Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for full planning permission to redevelop the site with enabling residential development to provide 65 residential units together with associated car parking, open space, and refuse and recycling facilities (linked with EPF/2516/14 & EPF/2517/14) (DEV-009a-2015/16).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report regarding the redevelopment the site containing Cecil House in Foster Street to provide 65 residential units together with associated car parking, open space, and refuse and recycling facilities. This application was linked to planning applications EPF/2516/14 and EPF/2517/14, as the approval of the two residential schemes would financially support the relocation of C J Pryor to an expanded site at Harlow Gateway South.

The Assistant Director reported that the application proposed a mixture of two, three, four and five bedroomed properties, which would be two storeys in height. The original plans for some of the units to be three storeys had been amended to lower the height of these buildings. The development would be laid out around a road which would form the spine of the development, and would circulate around the site with a small mews in the south eastern corner.

Planning Officers had concluded that the scale and intensity of the proposed development, and the encroachment into a previously undeveloped area, would constitute inappropriate development which was harmful to the Green Belt. Furthermore, an additional 65 dwellings in this small hamlet would constitute unsustainable development, which would detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of this rural area. The development also failed to provide any affordable housing, contrary to the Council’s policy obligations. The proposed expansion of C J Pryor, which this development would enable, was not considered very special circumstances which would outweigh the substantial harm from this development. The application failed to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and the relevant Local Plan policies, and therefore this application had been recommended for refusal. A revised application for residential development of a lower density on the previously developed land within the eastern half of the site, which also provided an affordable housing element, could be considered a possible way forward for this proposal.

The Assistant Director added that this application, along with the two linked applications, were originally considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee East at its meeting on 13 May 2015. However, all three applications were referred directly to this Committee without discussion. This application had been deferred by the Committee at its previous meeting to enable proper consultation to be undertaken as the submitted plans had been amended by the Applicant following the publication of the agenda.

The Committee noted the summary of representations. Twelve letters in support of the application had been received, including the local Member of Parliament for Harlow and six employees of C J Pryor; sixteen letters of objection had been received, including North Weald Bassett Parish Council, four of whom had submitted a further letter of objection following sight of the amended plans. Harlow District Council had no objection to the development. The Committee heard from an Objector, the Parish Council and the Applicant’s Agent before proceeding to debate the application.

Members of the Committee acknowledged that the new Local plan would require more houses to be built in the District to meet the demand for housing, but this application had not presented any very special circumstances to justify the development. If it had been a stand-alone development then an element of affordable housing would have been required as well. The Committee felt that it was over development in the Green Belt and agreed with the Officers concerning the possible way forward.

Resolved:

(1)        That planning application EPF/2518/14 at Cecil House in Foster Street be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

            1.         The application site was located within the Metropolitan Green Belt             and the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. No very special             circumstances existed that clearly outweighed the harm from the   development and therefore the proposal was contrary to the guidance          contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and CP2 and             GB2A of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations.

            2.         The proposed development, due to the scale, density and location of          the proposed housing, would fail to conserve and enhance   the character and        appearance of this rural area, contrary to the guidance contained within the    National Planning Policy Framework and policies CP1, CP2 and LL2 of the            adopted Local Plan and Alterations.

            3.         The proposed development failed to make provision for affordable   housing in line with the Council's affordable housing requirements. The            proposed development was not considered to constitute 'enabling             development' and therefore the application was contrary to the guidance    contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and policies H5A,           H6A and H7A of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations.

            4.         The proposal would result in an unsustainable form of          development outside the existing urban area that was not well served by        public transport or local services and would therefore result in an increase in             vehicle commuting contrary to the guidance contained within the National   Planning Policy Framework and policies CP1, CP3, CP6, CP9 and ST1 of the           adopted Local Plan and Alterations.