 In terms of operational impacts, the proposed development comprises housing and open spaces which in themselves are not significant sources of noise. The impact for existing residential properties in close proximity to the site is not considered significant.
6.106 Construction impacts – The Air Quality Assessment (2014) considers the construction phase of development. It recommends a range of measures to form part of a site specific Construction Method Statement (CMS). It is anticipated that Page 49 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
construction traffic would enter from the proposed vehicular access. This is approximately 25m from the nearest existing residential property located on Victoria Road. The residential parcel is at least 70m from the rear façade of properties on Victoria Road. Thurrock Council EHO recommend the imposition of conditions requiring a Construction Environmental Management plan in line with conditions 6 and 11 of the 2012 permission. Subject to conditions, requiring a CEMP controlling such matters as hours of construction, noise limits, vehicle routing, piling methods (table 8.2) and management measures in relation to dust and minimise the risk of pollution events occurring, it is not considered that the proposed construction phase would have an unacceptable impact on air quality, the noise environment, sensitive receptors, flood risk and ground water and as such complies with the relevant criteria of LDF-CS Policies PMD1 and PMD9.
6.107 In conclusion under this heading, subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant criteria of LDF-CS Policies PMD1 and PMD9.
XI. EFFECTS UPON ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
6.108 Part 11 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF contains a number of principles which Local Authorities should apply when determining planning applications, including;
if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; ● opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged; ● planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;
6.109 LDF-CS Policy CSTP18 relates to green infrastructure, and states that the Council will restore, protect, enhance and where appropriate create its green assets. It states that the Council will require a net gain in green infrastructure which will ensure connectivity and relieve pressure on designated biodiversity sites such as SSSI’s.
6.110 LDF-CS Policy CSTP19 (Biodiversity) states that development will be encouraged to contribute positively to the overall biodiversity in the borough. The policy states that the Council will create a robust network centring on designated sites, which will be safeguarded and enhanced to mitigate the effects of past habitat loss and fragmentation, development and climate change. In addition, the policy also states that the Council will prepare suitable Biodiversity Management Plans for designated sites, seek buffering and Page 50 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
extensions to existing designated sites and habitats, identify key sites to increase the biodiversity network in the borough, support the identification of potential inter- tidal habitat creation sites to mitigate for habitat loss due to climate change, is committed to delivering actions set out within the Thurrock, Essex and UK Biodiversity Action Plans and will support small scale biodiversity interventions such as green roofs.
6.111 LDF-CS Policy PMD7 (Biodiversity and development) states that development proposals will be required to demonstrate that any significant biodiversity habitat or geological interest of recognised local value is retained and enhanced on site. Where it can be demonstrated that this is not possible, and there is no suitable alternative site available for the development, developers will be required to show that their proposals would mitigate any loss of biodiversity or geological interest. Where mitigation is not possible, developers will be required to provide appropriate compensation for any significant loss of biodiversity or geological interest, such that there is no overall net loss of biodiversity habitat or features or features of geological conservation interest in Thurrock.
6.112 The policy states that the Council will not permit development that would result in the loss, or partial loss, of a locally designated biodiversity site, except in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative. To enable the Council to determine an application which would result in a loss of biodiversity or geological value, the developer will be required to submit a detailed ecological justification.
6.113 The application is accompanied by;
Updated Ecology Assessment, Ecology Solutions, November 2014 – this contains a copy of the ‘Invertebrate Mitigation Report’, (November 2014)
6.114 The site includes a range of habitats including semi-improved grassland, scrub, trees, tall ruderal vegetation, trees and watercourses. The site was subject to a habitat survey in 2009 with further check surveys in 2010 and 2014. The Updated Ecology Assessment reports that the updated survey did not record any significant differences from the previous surveys in terms of habitats present, extent and their species composition.
6.115 Impact of designated or non-statutory sites – There are no statutory designated sites either within or immediately adjacent to the site. The report makes reference to the findings of an ‘Assessment of Urban Green Space Provision and Pressure for Additional Recreational Use of Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA’. The report concluded that with the on-site open space and the availability of the Mucking Country Park there would be no significant effects on the SPA. Natural England raises no adverse comment with regard the impact on the SPA. Page 51 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.116 There are no non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest within or adjacent to the site. The site was not identified as either an existing Local Wildlife Site or a ‘Strategic Area to be safeguarded for Biodiversity and Geodiversity in the Technical Appendices of the Further Issues and Options SSADPD (Jan 2013). The southern tip of the site was identified as a potential ‘multi-functional Local Open Space’ (ref: PGMF21). As detailed in the Policy Section, the site has a residential allocation in the LDF-CS.
Habitats
6.117 The Updated Ecology Assessment details the various habitats (semi-improved grassland, scrub, trees, watercourses, amenity planting) and makes a number of recommendations for mitigation and enhancement summarised below;
1. The development proposals to accommodate specific areas of species rich grassland and wildflower habitats which will be managed specifically for both their intrinsic ecological interest and specifically for invertebrates (5.2.15).
2. Swale habitat and proposed attenuation areas will be sown with a suitable wet grassland seed mix and managed to maximise species diversity and thus nature conservation value (5.2.16).
3. Grassland associated with roadside verges seeded with an appropriate and diverse seed mix and thereafter managed (5.2.17).
4. New landscape planting to offer continued foraging opportunities and as it matured, additional nesting opportunities (5.2.21).
5. Works in the vicinity of any retained trees accord with BS: 5837(2012) (5.2.25).
6. No nesting habitat to be removed during the recognised bird nesting season (March to July inclusive) (5.2.26).
7. Provide new tree planting which shall be based around a range of native species of local provenance (5.2.34).
8. Safeguards are put in place to ensue no detrimental impact on the watercourse
9. Improving the watercourse bank profile and improving the floristic diversity of the channel and associated riparian zone (5.2.31).
Other impacts
6.118 Bats – the Updated Ecology Assessment details the findings of two activity surveys. Overall, relatively low levels of bat activity were recorded. The application proposes to retain the features of most importance to bats, namely the watercourse and associated corridor which aligns with the eastern boundary. Mitigation is proposed Page 52 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
in the form of; appropriately designed lighting to the open space; new landscape planting based around native species or species of wildlife benefit. Incorporation of bat bricks or access points into some of the buildings and bat boxes along the watercourse corridor.
6.119 Badgers – the Updated Ecology Assessment details the findings of surveys the most recent of which was 2014. No setts were recorded on site, albeit parts of the site are used for foraging. The Updated Ecology Assessment recommends a further specific survey for badgers immediately ahead of any site clearance works due to their dynamic nature and, if necessary, the production, agreement and adherence to a mitigation strategy. The Assessment also recommends a number of measures during the construction phase.
6.120 Breeding Birds - the Updated Ecology Assessment details the findings of the 2009 survey which recorded assemblage typical of the habitats present. Two species listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern Red List and three species on the Amber list were recorded. The Assessment concludes that ‘It is considered that the development proposals will have little detrimental impact on the current breeding assemblage of birds’ (5.3.39). The Assessment recommends a number of mitigation / enhancement measures including; retaining trees, removal of suitable nesting habitat outside the nesting period, habitat creation and incorporation of bird boxes.
6.121 Reptiles - the Updated Ecology Assessment details the findings of the reptile survey. Three species of reptile were recorded (Common Lizard, Slow Worm and Grass Snake). The desk study also identified common reptiles recorded from within 2km of the site. The Assessment advises that the areas in which the reptiles are present is proposed to be developed. The mitigation proposed is in the form of a translocation exercise to an on-site receptor site.
6.122 Invertebrates – Appended to the Ecological Assessment is an Invertebrate Mitigation Report (November 2014).
Assessment of invertebrate value
6.123 The entomological interests of the site have been subject to a number of assessments and surveys. The surveys undertaken show that the site supports Species of Principle importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) and approximately 19 Red Data Book and 36 nationally scarce invertebrates.
6.124 Buglife have questioned the reliability and robustness of the invertebrate survey information provided, and recommends spring and early summer invertebrate surveys are completed in accordance with Natural England guidelines. Natural England have reviewed the survey information and data sets gathered, and have confirmed no further surveys would be necessary to reliably inform the entomological value of the site (Natural England letter Ref 122643 dated 20 June 2014). Page 53 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Potential Local Wildlife Site
6.125 Representations from Buglife and Essex Field Club state that the application site is of Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) quality and should be designated as such. The site is not designated as a Local Wildlife Site in the Adopted Development Plan (2011) nor in the previous Local Plan (1997). Furthermore, the Adopted Interim Proposals Map accompanying the Core Strategy identifies the application site as ‘Housing broad location urban extension, located within the Green Belt’.
Impacts on invertebrates and the proposed mitigation
6.126 The application details the retention of a 2.6ha area of open space in the southern and eastern parts of the site. The application site comprises a variety of different habitat types.
6.127 The Ecological Assessment (2014) concludes that presence of horses on site is the key reason for limited alteration in scrub expansion, with this habitat being kept in check by the grazing. In the absence of management (including grazing pressure) there would be an expansion in scrub across the site, which would in turn lead to a loss of entomological value (para 4.3). The Council’s Ecology advisor confirms that it is evident that scrub is becoming more dominant in parts of the site although this has not been quantified.
6.128 The Invertebrate Mitigation Report (2014) states that habitats within the mitigation area are to be largely retained. Furthermore, additional habitat / features will be created within the mitigation area to ensure a variation of habitats present is provided seeking to ensure opportunities are preserved for all existing invertebrate species (para 3.19). The design of the invertebrate mitigation strategy proposed (detailed on plan MWY/50/260/C) is substantially similar to that detailed in the 2012 permission.
6.129 Buglife and Essex Field Club raise concerns regarding the mitigation and its ability to retain the biodiversity value of the site. They raise concerns that most valuable habitat features for invertebrates would be lost and the retained areas would include use for multi-functional open space, which would be incompatible with the invertebrate assemblages present.
6.130 The Council’s Landscape and Ecology Advisor has raised concerns that the Design Code identifies the key functions of the ‘green lung’ areas to be for informal recreation, access and SuDS as well as for maintaining natural habitat and states ‘the landscaping and planting strategy of this area must balance the needs of ecology with informal open space and recreational needs’. The Landscape and Ecology Advisor considers that this will make it difficult to achieve the specific management requirements due to these conflicting pressures.
6.131 Natural England has previously accepted the quantum of retained and managed habitat and their most recent consultation response does not raise concerns in Page 54 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
relation to the quantum of mitigation, albeit they note that the provision of SuDS and play area will reduce the overall area of invertebrate mitigation. The applicant’s ecology consultant considers that the provision of a well-managed SuDS habitat could provide further suitable opportunities for invertebrates, providing habitat diversity post development.
6.132 Natural England, raise no objection, subject to securing through condition or legal agreement, an appropriate detailed invertebrate habitat management plan and that this should include arrangements for management and funding obligations.
Environmental Impact Assessment
6.133 Concern has been raised by Buglife regarding the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The LPA adopted a Screening Opinion in related to development of this site in 2014.
Overall conclusions in relation to this heading
6.134 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible”. The site has been identified for residential development in the development plan. The proposed mitigation seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains where possible.
6.135 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that when considering conserving and enhancing biodiversity, that if “significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”. In this instance, the approach to mitigating the impact on invertebrates substantially follows that previously agreed and to which Natural England raise no in principle objection. Whilst there is a need to further evolve the mitigation habitat management and in doing so address concerns regarding conflicting use of the 2.6ha area and establishing a suitably wide range of habitats, this has previously been secured via condition. The site will degrade in any event if unmanaged. Natural England and the Council’s Ecology advisor do not raise objections in relation to non-compliance with the NPPF.
6.136 The proposal would create 2.6ha area of open space and habitat, part of which would be publically accessible. This type of Green Infrastructure accords with LDF- CS Policy CSTP18. The development is not contrary to LDF-CS Policy CSTP19 (Biodiversity).
6.137 In terms of LDF-CS Policy PMD7 (Biodiversity and development), this site is allocated for housing in the LDF-CS. It is not possible to retain all existing habitat. The site is needed to deliver the quantum of development set out in the development plan and there is no suitable alternative designated housing site available for the development. The proposals have been designed to mitigate loss. Page 55 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
XII. COMMUNITY AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS INCLUDING SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE (SCHOOLS, HEALTHCARE, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, SPORTS FACILITIES, POLICING ETC)
6.138 NPPF advises that here are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental (para 7). Para 8 advises that ‘to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system’. The LDF-CS contains a number of relevant policies including; CSSP2 (Sustainable employment growth);
CSTP6 (Strategic employment provision);
CSTP10 (Community Facilities); Supports the provision of new/improved facilities to serve new and existing communities and requirement for new development to contribute financially towards community needs generated by the development.
CSTP11 (Health Provision); Seeks to ensure health care facilities that meet existing and future community needs, including those needs arising from new housing and employment development over the lifetime of the plan
CSTP12 (Education and Learning); Proposals for new development would be required to contribute towards education
CSTP13 (Emergency Services and Utilities) seeks adequate provision of emergency services and utilities to meet existing and future needs
PMD16 (Developer Contributions): details the wide range of matters that may be covered by obligations
6.139 Matters relating to highways, green infrastructure, open space, outdoor sport and recreation are considered elsewhere in this report.
6.140 Thurrock Council’s approach to planning obligations as set out in the Planning Obligations Strategy (POS) is to ensure that development contributes, either financially, or in kind, towards the infrastructure that needs to be provided. The overall objective of the POS, therefore, is to enable Thurrock to seek a reasonable level of contribution from development and where relevant to pool s106 funds, together with other public sector funding, to secure delivery of the necessary infrastructure and services.
6.141 The POS identified a full standard charge per dwelling based on an assessment of the overall costs of providing much of the essential infrastructure for the area, divided by the amounts of such development anticipated. The Council recognises that, in most cases, the full standard charge could not be met in full by Page 56 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
developments in the current market and that seeking to levy charges at these levels would inhibit regeneration and development and therefore set a discounted standard charge of £5,000 per dwelling. In this instance this would equate to a sum of £765,000. It should be recognised that the level of POS contribution is significantly lower than the assessed infrastructure cost. As detailed in Annex A of the POS, the financial contribution may be used towards elements that comprise the standard charge including Education, Libraries, Sport and Leisure, Health Care, Emergency Services, Transport where there is an identified need.
6.142 The emerging allocation of housing sites through the plan making process had regard to the capacity of the existing and planned infrastructure together with cumulative impacts. The development would be in accordance with the planned development within Stanford-le-Hope envisaged in the LDF-CS.
6.143 Health provision - NHS Property Services Ltd (NHSPS) consultation response detailed in Section 4 of this report acknowledges the capacity deficit and seeks a developer contribution of £43,620 to mitigate the capital cost to the NHS for the provision of additional healthcare services arising directly as a result of the development proposal. NHSPS raises no objection to seeking a financial contribution in line with the above.
6.144 Having regard to the above, subject to a financial contribution, the healthcare needs arising from the committed, planned and proposed development within the area could be met. In light of this, the POS payment would ensure that the development accords with part 8 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP11 (Health Provision) and PMD16 (Developer Contributions).
7.45 Highways - Approximately 13% of the POS is derived from the need to fund highway infrastructure. There are a number of highway projects proposed in the area to which the scheme could contribute, including works to the A13. The 2012 report identified that £38,500 from the POS had been earmarked for upgrading public footpath 36.
6.146 Education - Thurrock Council Education advises that the development would generate a pupil yield of 35 (4 nursery, 20 primary and 11 secondary) and having regard to existing forecasts an education contribution would be required at nursery and primary level in order to provide sufficient capacity. They raise no objection subject to a section 106 agreement to mitigate its impact on education based upon the approach detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy.
6.147 Open Space – As detailed in this report, in the event that the open space cannot deliver the full range of open space typologies due to the ecological mitigation and enhancement works required to make the development acceptable, part of the developer contributions could be used to improve existing, or provide new, spaces or facilities elsewhere in accordance with LDF-CS Policy PMD5.
Page 57 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
6.148 Other provision - Part 4 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP10 (Community Facilities) states that ‘Proposals for new development will be required to contribute towards the community needs generated by the development and address the identified deficiencies in the locality that they may generate or exacerbate’. Part of the POS contribution could be used towards local community facilities. The level of discount applied to the full standard charge means that funding from the POS has to be prioritised. In this instance, there is an identified need for additional school places which is likely to significantly reduce funding available for other infrastructure items.
6.149 The Section 106 Agreement associated with the 2012 permission places an obligation on the developer to provide improved pedestrian links to the south of the site, with the construction of a new footbridge. The Section 106 Agreement also places an obligation on the developer to provide equipment for a new park.
XIII. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
6.150 Part 12 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. LDF-CS Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment) are also relevant. The application is accompanied by an Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment (2010).
6.151 Archaeological remains within the site - The Assessment shows that there is some limited potential for there to be remains associated with prehistoric and Roman and early medieval activity within the site. However, it concludes that it is likely that this potential will have been impacted upon by ploughing and more recent drainage that runs across the site. The report recommends the imposition of a condition requiring further investigation. ECC Archaeology recommends condition requiring a programme of archaeological investigation. This approach accords with Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment).
6.152 Effect upon the setting of listed buildings - The site includes no designated heritage assets, but there are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site. The Council’s Historic Building advisor’s consultation response is set out in Part 4 of this report. He concludes that there would be no adverse impact on any designed heritage asset. It is considered that the proposal complies with Policies CSTP24 (Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment) and Policy PMD4 (Historic Environment).
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation accepted in 2012 that there then existed very special circumstances which clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt. In terms of assessment of the principle, there is no material change Page 58 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
of circumstances to justify a different conclusion on the merits of the case. There remains a substantial under-supply of housing, either mainstream or affordable. The LDF-CS allocates this site for housing.
7.2 At the time of drafting this report, a response from Anglian Water is awaited with regards to the applicant proposals for connection to the foul sewer network and any mitigation measures required. Members will be updated in this regard.
