The report on pages 27 – 60 was presented by Lucy Mannion.

Councillor Byrne questioned whether labelling properties for over 55’s made a difference in planning laws; and in the example of an inheritance, whether someone under 55 could move into the property if the owner (over 55) passed away. Officers explained that the label of over 55’s made no difference in planning law and that a planning condition or s106 agreement (if Members were minded to approve the application) could be included to stipulate that properties were for over 55’s only. This restriction could be brought in under planning conditions but planning conditions could be changed.

Councillor Lawrence said that planning conditions would govern the proposal. She said that the bungalows proposed within the development were different to other bungalows as these were adapted for over 55’s. Councillor Potter said that McCarthy and Stone were a nationwide supplier of over 55’s accommodation buildings and had large complex on Crammavill Street, Stifford Clays and were strict on the age restriction. The Chair highlighted that the issue of over 55’s age restriction had already been debated at the last hearing of the application (22 October 2020) and said that clear planning reasons were needed if Members were minded to approve the application.

(Councillor Churchman left the meeting at 6.40pm due to technical issues.)

Councillor Rice highlighted that a report from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG – now known as Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) had researched and identified a need for age related housing especially bungalows which added to the reasons for departing (from the Green Belt (GB)). He went on to say that Thurrock did not have a five year housing supply or a 20% buffer and was failing each year on its housing delivery targets which were more reasons for departure (from the GB). Councillor Byrne pointed out that the report did not highlight building on the GB for housing.

Steve Taylor pointed out that there were a number of bungalows available for sale in Thurrock as of the morning of that day. He went on to say that (in relation to Councillor Potter’s comment) McCarthy and Stone leased their properties so were not owned. The proposed bungalows in the proposal would be sold and would be harder to enforce conditions.

The Chair proposed the Officer’s recommendation of refusal and was seconded by Councillor Byrne.

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

AGAINST: (5) Councillors Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

The Officer’s recommendation was rejected.

Leigh Nicholson referred Members to the Constitution Chapter 5, Part 3, paragraph 7.4 and stated that any harm to the GB, as a point of law, must be given substantial weight and any reasons put forward to overcome this harm must clearly tip the balance the other way to overcome the harm by definition and any other harm identified from the proposal. He added that an appeal decision from a year ago for refusal of four dwellings on the same site should be taken as a material consideration when Members considered the application that was before them. The Inspectorate in that appeal did weigh the need for housing in the balance but did not feel that it clearly outweighed the harm to the GB. He went on to say that Members had to acknowledge that there would be substantial harm arising from an inappropriate development on the GB and any other harm arising from the proposal. Members had to give weight to the factors identified for approving the application and must clearly outweigh the harm to the GB.

Councillor Rice referred to the five reasons on page 28 of the Agenda which were:

1. Tailored Bungalows – Specialist and limited height (so they could only be bungalows)
2. Sustainable village location – (as there were 2 bus stops nearby with an hourly service)
3. Innovative Internal Design – (Lend to be adapted and adapt to own need) 
4. Employment in Construction Phase
5. Shovel Ready (The applicant had stated they would start as soon as they could)

Councillor Rice stated that he maintained the above reasons as given at the last hearing of the application and added the additional reasons for approval which were:

6. The Council did not have a five year housing supply or a 20% buffer and was failing on its housing delivery targets every year.
7. That the DCLG recognised that almost 48% of householders of over 65 years old would represent household growth up to 2026 which suggested a need for age related housing especially bungalows in response to the rapidly growing older population.
8. There would be less stress on the NHS as the bungalows would be on one level and there would be less accidents of falls or trips down the stairs.

Councillor Byrne pointed out that there were chairlifts that could be installed for going up/downstairs. Steve Taylor said that the site was not a sustainable village location as it was close to the Five Bells roundabout and the nearest village was over a mile away with shops being a further mile away from there. He went on to say that the Government’s ‘shovel ready’ projects referred to large infrastructure projects..

Councillor Potter supported Councillor Rice’s reasons for approving the application and said that the 1960s had been the baby boom era and those born from that time were now over 55 and needed bungalows. Councillor Rice pointed out that the site had two bus stops nearby which would enable residents within the proposed development travel into the village if they did not have access to a car.

Leigh Nicholson stated that no clear weight and rationale had been given to each reason that Members had given for approving the application. He referred Members to pages 31 – 35 of the Agenda and highlighted that the previous reasons given at the last hearing of the application had been assessed by Officers. He explained that any harm to the GB must be given substantial weight and that the two reasons that Officers had given for refusing the application had to be addressed by Members.

