Danbury DECISION MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF · PDF fileDECISION MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Application No : ... enshrines the primacy of the Development Plan in legislation

Page

Danbury

DECISION MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Application No : 17/00089/OUT Outline Application

Location : Land South Of Maldon Road And East Of Hyde Green Maldon Road DanburyChelmsford

Proposal : Outline planning application for up to 100 dwellings with public open space, drainage and landscaping with all matters reserved except access into the site.

Case Officer : Matthew Perry

Applicant : . Richborough Estates

Agent : Turley

Date Valid : 20th January 2017

Development Type : Large Major Dwellings (D01)

Drawing No(s) : 1000/01; 4000/04; 5000/05; 02378-04;

Target Date : 14th July 2017

Consult Expiry : 30th June 2017

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

- The application site consists of open agricultural land located within the rural area of Danbury; it measures approximately 10.38ha

- The site is located to the south of Maldon Road, A414 and is situated to the east of Cherry Garden Lane and Hyde Green.

- It has a common boundary with residential gardens in Hyde Lane and Cherry Garden Lane- The defined settlement boundary of Danbury follows the western boundary of the site - The site is located on a gradient as the land slopes away from Maldon Road to the southeast- There are preserved trees located all along the western boundary of the site. There are also two

prominent mature oak trees within the site; these are not preserved.- There is a public footpath that bisects the site and runs from the north western corner diagonally

across the agricultural field in a south-easterly direction. This footpath connects Cherry Garden Lane with Mill Lane

- The site is located close to three Sites of Special Scientific Interest; Blakes Wood and Lingwood Common, Danbury Common and Woodham Walter Common.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL

PBOFRE17/00089/OUT09_OFFRPT_2

The proposal seeks outline planning permission for up to 100 dwellings. The supporting information provided as part of this application indicates that 35% of these would be affordable housing. All matters are reserved with the exception of access. There would be two vehicular accesses to the site; one from Cherry Garden Road to the west and a second from Maldon Road (A414) to the north. The proposals would remove the existing priority junction between Cherry Garden Road and the A414. The two way operation of Cherry Garden Lane would be retained to maintain accessibility for existing properties.

An indicative master plan is provided as part of the design and access statement. This shows that the 100 houses would be located to the western side of the site. The eastern half of the site would be public open space. This area shows a woodland, areas of open grassland, meadow planting and nature trails. An attenuation basin would be located to the south. The indicative masterplan shows that there would be a linear park through the centre of the housing development, which would follow the line of the existing publicfootpath. A new tree belt would be planted along the southern boundary. This plan demonstrates how the development may be accommodated, but is provided for illustrative purposes only.

CONSULTATIONS

A summary of the consultation responses is provided below. A more detailed summary of the consultation responses is provided at Appendix 1.

- Essex County Council Highways

Objects to the application as insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the impact of the development on the highway network is acceptable in terms of highway safety and capacity.

- ECC Minerals & Waste Planning

Initial response:Objects to the application. The site is within the Essex Mineral Safeguarding Area and Mineral Consultation Area. A more thorough minerals resource assessment is required.

Response following receipt of a minerals resource assessment:

The Minerals and Waste Planning Authority is unable to agree with the conclusions of the Mineral Resource Assessment and maintains its objection until it can be demonstrated that the mineral resource is not to be needlessly sterilised by the proposed development

- ECC School Organisation & Planning

ECC seek a school transport contribution.

- Essex County Council (SUDS)

No objections, subject to conditions

- ECC Historic Environment Branch

The site is within an area of potential archaeology. A programme of archaeological work should be secured by condition.

- Danbury Parish Council, Little Baddow Parish Council, Maldon District Council, Woodham Mortimer and Hazeleigh Parish Council and Woodham Walter Parish Council

Object to the application

Page

- Natural England

Initial response:

Further information is required on the potential indirect impacts the proposal will have on Woodham Walter Common SSSI, Blakes Wood and Lingwood Common SSSI and Danbury Common SSSI

Response following receipt of a Recreational Strategy:

There is still insufficient information to enable Natural England to provide a substantive response to the consultation.

- Public Health & Protection Services

Initial response:Concerns regarding noise from road traffic. Contaminated land condition would be required.