7.3 As detailed in the analysis above, the proposal shows conformity with a range of development plan policies.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 It is recommended that the application be APPROVED subject to;
A: the applicant entering into a suitable s106 agreement by the 6th March 2015 to secure the Heads of Terms set out in Part 1 of this report
B: Imposition of the conditions detailed below:
1 TIME The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Permission is granted having regard to the very special circumstances advanced in this case, including the contribution towards the supply of housing and affordable housing.
2 RESERVED MATTERS Details of; a) Layout b) Scale c) Appearance of the development d) Means of access within the development e) Landscaping of the development hereinafter called the ‘Reserved Matters’, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development is commenced. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act Page 59 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The outline application contains details of the means of access to and from the site, but not within the development. Such detail is required to enable assessment of the adequacy of the arrangements.
3 APPROVED PLANS
Unless otherwise required by virtue of matters to be agreed pursuant to conditions attached to this permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
MWY 600/001 Planning application boundary 05.12.14 201106 128 Proposed highway works (public 11.02.15 footpath) 201106 127 REV Proposed site access and highway 11.02.15 A works
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
4 RESIDENTIAL MIX
The development shall not exceed a maximum of 153 dwellings dwellings. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the mix of dwellings to be delivered by the totality of the development shall adhere to the following mix; . Type Percentage Maximum Number.
2 / 3 bedroom house 27% 41
3 bedroom houses 54% 82
4 bedroom houses 19% 30
Reason: To ensure that the scheme implemented is in accordance with the principles established by this permission and to comply with Policy PMD2 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
5 PHASING
The development shall not be begun until a detailed programme of phasing of the Development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority [herein referred to as 'the Phasing Strategy']. The Page 60 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Phasing Strategy shall include:
a. a plan defining the extent of the works comprised within each phase; b. details of the number of residential units to be accommodated within each phase; c. a strategy for accommodating the affordable housing; d. the infrastructure works to be included within each phase; e. a timetable for the implementation of works within each phase; f. details of the quantum of open space to be provided in each phase and a timetable for its provision; g. details for the landscaping and works together with details of the timing of its provision for use by the public.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Phasing Strategy.
Reason: To ensure that the scheme implemented is in accordance with the principles established by this permission and to comply with Policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
6 DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
Subject to compliance with the requirements of any other conditions, the submission of Reserved Matters for any part of the site or phase shall demonstrate conformity with the following parameters accompanying the application:
(A) Maximum building heights detailed on ‘Building Height Distribution’ drawing on page 40 of the Design Code (November 2014)
(B) Incorporation of 2.6 hectares of ‘open space’, which shall include substantial areas for habitat mitigation and flood storage. The extent and spatial distribution of the ‘open space’ shall accord with the coloured areas on the plan ‘Open Space Strategy’ at page 50 of the Design and Access Statement (November 2014).
(C) The area for housing, gardens and roads shall be accommodated within the ‘white’ land on the plan ‘Open Space Strategy’ at page 50 of the Design and Access Statement (November 2014).
(D) Retention of trees detailed within Appendix 2 of the Arboricultural Impact Report (2014) and notwithstanding this, the retention of Oak number 26. Page 61 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Reason: To ensure that the development accords with the key parameters assessed within the application. In order to minimise the environmental effects of the development and ensure compliance with a range of development plan policies set out within the planning committee report including CSTP22 (Thurrock Design).
7 DESIGN CODE
The Reserved Matters pursuant to condition 2 shall adhere to the ‘Key Design Commitments’ in the Design Code (November 2014) and shall have regard to the illustrative material contained in the Design Code unless doing so would conflict with the requirement of a condition attached to this permission or the requirements of the s106 Agreement.
Reason: To ensure that the development accords with the key design principles established by the outline permission.
8 SUBMISSION OF LANDSCAPE SCHEME The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition 2 Part (e) Reserved Matters for ‘Landscaping’ shall include:
[a] a plan[s] showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75 mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the crown spread of each retained tree;
[b] details of the species, diameter [measured in accordance with paragraph [a] above], and the approximate height, and an assessment of the general state of health and stability, of each retained tree and of each tree which is on land adjacent to the site and to which paragraphs [c] and [d] below apply;
[c] details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree, or of any tree on land adjacent to the site;
[d] details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and of the position of any proposed excavation, [within the crown spread of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site] [within a distance from any retained tree, or any tree on land adjacent to the site, equivalent to half the height of that tree];
[e] details of the specification and position of fencing [and of any other measures to be taken] for the protection of any retained tree from damage before or during the course of development. [f] the location, species and size of all new trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be planted, those areas to be grassed and/or paved, and for a programme Page 62 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
of planting and transplanting.
[g] The landscaping scheme shall include details of all surfacing materials and existing and proposed ground levels.
[h] Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment),
[i] detail whether such land shall be accessible by the public and the management principles for such area,
[j] detail how the landscaping scheme proposed promotes ecological interests and biodiversity in a manner which accords with the Ecological Mitigation accompanying the application.
[k] Implementation timetables
(l) Programme of maintenance
[m] measures to retain Oak 26 detailed in the Arboricultural Impact Report (2014)
The landscaping scheme shall be completed during the first planting season after the date on which any part of the development is completed for occupation or in accordance with a programme of planting agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any newly planted tree, shrub or hedgerow dying, uprooted, severely damaged or seriously diseased or existing tree, shrub or hedgerow to be retained, dying, severely damaged or seriously diseased, shall be replaced within the next planting season with others of the same species and of a similar size, unless the local planning authority gives prior written consent to any variation.
Management and maintenance of the open space and landscaped areas shall be in strict accordance with the agreed details. In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the plan referred to in paragraph [a] above. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings and provides for the adequate protection of trees as required by policies CSTP18 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
9 RETENTION OF LANDSCAPING AHEAD OF AGREEMENT OF RESERVED MATTERS Prior to the agreement of Reserved Matters for Landscaping persuant to Page 63 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
condition 2 Part (e) all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the site shall be retained and shall not be felled, lopped or topped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that landscaping is not removed in advance of the consideration of landscaping, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. To accord with LDF Core Strategy Policies PMD7, CSTP19 and PMD2.
10 LANDSCAPE PROTECTION
All trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained on the site shall be protected by chestnut paling fencing for the duration of the construction period (to include site clearance) at a distance equivalent to not less than the spread from the trunk. Such fencing shall be erected prior to the commencement of any works on the site. No materials, vehicles, fuel or any other ancillary items shall be stored or buildings erected inside this fencing; no changes in ground level may be made or underground services installed within the spread of any tree or shrub [including hedges] without the previous written consent of the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that all existing trees are properly protected, in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with policies CSTP18 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
11 DRAINAGE, SERVICES AND THEIR EFFECT UPON TREES
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, all underground drainage works and services to the development hereby approved shall be located in positions that do not adversely affect adjacent retained landscaping by reason of their alignment, in accordance with the British Standard Guide for Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction [BS5837:2012]. Furthermore, the method of excavation, shall take account of the root habit and spread of the canopy of adjacent trees/shrubs in accordance with BS5837:2012. The removal or trimming of any tree, hedge, or shrub to facilitate the provision of such services shall be the subject of prior written consent of the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of the health and stability of adjacent landscaping, in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with policies CSTP18 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
12 RETENTION OF SOILS Page 64 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Unless soil contamination is present, overburden, top-soils and sub-soils resulting from ground works shall be retained on-site and used for purposes associated with landscaping. Usable soils shall be stockpiled and managed in a way to ensure that different soils are not mixed, contaminated or damaged by vehicles or construction. During site preparation and construction, no waste material shall enter the site.
Reason: In the interests of conserving the soil resource and to comply with Policy CSTP21 [Productive Land] of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
13 MATERIALS
No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its surroundings in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
14 BRICK PANEL
No phase of development shall take place until a brick panel showing a sample of the proposed brickwork and the colour, type and texture of mortar courses is constructed on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is visually satisfactory and does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with LDF Core Strategy Policy PMD1.
15 LEVELS
Detailed plans submitted pursuant of condition 2 (Reserved Matters) Part A (Layout) shall provide full details of the existing and finished site levels and finished external surface levels, the levels of the surrounding area and the finished floor level of the buildings hereby permitted. Notwithstanding this, the dwellings shall be constructed with finished floor levels no lower than 6.732m AOD, which Page 65 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
allows for 300mm freeboard above the critical flood level (para 2.40 of FRA) (i.e. 300mm above the 1 in 200 year flood level). The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of surrounding occupiers and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site having regards to Flood Risk, in accordance with policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
16 Construction Environmental Management Plan [CEMP]
No construction works shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan [CEMP] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in writing. The CEMP should contain or address the following matters:
(a) Hours and duration of any piling operations, (b) Vehicle haul routing in connection with construction, remediation and engineering operations, (c) Wheel washing and sheeting of vehicles transporting loose aggregates or similar materials on or off site, (d) Details of construction access; (e) Location and size of on-site compounds [including the design layout of any proposed temporary artificial lighting systems] (f) Details of any temporary hardstandings; (g) Details of temporary hoarding; (h) Method for the control of noise with reference to BS5228 together with a monitoring regime (i) Measures to reduce vibration and mitigate the impacts on sensitive receptors together with a monitoring regime (j) Dust and air quality mitigation and monitoring, (k) Water management including waste water and surface water discharge, (l) Method statement for the prevention of contamination of soil and groundwater and air pollution, including the storage of fuel and chemicals, (m) A Site Waste Management Plan, (n) Ecology and environmental protection and mitigation, [o] Community liaison including a method for handling and monitoring complaints, contact details for site managers. [p] details of security lighting layout and design; [q] a procedure to deal with any unforeseen contamination, should it be encountered during development. Page 66 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
The CEMP shall incorporate mitigation and avoidance measures set out in the following; Transport Assessment, 2nd March 2010, Waterman Boreham Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assessment, 15th February 2010, Waterman Ecology Assessment, November 2014, Ecology Solutions Energy Water Statement, March 2014, Iceni Projects Flood Risk Assessment, November 2014, Mayer Brown Planning Statement, November 2014, Iceni Projects Tree Survey. March 2014, Simon Jones Associates Utilities Statement, 14 July 2014, Waterman Preliminary Risk Assessment, Addendum Report to Desk Study, February 2011, Buro Happold Environmental Noise Assessment at a Site adjacent Manorway – Addendum Report, March 2014, Sharps Acoustics LLP
No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times: Monday to Friday 08:00 – 18:00 hours, Saturdays 08:00 – 13:00 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Works on site shall only take place in accordance with the approved CEMP.
Reason: In order to minimise any adverse impacts arising from the construction of the development in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
17 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR
The Principal Contractor appointed shall be a member of the Considerate Contractor Scheme. Prior to the commencement of development, A Good Neighbour Policy shall be produced, setting out how the local community will be informed of construction activity on site and raise issues with the developer.
Reason: To limit the impacts of construction and to provide a mechanism to inform and engage the local community.
18 SECURE BY DESIGN
Page 67 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Applications for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Condition 2 Parts A (Layout) and Part C (Appearance) shall be accompanied by a statement showing how the development has incorporated the principles and practices of ‘Secure By Design’. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To create safe and secure environments and reduce the scope for crime and fear of crime. To accord with LDF Core Strategy Policy PMD2 and Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
19 NO DWELLING IN FLOOD ZONE 3 OR FUNCTIONAL FLOOD PLAIN
Notwithstanding the illustrative Masterplan, applications for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Condition 2 Parts A (Layout) and Part D (Means of access) shall ensure that no part of any dwelling, including its curtilage or the access road to any dwelling is located within the area at risk of flooding in the 1:100 plus climate change events. The extent of such areas is detailed in blue on plan ref: IPSTANFORD/FR/0004 PR02 in the appendix 1 figures to the Flood Risk Assessment (Mayer Brown, November 2014) accompanying the outline planning permission.
Reason: To ensure that development is not undertaken within areas with a high probability of flooding, in accordance with Part 10 and LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing climate change), CSTP27 (Management and Reduction of Floor Risk), PMD2 (Design and layout) and PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment)
20 DETAILS OF PRINCIPLE ACCESS ROAD AND BRIDGING STRUCTURE
Applications for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to condition 2 Part D (Means of Access) shall include details of the siting and levels of the principle access road to and from Southend Road and design of the associated bridging structures over the watercourses. The access road shall be set at a level so that it remains dry and accessible on foot and in vehicles in the 1 in 1000 year flood event. Development shall be in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure safe access and egress to and from the site in the event of flooding. To accord with Policy PMD15 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
21 WATER RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
The Reserved Matters details to be submitted in accordance with Condition Page 68 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
2 Part A (Layout) and C (Appearance) shall include a scheme for the provision and implementation of water efficiency for the residential units. Such a scheme shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development of residential units on that phase. The works / scheme for each unit shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification before occupancy of that unit and thereafter retained.
Reason: To ensure that development takes place in an environmentally sensitive way in accordance with Policy PMD12 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
22 FOUL WATER STRATEGY
Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved a foul water management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the means of connection, phasing of provision and capacity of the receptor system. The foul water drainage systems shall be constructed in accordance with the approved strategy and maintained thereafter in accordance with it. There shall be no occupation of any building in the relevant phase of development until the approved foul water drainage system with appropriate capacity is in place.
Reason: To ensure that adequate measures for the management of foul water are incorporated into the development in accordance with policies PMD1, PMD15 and CSTP13 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
23 SURFACE WATER, SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE AND FLOOD RISK
The reserved matters applications pursuant to condition 2, part A (Layout) and E (Landscaping) shall be accompanied by a further iteration of the Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water and SuDs Design Statement which shall include:
clear details of the ownership and responsibility for maintenance of all drainage elements for the lifetime of the development. If appropriate, details of adoption of any drainage elements of the drainage system should be included. details of all surface water drainage infrastructure for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority’s s21 Asset Register. finalised proposed surface water run-off rates Details of measures limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 year climate change critical storm so that it will not Page 69 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. Details of the provision of attenuation storage to contain the 1 in 100 year climate change rainfall event in the event of a surcharged outfall. Details of pipe network to contain the peak 1 in 100 year rainfall event. calculations to demonstrate that the surface water management scheme has been adequately sized including the electronic versions of modelling files to accurately assess the drainage system’s performance plans and drawings showing the locations and dimensions of all aspects of the proposed surface water management scheme, including pipework. The submitted plans should demonstrate that the proposed drainage layout will perform as intended based on the topography of the site and the location of the proposed surface water management features. In addition, Full design details, including cross sections of any proposed infiltration or attenuation features will be required. confirmation that in the event of exceedance flows that surpass the critical duration rainfall event or a blockage/failure occurs within the drainage network any proposed features should incorporate an emergency spillway as part of their design. Emergency spillway shall directs any exceedance flows away from the development. sufficient information to demonstrate that people and property will be kept safe from flooding, with consideration given to overland flow routing where required. details of future adoption and maintenance of all aspects of the surface water drainage strategy. Information to demonstrate that priority is given to the use of sustainable drainage systems [SuDS] for the disposal of surface water from all elements of the development proposal. the scheme shall incorporate the SuDS “Management Train” and ensure all features are designed in accordance with CIRIA [C697] The SUDS Manual so ecological, water quality and aesthetic benefits can be achieved in addition to the flood risk management benefits.
Such a scheme shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The works shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification before residential occupancy and maintainance shall be in strict accordance with the agreed scheme.
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage Page 70 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
of/disposal of surface water from the site in accordance with the NPP and policy PMD15 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
24 REMEDIATION
Unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until parts A to D below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the local planning authority in writing until part D has been complied with in relation to that contamination.
A - an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The report of the findings must include:
[i] a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; [ii] an assessment of the potential risks to: • human health, • property [existing or proposed] including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archaeological sites and ancient monuments;
[iii] an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option[s].
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
B – a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local Page 71 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
planning authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
C – the approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The local planning authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification or validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority.
D – in the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of A [above], and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of B [above], which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority in accordance with C [above].
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Preliminary Risk Assessment, Addendum Report to Desk Study, February 2011, Buro Happold and policy PMD1 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
25 JAPANEESE KNOTWEED
Prior to the commencement of development, the site shall be surveyed for the presence of Japanese Knotweed and a copy of this survey sent to the local planning authority. This survey must also note any knotweed adjoining the site. If Japanese Knotweed is confirmed, full details of a scheme for its eradication and/or control shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority prior to the Page 72 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
commencement of development on site, including any clearance works. Eradication and control of the Knotweed shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and timescales.
Reason: To ensure that the development minimises the risk to the environment in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
26 TRAVEL PLAN
Prior to the first residential occupation of the dwellings, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall include detailed and specific measures to reduce the number of journeys made by car to the site and shall include specific details of the operation and management of the proposed measures and incorporate the measures set out in the Framework Travel Plan accompanying the outline planning permission (Framework Travel Plan, May 2014, Iceni Projects). The commitments explicitly stated in the Travel Plan shall be binding on the applicants or their successors in title. The measures shall be implemented upon the first residential occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted and shall be permanently kept in place unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Upon written request, the applicant or their successors in title shall provide the local planning authority with written details of how the measures contained in the Travel Plan are being undertaken at any given time.
Reason: To reduce reliance on the use of private cars, in the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD10 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
27 CYCLE PARKING PROVISION
Applications for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant of condition 2 (Reserved Matters) Part A (Layout) shall provide full details of the number, size, location, design and materials of secure and weather protected cycle parking facilities to serve the dwellings hereby permitted. Such secure and weather protected cycle parking facilities as approved in writing by the local planning authority shall be installed on site prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be permanently retained for sole use as cycle parking for the users and visitors of the development.
Reason: To reduce reliance on the use of private cars, in the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policies Page 73 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
PMD2 and PMD8 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
28 BIN STORES
Applications for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to condition 2 Part A (Layout) and Part C (Appearance) shall include full details of the number, size, location, design and materials of bin and recycling stores to serve the development, together with details of the means of access to bin and recycling stores for residents and refuse operatives, including collection points if necessary. The development shall make provision for:
• 1 x 180 litre container for refuse, 1 x 240 litre container for recycling and 1 x 240 litre container for kitchen and garden waste per residential dwelling.
