Wellbeing and leisure development at Foxbridge Golf Club, Plaistow

What was proposed

The outline scheme proposed holiday units, a spa hotel, restaurant, farm shop, new access, roads, paths, parking, landscaping and ponds.

“Proposal Outline application for a wellbeing and leisure development comprising up to 121 holiday units; the construction of a spa with accommodation of up to 50 bedrooms; the conversion of the former clubhouse into a restaurant and farm shop; the formation of a new vehicular access from Foxbridge Lane, new internal roads, footpaths, cycle routes and car parking areas; the construction of a concierge building and new hard and soft landscaping, including the formation of new…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The former golf club covers 24 hectares in a rural area, with woodland, ponds, public rights of way and nearby agricultural land and homes.

“The application site comprises the former Foxbridge Golf Club, which extends to an area of 24 hectares (ha). The irregular shaped site lies within the Rural Area (outside any defined settlement boundary), within the Parish of Plaistow and Ifold. The site is located to the eastern side of Foxbridge Lane and to the north-east of the junction of Plaistow Road and Rickman’s Lane. The village of Ifold lies approximately 600m to the north of the site entrance.”

“To the south of the club house is a large car park with direct access from Foxbridge Lane. The golf course extends to the east, north-east and south of the club house. The site is screened from Foxbridge Lane by existing trees and vegetation including a conifer tree screen to the south of the existing access.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier decisions included permission for access and clubhouse-related works, while a 2017 housing proposal was refused and dismissed on appeal.

“91/00096/PS REF Erection of club house. (Appeal allowed).”

“17/02726/OUT REF Outline application for the demolition of the existing golf club house and commercial premises of KM Elite Products Ltd, and construction of 10 no. dwellings, together with vehicular access, replacement clubhouse, access and car park. (Appeal dismissed).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended deferral for a Section 106 agreement followed by permission, considering the development’s benefits greater than its identified landscape and heritage harm.

“The site is appropriately located in relation to flood risk, with suitable drainage solutions achievable. The expected traffic levels can be safely accommodated on the existing highway network. The impacts upon the Mens SAC and other on-site ecology can be appropriately mitigated and Natural England is satisfied with the measures proposed. The development would also deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain and includes sustainable design measures and renewable energy.”

“When balanced as a whole, officers consider that the economic, tourism, biodiversity and community benefits significantly outweigh the modest level of landscape harm and the minor heritage harm identified.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a parish councillor, three objectors, three supporters, the agent and a councillor whose statement was read aloud.

What members debated

Members discussed closure of the golf club, transport, listed-building setting, accommodation demand, passing places and controls on holiday use.

“With regards to the farmhouse and its setting, the views out of the windows will not impact the setting of the listed building. This development is not expected to result in anything less than substantial harm to the building, at which point Officers would re- review the benefits and risks of the application.”

“[name withheld] acknowledged the comments regarding demand for overnight accommodation. The applicant has conducted their own visitor’s need assessment, identifying that most of the accommodation provided in the district is provided by camp sites, illustrating an imbalance in the types of lodgings offered. Feedback also indicated demand for high quality accommodation. It’s important to help address this demand, as this will increase the income spent in the district.”

Minutes

How members voted

Members voted against refusing the application on access grounds, and a separate refusal proposal about exceptional need was not seconded.

“[name withheld] reminded Members that the Highway Authority has not provided sufficient evidence to support the refusal of this application. To refuse the application on these grounds could potentially constitute an unreasonable refusal at the appeal stage.”

“Having taken Officer advice, Cllr Burkhart proposed that the Committee refuse the application on the basis that it has not met the threshold for overriding and compelling need and is therefore contrary to Local Plan E8. There was no seconder, so the proposal was not voted on.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee agreed to defer the application for a Section 106 agreement and then permit it, subject to the report’s conditions and informatives.

“Following a vote by show of hands, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for Section 106 then permit.”

“Resolved: Defer for Section 106 then permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.”

Minutes