The site is near to an identified air pollution hotspot. An air quality impact assessment should be provided.

Response following receipt of an air quality impact assessment:

Object to the application on the grounds that air quality is likely to be raised based on predicted exceedancesof the Air Quality Objectives (at a nearby air pollution hot spot) as a result of the cumulative effect of development with the objection justified by the fact that no mitigating measures have been offered

- NHS Property Services Primary Care Estates Advisor

No objections. A future application for CIL funding may be made for this site to meet the future service delivery models adopted by the Clinical Commissioning Group.

- Essex County Fire & Rescue Service

The development would require a new fire hydrant and compliance with Building Regulations.

- The National Trust

Initial Response:

Object to the application. The current submission has failed to provide adequate information in relation to the potential indirect impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding SSSIs. The development would result in increased recreational pressure upon land within the National Trust’s ownership.

Response following receipt of Recreational Strategy:

Objection is maintained. The recreational strategy is unclear and inadequate in a number of respects. The submission still fails to provide adequate information in relation the potential indirect impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding SSSI’s within National Trust ownership.

- Anglian Water Services Ltd and Essex and Suffolk Water


No objections

- Local residents

410 letters of representation received. A summary of the main comments is attached at Appendix 1.

- Parks & Open Spaces- Leisure & Heritage Services- Essex County Council Public Right Of Way (PROW)- Ramblers Association- Architectural Liaison Officer, Police HQ

No reply

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Summary of the applicant’s case

- The site is suitable, available and deliverable and can come forward within the next five years and assist the Council in maintaining a five year housing land supply

- Even if the City Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites this scheme still represents sustainable development and should be granted, particularly given that the emerging Local Plan seeks to deliver at least 775 dwellings per annum

- The development meets the three strands of sustainable development- Danbury is a key service settlement that can support growth and option 3 of the Issues and Options

consultation sought to consider whether the delivery of 100 new dwellings at Danbury would be appropriate

- The east of Danbury is the least constrained area of the settlement with the site itself being unconstrained in landscape and planning designation terms

- The development would result in a new area of informal public open space and would offer further opportunity to enhance biodiversity

- The secondary access into the site from Cherry Garden Lane would allow for the stopping up of an existing substandard junction and replacement with a more appropriate access.

- The western part of the site would deliver a significant quantum of public open space providing a well screened buffer to the settlement

Principle of the Development

The Framework and associated National Planning Practice Guidance both stress the importance of having a planning system that is genuinely plan led. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 enshrines the primacy of the Development Plan in legislation.

There are several reasons for the Development Plan assuming such importance. Firstly it enables, through the consultation process towards adoption, for local people to have their say over where new development should go. An adopted plan should therefore have a strong degree of “buy in” or acceptance from the local community. Second, it provides a practical framework for new development by, amongst other matters, ensuring that development is located at sustainable locations where infrastructure is in place in order to accommodate the needs of the development. Finally, it provides some certainty in decision making.

The Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (CSDPD) was adopted on 20th February 2008. Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012 the City Council undertook at Focused Review of the CSDPD. The purpose of the Focused Review was to identify

Page

those policies that could be readily amended to be consistent with the provisions of the NPPF without the need to prepare further evidence. The Focused Review was adopted in December 2013 and the amended policies replace the previous version of these policies and their accompanying reasoned justifications contained within the CSDPD.

Policy CP1 of CSDPD states that the Council will promote and secure sustainable development by linking housing and employment needs and directing development to the right location supported by effective transport provision, leisure, community and other essential services whilst minimising the damage to the environment. Such developments, amongst other matters, will contribute to the growth of the local economy.

Policy CP2 relates to the borough wide Spatial Strategy which is a framework for sustainable housing and job growth integrating the necessary infrastructure to deliver development whilst safeguarding and enhancing key existing environmental, social and economic assets and resources. This is achieved by directing development first and foremost to the main urban areas and within Key Defined Settlements. New neighbourhoods to the north of Chelmsford’s Urban Area have already been developed.

