Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report in connection with the proposed demolition of an existing garden centre/commercial buildings and the erection of 43 dwellings with associated parking and landscaping, at Chimes Garden Centre, Old Nazeing Road, Nazeing.

(Director of Communities) To consider the attached supplementary report regarding the proposed Section 106 agreement for this application.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report on the proposed demolition of an existing garden centre/commercial buildings and the erection of 43 dwellings with associated parking and landscaping, at Chimes Garden Centre in Old Nazeing Road, Nazeing.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the application site was approximately 2.5 hectares in area, and was located to the south of the residential area comprising Riverside Avenue and Great Meadow. The northern boundary of the site was flanked by gardens of residential properties; the western boundary was formed by the River Lee Navigation; and there was open land to the south and east. The site was wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Lea Valley Regional Park, but was not a conservation area.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the proposal was to remove all the existing buildings and hard standing from the site, and to redevelop the site with 43 two-storey and two-and-a-half-storey detached and semi-detached properties in a simple layout around a central estate road accessed via Old Nazeing Road. The plans indicated the building of 2 3-bed, 22 4-bed, 9 5-bed, 9 6-bed and 1 8-bed properties on the site.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the main issue to consider was that the site lay wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt. As the site had been previously developed, the main consideration was whether the development would have a greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. There were also housing issues to consider, including the lack of a Five-Year Supply of Housing document as part of the Council’s Local Plan, the lack of affordable housing proposed for the site and the purchase of the former Total Garage site in Nazeing from the Parish Council to provide low cost housing at this site as planning permission had already been granted for 6 properties to be built there. Other issues included potential flood risk as most of the site was within a Flood Zone 2 and the remainder of the site was within a Flood Zone 3; contamination, as more than half of the site was a landfill site; layout and design; the impact on neighbouring amenity; the recording and investigation of any archaeological deposits; the results of the ecological studies performed at the site; highways and parking issues, including the proposed access to the site and parking within the site; a contribution towards the costs of increased education provision in the area; the impact on the Lee Valley Regional Park; and the sustainability of development at the proposed site.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the conclusions reached by Planning Officers. It was acknowledged that the application had some merit, including the provision of quality, attractive housing close to Nazeing and the resolution of the ongoing enforcement issues concerning the site, and the provision of a further six affordable dwellings on the former Total Garage site in the centre of Nazeing. However, the development would have a significant adverse impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt, and was therefore considered inappropriate development. It failed to provide any affordable housing on site, without any good reason being put forward, and the financial contribution proposed to provide affordable housing elsewhere in the District was not considered appropriate given the lack of available sites throughout the District. Additionally, the proposal included the construction of dwellings within a Flood Zone 3, contrary to professional advice, and the application was therefore recommended for refusal by the Director of Governance.

The Principal Planning Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the addendum report from the Director of Communities concerning the proposed Section 106 Agreement for the development. Following lengthy and detailed negotiations, agreement had been reached whereby the applicant would provide a contribution of £1million for the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the District, and prior to commencing any development at the Chimes Garden Centre site the applicant would purchase the former Total Garage site in Nazeing from the Parish Council, which already had planning permission for 6 2-bed homes, and enter into a signed Development Agreement with one of the Council’s Preferred Housing Association Partners to provide the six dwellings as affordable social rented units available for

applicants from the Council’s Housing Register. With this combined proposal, the objection on the basis of inadequate affordable housing provision on site would have been overcome. However, since these negotiations, the applicant had suggested an alternative of building the six approved houses on the former Total Garage site and offering them to local people to purchase at a discount, instead of providing social rented accommodation (affordable housing).

The Committee was reminded that this planning application had been considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee West on 28 January 2015 and had been referred to the Committee with a recommendation to grant planning permission with 26 conditions attached. The Sub-Committee had felt that the proposed development would result in significant improvements to the character and visual amenity of the area and would help to meet the current housing need on previously developed land in a relatively sustainable location. It was considered that the benefits in removing a problematic and unsightly site would outweigh the harm to the openness of Green Belt resulting from the development. However, the Director of Governance had maintained that the recommendation of Officers should be that planning permission should be refused, for the reasons outlined above.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, which included 172 signed copies of a standard letter supporting the application, 7 further letters of support, 18 letters opposing the application, and 2 letters requesting further conditions be applied if planning permission was granted.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that the applicant had offered to provide the six dwellings to be built on the former Total Garage site in Nazeing at 15% below market value to residents of the District, rather than to provide truly affordable social rented accommodation through a Housing Association. An additional condition, 27, should be added - if the application was approved - to remove Permitted Development Rights for extensions, outbuildings and hard standings for all 43 proposed properties on the site. Finally, if the Committee granted planning consent for the application, then it would have to be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit as it contravened the Council’s Green Belt policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee heard from an objector, the Parish Council and the applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

