The Principal Planner (Major Applications) advised that there had been 2 late letters of objection received, including one from Essex Field Club who wished the site to be designated as a local wildlife site and objected to the proposed mitigation measures.  The second letter was from a resident, reiterating existing objections.  The Officer confirmed that there had been no habitat survey undertaken to determine if the site qualified for local wildlife site designation..  The application sought outline planning permission for the development of 13.11 ha of land, providing up to 280 residential units, a community facility and commercial floorspace with associated landscape, flood improvement and access works.  The site lay within the Green Belt and the development was deemed to be inappropriate and therefore harmful in principle and harmful to openness.  Members were advised that it was for them to assess whether the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant clearly outweighed that harm.

 

Councillor Ojetola referred to previous applications nearby whereby land had been taken out of the Green Belt for development purposes.  He queried whether any compensation had been made elsewhere to replenish the Green Belt loss at the time, and it was confirmed that there had been no compensation of Green Belt.

 

It was clarified that Section 4.3 should have read “These letters include responses from Councillors Aker, Gledhill and Okunade.”

 

Officers had tried to be consistent with previous applications and appeal decisions in their assessment of the weight to be afforded to the case for very special circumstances.  Section 2.25 of the report highlighted 4 factors which were considered to amount to very special circumstances when a previous application was approved on part of the site in 2009 and these factors were given to provide some background. 

 

Councillor Rice asked whether, as a Local Authority, Thurrock had enough land for the 5 year housing supply. Section 6.34 of the report confirmed that Thurrock did not have a 5 year supply.  He then asked whether the previously approved application had been for the entirety of the site.  The previous permission had proposed development of 3.8 ha with 9.6 ha to remain open.

 

Members were concerned as to liability for costs if they were mindful to refuse.  The Committee was assured that inappropriate development of the Green Belt was a material consideration and therefore it would not be problematic, although Officers considered that the issues of ecology, flood risk and highways impact were acceptable subject to mitigation and therefore should not form a reason for objecting to the proposals.

 

Councillor Hamilton referred to the watercourses on the site, and asked if they were incorporated to the best of the applicant’s ability.  The existing watercourse was designated a main river and therefore had a formal status and served a drainage purpose.  The applicant had submitted an addendum to the Flood Risk Assessment ensuring this watercourse was properly modelled.  New ditch sections were also proposed for surface water attenuation.  It was queried whether there would be further ecology considerations.  The Committee heard that the site had been promoted as a potential local wildlife site but no formal survey had been undertaken to assess its suitability for such designation.  There would be mitigation in terms of replacement habitat as part of the landscaping proposals.

 

Councillor Snell expressed concern that there were various types of flooding; he sought confirmation that there would be mitigation other than raising the land level, to defend against rising water.  Whilst the site was in the high risk flood zone it did not form part of the functional floodplain.  The land would be raised to level of roughly 2.03m above sea-level to take the site above the level of a 1 in 200 year flood event.  The ditch areas would also provide surface water attenuation.  It was stressed that these changes would also not cause any increased risk to existing properties in the area.

 

Councillor Jones queried how close to residential properties the industrial units would be.  Section 6.107 outlined a minimum separation of 65m.

 

The Chair raised concerns around traffic access to the site.  A Transport Assessment had been undertaken of the Churchill Road access point.  It was estimated that there would be approximately double the amount of vehicles at peak times, however the relative flow capacity did not exceed the parameters for intervention.  There would be a condition that no construction traffic could access the site via Churchill Road, all construction vehicles would travel via the existing industrial park.

 

The Vice-Chair enquired as to proposals for cycle and footpaths.  There was an obligation to create a cycle link between Churchill Road and the A1089 and two locations had been identified for bridge links.  There would be street lit links on low-traffic routes.

 

Councillor Jones highlighted the low parking provision per unit.  Condition 24 would ensure that the provision was in line with the Council’s most recent draft standards.

 

Councillor Piccolo was cautious that a road link between two towns seemingly mitigated merging via Green Belt development and the time-limits which meant that part of the case for very special circumstances could be weakened.  The officer advised that a non-standard time limit condition could be considered.

 

The Chair invited a resident, Tony Coughlin, to the Committee to present his statement of objection.

 

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Okunade, was invited to present her statement of objection.

 

The agent, Ben Rogers, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support.

