The report was presented by Matthew Gallagher which can be found on pages 111 – 138 of the Agenda. Since the publication of the Agenda, there had been two late letters of objection. The first objection referred to the potential for traffic congestion, increase in pollution and the loss of existing green space. The second objection referred to the issue of access to the site, potential for traffic congestion, potential for anti-social behaviour and a concern that there could be a noise disturbance from the new play area proposed within the application. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission as outlined on pages 135 – 136 of the Agenda.

The Chair noted a reference made to a Bulphan site that was similar to the application before the Committee which had gone to appeal and asked for more details. Matthew Gallagher explained that in June last year, the Committee had considered an application in Bulphan, behind Church Road, for 116 dwellings, for outline planning permission with all matters apart from access reserved. That application had been refused by Committee, the Applicant had subsequently appealed and the appeal had been very recently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. It had been dismissed on the basis that it was inappropriate development on the Green Belt and the impact that the development would have on the openness of the site. The Inspector had also considered whether or not the proposal would be in accordance with the environmental dimension sustainable development as outlined in the NPPF. The Green Belt conclusion was that there was harm by way of definitional harm; by way of harm to openness; and by way of harm to two of the Green Belt purposes. The Applicant, in the Bulphan application, had promoted a five-year housing land supply and also affordable housing as benefits and the Inspectorate had concluded that those factors attracted a significant weight in favour of the proposal. But in terms of the other benefits that the Applicant, in the Bulphan application, had relied on, which were built sustainability, improved community facilities and reference to the emerging Local Plan issues and options consultation the Inspector took these into account but said that the issues and options consultation was an option only, therefore it had no weight in the planning balance. So harm to Green Belt was not clearly outweighed in the Bulphan application, therefore that appeal was dismissed.

Councillor Lawrence asked if the application was for preliminary permission and whether the details in the proposals could be changed if given approval.

Matthew Gallagher explained that the application was for outline planning permission and that the Applicant was seeking to establish the principle of residential development. The proposed layout was indicative however it was the principle of agreeing or not agreeing on the residential development that was at stake and if the Committee were minded to approve, contrary to recommendation, then the principle of residential development would be established.

Noting the photos of the site shown in the officer’s presentation, Councillor Lawrence said that she noted only two harms to the site which was to the Green Belt and to visual aspects of the site. She went on to say that the site did not resemble a nature reserve and that sound issues could be resolved with the planting of trees to block out the noise. Matthew Gallagher explained that the primary characteristic of the Green Belt was its openness and permanence as highlighted in the NPPF. He went on to say that the site was open and that the point about the site not being a nature reserve was an immaterial consideration and that the Committee needed to consider the application based on national policy and local plan policies and take into consideration the Green Belt issues.

Referring to the officer’s presentation, Councillor Byrne pointed out that one of the photos from the site indicated the greenery and openness of the site along with cows grazing. He felt this highlighted the fact clearly that the site was Green Belt and that there would be harm to the site if the application was approved against Officer’s recommendation.

A resident, Shaun Meehan’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

The Ward Councillor, Joyce Redsell’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

Referring to page 113, Councillor Rice noted that the report stated that there had been no planning history on the site. He recalled that Sainsburys had a planning application to build a store on the site and asked officers to clarify. Matthew Gallagher answered that the last planning application on the site was from 1974 where the application had proposed a supermarket shop with petrol station and car parking. It was refused planning permission and an appeal was made but dismissed.

Councillor Shinnick sought clarification on the input of sound barriers as houses bordering the edge of the site did not have sound barriers. Matthew Gallagher explained that the houses surrounding the north of the site were most likely built in the 1930s and acoustic attenuation would not have been considered at that time. In this application, the Applicant acknowledged that noise would be a factor because of the two adjacent roads so had submitted a noise assessment. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had concluded that there would be an impact to residents in the new development. As the Council had to ensure residents were able to reasonably enjoy new properties, acoustic attenuation was requested.  He went on to say that a sound barrier fence consisted of a thick wooden circa 2m high fence which was not visually appealing so would reinforce the harm to visual aspects of the openness of the site and soft landscaping in front of the fences would not meaningfully mitigate the noise impact.

(The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 8.24pm.)

Councillor Rice raised the issue on the need for new homes and officers explained that the need for housing would be addressed through the Local Plan process. The need for housing was set out in the NPPF but housing need did not trump the Green Belt.

The Agent, Gary Coxall’s statement of support was read out by Democratic Services.