The bin and recycling stores as approved shall be provided prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units they serve and shall be constructed and permanently retained in the form agreed.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be integrated within its immediate surroundings in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
29 ACCESS WITH SOUTHEND ROAD
Development shall not be commencement until details of the layout, dimensions and construction specification of the junction of the site access and the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies PMD2 and PMD9 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
30 CONSTRUCTION OF SERVICE ROAD
None of the buildings hereby permitted shall be occupied until the service road from Southend Road as agreed by way of the Reserved Matters for access pursuant to condition 2 part D (Means of Access within the development) has been constructed in accordance with the details on the approved plans. Page 74 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access is provided for the site, in the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with policy PMD2 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
31 DETAILS AND DESIGN OF ROADS
Application(s) for approval of Reserved Matters Condition 2 (parts (d) shall include (where applicable) the following details: Movement network including layout of streets, visibility splay(s), sightlines, accesses, turning space(s), footways, cycleways and footpaths. The details to be submitted shall include. (a) External lighting (including to roads, car parking areas, footways / cycleways) and shall include details of the spread and intensity of light together with the size, scale and design of any light fittings and supports and a timescale for its installation. The external lighting shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and timescales. (b) Street furniture, (c) Surface finishes, (d) Cycle and car parking, (e) Signage, (f) Estate road construction and geometry. Details of whether such roads are proposed to be put forward for adoption by the Local Highway Authority (g) Drainage (including to roads, car parking areas, footways / cycleways) (h) Timescale for the provision of this highway infrastructure. The details submitted pursuant to this condition shall (where applicable) accord with the Design Code unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timescales or in accordance with any variation first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Reason: To reduce reliance on the use of private cars, in the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
32 CAR PARKING & PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Applications for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Condition 2 (parts (a) Layout (d) Means of Access) shall; a. show provision for the parking and / or garaging of private cars in accordance with the standards for allocated and unallocated parking spaces specified in the outline application unless a variation to these standards is first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. b. be accompanied with a Parking Management Strategy specifying the Page 75 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
restrictions on car parking, what constitutes an enforceable parking offence, how and by whom this will be administered and enforced.
The reserved matters shall detail the parking allocation. Residential units shall only be occupied when the car parking areas and turning areas serving that unit have been constructed in accordance with details that have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The parking spaces shall thereafter be retained for the parking of cars. The Parking Management Strategy for this phase shall be implemented and thereafter retained for the duration of the residential use in accordance with the approved Car Parking Management Strategy.
Reason: To ensure that the proposal makes adequate provision for and safeguards parking, In the interests of highway safety and amenity in accordance with policy PMD2 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
33 CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL ROADS / FOOTPATHS
The carriageway[s] within the development [apart from the wearing surface] and footways shall be constructed prior to the occupation of any residential units detailed to have access from such road[s] or footways and the proposed road[s] and turning space[s] shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling before it is residentially occupied is served by a properly consolidated and surfaced carriageway and footway between the dwellings and existing highway. Furthermore, the footways and footpaths commensurate with the frontage of each dwelling shall be constructed and completed within six months from the date of the first occupation of that dwelling. The wearing surface shall be completed prior to the residential occupation of the 100TH residential unit.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and amenity in accordance with policy PMD2 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
34 LIGHTING DETAILS
Prior to the first residential occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted a detailed lighting plan for the development to include the road, car parking areas, footways/ cycleways, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The submitted lighting plan shall include the siting and design of lighting together with details of the spread and intensity of the light sources. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details prior to first residential occupation of Page 76 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
the dwellings hereby permitted and thereafter retained and maintained in the agreed form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be integrated within its immediate surroundings in accordance with Policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
35 ARCHAEOLOGY
(A) No development or preliminary groundworks shall take place until the Applicant or their successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, including trial trenching, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and specification which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. (B) Following on from the works of investigation, no development or preliminary groundworks shall take place until the outcome of the investigations have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The outcome of the investigations shall also details any further safeguarding measures to ensure preservation in situ of any important archaeological remains and / or further archaeological investigation, such agreed measures shall be employed in accordance with the agreed scheme and timetable. (C)The above measures shall be undertaken prior to the submission of reserved matters pursuant to condition 2.
Reason: To ensure appropriate assessment of the archaeological implications of the development and the subsequent mitigation of adverse impacts in accordance with Policy PMD4 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011]
36 CODE FOR SUSTAINABLE HOMES
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall be built to a minimum standard of 'Level 4' under the Code for Sustainable Homes. Within 3 months of the first residential occupation of the individual residential units hereby permitted a copy of the post-construction review certificate produced by the relevant assessor for that dwelling verifying that the aforementioned minimum star rating has been achieved for that residential unit shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Page 77 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Reason: To ensure that development takes place in an environmentally sensitive way in accordance with Policy PMD12 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
37 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CODE CONDITION
Applications for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Condition 2 Parts A (Layout) and Part C (Appearance) shall be accompanied by a Sustainable Design and Construction Code for that phase. The Sustainable Design and Construction Code shall:
[a] detail the area to be covered by the Sustainable Design and Construction Code; [b] detail when development is proposed to commence and be completed on that phase; [c] provide a brief review of the technical solutions prevailing at the time; [d] indicate how the proposed building design[s] realise[s] opportunities to include design and technology energy efficiency measures; [e] detail the sustainable design measures incorporated into the phases, including but not limited to, building orientation, passive solar gain and sustainable landscape design, water conservation and efficiency measures; [f] detail how this phase will contribute to the residential development as a whole securing at least 10% of its energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources; [g] detail how sustainable construction methods will be utilised.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Sustainable Construction Code for that phase. s, remedial work in respect of any contamination or other adverse ground conditions.
Reason: To ensure that development takes place in an environmentally sensitive way in accordance with Policy PMD12 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
38 LIFETIME HOMES
The Reserved Matters submission pursuant to condition 2 Parts A (Layout) and C (Appearance) shall be accompanied by a statement outlining the specification for Lifetime Home measures and detailing the proposed development’s compliance with that specification. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To accord with the details submitted with the application in order Page 78 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
to produce flexible, accessible and adaptable homes appropriate to diverse and changing needs in accordance with Policy CSTP1 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
39 NOISE INSULTATION
The Reserved Matters submitted pursuant of Condition 2, Parts A (Layout) and C (Appearance) shall include a scheme for noise insulation of the proposed dwellings. The scheme shall assess the noise impact from the adjacent railway and road upon the dwellings and shall propose appropriate measures so that all habitable rooms will achieve 'good' internal levels as specified by BS8233:2014. The scheme shall identify and state the glazing specifications for all the affected windows, including acoustic ventilation, where appropriate. The approved measures shall be incorporated into the residential units in the manner detailed prior to their residential occupation and shall thereafter be permanently retained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and to ensure that the development can be integrated within its immediate surroundings in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
40 SUBSTATION / GAS GOVERNOR
Notwithstanding the Town & Country Planning [General Permitted Development] Order 1995 [or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification], no electrical substations and gas governers shall not be erected on the site without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that the development can be integrated within its immediate surroundings in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
41 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prior to the commencement of development or site clearance, a 'Biodiversity Management Plan' shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Biodiversity Management Plan shall be based upon the details proposed within the Ecological Assessment accompanying the outline planning application and shall include details of: Page 79 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
(a) phasing of operations, (b) the further survey work undertaking (including badger survey), timing and findings of these surveys and how they have informed the measures outlined in the Biodiversity Management Plan, (c) the implementation of mitigation and measures outlined within the Biodiversity Management Plan; (d) methodologies for translocation of reptiles; (e) suitable receptor areas together with evidence produced by an ecologist that the receptor areas are capable of supporting the population displaced; (f) the methods for the protection of existing species in situ (where relevant); (g) any seeding, planting and methods to promote habitat creation and establishment or habitat enhancement; (h) general ecological mitigation applying to the program of construction works; (i) an assessment of the works required for management and who will undertake such works, (j) a monitoring programme. The Biodiversity Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan and timescale.
Any translocation undertaken shall be verified in writing to the Local Planning Authority by an independent qualified ecologist within 28 days of undertaking the translocation.
Reason: To secure adequate mitigation in line with the Ecological Assessment and to comply with the requirements of Part 11 of the NPPF and Policies CSTP18, CSTP19 (Biodiversity) and PMD7 (Biodiversity and development) of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
42 PROTECTION OF NESTING BIRDS
Clearance of vegetation or other potential bird nesting sites shall not be undertaken within the breeding season of birds [i.e. within 1st March to the 31st July] except where a suitably qualified ecological consultant has confirmed in writing that such clearance works would not affect any nesting birds. In the event that an active bird nest is discovered outside of this period and once works have commenced, then a suitable standoff period and associated exclusion zone shall be implemented until the young have fledged the nest.
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Page 80 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Management of Development DPD [2011].
43 MITIGATION MEASURES
The development [including all reserved matters and other matters submitted pursuant to this permission] shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the studies and reports submitted with the Outline Planning Application, unless otherwise provided for in any of the conditions or subject to any alternative mitigation measures as may be approved in writing with the local planning authority, provided that such measures do not lead to there being any significant environmental effects other that those assessed in the Environmental Statement and Addendum.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the principles of mitigation set out in the planning application in order to minimise the environmental effects of the development and ensure compliance with a range of development plan policies set out within the planning committee report.
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/14/01321/OUT
Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Page 81 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Page 82 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01321/OUT
Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reference: Site: 14/00215/FUL Land At Thames Haven The Manorway Coryton Essex
Ward: Proposal: Corringham And Erection of an Energy Recovery Centre [comprising an Fobbing Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) 8-12 MWe pyrolysis plant and an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) 2-3 MWe facility with an integrated education centre] together with access improvements, landscaping and associated works
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received CPPL-02/00-01 Site Location Plan 28.02.14 CPPL-02/00-02 Site Location Plan with Aerial Photograph 28.02.14 CPPL-02/05-01 Site Sections 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-01 Proposed Site Layout 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-02 Proposed Floor Plan Level 00 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-03 Proposed Floor Plan Level 01 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-04 Proposed Floor Plan Roof Level 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-05 Proposed Floor Plan (Levels 00 & 01) Office, 28.02.14 Education & Reception Areas CPPL-02/20-01 Proposed Sections 28.02.14 CPPL-02/20-02 Proposed Sections 2 (Extended) Sheet 1 of 3 28.02.14 CPPL-02/30-01 Proposed Elevations 1 28.02.14 CPPL-02/30-02 Proposed Elevations 2 AD Tanks 28.02.14
The application is also accompanied by:
Community Involvement Report Environment Statement – Main Text Environment Statement – Technical Appendices Environment Statement – Non-Technical Summary Environment Statement - Addendum Transport Assessment Transport Assessment – Addendum Sequential Test: Evidence Base Energy Statement Sustainability Statement BREEAM Pre-Assessment Planning Statement Page 85 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Design and Access Statement
Applicant: Validated: Clean Power Properties Ltd. & Network Rail 5 March 2014 Infrastructure Ltd. Date of expiry: 31 March 2015 Recommendation: APPROVAL – subject to conditions
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 In summary, the application proposes the construction and operation of a facility to process non-hazardous household and commercial waste in order generate renewable energy (electricity) using the technologies of Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD). The main elements of the proposals are described in the table below:
Site Area 2.3 hectares Floorspace 5,710 sq.m. Employment Approximately 34 full time employees Vehicle Trips 128 HGV trips (64 lorries) daily 22 car trips (11 cars) daily Based on a worst case scenario assuming all movements by road Inputs approx. 128,000 tonnes per annum of municipal solid and commercial & industrial waste approx. 67,000 tonnes per annum of biodegradable organic wastes
TOTAL 195,000 tonnes per annum Outputs 10-15 MWe electrical power approx. 38,500 tonnes per annum of recyclable material
1.2 Inputs:
The proposed facility would process up to 195,000 tonnes of waste per annum, comprising up to 128,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial waste (C&I) and up to 67,000 tpa of biodegradable organic wastes. The facility will not accept hazardous waste and if such waste is encountered during processing it would be separated for transfer to an appropriate treatment or disposal facility.
1.3 Processes:
Wastes would be delivered to a sealed reception area located at the northern-end of the treatment building. The applicationPage 86 assumes a ‘worst case’ scenario whereby Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
all wastes are brought to the site by road, although the submitted layout plan refers to a future rail interface area to allow for the future transfer of material by rail. The waste reception area is operated under negative pressure, for the purposes of odour control. A dedicated Anaerobic Digestion (AD) bay would receive pure biomass matter with solid biodegradable waste to be macerated, blended and pumped directly to digestion tanks. A slurry tank would receive liquid wastes for AD.
1.4 All other wastes would then pass through an autoclaving process where pressure and heat would be applied to sterilise and break down non-recyclable organic material into a homogenous fibre. The material would then pass through a process of mechanical separation to remove any recyclable elements such as plastics, metal and glass for off-site recycling. The applicant suggests that up to 30% of the ACT material would be recovered for recycling. Some rejected material would be removed manually at this stage and would be expected to include stones, textiles and large wood fragments. After separation, the remaining non-recyclable mixed waste would be passed through a process of pyrolysis. The pyrolysis process (defined as the thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen) causes a chemical transformation which releases synthesis gas and produces a charcoal solid. The gas produced would be processed before being combined with the bio-methane produced from the AD process. The charcoal solid would be used in a burner system to produce the heat required for the pyrolysis process. Residual ash from pyrolysis would be reused as a secondary aggregate off-site at a rate of approximately 3,840tpa. Waste heat from the pyrolysers would be used to produce steam for the autoclaves, heating for the AD tanks and provide heating and hot water for the building. The applicant estimates approximately 3,900tpa of waste would be removed off-site for disposal. The proposed system would allow for excess heat to be exported to local heat distribution networks should they be available. A heat loop is proposed at the edge of the site to which potential users could connect.
1.5 The second waste technology proposed is Anaerobic Digestion. AD is the digestion of feedstock to release heat and methane and produce a solid digestate which is typically used as an agricultural fertiliser. The proposed AD facility would be capable of recovering up to 67,000tpa of biomass (primarily biodegradable food waste but also potentially including some green waste and liquid wastes). Approximately 90 percent of material fed through the AD process would remain after processing. The applicant proposes that approximately half of the digestate would be fed through the autoclave process while the other half would be exported off site as an agricultural fertiliser. When combined with the gas produced through pyrolysis the site would be able to drive three gas engines to generate approximately 10-15MWe for the National Grid network.
1.6 Outputs: In addition to recyclable material (mentioned above) which will be separated and recovered for off-site recycling, the pyrolysis process would produce vitrified ash Page 87 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
(melted charcoal ash). This material is described as non-hazardous and inert and will be re-used off-site as an aggregate. Approximately 90% of the material used in the AD plant will remain after processing. Some 50% of this material would be exported off-site for use as a fertilising agent and the remaining 50% fed into the autoclave process.
1.7 Proposed Buildings & Structures: The proposals involve the construction of a single process buildings and a number of ancillary structures on the site. The main operational building would be located at the south-western corner of the site, within a roughly ‘L’ shaped structure with a length of 110m and a maximum width of 60m. This building would have the appearance of a warehouse with a gross floorspace of some 5,700 sq.m. and a height of 9m. This structure would house the waste reception area (Zone 1), the waste processing and treatment area (Zone 2), the pyrolysis area (Zone 3) and finally the power generation area (Zone 4). The main building would also house offices and an education centre accommodated over two floors.
1.8 Four AD process tanks would be located on the western part of the site. These structures would have a diameter of either 24m or 28m with a height of 7m. A number of ancillary structures would be located close to the southern boundary of the site comprising a site reception office, wheel wash facility, district heating connection, electrical substation, weighbridge, gas holder tank and 3 no. emission flue / gas flare stacks to a height of 25m.
1.9 Access: Vehicular access to the site would be taken from an existing road within the former Petroplus refinery site to the south, which in turn connects to the roundabout junction at the eastern-end of The Manorway. A parking area for 16no. vehicles is proposed, including charging points for electric vehicles. Cycle parking facilities are also proposed.
1.10 Employment: The applicant suggests that up to 34 full time jobs would be created, including employees involved in delivering waste to the site. This total also includes staff employed in the processing operations (which will take place on a 24 hour basis, 7 days a week) and administrative staff employed during normal office hours on weekdays.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 The application site comprises an irregularly-shaped parcel of land comprising rail sidings and open land at the eastern end of the Thames Haven branch railway line and railway sidings. The former Petroplus refinery site (now known as the Thames Enterprise Park) is generally located to the north and east of the site, with the London Gateway site to the east. The application site, and the adjoining land to the north-west containing the majority of the rail sidings were formerly operated by D B Page 88 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Schenker, a company providing railway logistics services. The sidings and adjoining land are currently vacant but were most recently used on a low key basis for the repair and maintenance of railway wagons.
3.2 The site of the railway sidings comprises flat and open land which is punctuated by a number of lighting columns. Vegetation has colonised both the margins of the site and land between the railway tracks. The only built structures currently on the application site are a small number of demountable buildings and containers adjacent to the south-western boundary of the site. Vehicular access into the site is via a gated entrance on the south-eastern frontage. This access in turn connects to the existing internal network of roads within the former Petroplus and former Shell Haven refinery sites. The tidal defences of the River Thames are located some 35m to the south-east of the site
3.3 As part of the construction of the London Gateway port, the former import jetties along the river frontage of the site were decommissioned and removed. A replacement fuel importation jetty to the east of the new port frontage is located a short distance to the south and south-east of the application site. To the south- west of the site is an area of open land, which is within the boundary of the London Gateway Port. Land to the north of the railway sidings comprises largely open land with elements of plant, access road and open storage located within the former Petroplus refinery site.
