Reference: Site: Ward: Proposal - Thurrock Committee...4.11 The amended plans now show 25 parking spaces for 14 units, all of which would be provided on-street. This is a ratio of

Planning Committee 26.09.2013 Application Reference: 13/00667/FUL

Reference:

13/00667/FUL

Site:

Bentons Farm

Mollands Lane

South Ockendon

Essex

RM15 6DB

Ward:

Belhus

Proposal:

Demolition of existing house, storage shed and office building

and construction of 14 houses, consisting of 12 no. semi-

detached houses and 2 no. detached houses.

Plan Number(s):

Reference Name Received

DESIGN AND

ACCESS

STATEMENT

General Documents 12th July 2013

DESIGN AND

ACCESS

SUSTAINABI

LITY

General Documents 12th July 2013

1309-000 Location Plan 12th July 2013

1309-006 Front Elevation 12th July 2013

1309-001 Site Lay Out 12th July 2013

1309-106 Elevations 12th July 2013


1309-104 Floor Layout 12th July 2013


1309-102 Rear Elevation 12th July 2013


1309-011 General 12th July 2013

1309-010 Side Elevation 12th July 2013











1309-011 Other 18th July 2013

1309-101A Site Lay Out 18th July 2013



























1309-013 Roof Plans 18th July 2013

The application is also accompanied by: N/A

Applicant:

Mr Ryan Turner

Validated:

17 July 2013

Date of expiry:

16 October 2013


Recommendation: REFUSAL

This application is being reported to Committee because the development is

considered to be of strategic importance, owing to the nature of the proposal

and the location of the site within the Green Belt.

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of the formerly listed

building and ancillary outbuildings and the erection of 14 houses.

1.2 The development would be in the form of 6 pairs of semi-detached properties

and two detached properties on either side of a single cul de sac with a turning

head. Private gardens would be provided to the rear and parking would be on-

street and communal. No private parking is to be provided.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The application site is a roughly rectangular site located on the southern side of Mollands Lane. The site is presently occupied by a formerly listed farmhouse building and associated ancillary outbuildings.

2.2 A block of garages is located to the eastern boundary of the site, open land to the south and west and to the north on the opposite side of Mollands Lane are residential properties. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

- 62/00001/FUL: Storage of sand and bricks etc – Refused

- 62/00600/FUL: Building for rabbit breeding – Approved

- 64/00407/FUL: Erection of lock up garages – Approved

- 64/00874/FUL: Erection of plant for proportioning sand, stone and cement – Approved

- 66/00841/FUL: 27 lock up garages and lean-to for farm equipment – Approved

- 68/00323/FUL: Ground floor living room and kitchen addition and first floor two

bedrooms and two bathrooms additions – Approved

- 70/01128/FUL: Toilet & Messroom facilities - Approved

- 77/00013/LB: Alterations – Approved

- 77/00997/LB: Garage/outhouse and adjoining hardstanding and new chimney stack to the Bentons Farmhouse – Approved


- 88/00004/GD: Resource centre and day activity unit – Approved

- 89/00001/LB: Internal refurbishment and new pitched roof in lieu of existing flat

roof to rear extension together with single storey rear extension – Approved

- 92/00420/FUL: Demolition of store to create new workshop and store - Withdrawn

- 93/00403/FUL: Single storey pitch roofed building for use as therapy unit -

Approved

- 94/00005/LB: Application for consent to demolish and re-build a wall adjacent to Bentons – Approved

- 96/00992/ESS: Variation of conditions 5 and 6 of Thu/261/87: to increase the

time limit and completion of extraction/infilling/land shaping operations and tree planting - Approved.

- 07/01309/FUL: Change of use of outbuildings from workshop to store and from

workshop and office to B1 office - Refused

- 08/00482/FUL: Erection of CCTV pole and camera - Refused

- 09/00120/FUL: Change of use of existing buildings to B1 (office) use - Refused.

Enforcement

- 13/00011/UNAWKS: Within authorisation the removal of protected trees from land at Bentons Farm. It has been confirmed to the owner that trees on the site must be replanted by 31st December 2013

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PUBLICITY

4.1 This application has been advertised by way of individual neighbour letters. A site notice has been displayed and the application advertised in the local newspaper.

