250-home development at Land East Of Bakers Farm Close Southend Road, Wickford

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 250 homes, with access fixed and landscaping, open space, drainage and associated works included.

“OUTLINE APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED (EXCEPT FOR ACCESS) FOR UP TO 250 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (PROW))”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 16.71-hectare site is scrubland on Wickford’s eastern edge, within the Green Belt and Flood Zone 1, with a public footpath crossing it.

“The application site comprises approximately 16.71 hectares of land situated on the eastern edge of Wickford. The land is predominantly flat and currently consists of scrubland, having previously been in agricultural use. The site is bounded to the south by Southend Road, with residential properties located to the south-west and west.”

“The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 as per the Environment Agency Flood Maps (land at least risk of flooding from tidal or fluvial sources of flooding) and designated as Green Belt land.”

Officer report

Planning history

The site had an earlier environmental-impact screening request, which concluded that an environmental impact assessment was not required.

“EIA Screening Opinion Request for proposed residential development and associated uses on Land at Southend Road Ref. No: 23/00418/SCREEN | Status: No EIA required.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the site grey belt, the proposal compliant with the Golden Rules, and its benefits greater than its adverse impacts.

“In the opinion of Officers, the proposed development constitutes the development of grey belt land. The proposed development complies with the Golden Rules, carrying significant weight in favour of the grant of permission, in accordance with paragraph 158 of the NPPF. The development is therefore not inappropriate.”

“Overall, having regard to the above, Officers’ recommendation is that national Green Belt policies do not provide a reason for refusal in this case. The adverse impacts of granting permission are not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the suite of benefits having assessed the scheme against the policies in the framework as a whole and in particular those policies that direct development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing…”

Officer report

Main issues considered

The main issues included Green Belt development, highways, neighbouring amenity, affordable housing and ecology.

“The key issues for consideration were: the Green Belt location; highways and traffic circulation; impact on residential amenity of existing residents of Bakers Farm Close; 100% affordable housing; and ecology.”

“The officer confirmed that the application met all three criteria for concluding that it was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt - the site had been confirmed by the committee as “grey belt” when 23/01018/OUT was approved; it was in a sustainable location; and the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (current published figure 1.96; for decision-making purposes accepted as c 2.2).”

Minutes

What consultees said

The Town Council raised concerns about traffic, health, education and access, while several consultees had no objections subject to contributions or conditions.

“Wickford Town Council The Town Council has the following concerns with this planning application: • impact on traffic, health and education in this area and would like to see appropriate funding for GP services • the traffic flow along Southend Road, which is the only access from Shotgate to Wickford • Alternative vehicular access roads to be investigated via Hurricane Way and/or Sappers Farm Road • The proposed roundabout is too close to existing roundabouts in Southend…”

“ECC Education Authority Essex County Council has assessed the proposed development of 250 dwellings. Based on an assumed mix of houses with 2+ bedrooms, the development is expected to generate demand for: • 22.5 Early Years & Childcare places – No contribution required due to sufficient provision existing. • 75 Primary School places – A review mechanism is requested within the S106 agreement to assess capacity at commencement and 50% completion.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-eight residents objected over pressure on services, traffic, pollution, drainage, construction noise, wildlife, trees and loss of Green Belt land.

“Extra facilities needed to cope with 250 new homes. The new homes would place additional strain on local infrastructure, particularly schools (Hilltop Primary and Beauchamps) and GP surgeries, which are already operating at full capacity. • Adding 250 new homes could lead to overcrowding and reduced access to essential services. • Development would take away from vital woodland.”

“There are no supermarkets in the area, meaning new residents would need to travel further, contributing to congestion. • The area currently has original character and introducing a large- scale development would alter its identity. • Destruction of the local wildflowers and fauna. • Once green belt land is built on it is lost forever. • Would like TPO’s in place near Alicia Avenue to ensure they are protected from damage or removal during and after development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two residents opposed highway and amenity impacts, while the applicant’s agent supported the scheme and highlighted affordable housing and grey belt status.

What members discussed

Members discussed access, refuse vehicles, foul-water arrangements, odour, grey belt precedent and the principle of development before reserved matters.

“Members discussed access to the site, including for refuse vehicles, arrangements for processing foul water, risks of odour, the “grey belt” precedent and the establishment of the principle of development with details to follow at reserved matters stage.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted to refuse outline planning permission, overturning the officer recommendation.

“A vote was taken, the outcome being to REFUSE outline planning permission, thereby overturning the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The committee decision

Outline planning permission was refused after the committee’s adjournment to consider the planning grounds for refusal.

“The Chairman called an adjournment to consider the planning grounds for refusal.”

“That Planning Application No. 20/01204/OUT be REFUSED outline planning permission on the grounds that the scheme represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

Minutes