97-home development at Land At Priests Lane, Priests Lane, Brentwood

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing an existing pavilion and building 97 homes with access, parking, open space, landscaping and associated works.

“DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PAVILION AND CONSTRUCTION OF 97 DWELLINGS INCLUDING ACCESS, CAR PARKING, CYCLE AND BIN STORAGE, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a four-hectare former playing field beside Priests Lane, surrounded mainly by two-storey homes, railway land and a school.

“The site is located on the southeastern side of Priests Lane and comprises former playing fields that has an existing vehicular access onto Priests Lane between Nos. 61 and 63. The site has an area of 4ha which forms most of the residential-led site allocation of R19 in the Brentwood Local Plan.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the bungalow addressed the appeal concern and they found no significant impacts requiring refusal, subject to obligations and conditions.

“Many of the objections received related to highway safety and the principle of development on the site and the proposed density. The development of the site has been agreed in principle with it being in the local plan as an allocated site. The site is capable of providing a density greater than around 75 dwellings within the site constraints.”

“The application is recommended for APPROVAL subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and conditions.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and drainage authorities raised no objections subject to conditions, while other consultees supported the scheme or requested mitigation and contributions.

“No objection is raised subject to planning conditions and obligations.”

“ECC SUDS: No objection is raised subject to conditions relating to compliance with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and mitigation measures set out in the FRA, off-site flood mitigation measures during construction, a maintenance plan and yearly logs kept of maintenance.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Residents objected mainly to highway safety, congestion, density, privacy, biodiversity, drainage, infrastructure and the loss of the mature oak tree.

“Bishop Walk - Loss of green space, many trees and shrubs and existing wildlife will be displaced - Construction of housing close to 2 mature trees at 59 Priests Lane is likely to cause root damage - Visual impact on character and existing residents’ outlook - Mental health problems due to loss of green space and increase in pollution - Loss of privacy due to overlooking of gardens - Bungalow on Plot 7 will still have an impact on privacy - No information on how the green…”

“Impact on Biodiversity and wildlife - Oak tree had a tree preservation order on it but it was not confirmed after 6 months - Many habitats will be lost and no mitigation - Change in character and landscape with loss of oak tree and other trees which will take many years to recover - Loss of mature trees, green space and wildlife habitats that contribute to biodiversity being replaces with increased hard surfacing risks high ecological degradation - Huge loss of biodiversity…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard objections from a resident and residents’ association representative, support from the applicant’s representative, and objections from ward councillors.

What members debated

Members discussed density, road safety, buses, the oak tree and affordable-housing mix; officers said the appeal and highways assessments supported the scheme.

“With regard to Members’ concerns regarding road safety and congestion, officers confirmed that the Essex Highways Authority had been involved in the scheme for a number of years, in addition, in terms of requirements and safety, the Highways Authority are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable.”

“With regard to Cllr Mynott’s concerns as to deliverables in terms of s106 agreements, in particular in respect of highways and cycle routes necessary to satisfy the development in planning terms, Officers reiterated that Essex County Council as the Highways Authority are the technical highways experts, whose advice is taken seriously. They have asked for what they deem relevant to mitigate in making the scheme deliverable.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted 11 for refusal, none against, with one abstention, and the motion to refuse was carried.

“A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:”

“The motion to REFUSE the application was CARRIED.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because members decided it contravened Policies HP01 and HP05 concerning the affordable-housing provision.

“Cllr Mayo explained his reasons for supporting Cllr Barrett’s motion to refuse the application. ARK stated “while the proposal meets the quantum of affordable housing required by policy, the mix of affordable housing does not fully comply with the SHMAA, due to an over-reliance on smaller units and the absence of larger family sized (4 Bedroom) accommodation. We cannot support the affordable housing provision proposed.”

“Following further guidance on the affordable housing allocation mix, this application is not in line with the new guidance. However, given this is an allocated site and there are no objections from statutory consultees and given material consideration of the previous appeal position, planning officers consider that on balance there was not enough justification to warrant refusal of the planning application.”

Minutes