3.4 The application site is within the high risk flood area (Flood Zone 3). Historically the branch railway terminating at Thames haven was developed in the mid-19th century. Cattle pens and a railway pier were developed on and adjacent to the site by the late 19th century. Further rail sidings were added to the site during the early and mid-20th century.
3.5 The site lies within the ‘Inner Zone’ drawn around the Shell UK storage depot hazardous installation. The site also lies within the ‘Inner’ and ‘Middle Zones’ drawn around the Vopak hazardous installation (former Petroplus Refinery). Finally, the site lies within the ‘Safeguarding Distances’ as shown on the London Gateway Port Explosives Safeguarding Plan.
3.6 The Thames Estuary & Marshes Ramsar site and Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Mucking Flats & Marshes SSSI are located upstream from the site and the Holehaven Creek SSSI is located a short distance downstream from the site. The Thames Estuary & Marshes Ramsar site and SPA is located opposite the site on the Kent side of the River Thames.
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
3.1 The planning history for the site is set out in the table below:
Reference Proposal Decision Page 89 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
57/00321/FUL Construction of pipetrack Approved 09/00210/LDC Certificate of Lawfulness: Use of Refused land for concrete batching plant 09/00340/LDC Certificate of Lawfulness: Use of Refused land for concrete batching plant 09/50097/TTGFUL Erection of concrete batching plant Approved together with parking, storage staff operations and welfare cabin and use of existing accesses.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 PUBLICITY:
The application has been publicised by the display of site notices, a newspaper advertisement and consultation with relevant consultees. No neighbour letters have been received.
4.2 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. Full text versions are available on the Council’s website: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/00215/FUL
4.3 ANGLIAN WATER:
No comments – no assets are affected.
4.4 BRITISH PIPELINE AGENCY:
No comments – the site is located outside of the zone of interest.
4.5 BUGLIFE:
An invertebrate survey should be undertaken before any development is permitted. The proposed mitigation plan appears to be well thought out, however further survey work should inform mitigation and management (N.B. the ES Addendum submitted in November 2014 includes further ecological assessments, including an invertebrate survey).
4.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
No objection subject to a planning condition addressing the issues of sustainable drainage and flood resilience. Advice is provided referring to land contamination and proximity to tidal defences.
4.7 ESSEX & SUFFOLK WATER: Page 90 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
No objection, subject to a condition that any new connection is made to the company’s water supply network (N.B. such a condition would not pass the relevant tests for planning conditions and cannot therefore be applied).
4.8 ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (ARCHAEOLOGY):
No objection, subject to a condition to require archaeological investigation of the site.
4.9 HSE:
Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.
4.10 HM EXPLOSIVE INSPECTORATE:
The construction of the proposed Energy Recovery Centre within the safeguarding distance of the London Gateway Port explosives licence will not be a problem, provided that the Centre can be evacuated when explosives loading / unloading operations are carried out at the port and the quantities are such as to require evacuation in order to maintain compliance with the Port’s licence. If the port operator can be assured that the presence of the Centre will not adversely affect the quantities of explosives they wish to handle, then there is no reason why the development should not go ahead.
4.11 HIGHWAYS AGENCY:
No objection.
4.12 LONDON GATEWAY:
No concerns or comments, following receipt of the Environment Statement Addendum.
4.13 NATURAL ENGLAND:
Internationally and nationally designated sites – the site is located close to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site and the South Thames Estuary and Marshes SSSI. The authority should have regard to any potential impacts the project may have on the European site interest, with reference to the Habitats Regulations.
Habitats Regulations Assessment – on the assumption that the authority intend to adopt the applicant’s ES as the Habitats Regulation Assessment, there are no objections, subject to mitigation through planning condition(s). Page 91 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Consideration of impacts – subject to condition(s) securing mitigation, there are no objections based on the impacts of noise, air quality and surface water.
Invertebrates – strongly recommend that Buglife (the invertebrate conservation charity) are consulted regarding surveys and mitigation (this has been done)
Protected species – the authority should refer to published standing advice.
Other advice – the authority should consider the potential impact on local habitats and species. Proposed biodiversity enhancements are supported.
4.14 NETWORK RAIL:
Fully supports this application
4.15 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
Air quality – no implications, negligible impact from the development.
Odour – the ES predicts that odour impacts on sensitive receptors will be negligible. The site will require an Environment Agency permit but an odour management condition is also recommended.
Contaminated Land – intrusive site investigation should be undertaken.
Operational noise – details of noise output and mitigation should be required by planning condition.
Construction – and Construction Environment Management Plan should be secured by condition.
4.16 EMERGENCY PLANNING:
No objection, subject to a planning condition requiring a flood warning and evacuation plan.
4.17 FLOOD RISK MANAGER:
No objection, subject to a condition requiring details of a surface water drainage scheme.
4.18 HIGHWAYS:
No objection subject to conditions. The traffic generation from the proposed development is not of a significant level compared with existing and predicted flows. Mitigation measures should be secured by planning condition. Page 92 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
4.19 LANDSCAPE & ECOLOGY ADVISOR:
The ES and ES Addendum provides a fair assessment of the value of the site for species. Further details of mitigation measures, especially for invertebrates, are required through planning condition. Conditions are also required to address site clearance and the provision of green roofs.
4.20 TRAVEL PLAN CO-ORDINATOR:
No objections, subject to minor revisions to the submitted travel plan.
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 National Planning Policy Framework
The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.
1. Building a strong, competitive economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
5.2 National Waste Policy: The following documents are relevant to this case:
National Planning Policy for Waste (2014) Waste Management Plan for England (2013) Energy from waste – a guide to the debate (2014).
5.2 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Page 93 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:
• Air quality • Climate change • Design • Determining a planning application • Environmental Impact Assessment • Flood Risk and Coastal Change • Land affected by contamination • Light pollution • Natural Environment • Noise • Planning obligations • Renewable and low carbon energy • Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking • Use of Planning Conditions • Waste
5.3 Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework (2011)
The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011. The Adopted Interim Proposals Map shows the site designated as employment land within an oil refinery. The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:
SPATIAL POLICIES - CSSP2: Sustainable Employment Growth - OSDP1: Promotion of Sustainable Growth and Regeneration in Thurrock1
THEMATIC POLICIES - CSTP6: Strategic Employment Provision - CSTP15: Transport in Greater Thurrock - CSTP17: Strategic Freight Movement and Access to Ports - CSTP18: Green Infrastructure - CSTP19: Biodiversity - CSTP22: Thurrock Design - CSTP23: Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness2 - CSTP25: Addressing Climate Change2 Page 94 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
- CSTP26: Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation2 - CSTP27: Management and Reduction of Flood Risk2 - CSTP28: River Thames2 - CSTP29: Waste Strategy - CSTP30: Regional Waste Apportionment
POLICIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT - PMD1: Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity2 - PMD2: Design and Layout2 - PMD7: Biodiversity, Geological Conservation and Development2 - PMD8: Parking Standards3 - PMD9: Road Network Hierarchy - PMD10: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans2 - PMD11: Freight Movement - PMD12: Sustainable Buildings2 - PMD13: Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation - PMD15: Flood Risk Assessment2 - PMD16: Developer Contributions2
[Footnote: 1New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2 Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3 Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy].
5.4 Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy (2014)
This Review was commenced in late 2012 with the purpose to ensure that the Core Strategy and the process by which it was arrived at are not fundamentally at odds with the NPPF. There are instances where policies and supporting text are recommended for revision to ensure consistency with the NPPF. The Review was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination in August 2013. An Examination in Public took place in April 2014. The Inspector concluded that the amendments were sound subject to recommended changes. Thurrock Council adopted the Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focussed Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework on 28 January 2015.
5.5 Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD
The Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” DPD was subject to consultation commencing during 2012. The Draft Site Specific Allocations DPD ‘Further Issues and Options’ was the subject of a further round of consultation during 2013. The application site is located within a Key Urban Regeneration Area (London Gateway) on land generally identified as “oil refinery: oil and chemical storage”. Site Allocation Policy SAP5 (Land for Industrial and Commercial Development) allocates the site as land for primary employment at Coryton oil refinery (E2v) and as a Page 95 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
reasonable alternative site option for primary employment land (E2RAi). Site Allocation Policy SAP7 (Oil Refineries and Oil Storage) allocates the site as within the Coryton Oil Refinery (O4). The Planning Inspectorate is advising local authorities not to continue to progress their Site Allocation Plans towards examination where their previously adopted Core Strategy is no longer in compliance with the NPPF. This is the situation for the Borough.
5.6 Thurrock Core Strategy Position Statement and Approval for the Preparation of a New Local Plan for Thurrock
The above report was considered at the February 2014 meeting of the Cabinet. The report highlighted issues arising from growth targets, contextual changes, impacts of recent economic change on the delivery of new housing to meet the Borough’s Housing Needs and ensuring consistency with Government Policy. The report questioned the ability of the Core Strategy Focused Review and the Core Strategy ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ to ensure that the Core Strategy is up- to-date and consistent with Government Policy and recommended the ‘parking’ of these processes in favour of a more wholesale review. Members resolved that the Council undertake a full review of Core Strategy and prepare a new Local Plan. It is anticipated that a new Local Plan for Thurrock could be adopted by early 2018.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Procedure:
The proposal is considered to be an EIA Development, therefore the application has been accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA considers the environmental effects of the proposed development during construction and operation and includes measures to either prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. The findings of the EIA are presented in an Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application. The ES has been supplemented by an ES Addendum. The ES is also accompanied by technical appendices. The contents of the EA comprise;
1. Introduction; 2. The Site and Surroundings; 3. Environmental Statement Methodology; 4. Alternatives and Design Evolution; 5. The Proposed Development; 6. Development Programme, Demolition and Construction; 7. Transport and Access; 8. Air Quality and Odour; 9. Ecology and Nature Conservation; 10. Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk; 11. Soils, Geology and Contamination; 12. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; and Page 96 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
13. Conclusions.
6.2 The Council has a statutory duty to consider environmental matters and an EIA is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development are fully understood and fully taken into account before development proceeds. EIA is, therefore, an integral component of the planning process for significant developments. EIA leads to improved decision making by providing the development management process with better information. EIA not only helps to determine whether development should be permitted but also facilitates the drafting of planning conditions and legal agreements in order to control development, avoid or mitigate adverse effects and enhance beneficial effects. Therefore, it is vital that the environmental issues raised by the application are assessed in a robust and transparent manner.
6.3 In order to fulfil the requirements of the EIA Regulations it is necessary to ensure (a) that the Council has taken into account the environmental information submitted, and (b) that any planning permission granted is consistent with the development which has been assessed. To achieve this second objective the Council has the ability to impose conditions and secure mitigation measures by Section 106 obligations.
6.4 The issues to be considered in this case are:
the principle of the proposal and compliance with relevant planning policies; transport and highways issues; impact on air quality and odour; impact on ecological interests; flood risk; ground conditions; archaeology; and health and safety issues.
6.5 PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT & COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
Policies CSTP29 and CSTP30 of the Core Strategy (2011) set out the Council’s thematic policies addressing waste strategy and regional waste apportionment.
6.6 Is there a need for the proposed facility?
CSTP29 (Waste Strategy) states that, inter-alia, provision will only be made for total waste management capacity equivalent to the requirements for Thurrock, including imports, as set out in the Core Strategy. In order to meet this provision, the Council will identify 1 or 2 strategic sites for the co-location of a range of waste Page 97 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
management activities within the broad locations of Tilbury – Purfleet and the London Gateway area as identified on the key diagram. Policy CSTP30 (Regional Waste Apportionment) states that Thurrock will make a defined provision for waste imports from London across the plan period (1.885 million tonnes 2009/10 – 2021). In addition, provision for new non-landfill waste facilities will only be made for waste not included within this apportionment where a facility has a clear benefit to the region, such as the provision of specialist processing or treatment which would not be viable without a wider catchment and which would enable recovery of more locally generated wastes and contribute to meeting the capacity requirements set out in CSTP29.
6.7 The above Core Strategy waste policies were devised against the background of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East of England (East of England Plan) and policy WM3 of that Plan in particular. The supporting text to policy CSTP30 recognises that the RSS policy did not totally discourage the provision of non- landfill waste management facilities for waste originating outside of the region. But CSTP30 does repeat RSS policy by stating that non-landfill facilities for such waste will only be allowed where the facility has a clear benefit to the region, such as the provision of specialist processing or treatment which would not be viable without a wider catchment area and which would enable recovery of more locally generated wastes and contribute to meeting the capacity requirements set out in CSTP29. Policy CSTP29 includes, at Table 12, a statement of the Borough’s required waste capacity to the end of the Plan period (2026) as follows:
Waste Management Method Additional Capacity Required (based on end of Plan period 2026) Recovery of MSW (municipal solid Between 75,000 tpa (based on targets waste) set out in the Municipal Waste Strategy) and 94,000 tpa by 2026 Commercial and industrial (C&I) waste Between 138,000 tpa and 190,000 tpa recycling and other recovery at 2026 Construction and demolition (C&D) 255,000 tpa (worst case scenario waste recycling assuming loss of temporary facilities). Non-hazardous landfill None Inert landfill None
6.8 CSTP29 makes reference to an extant s.36 (Electricity Act) consent and associated deemed planning consent for the construction and operation of a biomass and energy from waste power station at Tilbury Docks (Tilbury Green Power (TGP)). The policy anticipated that this facility would be operational in 2012 and that the facility could meet most of most of the total waste capacity for Thurrock. However, this consent is subject to a number of planning conditions which limit both the tonnage of waste inputs and the geographical sources of those inputs. Accordingly, the maximum input of MSW permitted for TGP is 40,000 tpa, representing only a part of the annual tonnage (75,000-94,000tpa) referred to in the table above. In Page 98 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
addition, a planning condition limits the total input of MSW, C&I waste and solid recovered fuel (either imported or produced on-site) to no more than 300,000tpa.
6.9 Furthermore, despite a technical commencement of development on the TGP site, the facility has not been constructed. It is also now the intention of TGP to development the consented facility in two separate phases, with the first phase comprising the biomass and waste wood fuelled generating station. Phase 2 comprising the MSW and C&I fuel inputs will follow at a later date, although no definite timeframe is yet known. Therefore, despite the consent for TGP, there is no operational capacity for management of MSW and C&I waste identified in the table above and in any case TGP does not accommodate all of the capacity required for MSW. The supporting text to CSTP29 states that “until the (TGP) scheme is implemented and until it is confirmed that it provides for Thurrock’s waste needs, a flexible and robust approach is required to plan for waste capacity to meet Thurrock’s need.”
6.10 Members will recall that the RSS was revoked by the Government in 2013. Therefore, the policies upon which Core Strategy policies CSTP29 and CSTP30 were based no longer exists. Members will also be aware that in February 2015 Council considered a report titled ‘Adoption of Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focused Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework’. This report listed a number of Core Strategy policies to which amendments could be taken forward to ensure consistency with the NPPF without the need to prepare additional evidence. Policies CSTP29 and 30 are not on this list and remain unchanged by the Focused Review, however these policies are not compliant with the NPPF which post-dated the adoption of the Core Strategy.
6.11 The most recent national policy for waste comprises ‘National Planning Policy for Waste’ (October 2014). This document reinforces the waste hierarchy, which sets out a preferred sequence of prevention – re-use – recycling – recovery – disposal. In identifying the need for waste management facilities, national policy states that local authorities should identify sufficient opportunities to meet the identified needs of their area for the management of waste streams. More specifically, local authorities should identify tonnages and percentages of municipal, commercial and industrial waste requiring management over the plan period. In determining planning applications, local authorities (in addition to considering locational and environmental factors) should:
Only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan. In such cases, waste planning authorities should consider the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities would satisfy any identified need.
Page 99 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.12 Whilst the planning policy context for waste is complex, the following conclusions can be drawn:
the location of the proposed facility meets the broad locational criteria set out in CSTP29; the proposal in combination with the consented TGP facility has the potential to meet the Borough’s requirement for additional capacity to process MSW and C& I waste, as set out in CSTP29; as the consented TGP facility is not operational (and there is currently no known timeframe for delivery of the MSW and C&I element of the scheme), CSTP29 promotes a flexible and robust approach to plan for waste capacity to meet Thurrock’s need; Core Strategy policies CSTP29 and CSTP30 cannot be considered as up to date and in these circumstances more recent national guidance is more relevant;
6.13 Taking the above factors into account, it is considered that there is a need for the facility in order to meet the capacity requirements set out by Core Strategy policy.
6.14 Proximity Principle – the EU Waste Framework Directive (Article 16 – Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity) requires that:
waste planning authorities should ensure that, as far as is practicable, sufficient waste disposal facilities and facilities for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from households exist within their Local Plan area; and Waste planning authorities should ensure that waste disposal facilities and facilities for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from households are appropriately sited to ensure compliance with the proximity principle. This can include joint working with other planning authorities to develop an extensive network of sites to enable effective waste management.
6.15 In essence, the proximity principle seeks to ensure that waste is disposed of, or otherwise managed, as close as possible to the point at which it is generated. The deemed planning permission for the TGP facility, which was considered against the context of relevant RSS policies, includes ‘catchment’ conditions which seek to ensure that inputs are sourced from areas close to site. However, materials sourced from greater distances can be delivered by river. The matter of catchments for the proposed facility has been discussed with the applicant, as a number of the documents supporting the application refer to ‘local’ sourcing of waste inputs.
Page 100 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.16 The applicant confirms that the facility will be a merchant facility, i.e. it does not have committed waste contracts in place at present. Similar to TGP, the facility is designed to source waste wherever the opportunities present themselves, although it is in the interests of the applicant to treat waste as close to the source as possible in order to ensure the treatment operation is as economically efficient as possible. The applicant considers that it is not appropriate to seek to control the origins of the waste operations of merchant facilities. In reality, as waste is of a relatively low value, when taking transportation costs into account it results in waste travelling limited distances in any event. In this regard, the commercial market generates self-sufficiency. However, the applicant is prepared to accept a planning condition limiting imports of MSW and C&I waste to a radius of 50 miles from the site. A similar condition applies to the TGP site, although there are different catchments applying to biomass and waste wood imports.
