Four-bedroom chalet bungalow at Land Adjacent Dormers, Lower Road, Hockley

What was proposed

The application proposed subdividing the garden and building a four-bedroom detached chalet bungalow with two parking spaces and a new access.

“The development proposes the erection of a detached chalet bungalow with accommodation across two floors, including the use of dormer windows, together with the creation of a new vehicular access from Lower Road, two off-street parking spaces, and private rear amenity space.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was not sustainable, lacked safe pedestrian access and did not qualify as appropriate Green Belt development.

“The site does not in officers view make a strong contribution to the Green Belt and can be regarded as “Grey Belt” in policy terms, taken with the lack of the council’s five year supply favouring the proposal.”

“However, in light of two relevant appeal decisions that dismissed similar proposals, officers conclude that the site is nevertheless not in a sustainable location and cannot be regarded as appropriate development.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The site could reasonably be regarded as grey belt land, but the proposal failed the sustainability test because residents would rely heavily on cars.

“Accordingly, while the site may provide some limited Green Belt functions at a local scale, it is not considered to meet the threshold of “meaningful contribution” necessary to exclude it from the grey belt classification under paragraph 155 of the NPPF. Given this, the site can reasonably be regarded as grey belt land, and the tests set out in paragraph 155 should be applied when considering the acceptability of the proposed development.”

“Although the site may fall within land that can reasonably be considered grey belt, the proposal does not meet all of the requirements of paragraph 155 of the NPPF. In particular, it fails to demonstrate that the site is in a sustainable location or that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users, as required by part (c).”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and ecology service made no comments, highways raised no objection, and the arboricultural officer advised protecting existing trees.

“Hockley Parish Council : No comments received.”

“Rochford Council Arboricultural Officer - The site contains several young and early mature trees that may be impacted during the development phase. The trees provide reasonable visual amenity value and are reasonably prominent within the street scene, their retention is desirable as part of the planning proposal.”

Officer report

Neighbour’s concerns

A neighbour objected that the proposal harmed the Green Belt, was unsustainable, lost open space and wildlife, affected privacy and caused construction noise.

“Neighbour representations: 1 objection from Hollyoak, Lower Road, summarised below:”

“Inappropriate development in Green Belt Not sustainable location Loss of green open space and wildlife Privacy concerns Construction Noise…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a supporter of the application and from Councillor Danielle Belton, who had referred the item and spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

Members debated sustainability, footpaths and the Green Belt, with the officer responding to their questions.

“There was an ensuing debate and questions around • Sustainability • Footpaths • Green belt Which were responded to by the Officer.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse was moved and seconded, passing with six votes for, four against and no abstentions.

“Cllr N Hookway moved a motion, seconded by Cllr P Capon that the application be refused as was the Officer recommendation.”

“The application was refused on the following reasons:”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was refused because it was inappropriate Green Belt development, lacked safe access and a genuine choice of transport, and had no overriding special circumstances.

“The proposed development, by reason of the erection of a new dwelling on land within the Metropolitan Green Belt, constitutes inappropriate development which is harmful by definition. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (as amended) (NPPF), substantial weight must be given to this harm.”

“The proposal does not fall within any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the NPPF and, whilst the site can reasonably be regarded as grey belt land, the proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 155. In particular, it fails to comply with paragraph 155(c), as the site does not represent a sustainable location with reference to paragraphs 110 and 115.”

Minutes