4.2 At the time of drafting this report 30 copies of a pro-forma letter have been received making the following comments:

1) The site is in the Green Belt and the footprint is far in excess of the current buildings; 2) There does not appear to be a replacement of the trees removed; 3) Proper consideration has not been given to parking or traffic movements; 4) Changes in ground conditions may alter the discharge of surface water.


4.3 Four copies of the same letter have been received from two different addressees at two different addresses (and 2 duplicate copies via e-mail) commenting that:

- The development does not comply with national or local Green Belt policy; - Previous applications have been turned down on the basis of being

inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - The development fails to comply with the NPPF or local policy; - The landowner is in breach of a TPO order; - The current proposal has a much bigger built area which will result in

greater water runoff and the number of properties will lead to additional traffic and parking in Mollands Lane.

4.4 A further 10 letters have been received objecting to the loss of TPOs on the

site; that the proposals do not replace the trees; concerns over highways and parking; that the proposal is contrary to planning policy and will impact on the Green Belt.

4.5 A letter has been received from the Ockendon Concerned Residents Action

Group (OCRAG) which raises concerns about comments made in the application. OCRAG objects on the grounds that the site is in the Green Belt; that the proposed area of buildings will be doubled; the development does not include for provision of the replacement trees; traffic generated will be harmful for Mollands Lane and existing parking and commenting that the refurbishment of the existing building would be preferable.

4.6 In addition to the above a letter has been received from a Ward Councillor

making the following comments: the previous owner failed to adequately maintain the listed building and carried out unauthorised works on the site; concern about the building being de-listed and concerns about a planning application being considered when the trees subject to the TPO have not been replaced.

4. 7 Members will be updated should additional letters of representation be

received before the meeting. Copies of any additional letters will be made available to view in the Members’ Letters Book. HIGHWAYS:

4.8 The Officer recommended refusal of the plans originally submitted. The Agent

was made aware of these concerns and provided revised plans. These plans have been assessed, the response is detailed below:

4.9 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend refusal

The amended plans seek to address some of the previously raised issues. Some of the problems have been solved; however, this has created some new issues. The currently proposed parking arrangement, the absence of vehicle turning areas and the substandard access arrangements are likely to give rise to dangerous traffic conditions.


4.10 Policy PMD8 requires developments to comply with the Layout and Standards

SPD, which is yet to be published. The draft parking standards identify the site as a medium accessibility area due to its close proximity to the Bus stop on South Road, which is 340 metres away. This standard therefore suggests that 1.5-2.0 parking per house would be acceptable, with a further allowance of 0.25 spaces per unit; which can generally be accommodated on traditional streets.

4.11 The amended plans now show 25 parking spaces for 14 units, all of which

would be provided on-street. This is a ratio of 1.79 spaces per unit, which is within the standard that could be expected on a street of this type, allowing for the minimum of 1.5 per unit and 0.25 per visitor on-street. However, to achieve this number of spaces, a number of problems have been created.

4.12 Regarding the orientation of the spaces, 14 of the spaces are aligned at an

angle to the road and 9 of the spaces are laid out parallel to the road. The remaining two spaces are at right angles to the road. This parking arrangement would require a formal turning area to allow these vehicles to turn and exit in forward gear; however, the amended arrangement deletes the turning head. This will mean that three point turns will be required for 23 of the parking spaces to turn and exit in forward gear, or otherwise they will be forced to reverse along the road. This arrangement is likely to be detrimental to the free flow and safe movement of traffic.

4.13 The development proposal will contribute additional turning traffic onto South

Road, which is designated as a "Corridor of Movement" in the Core Strategy. However, the level of traffic is not so significant as to cause any major problems. This policy requires development to ensure road safety is not prejudiced; there are problems with the amended site access as set out below, which would mean the proposal would not comply with this aspect of policy PMD9.

4.14 The amended access is a slight improvement and has now been aligned at

right angles to the proposed new estate road. However, it is offset from the estate road, presumably to avoid relocation of the existing flat topped road hump in Mollands Lane. Given the position of proposed parking space 17, this arrangement is likely to lead to the risk of conflicts with traffic entering and leaving the proposed estate road. This is not suitable for vehicle access to a residential road. The access should be better aligned with the estate road or the parking arrangement changed to avoid this potential area of conflict.