6.17 It is of note that during consideration of the TGP proposals the applicant for those proposals made reference to waste management and energy policies as interpreted through decisions taken by the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The applicant for TGP cited a decision to approve an application for S.36 consent and deemed planning permission for an energy from waste combined heat and power (CHP) station at Runcorn, Cheshire. In responding to concerns that the source of fuel had not been identified, the decision letter noted that:
“The Secretary of State considers that the sourcing of fuel for the generating station is a commercial matter for the Company.”
6.18 Similarly, an Inspector’s report considering a proposal for an energy from waste plant at Ince in Cheshire also examined the issue of fuel sources. In that case, the Inspector concluded that:
“The prospect of long distance movement of waste has been raised by many local objectors and by the Borough Councils but as a merchant facility responding to the market it is clear that it would not be appropriate to seek to control the origins of waste by condition or legal obligation … The level of investigation of this topic at the inquiry was not sufficiently thorough to enable me to reach a firm conclusion about the availability, or abundance, of C&I waste suitable and available as a source of refuse derived fuel for the proposed Ince incinerator. However, my view is that that is a question for the market place to determine and that the proponents of the scheme would only proceed with a £215 million investment after extremely careful examination of the project’s viability and availability of relatively local sources of refuse derived fuel will have a major impact on the scheme’s viability.”
6.19 These two decisions suggest that the sourcing of fuel and feedstocks for generating stations is a commercial decision for the operator and not a matter which should necessarily be controlled through planning conditions. However, in this case the Page 101 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
applicant has offered a condition in good faith and it is recommended that, if Members are minded to grant permission, the condition is utilised.
6.20 TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS ISSUES
A Transport Assessment (TA) forms an appendix to the ES and an additional technical note has been submitted as an addendum to the TA which responds to comments from the Highways Officer.
6.21 Baseline conditions – vehicular access to the site is proposed via a number of estate road links on the former Petroplus refinery site which link to the adopted highway at the far eastern end of The Manorway (A1014). The entrance to the site is approximately 1.5km from the public highway network. Footway and cycle links along the northern side of A1014 terminate at the roundabout junction close to the entrance of the former Petroplus refinery. The estate roads within the former refinery complex do not have associated footways / cycleways. The nearest bus service to the site is the no. 300 which links London Gateway to Stanford-le-Hope and operates 5-8 journeys per day from Mondays to Saturdays. The closest stop on this route is located at Gate 3 on the A1014, approximately 2.5km travelling distance from the site. The application is partly located on the site of the former Thames Haven rail sidings. These sidings form the eastern-end of the Thames Haven branch railway line. The line to the west of the site was upgraded to double track as part of the London Gateway redevelopment.
6.22 Vehicle Movements – the TA assumes a worst-case scenario whereby all transport movements to and from the site are made by road. An estimation of daily large goods vehicle trips is set out in the table below:
Vehicle Average Tonnes Average Trips per Payload per day vehicles day per day MATERIALS IN Bulk trailer 20t 348t 17 35 Commercial waste 8t 70t 9 17 Refuse vehicle 7t 70t 10 20 Skips 15t 209t 14 28 MATERIALS OUT Recyclates 15t 137t 9 18 Disposal 20t 14t 1 1 Vitrified slag 20t 14t 1 1 Liquid fertiliser 38m3 75t 2 4 Solid fertiliser 20t 32t 2 3 TOTAL 64 128
6.23 With reference to staff travel patterns, the TA estimates that car movements associated with the operation Pageof the development102 would add a further 22 car trips Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
per day. In total, it is estimated that during operation the development would generate 150 vehicle movements per day. The TA / ES assesses the effect of this additional traffic on the highway network as ‘neutral’.
6.24 Rail – the site benefits from direct rail access and the submitted plans show a ‘future rail interface area’ so that both inputs to and outputs from the site could utilise rail links. However, the TA points out that the use of rail for this kind on freight is usually only viable for long-distance movements and the waste inputs into the facility “is intended to be sourced from the local area”. In these circumstances, “the likelihood is that the rail infrastructure would only be utilised for the transfer of recyclable waste off-site to specialised recycling facilities”.
6.25 Mitigation – the TA and its addendum has been considered by Highways who conclude that traffic generation from the proposed development is not of a level of significance when compared with the existing flow, and predicted growth in flows, on the road network adjoining the site. A number of mitigation measures (travel plan, delivery & servicing plan and investigation of the viability of railway use) can be secured through planning conditions.
6.26 As noted above, the site is physically remote from footway and cyclepath links and is also remote from public transport links. It would be desirable, in the interests of sustainability, if linkages to the site to were improved, however the proposals only involve relatively small numbers of staff on-site during either normal office hours or on the basis of a 3-shift pattern operating the facility. Staff movements during the operation of the facility are therefore low-key and it would be unreasonable to expect the development on its own to provide linkage to the public highway, especially as this would involve land beyond the applicant’s control. However, within the TA addendum, the applicant’s highway consultant suggests that a ‘Grampian’ condition could require the applicant to provide a study into the design and cost of the provision of pedestrian facilities within the area, and make a proportional contribution towards the provision of footways on the basis of the study results. Whilst this offer is welcomed, any planning condition to secure a study and contribution would need to comply with the relevant tests for planning conditions set out in the NPPF and PPG. In particular, the tests of necessity, relevance to the development and whether the condition is reasonable are pertinent.
6.27 With regard to necessity, the key question to be addressed is whether the condition is needed to make the development acceptable, i.e. is it appropriate to refuse permission without the requirements of the condition. As the Highways Officer concludes that traffic flows from the development are not significant, it is considered that the proposed condition does not pass this test. In assessing whether a condition is relevant to the development, the PPG poses the key question of whether the condition is justified by the impact of the development. Again, in light of the significance of impact, the proposed condition cannot be justified. Finally, with reference to whether the condition would be reasonable, PPG advises that Page 103 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
conditions should not place unjustifiable or unreasonable burdens on an applicant. It is considered that the condition does not pass this test.
6.28 Therefore, despite the applicant’s offer, it is considered that this condition cannot be applied and is unnecessary as mitigation for the impact on the highways network.
6.29 IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY & ODOUR
Both the proposed ACT and AD plant will require an Environmental Permit, as required by the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. This process is administered by the Environment Agency and assesses the potential impacts to air, water and land. The issue of an Environmental Permit is separate from the consideration of the planning merits of this application and conditions placed on any planning permission should not replicate specific controls which may form part of any Environmental Permit.
6.30 The ES accompanying the application includes a chapter assessing the impacts of both construction and operation of the development on air quality and odour. Emissions to air from the development would be via 2 x emission flue stacks (located to the south and east of the process building) and 1 x gas flare stack (located to the south of the process building). The ES considers the impacts of
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) which are produced from the combustion of syngas and the impacts of emissions from the pyrolysis process namely:
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); gaseous and vaporous organic substances; sulphur dioxide; hydrogen chloride; hydrogen fluoride; trace metals; and dioxins and furans.
Modelled ground-level concentrations of these pollutants are assessed against relevant air quality standards.
6.31 Baseline Conditions – the application site is located within an area dominated by active commercial / industrial uses and vacant industrial land. The closest residential receptors are located at Oozedam Farm (approximately 1.7km to the north), Great Garlands Farm / Rookery Hill / Wharf Road (approximately 3.2 – 3.8km to the north-west) and Haven Road, Canvey Island (approximately 3.1km to the east). Existing air quality in the locality is influenced by emissions from the gas- fired Coryton Power Station, located some 600m to the north of the site. Section 36 (Electricity Act) consent and deemed planning permission was granted in 2011 (and subsequently amended in 2014) for the construction and operation of a new gas- Page 104 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
fired power station on part of the London Gateway logistics park site. This development, known as Gateway Energy Centre is located approximately 1km to the north-west, although development has not commenced. The ES assesses the cumulative impacts of these developments.
6.32 Air quality data is available from monitoring stations in the Borough for
concentrations of NO2 and PM10. Data for the period 2008-12 shows that annual mean objective levels for NO2 are exceeded for two roadside locations at Tilbury and Purfleet, however levels at background sites in Thurrock, and at Canvey Island,
meet objective levels. For the same period (2008-12) concentrations of PM10 were within air quality objective levels at three monitoring locations in the Borough.
6.33 Construction Impacts - during construction of the facility, the ES assesses the potential for dust generation and impact on air quality from earthworks, construction activities and associated vehicular movement. The ES predicts that, subject to best practice mitigation measures, the residual impacts of construction activities on air quality would be negligible. The ES refers to an environment management plan to control impacts from construction activities and detailed comments received from the Environmental Health Officer suggest that the requirement to produce and implement such a plan should be subject to a planning condition.
6.34 Operational Impacts – the ES models predicted maximum and average pollutant concentrations based on meteorological data (which confirms the dominant south- westerly wind direction). The full range of potential emissions from the proposed
technologies (NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Benzene, Hydrogen Chloride, Hydrogen Flouride, trace metals, dioxins and furans) have been modelled. For all emissions the modelled concentrations of pollutants at sensitive residential receptors are within the relevant air quality standards. The significance of operation of the facility on air quality is considered by the ES to be ‘negligible’. The impacts of emissions on habitats are considered elsewhere in this report.
6.35 The ES addendum considers air quality implications for receptors at the adjacent London Gateway site, principally users of the Port staff welfare and office building which is located 200m to the north-west of the site. As above, predicted concentrations of the full range of potential pollutants are modelled as within objective levels for these receptors. The significance of the impact is therefore assessed as ‘negligible’.
6.36 Odour – the proposed facility will accept and process waste and biomass material and the ES therefore includes an assessment of the impacts of odour. Although there are no UK statutory standards for assessing the acceptability of predicted odour impacts, guidance has been produced by the EA and DEFRA. The DEFRA guidance refers to the factors of frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness and location in assessing the potential impact of odour.
Page 105 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.37 The applicant refers to number of design features and management procedures which, it is stated, will mitigate the impact of odour to that of negligible significance. In particular, the applicant refers to the following odour control measures:
Inventory control – received waste will be managed to prevent stockpiling; Sealed building – the waste reception and processing element of the building has been designed to be air-tight, will be operated under negative pressure and all door openings will be fast acting with air curtains; Odour abatement – internal extracted air will be treated and then used within the combustion systems; Standby odour abatement plant – if the odour abatement system (above) is not operational a two-phase scrubbing and filtration will be employed.
6.38 Nevertheless, despite these measures the ES recommends that an “Odour Management Plan and Standard Operating Procedures are developed for the Site prior to its operation. This will form part of an application to the Environment Agency (EA) for an Environmental Permit for the Site. These procedures should be strictly followed and reviewed on an annual basis”. The Environmental Health Officer suggests that an odour management plan be submitted for approval as an additional safeguard.
6.39 IMPACT ON ECOLOGICAL INTERESTS
As noted above, the site is located in close proximity to a number of habitats designated of national, European or international importance (SSSI / SPA / Ramsar). After the initial submission of the planning application in 2014, the Landscape and Heritage Advisor noted that the habitat present on the site could be classified as open mosaic and advised that further species surveys should be undertaken.
6.40 On-site habitats / species – the ES Addendum (submitted towards the end of 2014) details the results of on-site species surveys which are summarised below:
Botanical survey – three local BAP species were encountered (Common Cudweed, Annual Beard-Grass and Ploughman’s-Spikenard) with all other plants typically found on brownfield sites. In order to mitigate the minor adverse significance of impact on these species the ES proposes seed collection and re-creation of similar habitats on the ground and within green- roofs. Great Crested Newts – this species is unlikely to be present on the site and therefore impacts are unlikely. However, due to the historic presence of newts within 250m of the site, the ES recommends mitigation measures. Common Toad – this species is unlikely to be present on the site and therefore impacts are unlikely. Page 106 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Birds – the site is assessed as of district value for breeding bird assemblages. The proposals would result in the loss of foraging and nesting habitat for birds, including some species of conservation concern. A ‘moderate’ significance of impact is predicted on breeding and foraging birds. To mitigate impact the ES recommends that ground clearance works are undertaken outside of the bird breeding season and areas of new planting and habitat retention / creation. Badgers / Bats – badgers are unlikely to be present on-site as the habitat is of little value to this species. However, scrub clearance should be supervised to verify whether a badger sett is present. The site is of negligible value to roosting bats but has some value for foraging. Any external lighting should be designed so as to minimise disturbance to bats. Invertebrates – surveys undertaken between May and September 2014 identified 6 Red Data Book species, 11 Nationally Notable (Nationally Scarce) species, 33 Local species and 7 BAP species. The significance of the loss of habitat for invertebrates is assessed ‘minor adverse’. In order to mitigate this impact the ES recommends the creation of similar habits comprising green roofs, wildflower areas and mounds to provide nesting sites. Reptiles – Slow Worm, Common Lizard and grass Snake are present on- site. Although only small numbers were encountered, due to the range of species the site qualifies as a ‘Key Reptile Site’. The significance of the loss of habitat for invertebrates is assessed ‘minor adverse’. In order to mitigate this impact the ES recommends a trapping / relocation exercise and the creation of new habitat.
6.41 The ES concludes that, subject to mitigation, there would be no significant residual impacts on habitats or species on-site. However, any planning approval would need to be subject a number of planning conditions to address precautionary methods of working, the creation and management of new habitats (including green roofs, wildflower grassland, reedbed and scrub planting) and reptile relocation.
6.42 Habitats Regulations – the consultation response from Natural England (summarised above) notes that the application site is located close to internationally and nationally designated sites (Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site / South Thames Estuary and Marshes SSSI). European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). In considering the European site interest, the local planning authority, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that the proposals may have. The Habitat Regulations (which are a UK transposition of EU Directives relating to the conservation of natural habitats, flora and fauna and specifically wild birds) apply to certain designated sites including Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites. Of particular relevance to this application, regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations requires, inter-alia, that: Page 107 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Before deciding to give any permission for a plan which: (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European Site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site
The competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.
6.43 Regulation 61 goes on to state that the person applying for permission must provide the necessary information to enable the competent authority to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required and that the competent authority must consult with the appropriate nature conservation body. In this case, Natural England has provided a detailed response on the proposals which confirms:
“The applicant’s assessment (Within the ES) concludes that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of (Habitats Regulations) assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. This conclusion has been drawn having regard for the measures built into the proposal that seek to avoid all potential impacts. We have reviewed the information submitted with this planning application in particular the Environmental Report and subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the report being secured as planning conditions, Natural England concurs with this view.”
6.44 Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant’s assessment is adopted by the local planning authority in order for the Council to fulfil its duty under the Habitats Regulations. In adopting this assessment it is also recommended that the local planning authority formally determine that, on the basis of the information available, that the proposed development will not have a likely significant impact on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
6.45 Off-site impacts – the ES considers the impact of the construction and operational phases of development on both statutory and non-statutory ecological designations close to the site. The ES Addendum also considers impacts on areas of new habitat creation for protected species which were created close to the London Gateway site as mitigation for that development.
6.46 During construction the ES concludes that, subject to accordance with best working practices, impacts from dust and run-off during construction on off-site ecological interests would be insignificant. During the operation of the development, the main impact of the facility would be emissions to air and their impact on nearby habitats by reason of increased nutrient deposition (eutrophication) and acidification. Data from the air quality chapter of the ES and ES Addendum considers the potential impact of eutrophication and acidification on the full array of statutory designated and non-statutory habitats and the London Gateway habitat areas and concludes that impact would be of negligible significance. Page 108 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.47 Under this heading it is concluded that, subject to suitable planning conditions to deliver mitigation, the impact of the proposals on ecological interests are acceptable.
6.48 FLOOD RISK
The application site comprises generally level, low lying land between 2-3m AOD which is within the high risk flood zone (Zone 3a), albeit benefitting from flood defences adjacent to the River Thames. The consultation response received from the Environment Agency (summarised above) considers the proposals to comprise a ‘less vulnerable’ land use and, with reference to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification within PPG, the development can be considered appropriate in terms of its vulnerability to flood risk. Nevertheless, the proposals are still subject to the requirements of passing the Sequential Test and that the flood risk assessment (FRA) demonstrates that the development will be safe for its lifetime.
6.49 Sequential Test – the general aim of the sequential approach to the location of development is to ensure that areas of low flood risk are developed in preference to areas of higher risk. Advice within PPG states that it is the responsibility of the local planning authority to consider whether the Sequential Test has been satisfied and that the developer should justify what area of search has been used in making the planning application.
6.50 The application is accompanied by a ‘Sequential Test: Evidence Base’ document. Based on the wording of adopted Core Strategy policy CSTP29, this document narrows the area of search for sequentially preferable sites to the broad locations of Purfleet-Tilbury and London Gateway. The applicant’s document then considers potential suitable sites on the basis of:
previously developed land; transport infrastructure; surrounding land uses; environmental constraints; and adequate size.
6.51 Based upon the list of sites emerging in the Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD, the above filters have been applied to discount sites on the basis of insufficient size to accommodate the development, greenfield status, sensitivity of surrounding land uses and neighbours and lack of potential for rail and river transport links. After applying the above filters there is only one site (Arisdale Avenue, South Ockendon) within the search area which is at a lower risk of flooding. However, the Arisdale site is close to residential receptors, would require considerable investment to create a rail siding and is not available for development. The applicant’s assessment therefore concludes that there are no alternative Page 109 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
available sites at a lower risk of flooding which could accommodate the development. It is considered that the submitted Evidence Base is robust in its methodology and analysis. Consequently, the Sequential Test is passed.
