Minutes:
The Service Director (Planning Services) presented a report with regard to the proposed formation of an off-street parking area on land at Marlescroft Way, Loughton, to provide daytime parking for employees of the Council’s depot at Oakwood Hill.
Members were advised that the application had been refused by Area Plans Sub-Committee South at its meeting on 23 January 2019 and that the proposal therefore stood referred to the District Development Management Committee for determination in accordance with Article 10 of the Constitution, as the application had been submitted by the Council and related to land in the ownership of the authority. The Committee noted that the recommendation of the Service Director (Planning Services) remained that planning permission should be granted for the proposed development and voted on a motion that it undertake a site visit prior to the determination of the application, which was lost.
The Committee was advised that the application site comprised a parcel of grass land to the south of dwellings in Marlescroft Way and that, whilst not situated within a conservation area, the site was in close proximity to the Roding Valley Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Service Director (Planning Services) reported that it was proposed to change the use of the land to a car park providing fifty-six formally laid out parking spaces and three disabled bays with manoeuvring space in accordance with the Essex Vehicle Parking Standards (2009), together with improved pedestrian access to public rights of way into and across the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve. Members noted that the proposal would provide staff parking during working hours and parking for the public at other times.
The Service Director (Planning Services) advised the Committee that the main issues for consideration in respect of the application related to highways, design and the impact of the proposed development on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Members were advised that Marlescroft Way and Oakwood Hill were heavily parked areas, with parking strain caused by the nearby Oakwood Hill Industrial Estate and that the proposal would provide off-street parking for employees of the Council’s Oakwood Hill Depot and local residents and users of the Roding Valley Nature Reserve. In response to concerns of local residents that the proposal would result in a loss of parking along the hammerhead area of Marlescroft Way, the Service Director (Planning Services) advised the Committee that the development would result in the addition of formal parking spaces, as opposed to the existing casual on-street layout, would not result in the loss of any formal resident parking provision and that Essex Highways had raised no objection to the proposal.
The Committee was advised that the proposal would maintain the largely urban character of Marlescroft Way but that, whilst it would increase hard surfacing at the site, an area of green space and mature trees would be retained to limit the visual impact of the development. The Service Director (Planning Services) reported that, although some planting would be removed in order to facilitate the development, such trees were not of high-quality and replacement trees would be located to the middle of the proposed hard surfaced area in order soften the appearance of the proposal and ensure that the development maintained the green character of the area of Marlescroft Way. Members noted that the proposal would increase vehicle movements outside the properties along Marlescroft Way, although the nearest parking spaces would be in excess of 20 metres from the flank elevation of the closest properties, which would limit any potential harm caused by increased vehicle movements during business hours.
The Service Director (Planning Services) reported that the site acted as an undesignated public open space and that, although some of the open space would be lost as a result of the development, a smaller section to the west of the site and along Highwood Lane would remain. Members were advised that, arising from the proposal, access to the Roding Valley Meadows Nature Reserve would be improved through the provision of a new footpath towards the River Roding, incorporating a pedestrian route within the car park to ensure easy access and egress into the nature reserve, to be secured through a legal agreement. The Committee noted that issues had been identified with respect to the effect of proposed development on the integrity of the Epping Forest SAC from local air quality issues within and adjacent to the SAC, as the application site was within the 6.2km zone identified by Natural England within which new development was likely to particularly impact on the SAC. The Service Director (Planning Services) reported that the Council and its partners were developing a strategy for the management of visitor pressure on the SAC and the monitoring of air quality, which would include measures to be funded through financial contributions secured from new development. The Committee was advised that the provision of a new footpath would amount to mitigation measures within the Roding Valley Meadows SSSI, since it would direct pedestrian movement to a suitable surface rather than haphazard movement between the site and the SSSI and had been approved by Natural England as a suitable strategy to benefit the site.
The Committee was advised that a small section of the site along its eastern boundary, was within the Metropolitan Green belt and that the majority of this strip would remain as a grassed area, although some hard-standing for the proposed footpath into the Nature Reserve and a small area of the proposed exit leading onto Marlescroft Way, would fall within this area. The Service Director (Planning Services) reported that, whilst the National Planning Policy Framework stated that inappropriate development was by definition harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, Paragraph 146 of the Framework specified certain forms of development that were considered not inappropriate, which included engineering operations. Members noted that Section 366 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 interpreted engineering operations as including the formation and lying out of means of access to a highway and that it was considered that the proposal would constitute an engineering operation and preserve the openness of the Green Belt and was therefore considered acceptable.
The Service Director (Planning Services) reported that the Council’s Land Drainage Section had raised no objection to the proposed development and that, subject to the imposition of the conditions recommended in the report and the completion of a Section 106 obligation securing the Epping Forest SAC contribution and contribution towards a footpath within the Roding Valley Meadows SSSI, the proposal would constitute an acceptable form of development. However, a number of members of the Committee raised concern with regard to the proposed development, particularly in relation to the loss of open space provided as part of the original design of the Oakwood Hill Estate, as a result of the development.
RESOLVED:
That planning application EPF/1058/18 be refused for the following reasons:
(1) The proposal amounts to the loss of playing fields for the adjacent residential development, approved under planning permission reference CHI/0302/66, without proper justification or appropriate alternative provision. The loss would result in a disproportionate loss of amenity and opportunity for outdoor play and exercise for the occupants of the Oakwood Hill Estate, particularly those of the adjacent flats that rely upon communal play areas. The proximity of the adjacent nature reserve/SSSI cannot compensate for the loss since it serves a different function. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the amenities and health of those residents. As a consequence, the proposal is in conflict with paragraphs 97-98 of the NPPF, contrary to Local Plan and Alterations policy RST14 and Submission Version Local Plan (2017) policy DM 6 (paragraph B);
(2) The proposal would, without proper justification or compensatory planting, result in the loss of mature trees on the application site, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan and Alterations policy LL10 and Submission Version Local Plan (2017) policies DM 5 (paragraphs A & D) and DM 9 (paragraph E), which are consistent with the NPPF;
(3) By reason of its likely intensity of use by motor vehicles and its siting adjacent to the Roding Valley Meadows SSSI, pollution arising from the proposal would be likely to cause harm to the interests of nature conservation and biodiversity, contrary to Local Plan and Alterations policy NC1 and Submission Version Local Plan (2017) policy DM 1, which are consistent with the NPPF;
(4) By reason of the lack of proposals to encourage alternative forms of travel, including a possible scheme for charging for parking vehicles, the proposal amounts to an unsustainable form of development that would be likely to encourage motor vehicle use at the expense of more sustainable alternatives. The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan and Alterations policies CP1(v) & CP9 and Submission Version Local Plan (2017) policy T 1 (paragraph B) which are consistent with the NPPF; and
(5) By reason of its scale, location and likely intensity of use, the proposal would appear conspicuous from within and beyond the Green Belt resulting in a reduction in its openness and causing harm to its visual amenities. The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan and Alterations policy GB7A and Submission Version Local Plan (2017) policy T 1 (paragraph B) which are consistent with the NPPF.
Immediately following the voting on the application that planning permission for the proposed development be refused, four members of the Committee referred the application to the Council for determination on the application of the minority reference procedure set out in the Constitution (Rule M2).