 

The Chair advised Members that harm to the Green Belt was a material consideration and therefore they should not be concerned with costs at appeal, but should simply consider the application before them.  He felt that the proposal was of high quality design, and were the site not located on Green Belt it would be readily approved.  He had some personal concerns regarding access, however Officers had advised they were not considered to be a problem and he accepted their professional guidance.

 

Councillor Ojetola expressed concern that there would be many more applications for developments on the Green Belt to come.  He agreed that the design was promising but the issue was whether the very special circumstances clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.  He was still concerned that they did not.

 

Councillor Rice felt that given the dire need for housing it was inevitable that eventually some Green Belt land would need to be released.  There were no objections from statutory organisations such as Highways England and the Environment Agency which, mixed with the proposed contribution of almost 300 homes, tipped the balance for him to be inclined to approve the application.

 

Councillor Piccolo referred to the list of very special circumstances and though the 5 year supply had been given “significant weight” Members had been advised that that alone could not be considered to outweigh harm to the Green Belt.  The remaining factors seemed rather weak and he reminded Members that the financial contribution would not go towards existing shortfalls but to mitigate the impact of the development.  He understood there was a need for more homes in Thurrock, but was concerned that the special circumstances seemed very limited and it would set a dangerous precedent for the future.

 

Councillor Hamilton echoed this concern regarding setting a precedent.  Since the Green Belt would not be replenished it would be the start of its erosion. 

 

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 21:18.

 

Councillor Snell referred to section 6.39 whereby the Secretary of State had re-affirmed that the issue of housing delivery alone could not justify inappropriate development of the Green Belt.  Since it was the only factor given “significant weight” he felt the bar would be set far too low and it would be very difficult to refuse future applications.  There had been reference to improving the habitat for ecology but he expressed concern for the local residents.  The site currently served as a buffer between residential and commercial sites, and the timeframe suggested 18 months simply to raise the land, then there would be piling and then construction.  It was a very long time for residents to be so disrupted.  He understood the need for housing in the borough however, even with the impressive design, there was not enough to warrant building over the Green Belt.

 

The Vice-Chair stated that every week within his ward he was contacted by people who had been made homeless, including young families.  He agreed that preservation of the Green Belt was important and the decision would be difficult but his priority was helping those in need of housing in Thurrock.

 

Councillor Churchman agreed; the application was recommended for approval and while the Green Belt was important, housing residents was also a priority.

 

Councillor Jones was concerned that the focus for Local Authorities had become focused on how many houses they were expected to build, even by Government directives, but there had to be a balance.  The Green Belt acted as buffer zone and if one application began to erode that it would surely continue.

 

Councillor Piccolo referred to the commercial aspect of the proposal.  It had been suggested that the recent Amazon site would provide more vacancies than the number of unemployed people within Thurrock; therefore he would disallow that aspect as there was no shortage.  The development itself was well designed but the principal of approving inappropriate development of the Green Belt, especially with such limited very special circumstances, would effectively leave the Green Belt open to any future applications.

 

Councillor Ojetola referred again to the list of very special circumstances and assessed that there were more with “limited” or “no weight”.  The Committee had refused similar applications and he could not support this application.

 

The Campaign to Protect Rural England Representative wished to draw Members’ attention to two points.  The Green Belt served to prevent urban sprawl, and this application would set the precedent of a “creeping” urban sprawl.  There were subjective words to consider; any mitigation should “clearly” outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and there seemed to be little clarity that it did.

 

The application was recommended for approval, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, the completion of a s106 legal agreement and conditions.  The Chair put it to the vote.

 

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman and Gerard Rice.

 

Against:           Councillors Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo and Graham Snell.

 

Abstained:       (0)

 

The Head of Planning and Growth quoted Chapter 5, Part 3, Point 7 of the Council’s Constitution: “Decisions contrary to Officers recommendations and/or the Development Plan” for the benefit of residents within the public gallery.  It was considered that the requirements of 7.2 (a to c) had been met and that the arguments against the recommendation were not tentative.  The application could therefore be determined at the meeting.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Ojetola and seconded by Councillor Snell that the application be refused on Green Belt grounds.

 

For:                  Councillors Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo and Graham Snell.

 

Against:           Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman and Gerard Rice.

 

Abstained:       (0)

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be refused.