Pet crematorium facility at Brynmount Lodge, High Road, Fobbing

What was proposed

The application proposed a pet crematorium using an existing outbuilding, a new office and quiet room, parking, and a separate access.

“This application seeks planning permission for a pet crematorium facility. The proposal involves the change of use of an ancillary detached outbuilding into a plant room for the cremator. The proposal also would involve the change of use of the land upon which the outbuilding sits from residential, and the change of use of part of an open field, to a commercial use.”

“Vehicle access would be achieved via an existing access to the south of the site and would be separate to the access serving the main dwelling. An existing stable, pole barn and a garage would be removed as part of the proposals. The site area is part of the overall Brynmount Lodge curtilage and part of the adjacent field.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site included residential curtilage and part of an agricultural field in the Metropolitan Green Belt, outside the established residential frontage.

“The application site relates to an area of land forming part of Brynmount Lodge and the field immediately to the south on the High Road. Brynmount Lodge, sits on the west side of High Road in the northern part of Fobbing. It is located outside of the Established Residential Frontage, as defined under Policy PMD6 (3) of the adopted Core Strategy, which comprises the developed part of the village, along the northern stretch of High Road. .”

“The site is bounded by Inglefield Road to the south, with agricultural land to the east across High Road. Similar-sized residential plots lie to the north, and a small dwelling sits to the west beyond the field falling within the applicant’s ownership. The field adjacent has an historic agricultural use and has a Grade 3 Classification (moderate/good quality) (where 1 (excellent) and 5 (poor)).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal lacked demonstrated unmet need, was in an unsustainable location and its very special circumstances did not outweigh Green Belt harm.

“The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is also considered to comprise Grey Belt land, as it does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF. However, the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 155(b) and (c), as it has not been demonstrated that there is a clear unmet need for the development and the site is not considered to be in a sustainable location.”

“Although the site is considered to comprise Grey Belt land, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that there is a clear unmet need for the development or that the site is in a sustainable location, such that the requirements of paragraph 155(b) and (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework are not met.”

Officer report

What residents said

One written response supported a local pet crematorium, while another objected over pollution, character, smoke, odours and the rural location.

“- Environmental Pollution - Out of Character - Location better suited to industrial area - Concerns with smoke and odours - These are common facilities, with the nearest facility located in Basildon…”

“The comment in support provided the following: - Much needed amenity for local residents of Thurrock. - Lack of this type of facility locally. - Having a local facility would help with the grieving process.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An applicant speaker answered questions about staffing, need, licensing, training, oversight and the domestic pets that would be cremated.

What members debated

Most members supported the application as a small community business with little impact, while a co-optee warned against deciding emotionally.

“Majority of members were happy with the application and thought it would serve the community along with having very little impact. Members noted that the applicants were willing to complete the necessary training, and this would be a great small business.”

“The Co-optee expressed concern that members would decide based on emotion. The Chief Planning Officer reminded the committee that it was within their gift to make their own decision however it would need to be based on planning material.”

Minutes

The vote

Members rejected the officers’ refusal recommendation and approved an alternative recommendation by five votes to none, with four abstentions.

“Recommendation Rejected Members moved to provide an alternative recommendation instead.”

“Alternative recommendation That the Chief Planning APPROVE due to Very Special Circumstances that exist with increased weightings on the following:”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved because it gave moderate weight to the local community need and the development’s limited design impact, subject to conditions and referral.

“Essential community service and local need within Thurrock – Moderate weighting given by Members.”

“Minimal impact of the design of the development upon the character of the locality and street scene – Moderate weighting given by Members.”

Minutes