4.15 Bin storage areas and collection areas are now shown, along with access for

refuse collection operatives to pass between parked cars. However, the removal of the turning head will make it difficult for Refuse Vehicles to access the proposed estate road. It may be that given the length of the proposed estate road, Refuse vehicles will attempt to either reverse in or reverse out. However, given the presence of on-street parking on Mollands Lane, this is unlikely to be achievable. Therefore the arrangement as shown is unacceptable and more thought needs to be given to how Refuse vehicles will


enter. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 4.16 If approved, the Officer would expect to see an asbestos survey and the

removal of all asbestos containing materials before the main demolition commencing. A construction environmental management plan will be required to be submitted.

4.17 Essex County Council records show a small infill on the site. Given the

proposal for dwellings with gardens an intrusive soil investigation is required. Should the investigation find it necessary a risk assessment and remediation strategy should be submitted for approval to the LPA.

4.18 The site is also adjacent to a known landfill which had permission to take domestic waste. Although there is no confirmation that the tipping of domestic waste was carried out it would be prudent to include gas monitoring in the referred to intrusive survey.

HOUSING SERVICES: 4.19 Affordable housing will be required at this time. ENGLISH HERITAGE: 4.20 The response advises that English Heritage do not consider that it is

necessary for them to be notified regarding this application under the relevant statutory provisions.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL ARCHAEOLOGY:

4.21 The Historic Environment Record shows the proposed development contains

the previously listed building of Bentons Farmhouse (EHER 35291). This building with its associated structures to the east of the farmhouse formed a complex of structures on the first edition Ordnance survey maps of 1887. The main farm buildings are also visible on the Chapman and Andre maps of 1777. There is a high potential that the farmhouse stands on or in the immediate vicinity of an earlier medieval structure. An archaeological condition is recommended.

LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY: 4.22 All of the trees on site were covered by TPO 01/2008; these were all felled

without consent on the 8th December 2012. They comprised a mix of large specimen trees including Scot’s Pine, Horse Chestnut and Ash. These are clearly visible in the satellite view Figure 2 in the Design and Access Statement.

4.23 This application makes no attempt to address their removal. There is a requirement to replant the site using similar species to those removed. The


scale of the proposed development does not provide sufficient space for the appropriate species of trees to grow without resulting in post-development pressures.

4.24 This scheme should be refused.

4.25 Following receipt of revised plans the Officer comments:

4.26 The revised drawings that have been circulated are not adequate to address

the issue of the loss of the TPO trees and the points made in the previous response of the 16th August relating to the space available for the trees to develop and therefore the objection is maintained to this proposed scheme.

4.27 The proposed species list is drawn from the list of trees that were recorded in the TPO schedule, however, it fails to differentiate between the main specimen trees and those that had been part of the two groups, for example, beech, elder, blackthorn and cordylines. As a result the number of trees proposed is insufficient to replace the trees that were removed. The elder, sweet bay and blackthorn are mainly shrubby species and would not appropriate as part of the main landscape scheme. Due to the threat of Ash Dieback (Chalara fraxinea) no-one is currently planting ash. Similarly. horse chestnuts are also suffering from issues such as leaf miner attacks which are resulting in the early loss of leaves in late summer. As a result alternative species are recommended.

4.28 The proposed scheme would retain back gardens that are too small to allow the replacement TPO trees to develop. Also there is insufficient space for the hedges and tree groups that are required.

4.29 It is important to state that the trees planted on this site would be covered by a Tree Preservation Order to ensure that they are retained in the future. VIABILITY ASSESSOR:

4.30 The Council’s independent assessor advises that benchmarked against the

potential use value of the site, the provision of affordable housing on site or payment of a financial contribution is not viable at this time. The assessor advises that a claw back agreement, entered into by the developer based on construction costs and sales values, could be drafted in such as way to deal with surplus made prior to the completion of development. This would require a review at the time if the scheme were to be built out.

