Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the proposed demolition of a restaurant and the erection of 3 Town houses and 2 detached houses. This application is a re-submission following the withdrawal of application EPF/1810/14 (DEV-012-2014/15).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Control) presented a report on the proposed demolition of a restaurant and the erection of 3 town houses and 2 detached houses. This application was a re-submission following the withdrawal of application EPF/1810/14.

The Assistant Director reported that the application had originally been considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee East, after a deferral for a site visit, in February 2015. The Sub-Committee had refused the application on the grounds that the erection of the two detached houses in the Green Belt would be inappropriate development for which no special circumstances had been demonstrated. The development would also have a significantly adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and that the proposals amounted to overdevelopment of the site. Following the vote, the application was referred to this Committee by four members of the Sub-Committee under the minority reference rules within the Constitution for a final decision.

The Assistant Director stated that the application site currently comprised a large, part two storey building whose previous two uses had been a public house and Indian Restaurant. To the rear of the building was a car park associated with the site. The building itself was outside the metropolitan Green Belt, but the car park was within it. To the north of the site, there were residential properties fronting the High Road, and a row of residential properties were on the opposite side of the Carpenters Arms Lane to the south leading to Teazle Mead. There were open fields to the east and west of the site, which was located within a flood risk assessment zone.

The application sought to demolish the existing building, last used as an Indian Restaurant but now vacant, and construct five new dwellings on the land including the car park to the rear of the existing building. Three of the new dwellings would form a terrace fronting the High Road, whilst the other two dwellings would be detached and front Carpenters Arms Lane. The three terraced houses would be three-bedroom properties, whilst the two detached houses would be four-bedroom properties. The terraced properties would have one parking space each within the front garden areas, whilst the detached properties would each have two parking spaces to the side accessed from the existing Lane; there would also be a small car park at the western end of the site with five additional spaces.

The Assistant Director listed the main issues for the Committee to consider, which were the suitability of the site, the impact on the Green Belt, the loss of the community use, the character of the area, the impact on neighbours’ amenity, the impact on the existing landscaping, and the highways and parking issues related to the development.

Planning Officers had concluded that whilst the development was not in a sustainable location and involved the erection of two new buildings in the Green Belt, the harm from this development would be limited due to its location. It was also felt that the community use previously offered on this site had already been lost, and the current building would not require planning permission for a change of use. The proposed development met the required off-street parking provision and would provide sufficient private amenity space for future residents. The proposed site density was not considered to be unduly detrimental to the amenity of surrounding residents, and as the existing car park was on private land it could be made unavailable without consent. Carpenters Arms Lane was a private road and maintenance issues were a civil matter. There had been no objections raised by Highways Officers from Essex County Council, and no objection from the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officers concerning the loss of the existing trees included in the proposal. Consequently, Planning Officers had felt the application complied with the National Planning Policy Framework and the relevant Local Plan policies, and therefore had been recommended for approval.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in respect of this planning application. Eighteen letters of objection had been received, including from the Parish Council and the Epping Society. A further letter had been received which, whilst not objecting to the application, had raised a number of concerns. There had been no letters received in support of the application. Since the application had been referred to the Committee, further correspondence had been received from the local Member of Parliament enquiring about progress with the application, and informing the Council that she had received further correspondence from her constituents on the matter. The Committee heard from an objector, the Parish Council, and a representative from the applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

A local Member for Epping Hemnall informed the Committee that a full discussion on this application had taken place when it was considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee East. The existing building and its use was considered a community asset by the local residents until its closure in 2012, even if it had not been formally designated as such by the Council. Development in the Green Belt had been the key issue during the Sub-Committee’s discussion. The existing building was outside the Green Belt and was suitable for redevelopment. However, the car park to the rear was in the Green Belt and was an open space, which would be impacted by the proposed development. It had been surprising that the Highways Officer had not raised any objections to the development, citing that the four accidents in the last five years within the vicinity of the location had not been due to the site or any existing residential vehicle movements along that section of the road. On balance, the Member was inclined to vote against the application.

Local members for Theydon Bois and Passingford also stated that Carpenters Arms Lane was very narrow with no pavement, and that to have houses built to the boundary as would be the case with the detached properties would be overbearing. These two houses would be built on Green Belt land with no special circumstances given for their development, thus it would be inappropriate development and both members could not support the proposal. A local Member for Chigwell Village added that the trees currently in situ made the area look greener and were important to the street scene; thus, they should not be removed. No special circumstances had been given for the development of the detached houses in the Green Belt, and the member agreed with the overbearing aspect of having these houses built to the boundary, therefore the Member could not support the application.

One Member from Waltham Abbey North East expressed mixed views about the application. The Member was in favour of the two detached houses on the current car park area, but did not want the three trees to be removed and did not like the three terraced houses fronting the main road. The Member decided not to support the application and felt that the parking for the three terraced houses should be provided at the back, not the front. Another Member from Waltham Abbey Honey Lane felt that the area currently used as a car park should be turned over to community use.

Support for the scheme was expressed by a Member for Lower Nazeing, who felt that the car park, although in the Green Belt, was an unsightly hardstanding area. The proposals were a good design that were not overcrowded with decent sized gardens. Many front gardens were given over to car parking, as illustrated by some of the other properties in Carpenters Arms Lane, and this would make in ideal spot for a small development.

The debate concluded with members of Area Plans Sub-Committee East reiterating that the Committee had a duty to protect the openness of the Green Belt, and whilst the car park was currently an area of hardstanding, it was an open space. There were already parking problems within the Lane, which this development would acerbate, and it was not a suitable planning argument to allow areas within the Green Belt to be developed simply because they looked unsightly.

Resolved:

(1)        That planning application EPF/2670/14 at the Former Carpenters Arms, High Road in Thornwood be refused permission for the following reasons:

            1.         The two proposed detached dwellings were located within the         Green Belt and would constitute inappropriate development within the             Green Belt, harmful to the openness and character of this area. No very     special circumstances exist to outweigh this harm and therefore the           development failed to comply with Government guidance in the form of the        National Planning Policy Framework and policies GB2A and GB7A of the       adopted Local Plan and Alterations.

            2.         The proposed development, due to the number of dwellings and     overall scale of works, would constitute overdevelopment of the site to the             detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to         Government guidance in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework         and policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and DBE1 of the adopted Local Plan and          Alterations.