6.52 Although the Environment Agency do not object to the proposals (subject condition), they note that the local planning authority should be satisfied that the development will be safe for its operational lifetime (estimated to be 25 years). The consultation response received from Emergency Planning also recommends that a flood warning and evacuation plan should be maintained during the operation of the development. A site-specific FRA accompanies the application which predicts that, in the event of a breach of tidal defences, the depth of flood water on the site would be between 0.5m - 2m for both the 1 in 200 year and 1 in 1,000 year breach event. The time period from a breach of defences until inundation of the site is also expected to be short (close to 1 hour). Although the likelihood of a breach of tidal defences is very small, the consequences of such a breach are defined as posing a ‘significant / extreme hazard’. However, when considering flood risk implications it should be remembered that the intended operational life of the proposed facility is 25 years and the modelling referred to above refers to the extreme 1 in 200 or 1 in 1,000 year events.
6.53 The proposals include the provision of offices at mezzanine floor level above the modelled flood level. In the case of an emergency, this area could be used as a safe refuse. In addition, the main process building will be constructed to resist the force of up to 2m of water against it. The FRA includes a draft flood response plan and a final operation plan can be a requirement of a planning condition. The EA and the Flood Risk Manager both suggest that the matter of surface water drainage is also subject to planning condition.
6.54 In light of the above, and subject to a suitably worded planning condition, there are no reasons on the grounds of flood risk to object to the proposals.
6.55 GROUND CONDITIONS
As noted above, historically the site has been used as railway sidings and contained a number of buildings associated with that use, including a train / goods station and cattle pens. Given the historic use of the site the ES uses a desktop assessment to consider ground conditions and concludes that there is potential for widespread ground contamination associated with the presence of ash ballast and spillages / leaks of fuels, oils and chemicals. The ES considers that any contamination could be within perched groundwater on the site and that this groundwater is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the River Thames. The ES recommends that an intrusive investigation is undertaken prior to any construction, with a strategy to deal with contamination and / or ground gas.
6.56 The Environmental Health Officer has considered the content of the ES and agrees that intrusive investigation should be undertaken to characterise the site and inform Page 110 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
any remediation and mitigation measures. The Environment Agency also note the potential for ground contamination, although the Agency consider that the water environment at the site is of low environmental sensitivity and detailed site-specific comments with regards to land contamination issues are not provided.
6.57 Nevertheless it is considered that planning conditions could be used to satisfactorily address the issue of ground contamination.
6.58 ARCHAEOLOGY
The ES considers archaeology and cultural heritage. Former railway buildings on the site, comprising the railway station, goods station, cattle pens and a small terrace of possibly residential properties were all removed demolished during the second half of the 20th Century. The remaining buildings and structures on-site are of no cultural or historic interest.
6.59 However, the ES considers that the site has the potential to contain underlying sediments which may be of archaeological interest. Essex County Council (Archaeology) also notes that there is the potential for multi-period archaeological deposits across the site and that deep early prehistoric deposits are likely to be surviving beneath the alluvial deposits, whilst late Iron Age and Roman saltern sites (salt making sites) have been found in similar locations around the coast. In these circumstances, a planning condition requiring a programme of archaeological investigation is necessary.
6.60 HEALTH & SAFETY ISSUES
The site lies within the ‘Inner Zone’ drawn around the Shell UK storage depot hazardous installation site and also lies within the ‘Inner’ and ‘Middle Zones’ drawn around the Vopak hazardous installation site (former Petroplus Refinery). Based upon the sensitivity of the proposed land use and the number of potential employees on the site, the HSE do not advise against the grant of planning permission based on the proximity of the site to the above hazardous installations.
6.61 The application site also lies within the envelope of safeguarding distances drawn around London Gateway Port, which was granted a licence to handle explosives in 2014. An updated consultation reply from the Explosives Inspectorate of the HSE (received January 2015) states that:
“the construction of the (energy recovery) centre within the safeguarding distance will not be a problem, provided the centre can be evacuated when explosives loading/unloading operations are carried out at the berth, and the quantities are such as to require evacuation in order to maintain compliance with the port's licence”
Page 111 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.62 The applicant has confirmed that since submission of the application last year discussion on this matter have taken place with both the HSE and London Gateway Port. This has led to the drafting of a written procedure for the operational shutdown of the energy recovery centre in the event that the Port handles explosives. The applicant is agreeable to this matter being dealt with through a planning condition.
6.63 OTHER ISSUES:
Core Strategy policy CSTP17 (Strategic Freight Movement and Access to Ports) states that the Council will, inter-alia, protect inter-modal rail and water-borne freight facilities from other development where a demand exists or is expected to exist and promote the use of rail freight facilities. The site comprises rail sidings at the far eastern-end of the Thames Haven branch line, formerly used as part of the Shell Haven refinery. The proposals would involve the loss of the easternmost section (approximately 200m) of the majority of sidings. However, existing sidings to the west of the site would be unaffected by the proposals. Furthermore, the proposed site layout indicates the potential reinstatement of sidings to the north- east of the site.
6.64 Recently completed works to the branch line within the London Gateway site have provided a number of new rail sidings immediately north of the port. Therefore, the current proposals would have no detrimental impact on the operation of rail freight at London Gateway. The proposals would also have no impact on rail access to the existing lines which access the Calor Gas site and the northern part of the former Petroplus site.
6.65 Consequently, there would be no conflict with Policy CSTP17.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Subject to the use of appropriate planning conditions to secure mitigation, it is considered that the impacts of the proposal of the environment (ecology, air quality, ground conditions and archaeology) are acceptable. Similarly, subject to the use of planning conditions, there are no reasons to object to the proposals on the grounds of flood risk or impact on the surrounding highways network.
7.1 Planning policies for waste are applicable to the proposals and it is considered that there is currently a need for the facility in order to manage waste arisings in Thurrock, as identified by Core Strategy policy.
7.2 Environmental Statement – in coming its view on the proposed development the Council has taken into account the content of the ES and ES Addendum submitted with the application as well as representations that have been submitted by third parties. The ES considers the potential impacts of the proposal on a range of receptors and sets out mitigation measures. Subject to appropriate mitigation Page 112 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
which can be secured through planning conditions, the ES and ES Addendum concludes that any impact arising from the construction and operation of the development would be within acceptable limits. Having taken into account representations received, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, subject to compliance with a number of planning conditions that are imposed upon the permission. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the recommendation set out below.
7.3 As the site is located close to habitats of importance for nature conservation, the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) apply. Therefore, it is necessary for the Committee to consider and agree recommendation A below before considering recommendation B.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation A -
That the local planning authority formally determine pursuant to regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), and on the basis of the information available, that the development proposed will not have a likely significant effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
Recommendation B -
Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the local planning authority within seven days of such commencement.
Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
CPPL-02/00-01 - Site Location Plan CPPL-02/00-02 - Site Location Plan with Aerial Photograph CPPL-02/05-01 - Site Sections CPPL-02/10-01 - Proposed Site Layout CPPL-02/10-02 - Proposed Floor Plan Level 00 CPPL-02/10-03 - Proposed Floor Plan Level 01 CPPL-02/10-04 - Proposed Floor Plan Roof Level CPPL-02/10-05 - Proposed Floor Plan (Levels 00 & 01) Office, Education & Page 113 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reception Areas CPPL-02/20-01 - Proposed Sections CPPL-02/20-02 - Proposed Sections 2 (Extended) Sheet 1 of 3 CPPL-02/30-01 - Proposed Elevations 1 CPPL-02/30-02 - Proposed Elevations 2 AD Tanks
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, and a programme of maintenance. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following commencement of the development (or such other period as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority) and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings and provides for landscaping as required by policies CSTP18 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
4. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of the locations, heights, designs, materials and types of all boundary treatments to be erected on site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The boundary treatments shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the first operational use of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, privacy and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings as required by policies CSTP22 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority there shall be no external storage of materials, goods, machinery, plant or other materials on the site, other than those items of plant and machinery shown on the approved drawings.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed Page 114 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
development is integrated within its surroundings as required by policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
6. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of any external lighting, including details of the spread and intensity of light together with the size, scale and design of any light fittings and supports, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter external lighting shall only be provided and operated in accordance with the agreed details or in accordance with any variation agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is integrated within its surroundings as required by policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall be built to the ‘Excellent’ standard under the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). Prior to first operational use of the development a copy of the Post Construction Completion Certificate for the building verifying that the ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating has been achieved shall be submitted to the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the interests of sustainable development, as required by policy PMD12 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
8. Prior to the first operational use of the development the car parking spaces shown on the approved plans [ref. CPPL-02/10-01 - Proposed Site Layout] shall be provided and delineated on-site in accordance with the approved plans. Notwithstanding the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development shall be carried out on the site so as to preclude the use of those car parking spaces. The car parking spaces shall be available in their entirety during the operation of the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and amenity and to ensure that adequate car parking provision is available in accordance with policy PMD8 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
9. The measures and procedures for monitoring and review set out within the submitted Staff Travel Plan [Appendix TN2-E of the Technical Note 2 Transport Assessment Addendum dated November 2014] shall be implemented during Page 115 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
the construction and operational phases of the development and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To reduce reliance on private cars in the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD10 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
10. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, no development above ground level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its surroundings in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
11. Prior to the construction above ground level of any of the buildings, details of measures to demonstrate that the development will achieve the generation of at least 15% of its own energy needs through the use of decentralised, renewable or low carbon technologies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be implemented and operational upon the first use of the buildings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained in the agreed form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that development takes place in an environmentally sensitive way in accordance with Policy PMD13 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
12. Demolition and clearance of vegetation or other potential bird nesting sites shall not be undertaken within the breeding season of birds (i.e. within 1st March to the 31st July) except where a suitably qualified ecological consultant has confirmed in writing that such clearance works would not affect any nesting birds. In the event that an active bird nest is discovered outside of this period and once works have commenced, then a suitable standoff period and associated exclusion zone shall be implemented until the young have fledged the nest.
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Page 116 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
DPD (2011).
13. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum submitted with the planning application, unless otherwise provided for in any of the conditions or subject to any alternative mitigation measures as may be approved in writing with the local planning authority, provided that such measures do not lead to there being any significant environmental effects other that those assessed in the Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the principles of mitigation set out in the Environmental Statement Environmental Statement Addendum and in order to minimise the environmental effects of the development and ensure compliance with a range of development plan policies set out within the planning committee report.
14. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a scheme to address surface water drainage / SuDS and Flood Resilience measures has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Finished floor levels must be confirmed to ensure that safe refuge is provided above the 1 in 1000 year plus climate change event level plus a 300mm freeboard. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 years critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The submitted scheme shall also include finished levels of roadways, clear details of the ownership and responsibility for maintenance of all drainage elements for the lifetime of the development (If appropriate, details of adoption of any drainage elements of the drainage system should be included) and details of all surface water drainage infrastructure for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority’s s21 Asset Register. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the agreed details before the first operational use of the development. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with paragraph 103 of National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with CSTP27 Management and Reduction of Flood Risk.
15. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of operating procedures and management measures to control the potential for fugitive odour from the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Page 117 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include arrangements for annual review of the procedures and measures. The development shall be operated in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
16. Prior to the commencement of development, an investigation of the potential opportunities for the utilisation of rail transport for the transportation of material inputs and / or outputs associated with the operation of the development shall be undertaken and submitted to the local planning authority. The investigation shall include a scheme for the monitoring and reporting of potential opportunities for the use of rail transport. The investigation shall also make provision for taking advantage of such opportunities as it identifies as viable.
Reason: In order to ensure the most sustainable mode of transport for the movement of materials associated with the operation of the development is used.
17. In the event that the results of the investigation approved pursuant to condition 16 concludes that it is viable and economic, then the material identified shall not be transported to the site via public roads, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to ensure the most sustainable mode of transport for the movement of materials associated with the operation of the development is used.
18. The commissioning of the development shall not take place until sufficient plant and pipework has been installed to facilitate the future supply of heat to the boundary of the site under condition (19) at a later date if opportunities to do so are identified pursuant to condition (19).
Reason: To ensure that waste heat is available for use to the benefit of the local commercial and industrial users when the demand arises.
19. Prior to the commissioning of the development, a CHP Feasibility Review assessing potential opportunities for the use of waste heat from the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The Review shall provide for the ongoing monitoring and exploration of potential opportunities to use heat from the development as part of a CHP scheme and for the provision of subsequent reviews of such opportunities as necessary. Where viable opportunities for the use of heat in such a scheme are identified, a scheme for the provision of the necessary plant and pipework to the boundary of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Page 118 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
local planning authority. Any plant and pipework installed to the boundary of the site to enable the use of heat shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure that waste heat is available for use to the benefit of the local commercial and industrial users when the demand arises.
20. No groundworks of any kind shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological monitoring in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that investigation and recording of any remains takes place prior to commencement of development in accordance with Policy PMD4 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
21. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Page 119 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reason: To protect the water environment in accordance with policy PMD1 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
22. Prior to the commencement of development details of the predicted noise output from the plant and machinery on-site, together with any appropriate noise mitigation measures, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any agreed noise mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and maintained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is integrated within its immediate surroundings as required by policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
23. No demolition or construction works shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP should contain or address the following matters:
(a) hours, duration and method of any piling operations; (b) wheel washing and sheeting of vehicles transporting loose aggregates or similar materials on or off site; (c) location and size of on-site compounds (including the design layout of any proposed temporary artificial lighting systems); (d) details of any temporary hardstandings; (e) method for the control of noise, dust and vibration, together with a monitoring regime; (f) water management including waste water and surface water discharge; (g) method statement for the prevention of contamination of soil and groundwater and air pollution, including the storage of fuel and chemicals; (h) a Site Waste Management Plan; (i) details of security lighting layout and design; (j) a procedure to deal with any unforeseen contamination, should it be encountered during development;
Construction works on site shall only take place in accordance with the approved CEMP.
Reason: In order to minimise any adverse impacts arising from the construction of the development in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011). Page 120 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
24. No demolition or construction works in connection with the development shall take place on the site at any time on any Sunday or Bank / Public Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:
Monday to Friday 0700 – 1900 hours Saturdays 0700 – 1600 hours. Unless in association with an emergency or the prior written approval of the local planning authority has been obtained.
Reason: In the interest of protecting surrounding residential amenity and in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
25. Prior to the commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecology Mitigation & Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall be based upon the enhancement and mitigation details proposed within both the Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum accompanying the planning application and specifically shall include details of the provision and management of green / brown roof habitat and other areas of habitat creation within the site together with a timescale for implementation. The Plan shall be implemented as agreed in accordance with the approved plan and timescale.
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
26. Prior to any site clearance works details of the methods by which those works will be undertaken, including details of precautionary methods of working for species, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Site clearance works shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed measures, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
27. Prior to any site clearance works details of the method for the trapping and re- location of on-site reptiles, including details of the receptor site(s), shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details. Page 121 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
28. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Logistics Plan detailing measures control and minimise congestion on the surrounding highway network during construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed measures within the Plan shall be implemented during the construction of the development.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD10 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
29. Prior to the first operational use of the development, a Delivery & Servicing Plan detailing measures to manage reduce and manage the number of vehicle trips associated with the operation of the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The measures within the agreed Plan shall be implemented and maintained during the operation of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD10 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
30. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of an operational shut-down procedure for the development, in the event that the adjoining London Gateway Port handles explosives, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The procedure shall be implemented during those occasions when the Port handles explosives, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of the safe and efficient operation of the development.
31. The amount of waste imported to the development shall not exceed 195,000 tonnes per annum.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of highways safety and amenity.
32. The wastes imported to the development shall comprise only municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and biodegradable organic waste. The total combination of waste types imported to the development shall not exceed the annual tonnage set out by condition no. 31. Page 122 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of highways safety and amenity.
33. No Municipal Solid Waste or Commercial & Industrial Waste other than that derived from within a 50 mile radius shall enter the site by road.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of highways safety and amenity.
34. Prior to the first operational use of the development the site operator shall implement procedures to ensure that the site accepts and processes only waste of a non-hazardous nature and that a system is in place to deal with any other waste delivered to the site.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of amenity.
35. The first commercial importation of waste shall not take place until the anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis plants have been constructed.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of amenity.
36. The applicant or operator shall submit an annual report in writing to the local planning authority within one month of the first anniversary of operations commencing and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter. The report shall include detailed information on the types, quantities and sources of all waste and other materials brought onto the site and taken off the site, including records to demonstrate compliance with the limit on imported waste (condition 31) and the catchment areas (condition 33). The information required by this condition shall also be supplied at any other time on written request by the local planning authority.
Reason: To enable the local planning authority to effectively monitor the operation of the development and to ensure compliance with the terms of the planning application.
37. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of the operational arrangements for the proposed visitor / education centre shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed details shall be implemented upon first operational use of the development.
Reason: In order to ensure that proper arrangements are in place for the use of the proposed visitor / education facilities. Page 123 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
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/14/00215/FUL
Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Page 124 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01411/HHA
Reference: Site: 14/01411/HHA 36 Victoria Avenue Grays Essex RM16 2RP
Ward: Proposal: Little Thurrock First floor rear extension Blackshots
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received 100030848 OS Location Map 1:1250 03rd October 2014 100030848 Site Plan Map 1:500 03rd October 2014 CN Elevations & Plans Existing 1:100 23rd December 2014 Email Conformation on external wall finishes 05th January 2015 OKEVIC5c Proposed Elevations 1:100 19th February 2015 OKEVIC3A Proposed First Floor Plan 1:50 19th February 2015
The application is also accompanied by: N/A.
Applicant: Validated: Mr Lanre Adeosun 5 January 2015 Date of expiry: 2 March 2015 Recommendation: Approve, with conditions.
The application has been called in by Cllr Redsell, Cllr Coxshall, Cllr Kelly, Cllr S Little, and Cllr Gledhill to enable assessment of a window to close to the boundary of 34 Victoria Avenue.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 First floor extension to the rear of the property.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The property is located on the eastern side of Victoria Avenue. The street scene is of a mixed character. A number of dwellings within the street have constructed rear extensions/conservatories (or both).
