302-home neighbourhood at Cranfield Park Road, Wickford

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 302 homes, a community hub, a primary and nursery school, access works and open space.

“OUTLINE APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED (EXCEPT FOR ACCESS) FOR UP TO 302 DWELLINGS, A COMMUNITY HUB, AND A NEW TWO-FORM ENTRY PRIMARY AND NURSERY SCHOOL, INCLUDING NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSES, PROVISION OF PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE IMPROVEMENTS, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE.”

“Outline planning permission is sought for a development consisting of up to 302 dwellings, a community hub, a new two-form entry primary and nursery school, including new vehicular access, provision of pedestrian and cycle improvements, open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage and all associated infrastructure. All matters are reserved except for access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 17.78-hectare site comprised agricultural fields within the Green Belt, beside Wickford housing, open farmland, commercial units and Wick Country Park.

“To the north is an extensive residential development within Wickford consisting predominantly of 2 storey dwellings. There are some community facilities and a medical centre alongside some retail. To the southeast is a collection of commercial units accessed from Sappers Farm Road and Doublegate Lane. To the south of the site is the Wick Country Park.”

“The site falls within the Wickford Park Ward, located south of the settlement boundary of Wickford. The site is circa 2km from Wickford Railway Station. Wickford Town Centre is approximately a 30-minute walk to the northwest of the site. The nearest bus stop is approximately 300m from the site providing services to nearby urban areas.”

Officer report

Planning history

A screening opinion for the same 302-home proposal concluded that environmental impact assessment was not required.

“EIA Screening Opinion Request for proposed outline application of 302 dwellings and associated works at Land to the North East of Sappers Farm Ref. No: 24/01199/SCREEN | Status: No EIA required.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the site grey belt, the Golden Rules satisfied and the benefits greater than the 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

The main planning issues

The main issues included Green Belt and grey belt policy, housing supply, landscape, neighbours, highways, drainage, ecology, infrastructure and agricultural land.

“In this instance, the key considerations are identified as the principle of developing this Green Belt site, whether the development would utilise grey belt land and whether any Very Special Circumstances apply, the illustrative layout, visual impacts of the development on the wider landscape, trees and landscaping, the 5 year land supply, density, impact upon neighbouring properties, highways, drainage, environmental matters, flood risk, ecology, energy and…”

“The Council has published a 1.88 years’ housing land supply position. While this figure has increased slightly due to a number of recent approvals (and is likely now to sit around the 2.2-year mark) the Council continues to be unable to demonstrate a 5-year land supply.”

Officer report

Consultation and public responses

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions, while 86 objections, one supportive letter and four general responses were received.

“ECC Archaeology No objections are raised subject to conditions to be discharged prior to commencement.”

“Arboriculture Comments No objection subject to conditions. Arboriculture Comments No objection subject to conditions. Leisure Development No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three councillors spoke against the application, the applicant spoke in support, and education representatives were invited but did not attend.

What members debated

Members debated Green Belt protection, housing supply, traffic, education and healthcare capacity, the £6.3 million contributions and community benefits.

“Members asked officers to ensure that they not continue to quote only the published figure of 1.88 years’ housing supply without also referring to the updated calculation of 2.2 years. Members were disappointed that neither a representative from Education nor Essex Highways had attended the meeting, despite invitations.”

“Members discussed the application. Some Members felt that, while not dismissing the benefits of the scheme, residents should have an expectation that the Green Belt be protected and also that the housing need figures were inflated. Others noted that at 2.2 years’ housing supply, the Council was not even halfway to the target and this development would make a significant contribution, including 50% affordable housing.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee granted outline permission subject to no Secretary of State call-in, completion of a S106 agreement and the stated conditions.

“That Planning Application No. 24/00424/OUT be granted outline planning permission subject to no call-in powers being exercised by the Secretary of State, the completion of a S106 agreement as set out in Section 6 and to the conditions set out at the end of the report with any amendments that might be necessary up to the issue of the decision notice.”

Minutes