Agenda item

(Service Manager – Development Management) To consider the attached report for Outline Planning Permission for the demolition of all buildings & structures on the site & comprehensive mixed use development comprising up to 5,000sqm (GIA) floorspace for employment uses including retail (Class A1), office (Class B1a), light industrial (Class B1c), health care (Class D1), leisure (Class D2), a maximum of 230 residential (Class C3) units, the formation of new pedestrian, cycle & vehicular circulation routes & means of access, new private & public open space, play space, cycle & vehicular parking.

The Senior Planning Officer, S Dhadwar, presented a report for the Committee to consider an outline planning application for the demolition of all buildings and structures at the Nazeing Glass Works site in Nazeing New Road, Nazeing to be replaced with a comprehensive mixed use development comprising up to 5,000m² of floorspace for employment uses, a maximum of 230 residential units, the formation of new pedestrian, cycle and vehicular circulation routes, new private and public open space, play space, and cycle and vehicular parking. The Application was before the Committee as it constituted a ‘large scale’ development as defined in Article 10 of the Council’s Constitution. The Service Manager for Development Management, A Marx, presented drone footage of the site which had been filmed in November 2020.

S Dhadwar informed the Committee that the site was 2.9 hectares in size and was relatively flat. Approximately half of the site was designated as being part of an existing Employment Area and the largest single building was operated by the Nazeing Glassworks Company. Other uses within the Employment Area included: furniture manufacture; car spraying; car sales; office accommodation; education and training services; and warehousing. The site included an open area of grassland known as Nazeing Mead, and to the south of this was a more densely vegetated and wooded area which was part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site was within the Lee Valley Regional Park Area and was also identified as an area at risk from flooding. The site also adjoined the Lee Valley Central Local Wildlife Site, the River Lee Navigation Canal, woodland, residential properties and caravan park. As an outline planning application, approval was being sought for the access, landscaping, layout and scale of the development; the only matter being reserved was the appearance.

Planning Officers had acknowledged that the proposal would provide a number of benefits, including the provision of 230 new homes, a general improvement in the site’s appearance and financial contributions to improve public transport and pedestrian access to the site. However, the application would: result in the loss of designated employment floorspace for which there was a strong demand; result in an increase in annual average daily traffic compared to the existing uses on the site; provide only 50% of the required affordable housing for a development of this size and the submitted viability assessment had not followed the correct criteria; not deliver the necessary infrastructure to make the development acceptable; be highly vulnerable to potential flooding being located in Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3; construct a five-storey block of flats to the detriment of the landscape character of the site; be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the southern section of the site and no very special circumstances had been proffered to outweigh the harm caused by this development. Therefore, Planning Officers had concluded that planning permission should not be granted for this application.

The Committee noted the summary of representations that had been received for this application. The Committee heard from an objector, the Parish Council and the applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

A Marx explained to the Committee the viability assessment procedure, which applied to all applications received by the Council. The Council had also used the same viability consultants that were used for advice on the Local Plan, so they knew the District very well. The Council’s Legal Officer, S Bell, also informed the Committee that he was not aware of any delays in determining this application by Officers, and endorsed the report before the Committee.

Cllr C C Pond understood why the Parish Council were in favour of this application, as it would regulate and improve the site. However, this site was allocated for employment use only in the draft Local Plan and there was no mechanism available to convert a site for employment use into a site for residential use. Local employment sites within the District had become important as many residents commuted to work in London, and therefore the Councillor would support the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission as the proposal was unacceptable when judged against the Local Plan.

Cllr R Bassett was the local ward member for this site and explained that the majority of the site had been occupied by the old glassworks and therefore was contaminated with lead. The state of the current buildings was very poor, and this application attempted to create more housing and employment opportunities. There had been confusion created by the conflicting viability assessments, and the Councillor felt that both parties should have discussions to resolve the differences. The Councillor understood why some local residents had concerns about this application, but also highlighted that many residents also supported the application. The Councillor felt that this was an important application which would resolve some of the housing and employment issues in the local area, and that officers and the applicant should engage in discussions to come to an agreement over the future use of the site.

A Marx reiterated that the Council had engaged expert advice to undertake the viability assessment for this application, which was published on the Council’s website in November 2020. It was also pointed out to the Committee that the planning application process was not a negotiation process as it would not be appropriate for the Development Management Team to co-design applications which they would then subsequently have to judge in relation to planning law and the Local Plan. During the Local Plan process, this site had not been set aside for residential development.

Cllr S Heap felt that the proposal would be better than what was currently at the site, and it was unlikely that anyone else would invest in the longer-term future of the site. It was close to Broxbourne railway station and the Lee Valley Regional Park, would be an ideal location for small craft or manufacturing industries, and that refusing this application could represent a missed opportunity for the site.