Policy CP5 seeks to contain urban growth by defining the physical limit of Urban Areas and Defined Settlements. Within the Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt, the countryside’s intrinsic character and beauty will be protected, whilst also supporting rural communities. Paragraph 3.5 of the accompanying text states that character and beauty will be judged on a site by site basis.

Policy DC2 states that in the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt planning permission for development will be granted, provided that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon. The policy sets out a limited number of types of development that may be appropriate within the Rural Area.These do not include residential development as proposed.

Both policies CP5 and DC2 reflect the objectives of paragraph 17(5) of the National Planning Policy Framework; taking account of the different roles and character areas and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The proposed development is for market housing located outside of the Defined Settlement of Danbury. When read together, policies CP1, CP2, CP5 and DC2 indicate that the proposal does not comply with the Council’s strategic approach to development within its administrative area.

The Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD) sets out how Chelmsford Council will manage growth within the City Council’s administrative area up to 2021 (excluding the areas covered by Area Action Plans). The SADPD implements in detail the Spatial Strategy and its objectives which, amongst other matters, includes protecting the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. This is achieved by identifying Urban Areas and Defined Settlement Boundaries (DSBs) to create a defensible boundary that reflects the nature, size, setting and character of village settlements and to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and avoid the undesirable consolidation of a more dispersed development pattern.

Paragraph 3.17 of the SADPD gives some commentary of the Danbury Defined Settlement Boundary (DSB). This advises that the built up area is irregular in shape and interspersed with stretches of open countryside. The DSB is drawn in three sections to reflect this irregular pattern of development

Government Policy - The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF, at paragraph 6, makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to secure sustainable development which means in practise development that complies with the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.


The core planning principles, set out at paragraph 17, include: plan led growth; proactively driving and supporting sustainable economic development to deliver new homes; high quality design; a good standard ofamenity; taking into account the particular roles and character of different areas; recognising the countryside’s intrinsic character and beauty; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; and managing patterns of growth.

Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of sustainable housing sites.

Findings on policy context

The Council’s Spatial Strategy is currently being implemented. This is demonstrated through the completion or current advancement of allocated sites across the City Council’s administrative area within the plan period. In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, the Council has assessed it’s objectively assessed housing needs (OAHN) in partnership with Braintree, Colchester and Tendring Councils which forms the North and Mid Essex Housing Market Area. Using the OAHN, the Council can demonstrate five years’ worth of deliverable sites (including a 20% buffer) such that the full weight of the adopted policies relevant to housing supply can be afforded. This means that paragraph 14 of the NPPF, where it refers to an out of date development plan, is not engaged. The details of the Council’s five year housing land supply are set out at Appendix 2 of this report.

The Council, therefore, can deliver the OAHN within the adopted Spatial Strategy. However, the NPPF seeks to ensure that the supply of housing is boosted significantly (paragraph 47). This is interpreted to mean that the achievement of a five year housing supply should not act as a ceiling on new housing development. The fact that the Council has a five year land supply is not considered to be sufficient in itself to refuse planning permission provided the development causes no other planning harm and is sustainable. This is explored in the following section.

At a strategic level, the objective of protecting the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside forms part of the Council’s Spatial Strategy on the sustainable growth of its administrative area. This is achieved through defining the physical limits of Urban Areas and Defined Settlement boundaries (Policy CP5) and identifying those forms of development appropriate outside those limits (Policy DC2). The proposal for residential properties does not accord with these policies.

Accordingly, the development is contrary to the development plan and this weighs against it. Applying section 38(6) of the 2004 Act the development should be refused unless other considerations indicate otherwise. These other considerations include the NPPF, whether the development would be sustainable andwhether any other planning harm resulting from the development is of such weight that the application should be refused.

Landscape impact

At a strategic level the Council seeks to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside consistent with its Spatial Strategy. Paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) of the NPPF indicates that planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it.

In addition to harm caused by non-compliance with the development plan, the proposal would be harmful tothe intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside contrary to policies CP5 and DC2 which reflect one of the core planning principles of the NPPF.

The Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessments (LCA) 2006

Page

is a document that provides a comprehensive Borough/District-wide assessment of landscape character. It identifies key characteristics and sensitivity of an area. The document formed part of the evidence base for the current Local Development Framework and is also part of the evidence for the emerging new local plan.