A local Member for Loughton Broadway commented that some of the land adjacent to the River Lee had not been previously developed and the site was susceptible to surface water flooding. Although the site was within walking distance of Broxbourne Railway Station, the Member had serious doubts about allowing development in the Green Belt on non-developed land that was situated within a Flood Risk Zone 3. The local Member for Morton and Fyfield added that he would be happy to support development on a brownfield site, but not development on a former landfill site.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that Flood Risk Zone 2 indicated a 1-in-a-1000 chance of flooding occurring; Flood Risk Zone 3 indicated a 1-in-a-100 chance of flooding occurring. It was also highlighted that dwellings reserved for local residents would encompass any individual currently living within the District. There had been a chicken farm on the eastern side of the site but this had been cleared by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority five years ago.

A local Member for Epping Hemnall felt that the application offered no justification for development on Green Belt land, and no justification for not providing any affordable housing as part of the development. It was acknowledged that some flooding issues could be mitigated, but there had been no explanation for the link between this application and the former Total Garage site in the centre of Nazeing. A local Member for Loughton St Mary’s was concerned that the site had been allowed to deteriorate to provide a reason for its development, and felt that development should be restricted to the northern part of the site. The local Member for Passingford agreed as it would be foolish to build homes on land with a high risk of flooding, and also highlighted the biodiversity issues within the report as well as the objection from the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. A local Member for Waltham Abbey Honey Lane also concurred with the view that development should be restricted to the northern part of the site.

However, a local Member for Waltham Abbey North East stated that the District desperately needed new houses to be built and there were very few areas in Nazeing suitable for development. The flooding and contamination issues could all be mitigated. The Chairman also offered his support for the application on this basis and that it would be development on a predominantly brownfield site. The Chairman also highlighted the £1million contribution towards building affordable housing within the District from the applicant, the high community gain for Nazeing from the development of the former Total Garage site, and the educational gains as well from the Section 106 Agreement. Members were requested to consider the wider benefits for the District from the scheme.

The local Member for Epping Hemnall stated that these arguments were equally applicable to many other sites across the District and that these were not special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt. It was also highlighted that the contribution to educational provision from the Section 106 Agreement was to compensate for the additional strain that would be placed upon local schools from the development. The Member proposed refusal of the application for the four reasons set out in the original Officer report. This proposal was seconded by the local Member for Loughton Broadway, who also supported the proposed way forward to redevelop the northern sector of the site only.

Resolved:

(1)        That planning application EPF/0206/14 at Chimes Garden Centre in Old Nazeing Road, Nazeing be refused permission for the following reasons:

            1.         The proposed development included "more vulnerable" development          located within Flood Zone 3. The development did not provide wider      sustainability benefits that outweighed the flood risk and did not therefore          pass the Exceptions Test. As such the proposal was contrary to paragraph           102 in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

            2.         The development, due to the amount of built form that would intrude           into the southern half of the site which was currently free of buildings, would             have a significantly greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than     the existing development and as such was inappropriate and by definition harmful. The development was therefore contrary to policy GB2A of the   adopted Local Plan and Alterations and to the NPPF.

            3.         The proposal failed to provide on site affordable housing despite such        provision being financially viable and the site being suitable for such      development, as such the development was contrary to policies H5A, H6A,    and H7A of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations, and paragraph 50 of the           NPPF.

            4.         By reason of the site's location beyond the statutory walking distance         to a secondary school, the proposal would generate an additional cost to the     Local Education Authority, Essex County Council, for transporting children to           secondary school. However, the proposal did not include any mechanism to             meet those additional costs. Since the proposal failed to properly address this       matter, it was not a sustainable form of development and was consequently      contrary to policies CP9(iii) and I1A of the Adopted Local Plan and          Alterations, which were consistent with the National Planning Policy            Framework.

(2)        That the applicant be informed of the following as a proposed way forward for the site:

            1.         That the redevelopment of the northern part of the site could be       acceptable, as this would avoid the Flood Risk Zone 3, most of the former     landfill site and would likely to be acceptable in Green Belt terms; and

            2.         That any proposed scheme should include an appropriate element of         affordable housing. Although it was acknowledged that this location was not      acceptable for high density housing, a suitable development which respected            the character of the area could be achieved.