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT

NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework PMD1 - Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity PMD2 - Design and Layout PMD6 - Development in the Green Belt PMD8 - Parking Standards


PMD16 - Developer Contributions CSTP22 - Thurrock Design CSTP23 - Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness

6.0 ASSESSMENT

The principal issues to be considered in this case are: 1. Plan designation and principle of development. 2. Highways and access. 3. Design and Layout and Relationship of Development with Surroundings. 4. Residential amenity. 5. Infrastructure improvements (s.106 contribution) and affordable housing. 6. Trees. 7. Other Matters. 1 PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt as defined within the Thurrock Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2011). Policy PMD6 applies and states that permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings, or for the change of use of land or the re-use of buildings unless it meets the requirements and objectives of National Government Guidance. The NPPF (at paragraph 89) sets out the following development, which may be acceptable in the Green Belt: - Buildings for agriculture and forestry; - Essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries,

and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it;

- Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing building, provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

- The replacement of a building provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

- Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in a Local Plan; or

- Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed site (Brownfield land) whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt) and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

6.2 The site is not identified in the Core Strategy or Site Specific Allocations

documents as a potential housing site. In addition, the redevelopment of the site would be significantly more harmful to the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development by virtue of the overall size and bulk. The


proposed development of the site for residential purposes does not fall within any of the appropriate uses for new buildings set out by the NPPF and Policy PMD6. Consequently, the proposals represent “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt and are a departure from Development Plan policy. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF sets out a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt and states that such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.

6.3 Paragraph 87 also states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

6.4 The Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted with the application contains the applicant’s case in favour of the proposed development. The applicant does not mention very special circumstances in the DAS or seek to justify the development in the Green Belt but includes the following in support of the proposals: (i) The existing site is an infill between the existing Ockendon residential

area and Green Belt. (ii) The site is 50% hard surfaced. (iii) The development would contribute towards housing need and there is a

need for family houses in the area. (iv) The design is considered to match the current street scene. (i) The existing site is an infill between the existing Ockendon residential

area and Green Belt.

6.5 The site is located on the southern side of Mollands Lane; however, it lies within the Green Belt. It is not part of any Established Residential Frontage and furthermore it is not part of any Site Specific Allocation document as a housing site.

6.6 The provision of 14 houses on this site would be seriously harmful to the

character and openness of the Green Belt at this point. This development would result in a regimented incursion into the Green Belt. This is not therefore considered to be a very special circumstance.

(ii) The site is 50% hard surfaced. 6.7 The definition of ‘previously developed land’ (PDL) within the NPPF refers to

land which is, or was, occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This definition indicates that previously developed land excludes land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blending into the landscape in the process of time.


6.8 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that development could be acceptable for the following purposes: “limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (Brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it than the existing development“ (Emphasis added).

6.9 Part of the land does appear to fall within the definition of PDL and previously developed sites contained in the NPPF. However, in relation to redevelopment of sites in the Green Belt, paragraph 89 clearly states that development is not acceptable if it would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, than the existing development.

6.10 The provision of 14 dwellings with associated access road and gardens is significant and would have a much greater impact than the existing built form on the site.

6.11 Therefore, whilst part of the site does comprise PDL, for reasons relating to the mass, bulk and incursion into the Green Belt the development does not accord with the requirements of previously developed sites set out in the NPPF and the area of existing hardsurfacing being redeveloped does not constitute a very special circumstance. (iii) The development would contribute towards housing need and there is a

need for family houses in the area.

6.12 Although the development would assist in meeting the 5 year plus 20% buffer housing land supply the contribution would be modest.

6.13 A recent Ministerial Statement from the Local Government Minister published

in July 2013 is also of relevance to this case. Under the heading ‘Protecting

the Green Belt’ this statement reiterates the position set out within the NPPF

that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved

except in very special circumstances. The statement continues:

“The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning

applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that

the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for

conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and

other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying

inappropriate development in the green belt.”

6.14 In light of the above Statement and the very modest contribution this site

would make, it is not considered that this would weigh in favour of a proposal which has an adverse impact on openness of the Green Belt, consequently this is not a very special circumstance.

(iv) The design is considered to match the current street scene.


6.15 The design and layout of the buildings is unremarkable (see assessment

below) and it is not enough to argue that because the form of development is similar to other properties in the area that this would justify development in the Green Belt.

6.16 The applicant has therefore failed to demonstrate that a departure from policy

should be made in relation to development in the Green Belt. 6.17 The development therefore represents inappropriate development which is by

definition harmful to the Green Belt. The applicant has failed to advance any very special circumstances in this instance to warrant a departure being made and the development is unacceptable in principle. 2. HIGHWAYS AND ACCESS

6.18 Policy PMD8 sets out requirements to include adequate parking on site

according to Council standards and indicates that the Council will require developers to use the relevant residential car parking standard in conjunction with suitable physical design to reduce the risk of inappropriate on-street parking. Development should allow easy and save access for all users of development sites.