The site is located to the east of Danbury, bordered by the A414 to the north and the boundaries of properties in Cherry Garden Lane and Hyde Green to the west. The southern and eastern boundaries of the site are not defined by any landforms or boundary treatments; the area simply forms part of a much larger open field. The eastern boundary of the site is concurrent with the district boundary of Chelmsford.

The area forms a part of the Little Baddow and Danbury Wooded Farmland landscape character area (F5), as defined by the Chelmsford LCA, page 170. Some of the key characteristics are

-Wooded hill and ridge housing the linear settlements of Little Baddow and Danbury-Arable farmland fringing the outer edges of patches of woodland-Series of narrow lanes winding down the hillsides and facilitation views into and across the

Chelmer/Blackwater valley to the north and east-Views to wooded horizons within adjacent wooded farmland to the south-Predominantly linear settlement pattern

Within the settlements a strong sense of enclosure is provided by extensive dense patches of deciduous and mixed woodland within the surrounding landscape setting. These woodland patches are interspersed with an intricate, diverse and interesting mosaic of commons, heathland and pasture. Relatively open arable farmland, which is punctuated by single mature deciduous trees and has mature field boundaries, provides the setting for this patchwork of habitats. Narrow lanes (several of which are tree lined) wind down the hillsides facilitating panoramic views across and into the Chelmer/Blackwater valley to the north and east. Visual characteristics include open and framed views to wooded horizons of adjacent wooded farmland to the south and framed views to adjacent arable farmland. The document identifies the key planning and land management issues; this includes the potential for new development at the fringes of Danbury or on the slopes of the hill, which may be highly visible from surrounding character areas. The area is considered to have a relatively high sensitivity to change.

The application site exhibits characteristics with the LCA such as open arable farmland, punctuated by single mature deciduous trees. The site is also located on the side of a gently sloping hill as the land drops away from Maldon Road in a south easterly direction. The rear gardens of properties in Hyde Green have extensive boundary vegetation in the form of mature deciduous trees. This tree belt forms part of the wooded character of the area and is particularly prominent from Mill Lane to the south, when viewed from the public footpath that traverses the field and also from the Maldon approach into Danbury along the A414.The site provides open views to wooded horizons; one of the visual characteristics of area F5. Views of the site are most prominent from Mill Lane and the public footpath. Mill Lane has relatively significant sections of unbroken boundary vegetation which affords long open views across the arable landscape to the wooded western boundary of the site.

The City Council is currently preparing a new local plan and published its “Preferred Options” consultation document in March 2017. Part of the evidence base for this document is a Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure UK Limited. Within this document, the landscape sensitivity of the application site was considered; the site forms part of “DLP2”, which was found to have a high overall landscape sensitivity rating, moderate landscape value rating and lowto medium landscape capacity rating. The report advises that the site shares similar characteristics to those described by LCA F5 such as its hillside landform and relatively open arable farmland.

In considering the visual sensitivity of the site to development, the document advises that due to a combination of the lack of vegetation (within and adjoining the area) and sloping landform; this area


is open in character with high levels of inter-visibility. With open views to the east and south east, highernumbers of public and private views will be possible. Development would be uncharacteristicallyconspicuous and could not successfully be mitigated. Overall the parcel is judged to be of high visualsensitivity.

The proposed housing development would be most prominent when viewed from the public footpath that traverses the site and also from Mill lane to the south. The illustrative masterplan submitted as part of the application shows extensive tree planting to the east of the site and also to a lesser extent to the south. Whilst this would help to soften the impact of the development, the new houses would still be visible, particularly in the winter months when there is less foliage. The open character of the site would be lost and due to the slope of the land, the new planting would not be able to screen the houses to the top of the hill when seen from Mill Lane.

The applicants have provided a landscape and visual impact appraisal as part of their submission. This assesses the impact of the development in the short, medium and long term. In the medium term, during the first year of operation, the appraisal states that the development is likely to have a direct, permanent moderate magnitude and adverse effect on the landscape character area. In the long term (after 15 years of operation) the appraisal advises that the proposed development would still have a permanent adverse effecton the landscape character area with the arable fields being replaced by residential development and that this is a direct, permanent moderate to minor magnitude and adverse effect resulting in a permanent awareness of change; it would introduce built form into a rural landscape. The visual impact appraisal also assesses the impact of the development from eight representative views.

