116-home residential development at Chadwell Hill, Chadwell St Mary

What was proposed

The application sought 116 homes, including 58 affordable homes, with access, roads, parking, landscaping, infrastructure and public open space.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 116 residential dwellings, including 58 affordable homes, together with associated infrastructure, access roads, car parking, landscaping and public open space on land to the east of Chadwell Hill. Access would be onto Chadwell Hill.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 7.493-hectare site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt, is partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and includes retained wildlife sites and footpaths.

“The site measures 7.493 hectares and lies to the south of Chadwell-St-Mary. It is within the Metropolitan Green Belt but is visually and physically contained by existing development on its north, south, and western boundaries.”

“The site is not within a conservation area and contains no listed buildings. The southwestern part of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and some areas of the site are susceptible to surface water flooding. Footpath 117 runs east to west through the site, and Footpath 116 runs north to south adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary. The site is within the Essex Coast RAMS zone of influence.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications included refused residential development proposals, an approved garage, and two pre-application submissions for schemes of 183 homes and the current type.

“Application Reference Description of Proposal Decision 22/00662/HHA Construction of an open fronted garage (to The Stables, Chadwell Hill) Approved 10/50116/TTGFUL Builders offices and yard (to The Stables, Chadwell Hill) Refused 11.05.2010 09/00461/FUL Change of use of building to stables (to The Stables, Chadwell Hill) Non- determined 92/00598/OUT Outline application for residential development (relating to Land to the Rear of St Johns Road including the application…”

“Two pre-application submissions were made in 2023 and 2024 respectively (ref. 23/30137/PMAJ and 24/30159/PMAJ) for the site. The 2023 pre- application sought advice on a development of 183 units and the 2024 pre- application enquiry sought advice for a scheme of the nature presently proposed.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site met the Grey Belt definition, satisfied the Golden Rules, addressed housing need and was considered sustainable and enclosed.

“The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and a key issue is whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development. The assessment concludes that the site meets the definition of Grey Belt as introduced in the NPPF 2024, being land that does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes a), b) and d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024 paragraph 143.”

“For completeness, even if it were considered inappropriate development, Very Special Circumstances exist to permit the development, including Thurrock’s acute housing need, the provision of 50% affordable housing and the site’s sustainable location adjacent to the urban area, plus the site’s significant enclosure by existing surrounding development, the lack of action plan to deliver housing (as required by NPPF paragraph 79) and the progress of the new Local Plan…”

Officer report

Objections received

Neighbour objections concerned access, traffic, flooding, wildlife, pollution, infrastructure, amenity, character, consultation and the cumulative effects of development.

“At the time of drafting the report, the most recent re-consultation period had not yet expired. Any further comments received will be updated to Members at Committee. The application was advertised via individual neighbour letters, press notice, and a site notice was erected nearby.”

“Access to site • Possible excessive noise • Litter and odour • Loss of amenity • Environmental pollution • Inadequate infrastructure capacity • Pressure on healthcare and education provision • Traffic generation and congestion • Unsuitable access arrangements and highway conditions • Construction traffic impacts on highways • Adequacy of the Transport Impact Assessment • Cumulative impacts of development, including future projections • Adequacy of the Infrastructure…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke and confirmed resources for quick delivery, affordable housing for people on the council waiting list, renewable energy and measures for biodiversity and flood risk.

What members debated

Members discussed the Green Belt gap, town merging, affordable housing, traffic, biodiversity concerns, sustainability and additional bus stops.

“The Co-optee expressed concerns regarding the green and grey belt gap closing and the potential of new towns merging. Officers advised the site alone does not merge towns.”

“Some Members were keen to see affordable housing, and expressed some concerns regarding traffic, however thought it would not have much impact on the roads.”

Minutes

How members voted

Seven councillors voted for the recommendation, two voted against it and none abstained.

“For (7): Councillors Fletcher, Cherry, Jones, Kelly, Liddiard, Panjala, Shinnick Against (2): Councillors Sisterson, J Maney Abstain (0):”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the recommendation, subject to completing a Section 106 agreement and complying with the agreed planning conditions.

“Recommendation Approval recommended, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and the agreed planning conditions.”

Minutes