6.19 The Highways Officer raises concerns in relation to the proposed parking

layout, the absence of vehicle turning areas, and the substandard access arrangements to the site which it is considered would result in dangerous traffic conditions. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PMD8 of the Core Strategy as it would fail to make safe and adequate provision for vehicle parking on site.

3. DESIGN AND LAYOUT AND RELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT

WITH SURROUNDINGS

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

6.21 PMD2 (Design and Layout) requires that all design proposals should respond to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings and must contribute positively to the character of the area in which it is proposed and 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.

6.22 Policy CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) indicates that development proposals must demonstrate high quality design founded on a thorough understanding of, and positive response to, the local context.


6.23 The Government statement of planning policy is included in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and is a material consideration that must be taken into account in determining planning applications. Consideration is therefore given to the following: - NPPF Core Planning Principles and NPPF Section 7: Requiring Good Design. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

6.24 The proposed dwellings are organised in the form of a cul-de-sac with

dwellings on both sides of the road and close to the turning head. Although there are different house types used in the development the overall appearance of the street scene is somewhat monotonous and is in a form which does not contribute to the character and visual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the above policies in this regard as they fail to represent the high quality design required.

6.27 Furthermore, by reason of its size, scale and overall mass the proposed cul-

de-sac layout is out of keeping with the open nature of the southern side of Mollands Lane of which the development forms a part. This would result in the development appearing out of character with the prevailing form of development in the area.

4. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

6.25 Given the distance from other residential properties the development would not be harmful to the amenities of nearby neighbours. The proposals would provide adequate sized properties for future inhabitants. 5. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (S.106 CONTRIBUTION) AND

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

6.26 Policy CSTP2 of the Core Strategy states that in order to meet the overall affordable housing target, the Council will seek to achieve, where viable, 35% affordable housing on all new housing developments capable of accommodating 10 or more dwellings or sites of 0.5 ha or more irrespective of the number of dwellings.

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

6.28 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. The Strategy applies to all residential developments, regardless of the size or number of units. For residential units a sum of £5,000 is payable per new unit formed.

6.29 The response from the Council’s Viability Assessor indicates that based on the existing benchmark value of the land, which includes the existing residential property and the two other buildings which could potentially be used for commercial purposes, the scheme would not be viable with the provision of 35% affordable housing on site or the full payment of financial contributions at this time.

6.30 The Assessor indicates that if the Council is minded to approve the scheme an Agreement should be made to allow a ‘claw back’ of a proportionate level of profit at the time of development if viability improves.

6.31 The applicant has been advised of this response but has not confirmed his client is willing to enter such an agreement. The completion of an agreement with a ‘claw back’ scheme to enable the Council to benefit from any uplift in the value of the land is considered to a proportionate, necessary and reasonable approach to supporting local infrastructure in this location Without the completion of such an agreement, the proposal would be contrary to Policy PMD16 of the Core Strategy. 6. TREES

6.32 Policy PMD2 indicates that new development should enhance the quality and value of the built environment, natural assets and amenity in and around the site. Specifically, section viii of Policy PMD2 indicates that landscape features in the Borough should be protected and where appropriate enhanced.

6.33 The site has recently been cleared of the existing trees which were subject to a Tree Preservation Order. This matter has been investigated by the Enforcement Team and formal action is being taken. The applicant must plant the new trees by the end of December 2013; if this is not undertaken a Tree Replacement Notice will be served which will require trees to be replanted by 30th April 2014. If this is not carried out, the Council can prosecute the owner.

6.34 The Landscape Officer has been consulted on the proposals and has raised

objections that the plans do not address the removal of the existing trees. In relation to TPOs the requirement is to replant the site using similar species to those removed.

6.35 The applicant has been made aware of the comments of the Officer and has

submitted a revised site plan (which was also designed to address the highways concerns). However the Officer advises that the revised layout is not sufficient to remove his objection and advises that the site is effectively too small to accommodate the number of houses whilst restoring the number of trees required to replace those subject to a TPO that have been felled. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PMD2 in this respect.


7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL

7.1 The proposal represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt

which is contrary to Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF. The case put forward by the applicant has been considered, but neither individually nor collectively do the matters put forward constitute the very special circumstances that would be required to warrant a departure from policy being made. In addition, by reason of the incursion of the development into open land, the proposal is considered to be harmful to the character and openness of the Green Belt.

