Nine detached dwellings at Land Rear Of 19 Castledon Road, Wickford

What was proposed

The application sought nine detached two-storey homes with gardens, parking, garages, a shared access road, footways and a turning head.

“Full planning permission is sought for the construction of nine detached dwelling houses with associated amenity space and parking, utilising a new vehicular junction access from Castledon Road.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site included the former bungalow’s curtilage and woodland, with most of the land in the Green Belt and protected by a woodland Tree Preservation Order.

“The application site incorporates the former residential curtilage of the now demolished bungalow of 19 Castledon Road, and a large rectangular piece of native woodland to the rear/west of this, partly felled and recently partly re-stocked, extending to approximately 0.53 hectares in total area. The former residential curtilage is now primarily grass/scrubland secured by a high metal gate and timber panel fencing set back from Castledon Road.”

“The majority of the site, excluding the road frontage where the former dwelling was located, is within the Green Belt and also falls within the Newhouse Farm and Castledon Road Plotlands area as identified on the Basildon Local Plan Proposals Map 1998. The majority of the land, excluding the former residential curtilage, is protected by a Woodland…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found inappropriate Green Belt development, woodland and biodiversity harm, inadequate ecological information and noise or disturbance affecting nearby homes.

“In the opinion of Officers, notwithstanding the moderate benefits of the provision of 9 new dwelling houses towards the Council’s 5-year housing land supply, as well as limited social and economic benefits, the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which no very special circumstances have been demonstrated, and the site is not considered to constitute grey belt land.”

Officer report

What residents said

Most of the 11 representations objected, citing woodland loss, wildlife harm, Green Belt development, traffic, flooding, privacy, noise and construction impacts.

“Neighbouring properties were notified and a site notice displayed close to the site entrance which generated 11 representations, mostly of objection, including one forwarded by Mark Francois MP from a constituent and one of general comments.”

“Concerns regarding the impartiality of the planning process; • Loss of privacy due to overlooking; • Noise and disruption during and after construction; • Potential for damage to property from lorries using the narrow access in close proximity to neighbouring properties; • Impact on house prices; • Increased pressure on doctors and schools; • Harm to the established character of the area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke against the application, followed by Councillor Graeme Ellis for Wickford Town Council, who raised concerns about the site’s history and wildlife corridor.

What members discussed

Members questioned the grey belt assessment and water capacity, and criticised the illegal tree felling while supporting refusal.

“A Member queried whether the site would still be viewed as “grey belt” if the trees had not previously been illegally felled and it was clarified that the 2025 Green Belt Study had found that the parcel did not contribute strongly to Green Belt purposes a), b) and d). Land to the north and south had already been developed, creating an urbanising influence. However, the site was still host to protected woodland.”

“Members discussed the application, censuring the illegal felling of trees and supporting the officer’s application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the development would harm protected woodland, biodiversity and protected species, affect recreational protection measures, and disturb nearby residents.

“Section 15 of the NPPF seeks to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. It states that when determining planning applications, if significant harm to biodiversity from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.”

“The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) states that the competent authority must ensure that there are no effects from the proposed development, either alone or in combination with other projects, that would adversely affect the integrity of The Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The proposal would result in 9 new residential dwellings being located within the RAMS Zone of Influence.”

Minutes