Page 127 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01411/HHA
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
- 76/00462/FUL: Garage with bedroom/bathroom over and erection of rear dining room – Approved. - 90/00577/FUL: Georgian style day room – Approved. - 08/00508/FUL: Rear conservatory – Refused. - 14/01059/HHA: First floor rear extension – Withdrawn. - 15/00008/CWKS: Enforcement enquiry regarding commencement of works subject to the current planning application. Officers have visited the property and established that the newly inserted window on the side elevation does not require planning permission.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. The full version of each consultation response can be viewed on the Council’s website via public access at the following link:
www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01411/HHA
PUBLICITY:
4.2 Neighbours have been notified by individual letters. One objection has been received from a neighbouring resident. The material planning concerns raised are;
-The close proximity of the proposal to the boundary resulting in encroachment; -The proposed plans include a bathroom window affecting amenity; - The submitted plans are unclear.
4.3 Other issues were also raised in relation to trespass, encroachment and security whilst construction works are carried out.
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
National Planning Policy Framework
5.1 The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.2 The following heading and content of the NPPF is relevant to the consideration of the current proposals. Page 128 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01411/HHA
7. Requiring good design
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
5.3 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. That of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application is:
- Design
Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework
5.4 The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011.The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:
Thematic Policies:
CSTP1 (Strategic Housing Provision) CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness) 2
Policies for the Management of Development:
PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity)2 PMD2 (Design and Layout)2 PMD8 (Parking Standards)3
[1: New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2: Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3: Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy.]
5.5 The Core Strategy has been subject to a focused review for consistency with the (NPPF). The focused review document was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination on 1 August 2013, and examination hearings took place on 8 April 2014. The Inspector’s report was received in October 2014 and was approved by Council on 28th January 2015 Minor changes have been made to some policies within the Core Strategy; the policies affected by the changes are indicated above.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The principal issues to be considered in this case are:
1. Plan designation and principle of development Page 129 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01411/HHA
2. Design amenity space and relationship of development with surroundings 3. Residential impacts
1. PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2 The application seeks permission for a first floor rear extension to a property within an existing residential area and as such the principle of the development is acceptable.
2. DESIGN AMENITY SPACE AND RELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT WITH SURROUNDINGS
6.3 The proposed first floor extension would be constructed above an existing single storey extension. The extension would have a maximum width of 8.3 metres, a maximum depth of 4.1 metres and a height no more the original height of the existing roof line. The angle of the roof line would match the design of the existing roof.
6.4 The proposed first floor extension is satisfactorily related in size, scale, mass and design to the existing dwelling.
3. RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS
6.5 The main concern from an adjacent occupier is that the applicant has inserted a new window into the side flank wall at first floor level. However, this window does not require planning permission.
6.6 The adjacent occupier also raises issues in relation to the boundary. However, comparing the rear boundary fence with the location of the development there is adequate space within the application site to accommodate the proposed development.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL
7.1 The application is considered to satisfy policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Core Strategy and the relevant criteria of the NPPF.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Approve, subject to the following conditions:
Condition(s):
1 The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Page 130 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01411/HHA
2 The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, form and texture those of the existing building and there shall be no variation without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that the works harmonise with the existing building and that it accords with Policy PMD2 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development.
3 The development herby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans OKEVIC5c and OKEVIC3A submitted with this application.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
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/14/01411/HHA Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Page 131 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01411/HHA
Page 132 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01411/HHA
Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
Reference: Site: 14/01342/FUL 9 Parkside Grays Essex RM16 2GE
Ward: Proposal: Little Thurrock Demolition of number 9 Parkside (detached chalet bungalow) Blackshots and the erection of three detached chalet bungalows on the site.
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received 00 Site Lay Out 8th December 2014 02 Elevations 8th December 2014 03 Elevations 8th December 2014 01/A Site Lay Out 13th February 2015
The application is also accompanied by: - Design and Access Statement
Applicant: Validated: Mr K Sams 8 December 2014 Date of expiry: 2 February 2015 Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions and s.106 agreement.
This application has been called in by Councillors Redsell, Wooton, Liddiard, Gledhill and B Rice to consider whether or not the proposal would represent over development in the area.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow and associated outbuildings and the erection of 3 detached chalet bungalows.
1.2 The existing dwelling is located between Nos 7 and 11 Parkside. The proposal would continue the line of properties alongside No 11 and perpendicular to the site garden of No 7.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Page 135 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
2.1 The application site is roughly rectangular in shape and is presently occupied by a detached bungalow and detached garage.
2.2 The site is effectively a corner plot. The area is generally characterised by bungalows and extended bungalows.
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
None.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. The full version of each consultation response can be viewed on the Council’s website via public access at the following link:
www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01342/FUL
PUBLICITY:
4.2 The application has been advertised via a site notice and direct neighbour letters. At the time of drafting this report four responses had been received objecting on the following grounds:
- Parking issues, existing parking issues on Parkside; - Rubbish collection; - Emergency vehicle access; - Loss of privacy to adjacent occupiers; - Removal of dormer window and trees will impact on amenity; - Loss of value of neighbouring properties.
Members will be updated should additional letters of representation be received before the meeting.
HIGHWAYS:
4.3 No objection.
EDUCATION:
4.4 An education contribution would be required at nursery, primary and secondary level.
FLOOD RISK MANAGER:
4.5 Information required in relation to drainage on the site (this is covered in recommended condition 10 below).
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
National Planning Policy Framework
Page 136 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
5.1 The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.2 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.
1. Building a strong, competitive economy 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
5.3 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:
- Design; - Planning obligations and; - The use of planning conditions.
Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework
5.4 The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011.The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:
Thematic Policies:
- CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) - CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness)
Policies for the Management of Development:
- PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity) - PMD2 (Design and Layout) - PMD8 (Parking Standards) - PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings) - PMD13 (Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation) - PMD16 (Developer Contributions)
Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy Page 137 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
5.5 This Review was commenced in late 2012 with the purpose to ensure that the Core Strategy and the process by which it was arrived at are not fundamentally at odds with the NPPF. There are instances where policies and supporting text are recommended for revision to ensure consistency with the NPPF. The Review was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination in August 2013. An Examination in Public took place in April 2014. The Inspector concluded that the amendments were sound subject to recommended changes. Thurrock Council adopted the Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focussed Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework on 28 January 2015.
Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD
5.6 This Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” DPD was subject to consultation commencing during 2012. The Draft Site Specific Allocations DPD ‘Further Issues and Options’ was the subject of a further round of consultation during 2013. The application site has no allocation within either of these draft documents. The Planning Inspectorate is advising local authorities not to continue to progress their Site Allocation Plans towards examination where their previously adopted Core Strategy is no longer in compliance with the NPPF. This is the situation for the Borough.
Thurrock Core Strategy Position Statement and Approval for the Preparation of a New Local Plan for Thurrock
5.7 The above report was considered at the February meeting 2014 of the Cabinet. The report highlighted issues arising from growth targets, contextual changes, impacts of recent economic change on the delivery of new housing to meet the Borough’s Housing Needs and ensuring consistency with Government Policy. The report questioned the ability of the Core Strategy Focused Review and the Core Strategy ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ to ensure that the Core Strategy is up- to-date and consistent with Government Policy and recommended the ‘parking’ of these processes in favour of a more wholesale review. Members resolved that the Council undertake a full review of Core Strategy and prepare a new Local Plan. It is anticipated that a new Local Plan for Thurrock could be adopted by early 2018.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The principal issues to be considered in this case are:
1. Plan designation and principle of development 2. Design of development and relationship with surroundings 3. Amenity space and landscaping 4. Residential impacts 5. Access and parking 6. Infrastructure improvements (s.106 contribution)
1. PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2 The site is located within an area allocated for residential purposes on the Adopted Interim Proposals Map which accompanies the Core Strategy. The proposal, which would provide additional residential properties, is considered to be broadly acceptable in principle. Page 138 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
2. DESIGN OF DEVELOPMENT AND RELATIONSHIP WITH SURROUNDINGS
6.3 The development would result in extending the established linear arrangement of properties on the southern side of Parkside further east. This arrangement would be somewhat at odds to the original layout of the estate however it would not be particularly harmful to the character of the area.
6.4 The proposed dwellings would be simply designed with traditional design features and proportions. The properties would all have gable roofs running from side to side. The front of the dwellings would have limited detail and the roofs would be free from dormer windows or roof lights. Three pitched roof dormer windows are proposed on the rear elevation of each property.
6.5 The surrounding properties are all bungalows, or bungalows with roof extensions and dormer windows. The general design of the properties is acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding properties.
6.6 In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies PMD2 and CSTP22.
3. AMENITY SPACE AND LANDSCAPING
6.7 The three dwellings would have an amenity space of 84 sqm, 96 sqm and 126 sqm. The two smaller garden areas fall below the 100 sqm minimum set out in Annexe 1 of the Local Plan (which was formally retained by the Council on 29th February 2012). However, it is not considered an objection could be substantiated in this instance because the gardens would be of a good useable size and not significantly smaller than established gardens in the location. It is nevertheless considered necessary to restrict permitted development rights to control any future extensions to the properties.
6.8 The plans show retained landscaping around the site boundaries and new landscaping to the front of the site. This is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policies PMD2 and CSTP22 of the Core Strategy; a landscaping condition should nonetheless be applied to ensure high quality landscaping is achieved.
4. RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS
6.10 The dwellings would face towards the flank of No 7 Parkside with the two northernmost dwellings being located level with the rear garden of the dwelling. As the roofs of the dwellings would not have any dormer windows or rooflights there would be no overlooking of these properties, as such it is not considered there would be a loss of privacy to the occupiers of these properties.
6.11 The southernmost dwelling would sit level with No 11 Parkside and would not project rearward of this property. It would not therefore impact on the privacy or amenity of the occupiers of these occupiers.
6.12 In relation to amenity the proposal would be compliant with the requirements of policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Core Strategy. Page 139 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
5. ACCESS AND PARKING
6.13 The three dwellings would be served by a shared access. Two parking spaces and an area for refuse and recycling storage would be provided within the curtilage of each property.
6.14 The highways officer has indicated that two parking spaces per unit would be acceptable for the properties. The proposal is therefore acceptable in relation to the numerical provision of parking.
6.15 Revised plans have been received since the application was originally submitted showing the shared access to be widened and an increased area for turning behind each parking space. The dimensions comply with the requirements of the standards required. The access and layout of the parking is acceptable.
6.16 There would be adequate space for refuse and recycling storage within the curtilage of each property to meet Council standards.
6.17 It is noted that residents have raised concern in relation to the potential increase in on street parking. However, with no objection raised by the highways officer it is not considered an objection could be substantiated in this regard.
6. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (S.106 CONTRIBUTION)
6.18 Policy PMD16 of the Core Strategy indicates that where needs would arise as a result of development; the Council will seek to secure planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other relevant guidance. The Policy states that the Council will seek to ensure that development proposals contribute to the delivery of strategic infrastructure to enable the cumulative impact of development to be managed and to meet the reasonable cost of new infrastructure made necessary by the proposal.
6.19 On 7 March 2012, Cabinet approved a report in relation to financial contributions which indicated that the Council would adopt the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation Planning Obligations Strategy as interim policy pending the adoption of the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule.
6.20 The Strategy applies to all residential developments, regardless of the size or number of units. For residential units a sum of £5000 is payable per new unit formed.
6.21 The applicant has indicated that they are willing to pay the infrastructure contributions and is in the process of a completing a legal agreement to that effect. An update will be provided to Members at the meeting.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL
7.1 The application proposes the construction of three dwellings in an area allocated for residential purposes. The principle is therefore considered to be acceptable. The detailed aspects of the application are also considered to be satisfactory. Page 140 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
7.2 Accordingly the proposal the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant criteria of Core Strategy Policies PMD1, PMD2, PMD8, PMD16, CSTP22 and CSTP23 and guidance contained within the NPPF.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Approve, subject to the completion of a s.106 agreement and the following conditions:
Condition(s):
1 The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 Samples of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, before any part of the development is commenced.
REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development 2011
3 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, the proposed road and footway shall be properly consolidated and surfaced to the final wearing standard.
REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy PMD1of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development 2011.
4 A Highways Management Plan (HMP) shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details to include:
i. Hours of operation ii. Construction vehicle routing iii. Construction access iv. Temporary hard standing v. Storage of materials vi. Heavy plant storage vii. Abnormal Load Vehicle movements and routing viii. Crane storage and its use ix. Contractor parking x. Wheel Washing Facilities
Once submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the works shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure thatPage the proposed 141 development does not cause Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
pollution in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the Core Strategy and in accordance with NPPF.
5 Prior to the commencement of the works subject to this consent hereby approved, a Construction Management Plan and Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved. The details shall include;
i. Details of measures to minimise fugitive dust during construction demolition and stockpiling of materials; ii. A Waste Management Plan; iii. Details of any security lighting or flood lighting proposed including mitigation measures against light spillage outside the site boundary; iv. Details of crushing and/or screening of demolition and excavation materials including relevant permits; v. Contingency plan, remediation scheme and risk assessment for any unforeseen contamination found at the site; vi. Details of measures to minimise noise and vibration during construction and demolition to comply with the recommendations (including those for monitoring) set out in Parts 1 and 2 of BS5228:2009 'Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites'.
Once submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the works shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not cause pollution in accordance with Policy PMD 1 of the Core Strategy and in accordance with NPPF.
6 No construction works in association with the erection of the dwellings hereby permitted shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include:
(a) All species, planting sizes and planting densities, spread of all trees and hedgerows within or overhanging the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works; (b) Finished levels and contours; (c) Means of enclosure; (d) Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units including any private cycle store, signs and lighting); (e) External surface material for parking spaces, pedestrian accesses. (f) Tree protection measures and details of the proposed management of the retained trees and hedges
All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any Page 142 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
trees or plants which, within a period of five years, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In the interests of the character and visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the Core Strategy.
7 No demolition, building work or deliveries shall be carried out before 8am or after 6pm on Mondays to Fridays or before 9am or after 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
REASON: In the interests of the amenity of surrounding occupiers
8 The development hereby approved shall be constructed to the Building Code for Sustainable Homes (or equivalent) 'Level 4' standard. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved an independent suitably qualified assessor licensed by the BREEAM shall have certified to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the buildings have been constructed in accordance with the BREEAM Code for Sustainable Homes, Level 4 standard.
REASON: In the interests of ensuring the development is built to a standard that sufficiently incorporates the principles of sustainability in accordance with Policy PMD12 of the Core Strategy.
10 No development shall commence on site until such time as the developer has completed soakage tests throughout the site, to show that the development can accommodate rainfall up to the 1 in 100 year CC in accordance with BRE365. If it is not possible to accommodate such rainfall, via soak away, then prior to the commencement of development an alternative drainage strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval and thereafter, once approved, shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details approved.
REASON: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.
11 Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no development within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B or C shall take place on any dwelling on this site.
REASON: In the interests of amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings in accordance with Policies PMD2 and PMD2 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
14 Prior to the commencement of development the detailed design of structures for the storage of refuse and recycling containers to serve all residential units Page 143 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Provision of refuse containers and the structures to secure those containers shall be made in accordance with the standard prevailing at the time of detailed design submission. The refuse stores and containers shall be provided in strict accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the residential unit. Thereafter, refuse stores shall be permanently retained in the approved form.
REASON: To ensure suitable provision is made for the storage of refuse and recyclables, in the interests of amenity and sustainability
15 Unless otherwise specified by condition or details agreed by way of condition, the development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the following approved plans, unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority
Reference Name Received 00 Site Lay Out 8th December 2014 02 Elevations 8th December 2014 03 Elevations 8th December 2014 01/A Site Lay Out 13th February 2015
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/14/01342/FUL
Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Page 144 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
Page 145 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01342/FUL
Page 146 Agenda Item 12 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01418/HHA
Reference: Site: 14/01418/HHA 2 Holly Drive South Ockendon Essex RM15 6TG
Ward: Proposal: Ockendon Proposed single storey rear extension
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received 2 Location Plan 31st December 2014 1 Elevations 31st December 2014
The application is also accompanied by: N/A
Applicant: Validated: Mr Barry Johnson 31 December 2014 Date of expiry: 25 February 2015 Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions.
The application is scheduled as a Committee item because the application is submitted by an elected Member of the Council (in accordance with Part 3 (b) Section 2, paragraph 2.1 (c) of the Council’s Constitution).
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 The application seeks planning approval for a single storey rear extension.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The existing property is a detached dwelling with a conservatory to the rear elevation and a detached garage to the side. The property is located close to the junction of Holly Drive with Poplar Close, adjacent to an area of open space.
2.2 The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY Page 147 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01418/HHA
THU/73/94: Erection of 50 three and four bedroomed houses with garages, roads footways etc. The original application restricted development which would normally be permitted development, including rear extensions.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. The full version of each consultation response can be viewed on the Council’s website via public access at the following link:
www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01418/HHA
PUBLICITY:
4.2 The application has been advertised by way of individual neighbour letters. A public site notice has also been displayed. No responses have been received. Members will be updated should any letters of representation be received before the meeting.
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
National Planning Policy Framework
5.1 The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.2 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.
7. Requiring good design 9. Protecting Green Belt Land
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
5.3 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:
- Design; - Protecting Green Belt land
Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework Page 148 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01418/HHA
5.4 The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011.The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:
Thematic Policies:
CSTP1 (Strategic Housing Provision) CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness)2
Policies for the Management of Development:
PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity)2 PMD2 (Design and Layout)2 PMD6 (Development in the Green Belt) PMD8 (Parking Standards)3 PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings)2 PMD13 (Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation) PMD16 (Developer Contributions)2
[1: New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2: Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3: Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy]
5.5 The Core Strategy has been subject to a focused review for consistency with the (NPPF). The focused review document was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination on 1 August 2013, and examination hearings took place on 8 April 2014. The Inspector's report was received in October 2014 and was approved by Council on 28th January 2015. Minor changes have been made to some policies within the Core Strategy; the policies affected by the changes are indicated above.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The principal issues to be considered in this case are:
1. Plan designation and principle of development 2. Design, amenity space and relationship of development with surroundings 3. Residential impacts
1. PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2 The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The NPPF states at para 87 states,
‘As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances’.