7.2 The Council’s Tree Officer advises that the proposed tree planting would not

be sufficient in terms of replacing the trees subject to the TPO that have been removed and that furthermore, the development is too constrained to allow the trees and dwellings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PMD2 in this regard.

7.3 The applicant has failed to enter into an Agreement with the Council in relation

to a reassessment of the site if permission were to be granted for redevelopment and the provision of contributions towards local infrastructure provision. The development is therefore also contrary to Policy PMD16 of the Core Strategy in this respect.

7.4 The layout, design and appearance of the development fails to respect or

improve on the character and visual amenities of the area contrary to Policies CSTP22 and PMD2 of the Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF.

7.5 The currently proposed parking arrangement, the absence of vehicle turning

areas and the substandard access arrangements are likely to give rise to dangerous traffic conditions contrary to Policy PMD8 of the Core Strategy.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

To Refuse for the following reasons: Reason(s): 1 The application site is located within the Green Belt as defined within

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

The NPPF (at paragraph 89) sets out the forms of development, which may be acceptable in the Green Belt. The proposed development of the site for residential purposes does not fall within any of the appropriate


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

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

ii) Notwithstanding the in-principle harm identified above, by reason of the mass, bulk and serious incursion into the open land, the proposals are also harmful to the character and openness of the Green Belt at this point, contrary to Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy and criteria within the NPPF.

2 PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity) indicates that

developments will not be permitted where it would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area; the amenity of neighbouring occupants, or the amenity of future occupiers of the site.

PMD2 (Design and Layout) requires that all design proposals should respond to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings and must contribute positively to the character of the area in which it is proposed and 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.

Policy CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) indicates that development proposals must demonstrate high quality design founded on a thorough understanding of, and positive response to, the local context.

The Government statement of planning policy is included in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and is a material consideration that must be taken into account in determining planning applications. Consideration is therefore given to the following:

- NPPF Core Planning Principles - NPPF Section 7: Requiring Good Design


The proposed dwellings are organised in the form of a cul-de-sac with dwellings on both sides of the road and close to the turning head. Although there are different house types used in the development the overall appearance of the street scene is somewhat monotonous and is in a form which does not contribute positively to the character and visual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the above policies in this regard.

Furthermore, by reason of its size, scale and overall mass the proposed cul-de-sac layout is out of keeping with the open nature of the southern side of Mollands Lane of which the development forms a part. This would result in the development appearing out of character with the prevailing form of development in the area.

3 Policy PMD2 indicates that new development should enhance the

quality and value of the built environment, natural assets and amenity in and around the site. Specifically, section viii of Policy PMD2 indicates that landscape features in the Borough should be protected and where appropriate enhanced.

The proposed layout fails to make adequate provision for the replanting

of trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order which have been removed without consent. The site is too small to effectively replace the trees that have been removed and the development would therefore have a seriously detrimental impact on the landscape contrary to the relevant sections of Policy PMD2.

4 Policy CSTP2 of the Core Strategy states that in order to meet the

overall affordable housing target, the Council will seek to achieve, where viable, 35% affordable housing on all new housing developments capable of accommodating 10 or more dwellings or sites of 0.5 ha or more irrespective of the number of dwellings.

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

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. The Strategy applies to all residential developments, regardless of the size or number


of units. For residential units a sum of £5,000 is payable per new unit formed.

The applicant has failed to indicate that they are prepared to enter into a legal Agreement to reassess the development and take account of any uplift in the value of the land if the scheme were to be built out.

The proposal would therefore fail to provide any mechanisms to secure affordable housing or to support the delivery of strategic infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, contrary to Policies CSTP2 and PMD16 of the Core Strategy.

5 Policy PMD8 sets out requirements to include adequate parking on site

according to Council standards and indicates that the Council will require developers to use the relevant residential car parking standard in conjunction with suitable physical design to reduce the risk of inappropriate on-street parking. Development should allow easy and save access for all users of development sites.

By reason of its layout, absence of vehicle turning areas and substandard access arrangements the development would be likely to give rise to dangerous traffic conditions contrary to Policy PMD8 of the Core Strategy.

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/13/00667/FUL

Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock

Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.

http://regs.thurrock.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=%5eND,KEYVAL.DCAPPL;