Councillor Rice referred to reasons given before and said that there was significant weight for tailored bungalows and that it was fundamental to take into account the DCLG’s report as mentioned earlier. He said that Thurrock was lacking in the supply of bungalows and that it was recognised that there would be harm to the GB. He highlighted that the reasons given earlier were substantial reasons and that the site was a village location which was ‘village infilling’. Councillor Lawrence added that the bungalows were specialist homes as they would be built with extra wide door openings which would be suitable for wheelchair users and kitchens had been adapted as well. These were not normal bungalows and would be built for over 55s.

Leigh Nicholson noted that Members had acknowledged harm to the GB; significant weight had been attributed to the proposed bungalows for over 55s; that local employment opportunities had been attributed some weight; that the Council not having a five year housing supply or a 20% buffer and was failing on its housing delivery targets every year had been given significant weight. He noted that there had been no further clarification on the village location which had been provided as a reason by Members for approving the application at the first hearing of the application. He referred Members back to the appeal decision in 2019 for the same site for the proposal of four dwellings in which the Inspector had dismissed as it had not been considered infilling within a village and that the site was not a sustainable village location. Officers had also covered this within the report on page 32 of the Agenda. He went on to explain that clear evidence and weighting was needed to support the reason provided on the site being a village location and sustainable. He also highlighted that the two reasons that Officers had given for refusing the application on page 38 of the Agenda had to be addressed and highlighted the issues of the introduction of significant built form into open areas and urban designs.

The Vice-Chair commented that there could be potential similar developments to the proposal that had been built. Councillor Rice agreed and said that the Committee would be considering the Waterworks application later that evening which was in the same area of the current proposal which was in Fobbing. He made the comparison that the Waterworks application had 180 proposed dwellings and the current application before the Committee had five proposed bungalows and pointed out that Waterworks was a GB site.

The Chair pointed out that the Waterworks site differed as it was previously developed land whereas the site of the current proposed development had no built form since the war. Leigh Nicholson said that the Waterworks application was previously developed land with a different set of circumstances to the current application. He highlighted that Members needed to address Officer’s refusal reason number two and read the refusal reason out. He went on to say that Members had to give rational reasons to address this in approving the application.

Councillor Lawrence felt that the proposed bungalows would not be out of character with the area as houses around the site were different to each other and there had been a recently built modern development in the area. She pointed out that the proposed dwellings in the Waterworks application would be out of character in the area of Fobbing. In regards to sustainability, she felt the location was ideal for people who did not want to live in a big town and people could walk to the shops. There were also bus stops nearby. She also said that there was a scrapyard behind the site. Steve Taylor pointed out that the map on page 39 of the Agenda showed that the proposed development would be built entirely within the red line boundary which had no development so would look out of character within the area.

Councillor Rice pointed that another site down the road to the current site had been given planning permission two years ago to demolish one bungalow and for nine dwellings to be built in place of it. He thought this showed a demonstrative need for this current proposal.

In relation to Officer’s refusal reason number two, Leigh Nicholson noted that Members had reasoned that the homes along the road of the site were varied in design so the proposed bungalows’ modern design was acceptable. He noted that Members had also reasoned that other developments of infilling within a village had been accepted in the past.

Caroline Robins advised Members to address the Officer’s two reasons for refusal and attribute weight to factors to show these clearly outweighed the harms as set out in the Officer’s report. She stated that Members needed to acknowledge these harms.

The Vice-Chair pointed out that Members had acknowledged the harms in which Councillor Rice agreed and reiterated the approval of the other development of nine dwellings from two years ago as mentioned earlier. He said that these were of a similar style to the current proposed bungalows which was sufficient to address Officer’s refusal reason number two and highlighted Councillor Lawrence’s earlier point that the homes along the road of the site were a mixture in design.

Leigh Nicholson noted that Members had addressed the Officer’s two reasons for refusal but the balancing exercise for refusal reason number two had not been undertaken. He said that Members were able to progress forward constitutionally as they had provided clear reasons for Officer’s reasons for refusal. He went on to remind Members of the usual process following a decision which required legal assessment for lawfulness by the Monitoring Officer and then subject to it being found lawful conditions in conjunction with the Chair.

Proposer: Councillor Rice.

Seconder: Councillor Potter.

FOR: (5) Councillors Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

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

ABSTAINED: (0)