The indicative drawings (upon which the landscape and visual impact appraisal has been judged) show extensive landscaping and tree planting including the creation of a new woodland. This would obviously takesome time to mature and there would be most harm to the landscape when the vegetation has only just been planted. Whilst it is accepted that the degree of planting proposed would, over time, help to screen the development, this would take at least 15 years and even after this time adverse effects are still identified.In any event, the purpose of landscaping is not to hide otherwise unacceptable development.

Overall, the proposal would uncharacteristically and harmfully alter the appearance of the site. It would, in essence, remove the association of the site with the wider countryside and would represent an urban and intrusive encroachment into the open rural landscape. The sites contribution to the setting of Danbury as undulating and open arable land would be lost. The proposal would be harmful to the intrinsic character andbeauty of the countryside contrary to Policies CP5 and DC2.

Highway Impacts

One of the primary concerns of local residents and the Parish Council’s is the impact of the development on the local highway network. Concerns relate to the additional traffic the development would create which could result in queuing on the A414.

A transport assessment and subsequent addendum accompany the planning application; these have both been reviewed by Essex County Council Highways Authority (ECCHA). ECCHA have submitted an objection to the application as insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate to their satisfaction that the impact of the development on the highway network is acceptable in terms of highway safety and capacity. ECCHA note that junction modelling has been submitted, however the parameters and findings appear to be inaccurate, in particular at the junction of A414 Eves Corner with Little Baddow Road and Mayes Lane. As such the Highway Authority does not consider the modelling to be satisfactorily reflective of the existing or expected future situations.

On the basis that the information provided is not sufficient, the City Council is unable to satisfactorily determine the impact of the development on the local highway network. A refusal reason is included on this

Page

basis.

Minerals

Paragraph 142 of the NPPF states that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of materials to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy and not normally permit other development proposals in mineral safeguarding areas where they might constrain potential future use for these purposes.

The application site is located within the Essex Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) and the Mineral Consultation Area (MCA) for Royal Oak and therefore subject to Policy S8 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan (MLP), 2014. The land is within 10.68ha of MSA for sand and gravel, with the remainder of the site being within the MCA for sand and gravel.

Policy S8 requires that a non-mineral proposal located within an MSA which exceeds defined thresholds must be supported by a minerals resource assessment to establish the existence, or otherwise, of a mineral resource capable of having economic importance. This will ascertain whether there is an opportunity for the prior extraction of that mineral to avoid the sterilisation of the resource as required by the NPPF.

A Mineral Resource Assessment has been submitted by the applicant in order to consider the case for prior extraction. The assessment concludes that prior extraction, processing and infilling/engineering works to support the proposed housing development is not feasible and therefore not proposed. The reasons for this are summarised as follows:

-Low mineral tonnage comparted to the annual amount provided through permitted sites-The site was not allocated in the MLP due to landscape impacts -The material would need to be wet screened and on site processing has been discounted due to the site constraints, small resource and low gate value-The neighbouring site (Royal Quarry Oak) restricts importation of material so off site processing would be impossible-Imported fill could be necessary which would delay the housing development and may not be available-Concerns regarding costs of mitigation for protection of the footpath and water main

Essex County Council, as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority is unable to agree with the conclusions of the Mineral Resource Assessment. They consider that the size of the site in relation to the size of the safeguarded area and mineral tonnage to be provided compared to permitted sites is an irrelevant consideration. They also explain that the reason why the site was not allocated in the MLP was because the site was withdrawn by the landowner and not therefore available for further assessment or allocation through the plan. Whilst landscape matters were a factor for consideration, the housing scheme as now proposed would have a permanent impact on the landscape and therefore the temporary impacts of prior extraction should not be discounted on landscape impact grounds where the applicant considers that permanent impacts are capable of being addressed.