Page 149 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01418/HHA
6.3 Para 89 goes onto state ‘A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are…..’: ‘the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building’.
6.4 Policy PMD6 of the LDF Core Strategy relates to development in the Green Belt. Part 2 of this Policy relates to residential extensions in the Green Belt and states ‘An extension must not be disproportionate to the original building, which in Thurrock means no larger than two reasonably sized rooms or any equivalent amount as defined in the Layout and Standards SPD’.
6.5 The original property which was given planning consent in 1994 (THU/73/94) had a total of 8 habitable rooms of about 102. sq.m. The area of two reasonably sized rooms would be 25.5 sqm.
6.6 The proposal would have a total floor area of about 24.9 sq.m and it would replace the existing conservatory. As such the proposal would be within the size permissible using the standard set out in the 1997 Local Plan and would represent a proportionate addition to the floorspace of the original dwelling in accordance with the above policy.
2. DESIGN, AMENITY SPACE AND RELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT WITH SURROUNDINGS
6.7 The proposed single storey rear extension would be 8.3m in width, 3m in depth with maximum height of 3.41m. The extension would follow the existing back line of the building and it would have a hipped roof, matching the main dwelling in design. The extension is considered to reflect the existing design and appearance of the properties in the street, complying with Policy PMD2 of the Core Strategy.
3. RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS
6.8 The location of the property at the corner of the Close, acts to mitigate any adverse neighbouring amenity impacts. The extension is not considered to impact upon the existing overlooking and privacy conditions currently existing on the site. Policy PMD1 of the Core Strategy is therefore met.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The proposed development would result in a proportionate and appropriate addition to the original dwelling in accordance to the guidance in the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies PMD6, PMD1 and PMD2
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Approve, subject to the following conditions:
Condition(s):
Page 150 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01418/HHA
1 The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the external finishes of the existing building.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its surroundings in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].
3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Reference Name Received 2 Location Plan 31st December 2014 1 Elevations 31st December 2014
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
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/14/01418/HHA
Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Page 151 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01418/HHA
Page 152 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01418/HHA
Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
Reference: Site: 14/01197/TBC Public Conveniences King George V Playing Fields Blackshots Lane Grays Essex
Ward: Proposal: Little Thurrock Change of use from former toilet block to childcare facility Blackshots opening 7am until 7pm.
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received Location Plan Location Plan 11th December 2014 Site Plan Site Plan 11th December 2014 Floor Plan Floor Plan 11th December 2014
The application is also accompanied by: - Supporting statement
Applicant: Validated: Thurrock Council 20 December 2014 Date of expiry: 14 February 2015 Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions.
The application has been referred to Committee because the Council is the applicant, in accordance with Part 3 (b) Section 2 2.1 (b) of the Council’s constitution.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 The application seeks planning approval for the change of use from public toilet (no specific use class) to childcare facility (D1).
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The application site is a former public toilet situated within the curtilage of the King George V Playing Fields on Blackshots Lane in Grays. The site is found within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Page 155 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
2.2 The toilet which has been closed and vacant for a considerable period of time has become the victim of acts of vandalism including fire.
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
No relevant planning history.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. The full version of each consultation response can be viewed on the Council’s website via public access at the following link:
www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01194/TBC
PUBLICITY:
4.2 The application has been advertised by way of individual neighbour letters. A public site notice has also been displayed. No responses have been received.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
4.3 No objections. Information provided regarding food hygiene matters.
HIGHWAYS:
4.4 No objections
WASTE AND RECYCLING:
4.5 No objection
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.2 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.
7. Requiring good design 9. Protecting Green Belt Land
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
5.3 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Page 156 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:
- Design; - Protecting Green Belt land
Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework
5.4 The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011.The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:
Thematic Policies:
CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness) 2
Policies for the Management of Development:
PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity)2 PMD2 (Design and Layout) 2 PMD6 (Development in the Green Belt) CSTP12 (Education and Learning)
1: New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2: Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3: Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy.
5.5 The Core Strategy has been subject to a focused review for consistency with the (NPPF). The focused review document was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination on 1 August 2013, and examination hearings took place on 8 April 2014. The Inspector's report was received in October 2014 and was approved by Council on 28th January 2015. Minor changes have been made to some policies within the Core Strategy; the policies affected by the changes are indicated above.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The principal issues to be considered in this case are:
1. Plan designation and principle of development 2. Relationship of development with surroundings 3. Access and Parking
1. PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT Page 157 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
6.2 Policy CSTP 12 highlights the planned delivery of education and learning services and facilities that will benefit the existing and future community of Thurrock. The policy states that “Thurrock Council’s School Strategy 2020 Vision and Plans for Education emphasise the importance of integration of services to deliver the Every Child Matters agenda; integration through partnerships, collaboration, federations, and clusters is a central part of the vision for delivering education and learning. Therefore appropriately sized and located sites and high quality communications and transport infrastructure are essential for access and delivery.”
6.3 The policy continues to state that in order to enhance educational achievement and skills in the Borough the Council will work with the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCSF), schools, learners, employers and other partners to ensure:
- The provision of pre-school, primary school, high school, further education and special education facilities meets current and future needs: where appropriate different levels of education may be located together;
- The integration of schools into multi-functional hubs with linkages to key facilities such as sports and leisure facilities, health and social care;
- Facilities in schools are fully integrated into community use where possible;
- That educational opportunities are accessible to all.
6.4 The proposed change of use would comply with the aims of the above policy and would ensure the continued provision of existing childcare places in the area.
6.5 The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The NPPF states at para 87 states,
‘As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances’.
6.6 Policy PMD6 closely reflects the advice in the NPPF and seeks to ensure that the open, rural character of the Green Belt is retained. The policy states that “The re- use and adaptation of buildings for residential, employment, leisure or community use will be permitted, provided the following criteria are met:
i. The building is of a permanent and substantial construction and does not require significant rebuilding before it can be put to its proposed use;
ii. The building should not detract from the character and appearance of the locality after implementation of the new use. The bulk, form and general design of the building must reflect its surroundings;
iii. The proposed use can be fully contained in the building and would not require extensive new buildings or inappropriate use of open areas;
iv. The use does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt or amenities of the area by reason of noise, visual intrusion, traffic generation, fumes, dust or other forms of nuisance. Page 158 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
6.7 The proposed use would not result in any significant modifications or changes to the external appearance of the building and would comply with the criteria listed above; therefore in conclusion under this heading, the development would comply with the requirements of PMD6 above and the guidance within the NPPF.
2. RELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT WITH SURROUNDINGS
6.8 Policies PMD1 and PMD2 require that all developments should not have unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area. The most likely impact in this instance is considered to be noise pollution. However a significant distance (115m) would be retained between the nursery and the closest residential properties. In addition, a certain level of activity would be expected from the playing fields, the leisure centre and bowls club. Against this background it is unlikely that the nursery use would cause any demonstrable harm to the amenities of local residents.
6.9 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the proposal. Similarly, there has been no objection from local residents. It is concluded that there would be no negative impact on the amenity of the adjacent properties. The proposal therefore complies with policies PMD1, PMD2 and CSTP22 and CSTP 12 of the Core Strategy.
3. ACCESS AND PARKING
6.10 The application proposes to use the Impulse Leisure car park for parents and staff. The responding highways officer has raised no objections.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL
7.1 The proposed change of use would ensure the provision of childcare places in the area, with linkages to sports and leisure facilities. The development is considered to represent appropriate development in the Green Belt and raises no amenity concerns.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended expressly for the purposes of Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning consent be deemed to be granted for the above development, subject to compliance with the following:
Condition(s):
1 The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The premises hereby permitted shall be used solely as a children’s day nursery, and for no other purpose whatsoever within the D1 Use Class. Page 159 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
REASON: To clarify the permission which has been assessed on the basis of the information put forward and to prevent an intensified use of the site to ensure compliance with Policies PMD1, PMD2 PMD8 of the Core Strategy.
3 The use hereby permitted shall be operated only between the hours of 07:00-19:00 Monday to Friday and at no time whatsoever on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.
REASON: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of nearby residential occupiers.
Informative(s)
1 The applicant is advised that this permission relates solely to the change of use of the building and associated land. This permission does not give permission for any physical changes to the site which may require planning permission.
2 The applicant is advised that this permission gives no consent for the display of advertisements on or around the site which would require separate consent.
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/14/01197/TBC
Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Page 160 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
Page 161 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/01197/TBC
Page 162 Agenda Item 14 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
Reference: Site: 15/00003/TBC Deneholm Primary School Culford Road Grays Essex RM16 2SS
Ward: Proposal: Little Thurrock A ground floor extension to create 4no. additional classrooms Blackshots with toilet facilities within an existing courtyard.
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received (No Nos.) General Documents 21st January 2015 101C Floor Layout 21st January 2015 102C Elevations 21st January 2015 201C Elevations 21st January 2015 202C Elevations 21st January 2015 002C Site Lay Out 5th January 2015 001C Site Lay Out 5th January 2015
The application is also accompanied by:
General Regulations Design and Access Statement
Applicant: Validated: Thurrock Council Education 26 January 2015 Date of expiry: 23 March 2015 Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions.
The application has been referred to Committee because the Council is the applicant, in accordance with Part 3 (b) Section 2 2.1 (b) of the Council’s constitution.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 The proposal seeks permission to construct a ground floor extension to the school to create four additional classrooms adjoining the main school complex.
1.2 The extension would replace threePage prefabricated 163 units on the same site. Additional Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
toilet facilities are also proposed within an internal courtyard at the school.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The application site is located at the end of Culford Road, a cul-de-sac, accessed off Broadview Avenue. The school has pedestrian accesses located on Blackshots Lane and Crowstone Road.
2.2 The school consists of a variety of single storey and low rise buildings with the main building having a pitched roof.
2.3 The proposed development would be located to the North East of the main school buildings and to the Western side of the existing buildings on land that is presently partially hardsurfaced,
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
3.1 The site has a long history as use as a school since 1952. The school has had applications for minor alterations and temporary classrooms over the decades, with the most relevant history being:
- 12/00659/TBC: To disconnect and relocate a single de-mountable classroom from Chafford Hundred Primary to Deneholm Primary School. Approved 31st August 2012.
- 09/00452/TBC: Demolition of existing re locatable unit and erection of new relocatable unit to be used as a children's centre. Approved1st September 2009.
- 09/00377/TBC: Provision of re-locatable classroom for use as children's centre to the rear of the playing field. Approved 1st September 2009.
- 01/00600/FUL: Single storey extension to enlarge office and provide new medical room - Approved 20th September 2001.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.0 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. The full version of each consultation response can be viewed on the Council’s website via public access at the following link:
www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/15/00003/FUL
PUBLICITY:
4.1 The application has been advertised by way of individual neighbour letters. Four letters have been received, objectingPage to164 the proposal on the following grounds: Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
- Parking pressures locally would be made worse by the increased volume of cars trying to access the school; - Vehicular access to the site is difficult and parking is not controlled by the school; - The development may cause a nuisance to residents living in close proximity to the school by way of noise and litter.
HIGHWAYS:
4.2 No objections.
LANDSCAPE ADVISOR:
4.3 No objections. It is noted that there will be sections of green roof provided which is welcomed. A full landscape scheme providing details of the hard and soft landscape elements should be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
4.4 No objections, subject to conditions restricting hours of construction.
4.5 EDUCATION:
No objections. Support the application.
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
National Planning Policy Framework
5.1 The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.2 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.
1. Promoting Healthy Communities
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
5.3 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practicePage guidance 165 web-based resource. This was Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:
- Design; and - The use of planning conditions.
Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework
5.4 The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011.The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:
Thematic Policies:
CSTP12 – (Education and Learning) CSTP22 – (Thurrock Design)2
Policies for the Management of Development:
PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity)2 PMD2 (Design and Layout)2 PMD8 (Parking Standards)3
The Core Strategy has been subject to a focused review for consistency with the (NPPF). The focused review document was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination on 1 August 2013, and examination hearings took place on 8 April 2014. The inspector's report was received in October 2014. Minor changes have been made to some policies within the Core Strategy; the policies affected by the changes are indicated above.
1: New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2: Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3: Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy
5.5 The Core Strategy has been subject to a focused review for consistency with the (NPPF). The focused review document was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination on 1 August 2013, and examination hearings took place on 8 April 2014. The Inspector's report was received in October 2014 and was approved by Council on 28th January 2015. Minor changes have been made to some policies within the Core Strategy; the policies affected by the changes are indicated above. .
6.0 ASSESSMENT Page 166 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
6.1 The principal issues to be considered in this case are:
1. Plan designation and principle of development 2. Design and layout 3. Residential impact and amenity 4. Landscaping 5. Highways and parking
1. PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2 The site is an existing school premises, located within a residential part of Grays. The development would result in the significant improvement of facilities for the provision of the school curriculum, which is part of the Council’s responsibility to meet its strategic vision for the Borough to improve the education and skills of local people. In this regard the development would accord with the aims of Policy CSTP12 which aims to enhance educational achievement and skills in the Borough and ensure that facilities meet the current and future needs. The development is considered to be acceptable in principle.
2. DESIGN AND LAYOUT
6.3 The proposed extension would be located to the north eastern wing of the existing main school building and would accommodate four classrooms with a total gross internal floor area of 254 sqm. The classrooms would replace three classrooms which are situated in prefabricated buildings at the school which have a gross internal floor area of 216 sqm. The proposal would result in a total increase in gross internal floor area of 38 sqm, although there would be no increase in staff or pupil numbers.
6.4 The extension would measure approximately 9.8m in width and would extend approximately 32m along the courtyard wall of the existing school buildings. The extension would be predominantly brick built and pitched roof, matching the existing style and design of the original buildings.
6.5 The extension is considered to be appropriate in its design, scale, appearance and location. No objection is raised under this heading.
3. RESIDENTIAL IMPACT AND AMENITY
6.6 The existing prefabricated classrooms are located close to the boundaries of the rear gardens of properties on Crowstone Road. These properties would have a view of the flank of the new extension which would be built within the complex of school buildings (albeit at a distance of more than 40m).
6.7 The extension would be closer to the properties which back on to the school grounds on Blackshots Lane than the existing prefabricated classrooms. However, a separation distance in excess of 30 metres would be retained, reducing the impact of the extension.
4. LANDSCAPING Page 167 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
6.8 The application proposes hard and soft landscaping which would enhance the open feel of the site and reduce the impact of the extension. The Council’s Landscape Advisor has no objections to the proposal and comments that the single storey extension would not have a significant visual impact within the area. The scheme would not require the removal of existing trees. A landscaping condition is recommended.
5. HIGHWAYS AND PARKING
6.9 The proposal would result in a minor floorspace increase but there would be no increase in pupil numbers. No changes are proposed to the existing parking or access arrangements. The Council’s Highway Officer has raised no objection.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL
7.1 The development would significantly improve the teaching facilities available at the school and would not have any material impact upon the school or the character and appearance of the location. It is considered acceptable in terms of Policies PMD1, PMD2 and CSTP12 of the Core Strategy and Pararagraph 72 of the NPPF.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 It is recommended expressly for the purposes of Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning consent be deemed to be granted for the above development, subject to compliance with the following:
Condition(s):
1 The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. REASON: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 Samples of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, before any part of the development is commenced. REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality.
3 Prior to the commencement of the works subject to this consent hereby approved, a Construction Management Plan and Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved. The details shall include:
i. Details of measures to minimise fugitive dust during construction demolition and stockpiling of materials; ii. A Waste Management Plan; iii. An asbestos survey with the details of its removal by a competent Page 168 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
contractor; iv. Details of any security lighting or flood lighting proposed including mitigation measures against light spillage outside the site boundary; v. Details of crushing and/or screening of demolition and excavation materials including relevant permits; vi. Contingency plan, remediation scheme and risk assessment for any unforeseen contamination found at the site; vii. Details of measures to minimise noise and vibration during construction and demolition to comply with the recommendations (including those for monitoring) set out in Parts 1 and 2 of BS5228:2009 'Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites'.
Once submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the works shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All construction activities should be carried out using best practice with reference to BS5228 (control of noise from construction sites) to minimise the effect of construction on local residents).
REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not cause pollution in accordance with Policy PMD 1 of the Core Strategy and in accordance with NPPF.
4 A Highways Management Plan (HMP) shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details to include (as appropriate):
i. Hours of operation; ii. Construction access; iii. Temporary hard standing; iv. Storage of materials; v. Heavy plant storage; vi. Abnormal Load Vehicle movements and routing; vii. Crane storage and its use; viii. Contractor parking; ix. Wheel Washing Facilities.
Once submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the works shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not cause pollution in accordance with Policy PMD 1 of the Core Strategy and in accordance with the NPPF.
5 No demolition, building work or deliveries shall be carried out before 8am or after 6pm on Mondays to Fridays or before 9am or after 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. No bonfires are permitted.
REASON: In the interests of the amenity of surrounding occupiers.
6 No construction works in association with the development hereby permitted shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has Page 169 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include:
(a) All species, planting sizes and planting densities, proposed in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works; (b) Finished levels and contours; (c) Means of enclosure; (d) Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, storage units including the cycle store, signs and lighting); (e) External surface material for parking spaces, pedestrian accesses.
All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that the development plans for adequate landscaping within the site in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development.
7 Prior to the commencement of the use of the classrooms hereby permitted the three relocatable classrooms shown on drawing No. 001 C Existing Block Plan shall be entirely removed from site and the land restored to its previous condition.
REASON: The 3 classrooms are not of sufficient quality for permanent retention / to ensure that the development complies with Policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development.
8 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001 C; 002 C; 101 C; 102 C; 201 C and 202 C.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
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/15/00003/FUL
Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.
Page 170 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
Page 171 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 15/00003/TBC
Page 172