The application sought planning permission for the construction of a detached 3 bedroom dwelling and detached quadruple garage to be ancillary to the approved Wellness Centre (16/01446/FUL) at the site.  The application was deemed to be inappropriate development of the Green Belt and detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt.  In addition the development would have a detrimental impact upon the open fenland landscape and the flood risk assessment which had been submitted related to the approved wellness centre and not for the proposed dwelling, therefore this did not demonstrate safety for its lifetime. The application was recommended for refusal.

Councillor Snell sought clarification that the proposal did not remove the 2-bedroom flat within the wellness centre.  Officers expected the wellness centre to be built as planned, including the flat for managers accommodation.

Councillor Rice felt it was a question of security; the Chair questioned whether this was the case.  The Committee heard that the approved plans for the wellness centre included a 2-bedroom flat, within the main building, which would provide security and in terms of night-time security there would be external cameras and lights which could be controlled and monitored from the control room within the premises.  Officers advised that the original plans could be revised to seek a more favourable alternative to a large, detached dwelling, such as additional staff facilities within the Wellness Centre through a revised layout or a minor extension to the building.

The Chair noted the site had been derelict and queried what other developments were in the area.  The site was in a rural location and developments nearby were farms or other agricultural land use and landscaping.

The Chair continued to question the flood risk assessment, which had not been specific to the proposed dwelling, and why that raised concern.  The Flood Risk Assessment submitted referred to the wellness centre and not the proposed dwelling.  The Wellness Centre was located more in Flood Zone 2 whereas  the proposed dwelling was shown to  be located in Flood Zone  3A, which was the highest risk flood zone. 

Councillor Rice questioned whether revised accommodation within the footprint or nearer to the wellness centre would be preferable.  He didn’t want to see a business fail and staff security was important.  A separate dwelling would still impact upon the Green Belt and the approved building was already bigger than previous development on the site.  The proposal would add significantly to the footprint.  Officers reiterated that there may be an opportunity to redesign the approved wellness centre internally so as to not impact upon the Green Belt further.

Councillor Hamilton sought clarification that 6.31 of the application report identified no risk of reduced security and that 6.33 gave the impression of a large mansion.  He sought to be clear that no weight should be given to these circumstances, as outlined in 6.35.

The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex Representative noted that there would be client bedrooms within the wellness centre, therefore the building would be occupied 24hours.  He expected the doors to be monitored by security and asked officers to clarify whether that was the case.  The first floor flat provided on-site staff 24 hours a day and there was a ground floor reception area too where it would be expected that staff would be on hand.

The Applicant, Joy Jarvis, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of support.

Councillor Rice felt that an exception could be made given the Health and Safety concerns. The Chair asked officers to clarify these concerns.  Staff facilities were not provided at the time of the wellness centre approval, but should be within the footprint of the centre rather than in a detached house.

Councillor Piccolo sought clarity and asked whether, had this been included within the original application, the recommendation would have differed.  The Committee was advised that the recommendation for the wellness centre would have been refusal, had the application included this separate dwelling.

The Chair noted that at first the wellness centre had been received as a good news story, which would be unique to Thurrock.  He expressed sympathy with the applicant however the site was within the Green Belt and there were strict rules around why applications would be refused.  He was minded to see if a potential exception could be made but was interested to see the views of other Members.

The Vice-Chair had some sympathy with the applicant but expressed two key concerns.  Firstly there had been at least two other cases of businesses within the Green Belt who had asked for substantial accommodation and been refused, which he was worried could cause an issue.  Secondly, the size of the dwelling with a four car garage seemed excessive; had the applicant considered amendments within the main building he would have been more sympathetic.

Councillor Rice urged Members to think long and hard given that the Committee had approved the wellness centre and now the operator had returned to seek permission for something they needed to ensure a successful business.  The applicant was prepared to include a condition tying the dwelling to the wellness centre, as they could not operate without it, and he felt it was a unique opportunity.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection reiterated that the business already had accommodation.  He asked officers to shed light on allegations of a Health and Safety imperative.  Officers had received an email from Health and Safety officers which advised that the proposed dwelling was mainly a house and garage rather than to do with the business as it was separate and first aiders, fire marshals etc. would need to be within the wellness centre itself.

Councillor Snell felt the original application had been approved for all the right reasons however it was unreasonable to expect the committee to approve a 3-bedroom house on the basis that the applicant had forgotten to accommodate rest areas for staff in the original plans.  He did not feel security should be used as an excuse to develop a house within the grounds of the wellness centre and that the applicant should reconsider looking within the approved footprint.

Councillor Piccolo agreed he had been very pleased with the original application.  He accepted that there may have been oversight and questioned whether the condition tying the dwelling to the wellness centre was feasible.  The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection did not think such a condition would be enforceable and even so would not overcome planning concerns.  There was a question of ‘need versus desire’ and the application was far from meeting the ‘essential test’. 

The Interim Deputy Head of Law (Regeneration) advised that there were a number of issues if the Committee were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  Regarding the proposed condition, a s.106 agreement would be more suitable which would restrict occupation but this would have to specify demolition if the house was not used as specified and there would be a question as to whether that would be an appropriate solution.  Members were advised that their first consideration should be whether the house should be built within the Green Belt.  There were clearly a number of uncertainties and it appeared that there might be a need for further information in relation to flood risk and health and safety. Accordingly, a deferral might be in order so that further work could be undertaken.  If Members were to be minded to approve, then because there were a number of sensitive issues such as Green Belt, case law required that Members would need to clearly justify their decision to approve the scheme contrary to Officer’s recommendation, by addressing the reasons for refusal and giving reasons for approval.

Councillor Hamilton expressed concern regarding precedent and reminded Members that, had this formed part of the original application the recommendation would have been refusal.  Paired with the apparent lack of Health and Safety imperative he could not support the application.

Councillor Rice felt there would be no issue of precedent, given that each application was determined on its own merit.  The Committee heard that, while cases were determined on their own merit, given the lack of evidence of necessity and the fact that the wellness centre already benefitted from accommodation it was right to be mindful of precedent.

The Chair felt the decision was difficult and there were a number of issues raising concern, conditions, the flood risk assessment and the Health and Safety imperative. 

It was proposed by Councillor Rice and seconded by the Chair that the application be deferred to allow for clarification of information in relation to flood risk and health and safety

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

Against:           Councillors Graham Hamilton, Graham Snell and David Potter

Abstain:           (0)

Councillor Piccolo noted that, if the application were to be refused, there would still be 30 staff without a rest area so urged the applicant to look at possible alternatives.  Any decision would need to be linked to the Health and Safety implications so there was a need to demonstrate:

1.    Are there Health and Safety implications?

2.    Can they be overcome within the existing footprint of the wellness centre?

3.    Is the separate dwelling necessary?

The Vice-Chair also noted that Health and Safety requirements would cover toilets and a break area but not all 30 staff would need to be accommodated at one time so staff would need to be timetabled according to the facilities and space available.

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred to allow for clarification of information in relation to flood risk and health and safety.