The applicant has not assessed how onsite processing could be accommodated through design and phasing of the overall development nor has the benefit of using the material onsite been considered. The availability of suitable fill material is also contested and is not considered likely to cause delay or add significant costs to the development. Finally, the impact on the footpath, water main and other matters are likely to be considerations of the proposed housing development as equally as they would be for mineral extraction.


Overall, the Mineral Planning Authority objects to the application until it can be demonstrated to their satisfaction that the mineral resource is not to be needlessly sterilised by the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S8 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan.

Air Quality

Concerns have been raised by a number of residents regarding the potential for an increase in air pollution due to the additional traffic that would be created by the development.

Policy DC29 of the adopted development plan states that planning permission will be refused for development which will or could potentially give rise to polluting emission to land, air, and water by reason of fumes (inter alias) unless appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place and permanently maintained.

The City Council’s Public Health and Protection service have reviewed the air quality impact assessment, which was updated during the life of the application. The City Council currently monitor air quality close to the Bakers Arms Public House on a street lighting column, identified as CB76. The air quality consultant who wrote the assessment set receptor 12 (in this context a residential property) at a location almost opposite to CB76.

The updated air quality assessment advices that the cumulative effect of development (committed development in the Maldon district and this proposal) will cause Nitrogen Dioxide to increase at receptor points close to the Bakers Arms Public House. The modelled increase in Nitrogen Dioxide applied to the Council’s own air quality monitoring recordings would take the air quality above the Air Quality Objectives and threshold for declaring an Air Quality Management Area.

The City Council considers that the findings of the applicants’ consultants report is optimistic and that interpretation of the modelling suggests an exceedance in air quality could occur. Air quality would be raised based on predicted exceedances of the Air Quality Objectives (at a nearby air pollution hot spot) as a result of the cumulative effect of development. Furthermore, inadequate and indirect mitigating measures have been suggested by the applicant

The development therefore fails to comply with Policy DC29 of the adopted development plan.

Ecology

Designated Sites

The site is located within risk impact zones for nationally designated sites; Woodham Walter Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Danbury Common SSSI and Blakes Wood and Lingwood Common SSSI.

During the life of the application, the applicants submitted additional information in relation to the impact ofthe development on these sites in the form of a “recreational strategy”. This recreational strategy has been reviewed by Natural England and also The National Trust; both of these consultees find the document to be inadequate. The strategy does not include an assessment of the existing level of visitors at the SSSIs, nor analysis of what the likely impact of new residents may be on the notified features. The conclusions of the report appear to be anecdotal only. Without factual information on level of visitors to the SSSIs and an analysis of the potential impact of the development an informed mitigation strategy cannot be developed. The applicants have suggested financial contributions to mitigate impacts but the figure given (£100 per dwelling) is not accompanied by any calculations or assumptions around the costs for proportionate mitigation of impacts to the SSSIs.

On the basis that insufficient information has been provided, the City Council cannot conclusively determine

Page

the impact of the development on these nationally designated sites. The proposal therefore fails to complywith paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Policy DC13.

Protected Species

Ecology reports have been submitted as part of the application. These provide impact assessments on species and habitats at site context extending within both the red and blue lines of the application site. The approaches for specific species surveys are comprehensive and acceptable. The site has been found to support reptiles (medium populations of common lizards and slow worms, and low population of grass snake), badgers (one sett on site and two offsite) and birds. There are also two oak trees within the field which have low and medium bat roost potential.

The onsite badger sett is at risk from the development either by disturbance or destruction but given that theapplication is in outline form only there is enough scope within the layout to retain and not disturb this sett. Given that full surveys have been carried out for reptiles an informed mitigation strategy, method statement and management plan could have been required by condition had the application been recommended for approval. Similarly, the impact of the development on bats could have been mitigated. The proposed landscaping shown on the indicative layout would also provide net gains to biodiversity and mitigate against the losses of hedgerows at the accesses into the site by providing additional habitat and foraging.

Overall it is considered that with the provision of appropriate mitigation strategies for protected species, the development would result in no harm to on-site biodiversity.

Trees

The site has a number of preserved trees located along the western boundary, the majority of which are within the curtilage of neighbouring properties. There are also two unpreserved mature oak trees located within the open field; both of which are indicated to be retained.

