Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the installation of a new vehicle cross-over.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the installation of a new vehicle crossover at 1 Bentons Cottages in Middle Street, Nazeing. This application was considered by Area Planning Sub-Committee West at its meeting on 17 January 2018 with a recommendation to refuse planning permission; the Sub-Committee voted to grant planning permission, but as this would be contrary to adopted planning policy then the application was referred to this Committee for confirmation.

The Assistant Director stated that the application site was located at the southern end of Middle Street, within the village of Nazeing, and was a small strip of land adjacent to Bentons Cottage to the north west. It would also be adjacent to four dwellings which had yet to be built. There was a robust screen of vegetation on its front boundary which was afforded legal protection as the site was within the boundaries of a conservation area, and the site was also located within the metropolitan Green Belt. The proposed development was for the construction of a new access onto Middle Street.

The Assistant Director reported that Planning Officers had concluded the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause additional harm to its openness. The application would also cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, to existing protected trees, and impact adversely on existing highways issues. Therefore, Planning Officers had originally recommended that the application be refused planning permission.

The Assistant Director informed the Committee that the Area Planning Sub-Committee West was of the opinion the proposal would improve the highway safety at the location, there would no adverse impact on the amenities of the Green Belt and therefore it was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Despite this view by the Members of the Sub-Committee, and that the new access would be further from the bend in the road, the Applicant was not proposing to close the existing access, and there had been no recorded accidents at this location for the last five years. Planning Officers had included possible planning conditions within the report for this application, but the Assistant Director counselled that if the Committee was minded to grant planning permission then it would have to identify the very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in respect of this application, including support for the application from Nazeing Parish Council. The Committee heard from the Parish Council and the Applicant’s Agent before proceeding to debate the application.

Cllr Whitehouse felt that it was helpful to listen and consider local views when determining planning applications, and the planning conditions listed in the report appeared reasonable for a site with protected trees. The existing access was unsafe and the Committee should insist the existing access was closed off if permission was granted. Cllr Chambers also noted that the Parish Council supported the application and there were no objections from local residents. The Assistant Director reminded the Committee that the application site was only around the area for the new access; the existing access was not part of the application and the Committee could not insist on its closure.

Cllr Brady felt that the Applicant wanted to keep all three entrances and not have any planning conditions applied, and build the four new houses for which permission had already been granted. Cllr Brady firmly believed that all possible screening for this site should be retained. Cllr Pond added that any development in the metropolitan Green Belt had to demonstrate very special circumstances, and none had been supplied with the application. There had been no Heritage Statement included in the application and Cllr Pond was very surprised that an archaeological study for the site had also not been included. The Assistant Director reminded the Committee that the Council relied upon Essex County Council for archaeological advice, and no such study had been requested.

Cllr Jennings cited the known highways issues at the site, and would be very concerned to approve the application. Cllr Jones felt that the new access would only make this stretch of road more dangerous, especially as the existing access could not be removed, and would not support the application.

The recommendation from Area Planning Sub-Committee West to grant planning permission for this application was lost when voted upon by the Committee.

It was now proposed to refuse planning permission for the application, for the four reasons stated on the original report to the Sub-Committee. In respect of the third reason for refusal, the non-submission of tree reports to support the application, the Assistant Director stated that the Applicant had sent a pack to the members of the Sub-Committee on the day before the meeting with a plan but no report.

The original Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was carried when voted upon by the Committee.

When considering a possible way forward for the application, which would have to overcome all four reasons for refusal, it was felt that the Applicant would have to re-design and submit a revised application which demonstrated the very special circumstances to permit development within the metropolitan Green Belt, closed up the existing access and also provided a Heritage Statement to accompany the application.

Decision:

(1)        That planning application EPF/2413/17 at 1 Bentons Cottages in Middle Street, Nazeing be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1.               The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and for which there are no very special circumstances which clearly outweigh this harm. The proposal will also cause additional harm to the openness of the Green Belt and therefore the proposal is contrary to policies GB2A and GB7A of the Adopted Local Plan and with paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is also contrary to policies DM4 and SP6 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

            2.         The proposal will cause a significant erosion to the character and                 appearance of the Conservation Area through the removal of the                 attractive  vegetation  at  the  front  of  the site and the substantial                    urbanising impact of the new access. In addition the failure to submit a                       heritage statement has not justified the identified harm. The proposal                  is therefore contrary to policies HC6 and HC7 of the Adopted Local                   Plan  and  with  the  objectives  of  the  National  Planning  Policy                      Framework. It is also contrary to policies DM3 and DM7 of the Epping                         Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

            3.         The   proposal   will   remove   an   area  of  protected  trees  and                 vegetation at the front of the site and the applicant has not submitted                       tree reports to accompany the application. The proposal has therefore                     failed to demonstrate the adequate provision for the retention of trees                      and  hedgerows  and is therefore in conflict with policy LL10 of the               Adopted Local Plan and with the objectives of the National Planning               Policy Framework. It is also contrary to policies DM3 and DM5 of the                        Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.

4.         The proposal would lead to the creation of an additional and unnecessary access on a stretch of Secondary Distributor highway where the principal function is that of carrying traffic freely and safely between centres of population. The slowing and turning of vehicles associated with the use of the access would lead to conflict and interference with the passage of through vehicles to the detriment of that principal function and introduce a further point of possible traffic conflict to the detriment of highway safety. Therefore this proposal is contrary to policy ST4 of the Local Plan and with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal is also contrary to policy T1 of the Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version) 2017.