Agenda item

To consider the attached report regarding a full planning application for the erection of 1 no. building for use as a warehouse (Use Class B8) with ancillary accommodation & photo studio (sui generis) with gatehouse, sprinkler tanks & pumphouse, substation, fuel island, vehicle wash, attenuation ponds and associated works; 1no. multi-storey car park with associated bridge link, along with access & servicing arrangements, landscaping & external amenity areas, roof-mounted photovoltaic array; creation of signalised junction to A121 and shared foot and cycle links including a connection to the Public Right of Way network.

The District Development Management Committee had considered this application at their meeting held on 21 December 2020 when the application was referred to Council with a recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Lydia Grainger (Team Manager – Joint Planning Implementation) presented a report to the Council which considered a full planning application (accompanied with an Environmental Statement) for the erection of 1 no. building for use as a warehouse (Use Class B8) with ancillary accommodation & photo studio (sui generis) with gatehouse, sprinkler tanks & pumphouse, substation, fuel island, vehicle wash, attenuation ponds and associated works; 1no. multi-storey car park with associated bridge link, along with access & servicing arrangements, landscaping & external amenity areas, roof-mounted photovoltaic array; creation of signalised junction to A121 and shared foot and cycle links including a connection to the Public Right of Way network.

The application was then debated by the Councillors in attendance. A motion that the application be refused in accordance with the District Development Management Committee’s recommendations with some amendments was put forward by Councillor C C Pond and seconded by Councillor H Kauffman. This proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the meeting.

Carried

The full reason for the refusal was then debated by the Council and were agreed. In accordance with Council Rule V1 (Voting), 5 members asked that this vote on the reasons for refusal be taken as a recorded vote.

There voted for the reasons for refusal (25) namely: R Balcombe, R Bassett, R Brookes, D Dorrell, S Heather, J Jogia, H Kane, H Kaufman, J Leppart, A Lion, T Matthews, S McCredie, J McIvor, S Murray, S Neville, C Nweke, C C Pond, C P Pond, S Rackham, K Rizvi,  J Share-Bernia, D Stocker, J H Whitehouse, J M Whitehouse, D Wixley.

There voted against the reasons for refusal (6) namely: L Burrows, I Hadley, A Patel, D Sunger, H Whitbread, K Williamson.

There voted to abstain (0).

Reasons for refusal ADOPTED:

RESOLVED:

i)          The proposed development fails to demonstrate nil detriment to the EFSAC as required under the Habitats Regulations 2017 and the Holohan judgement and this cannot at present be adequately demonstrated, contrary to Policy NC1 of the adopted Local Plan; DM2 and DM22 of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the requirements of the Habitat Regulations 2017 and the NPPF.

ii)         The proposal would have an adverse impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt and environs of Waltham Abbey owing to the obtrusive height, length, urbanising effect and bulk of the proposed building, contrary to GB2, GB7 and DBE4 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies DM4 and DM9 Criteria D of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the NPPF;

iii)         The effects of the proposal on the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) as the air pollution mitigation strategy is likely to be insufficient, contrary to Policy DM2 and DM22 of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the NPPF;

iv)        There was no reason to develop on this site within the Green Belt as other areas could be utilised for employment use – the emerging Local Plan has not yet been confirmed and the main modifications proposed had not yet been consulted upon;

v)         The extra use of the roads through the SAC by employees and visitors to the distribution centre could not be prevented and the proposed no right turn ban would be counter productive to the well-being of the SAC and would adversely affect the residents of High Beech, contrary to Policies NC1 and DBE9 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies DM2, DM9 Criteria H, DM22 of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the NPPF;

vi)        There was no indication in the transport assessment of how the HGV routing and the large numbers of lorry movements generated by the development could be accommodated on local roads when the motorway network was disrupted and the addition of 1000 extra vehicle queueing would have a further adverse effect on the SAC, contrary to Policies NC1 and DBE9 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies DM2, DM9 Criteria H, DM22 of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the NPPF;

vii)       The proposed Demand Responsive Transport bus service was not assured for the whole life of the project and was insufficient, contrary to Policy T1 Criteria B of the Local Plan Submission Version 2017 and the NPPF;

viii)       Insufficient emphasis in the Transport Assessment submitted with the application had been given to the growing problem in the SAC identified by the Conservators of Epping Forest, namely;

•           The proposed development would be contrary to emerging Local Plan Policy DM2 concerning the protection and enhancement of Epping Forest

•           APMS mitigation measures only indicative, not yet secured at this point

•           No other mitigation in respect of traffic generation by this development

•           S106 agreement on HGVs not likely to be effective or long-term

•           Traffic Assessment has not considered wider network impacts

•           Right-hand turn ban impacts on Forest not fully assessed (e.g. Wake Road)

•           Adverse urbanisation of Forest’s wider landscape and surrounding Green Belt