Referring to the Agent’s statement, Councillor Rice sought clarification on whether the site was located within the strategic parcel no. 31 in the Council’s strategic Green Belt Assessment. Pointing out paragraph 7.29, Matthew Gallagher said that the Applicant was relying on the Council’s Green Belt Assessment that was produced last year to inform the new Local Plan Issues and Options consultation which had assessed large parcels of land across the Green Belt in the Borough. Paragraph 7.29 addressed this and highlighted that the conclusions which recommended more detailed scrutiny. However the assessment was part of the wider plan making and evidence base which would go through the Local Plan process and did not apply to not ad hoc planning applications. He went on to refer to a recent appeal decision in Bulphan where the appellant had referred to Thurrock’s Local Plan Issues and Options Stage 2 Consultation; the Inspectorate had stated that the consultation was an option only for village expansion so was not a benefit or very special circumstances, therefore it attracted no weight in the planning balance.

The Committee discussed the issue of the site being Green Belt in that there were no Very Special Circumstances and the visual impact that the sound barrier fence proposed around the development to reduce the impact that noise would have in the area.  The issue of housing need was also raised as the Council did not have a 5 year housing supply and that the Council had tenants on a 10 year waiting list and the proposed homes could also provide homes for keyworkers and teachers in the area which the adjacent college, Palmers College, needed.

The Committee referred back to Matthew Gallagher’s earlier comments regarding establishing the principle of residential development on the site and Steve Taylor commented that applications that had been approved in the past had come back to the Committee before with amended proposals due to viability issues and that the current application before the Committee could follow the same route if the principle of residential development was established with an approval. The Committee commented that the proposed housing development was not extraordinary and only met the basic and expected 35% affordable housing and Councillor Byrne noted there was no mention of social housing either. Councillor Lawrence felt that an approval would be giving the application a preliminary approval only and could be changed at a later stage. Matthew Gallagher reminded Members that the application was for outline planning permission and if Members were minded to approve the application against Officer’s recommendations, the principle of residential development for the proposed 75 dwellings would be established.

The Chair proposed the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission which was seconded by Councillor Byrne.

FOR: (3)Councillors Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher and Gary Byrne.

AGAINST: (4) Councillor Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons, Angela Lawrence and Sue Shinnick.

ABSTAINED: (0)

The Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission was rejected and the Chair asked Members to propose an alternative recommendation.

Councillor Lawrence suggested that one of the Very Special Circumstances could be that the proposed dwellings would provide homes for teachers that would work in schools in the area. Matthew Gallagher explained that a decision had to be made on the factors that had been promoted by the Applicant and that the Applicant had not offered any links with schools or with Palmers College so could not rely on Councillor Lawrence’s suggested Very Special Circumstance as a benefit.

Referring to the table on page 133 of the Agenda, Councillor Rice said that:

• ‘Delivering a sufficient supply of homes’ should be given moderate weight;
• ‘Achieving sustainable development’ should be given substantial weight; and
• ‘Making effective use of land’ should be given moderate weight.

Councillor Rice went on to say that the Council did not have a 5 year housing supply and that council tenants were on a 10 year waiting list for homes. The proposed homes would be affordable and the Applicant was willing to provide substantial conditions within the s106. He reminded the Committee that the Prime Minister had highlighted the importance of ‘shovel ready projects’ which the application before the Committee was. He said that the application’s scheme would also provide employment opportunities through the construction phase and that the Applicant’s reasons put forward for approving the application should also be taken into consideration.

Leigh Nicholson referred Members to the Council’s Constitution, Chapter 5, Part 3, 7.2. He summarised the reasons for approval given by Members as:

• That the Council did not have a 5 year housing supply;
• That the Council had a 10 year waiting list for homes for council tenants;
• The package of s106 measures
• The limited harm to Green Belt purposes
• That the application’s scheme was a ‘shovel ready project’; and
• That there would be employment opportunities through the construction phase.

Leigh Nicholson went on to say that the reasons for approval given by Members did not address the refusal reasons as set out in the officer’s recommendation and that the application would be deferred to a later Committee date to enable officers to highlight in a report, the implications of minding to approve the application.

Matthew Gallagher added that he also picked up the reasons for approval as:

• That there would be affordable homes; and
• That the application’s scheme would contribute to sustainable development;

With Councillor Rice’s proposed alternative recommendation, Councillor Shinnick seconded this.

FOR: (4) Councillor Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons, Angela Lawrence and Sue Shinnick.

AGAINST: (3) Councillors Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher and Gary Byrne.

ABSTAINED: (0)

The application was deferred to a later Committee date where a report would be brought back by Officers to highlight the implications of approving the application.