The Committee generally felt that the Officer recommendation to refuse permission for this application should be supported. The site had been allocated for employment use in the Local Plan, and the owner had not argued at the Local Plan hearings for it to be changed to residential. The Committee also noted that the site was in a flood zone which made it unsuitable for residential development, and that the Local Plan generally had good reasons for each of its site allocations. The report highlighted the reasons that this application did not meet the Council’s policies, including the affordable housing element and not complying with the emerging Local Plan. It was commented that a different application that took account of the site allocation for employment use, but with some residential use, would be welcomed.

Decision:

(1)        That planning application EPF/2712/19 at the Nazeing Glassworks site be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1…The majority of the site is located within land designated as an existing employment site and is also designated for employment in the Local Plan Submission Version.   The purpose of this designation is to retain and enhance employment sites such as this one to enable their vital role in accommodating the level of employment growth required over the Local Plan period.  The development would result in the unacceptable loss of employment floorspace within a designated employment site, which has also been identified as appropriate for employment intensification.  The introduction of residential uses on the site fails to perform an enabling role to the renewal of the employment function of the site.  The lesser level of employment re-provision proposed is further compromised by the lack of detail provided to satisfy the Council that a high quality and true employment-led mixed-use scheme will be delivered.  The starting point for any employment-led mixed-use scheme on the site must be the re-provision of the existing quantum of employment floorspace for its existing uses, or for other activities within the B Use Class, or uses of an employment character which are Sui generis or within Use Class E. The proposed development is therefore inconsistent with the Council’s approach to meeting the District’s employment needs to support economic growth required. It is therefore contrary to the requirements of policies E1, E2, E4A of the Adopted Local Plan along with policies SP 2 and E 1 of the Local Plan Submission Version.

2…The application does not provide sufficient information to satisfy the Council, as Competent Authority, that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation and there are no alternative solutions or imperative reasons of overriding public interest why the development should be permitted. As such, the development is contrary to policies CP1 and CP6 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations, policies DM 2 and DM 22 of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the requirements of the Habitats Regulations 2017.

3…The submitted viability assessment was found to have insufficient information. It is for this reason that the Council is unable to fully and properly assess whether it would be financially unviable for the proposal to provide 40% of the onsite housing provision as affordable. The proposal therefore fails to meet a key housing need within the District and as such is contrary to the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy H5A of the Adopted Local Plan and policy H2A of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017.

4…The application site is located outside of the areas of lowest flood risk and the type of development proposed is highly vulnerable if flooding does occur.  Since the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would provide sufficient wider sustainability benefits to the public to outweigh the risks posed by the development, it does not meet the requirements of the Exception Test.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of paragraphs 160 and 161 of the NPPF and DM 15 of the Local Plan Submission Version Plan.

5…A Section 106 Agreement has not been sought by the Council as the proposed development is in principle unsustainable.  However, had the Council found the principle of the development to be acceptable, the Council would have sought planning obligations to deliver the necessary infrastructure needed to make the impact of the development on the Epping Forest SAC, education provision, health provision and sustainable travel acceptable. The offer made by the applicant falls short of the contributions required to make these impacts acceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D1 of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6…The proposal would introduce a 5-storey block of flats which would be in close proximity to the Nazeing Meads South Lagoon and as a result would represent an incongruous and prominent visual intrusion to the detriment of the landscape character of the site.  It would also result in significant adverse impact when viewed from the surrounding countryside to the detriment of the character of the Lee Valley Regional Park and is therefore contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework policies CP2, RST24, DBE1, LL2 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations along with SP 3 and DM 9 of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017.

7…The public realm which would be provided by the development would be dominated by hard surfacing and its layout would give the impression of prioritising vehicular traffic over pedestrians. Consequently, it would not result in the kind of user-friendly multi-purpose public domain sought by the National Planning Policy Framework, policies DBE3 and DBE5 of the adopted Local Plan and policy DM9 of the Local Plan Submission Version and which would be necessary to make such a highly intensive development successful.

8…The southern section of the site falls within land designated as Green Belt. The creation of an access road and car parking spaces along with the removal of trees in this section of the site falls outside of the list of exceptions to inappropriate development contained within paragraphs 145 and 146 of the NPPF. These works are therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt and by definition harmful.  No very special circumstances or other considerations have been advanced that would outweigh the harm caused by the inappropriateness and the other harm identified. The development would therefore conflict with requirements of chapter 13 of the NPPF and policies LL2, GB2A and GB7A of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations along DM 4 of the of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017.