A tree survey has been submitted as part of the application and the contents of this are sound. Had the application been recommended for approval then further arboricultural information would have been required and could have been secured by condition. Overall the development could be satisfactorily carried out without resulting in harm to the trees of amenity value.

Education

Primary School

The nearest primary school serving this development would be Danbury Park Community Primary School, which has a net capacity of 259 places. There were 256 on roll in January 2017 and the school is forecasted to still have a net capacity of 259 but 270 pupils on roll by 2020/21.This will leave the school with a deficit of 11 places, before this development is taken into account. Additional primary school places would therefore be required to accommodate the proposed development. This would be secured via the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy and/or by projects for new places already in line in Chelmsford .

Secondary SchoolThe secondary school serving this development would be The Sandon School, which has a net capacity of 1,253 places. There were 1269 children on roll at January 2017 giving a deficit of 16 places. The school is forecasted to still have a net capacity of 1,253 but 1,293 pupils on roll by 2020/21. This will leave the school with a deficit of 40 places, before this development is taken into account. Additional secondary school places would therefore be required to accommodate the proposed development. This would be secured via the


Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy and/or by projects for new places already in line in Chelmsford . Financial contributions by the way of a S106 Agreement are also sought by the local education authority for the transporting of secondary school children.

S106 Agreements secure the delivery of funding for infrastructure works, services or facilities that are made necessary by and are directly related to development. A planning obligation may only constitute a reason forgranting planning permission for the development if the obligation is :-

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Since the proposed development is in excess of the statutory walking distance from the nearest secondary school, and there is a statutory duty on the part of the County to provide transport, it is clearly necessary to provide school transport in order to make the development acceptable. The impact is direct as in the absence of development Essex County Council would have no reason to fund the additional transport required. A developer contribution to mitigate this impact thereby meets the three tests and would need to be secured via a section 106 agreement had the application been recommended for approval.

Affordable Housing

Policy DC31 of the adopted development plan requires the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing on sites which have a capacity of 15 or more dwellings or comprise an area of 0.5 ha or larger. The planning statement submitted as part of the application advises that it is the intention for the development to meet this policy requirement, but this has not been secured through a legal agreement. A refusal reason and informative are attached in this respect inorder to protect the City Council’s position should the applicant be minded to appeal this decision.

Health

The development of the site for up to 100 dwellings would result in an increased pressure on the existing healthcare facilities in the area. This is a matter raised by a number of local residents.

The NHS have advised that due to the scale of this proposed development and premises capacity in area, there is not a current primary care infrastructure capacity issue. However, the CCG Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) is in the process of evolving from a high level strategy document to that which will form the basis of future service and infrastructure plans and resulting infrastructure intentions.

Further work with the Local Authority on Infrastructure delivery plans will highlight longer term requirements for the area as an outcome of the STP. Therefore, a future application for CIL funding may be made for this site to meet the future service delivery models adopted by the CCG.

The NHS advise that there are currently resource and retention issues in the area affecting the provision of primary healthcare services, which cannot be addressed by means of Capital investment

The NHS does not object to the proposed development. The Council is satisfied that the development would not have a detrimental impact upon healthcare facilities within the area.

Other Matters

Neighbour Amenity

The application is seeking outline planning permission only. The submitted drawings, which show a potential

Page

site layout, are indicative and not determinative. The relationship of new housing with the existing residential properties bordering the site could be satisfactorily addressed through a Reserved Matters application. Whilst the character of the area would change, the layout of the scheme could be designed to avoid harm to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

Agricultural Land Quality

The NPPF defines land Grades 1, 2 and 3a land as the best and most versatile. It states that local authorities should take account of the economic and other benefits of such land. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF also states that poorer grade agricultural land should be used in preference to better grade land.

The application is accompanied by an agricultural land classification report. This identifies that the site comprises entirely of subgrade 3a land.

The agricultural land quality of the site is acknowledged. It is also acknowledged that the land makes a contribution to food production as it is currently in arable use. Notwithstanding this, the Borough as a whole has large areas of countryside (a mix of Rural Area and Green Belt with over 37% of the Borough designated as Green Belt) and this is predominantly a mix of Grade 2 and Grade 3 land. Whilst the loss of 10.4ha of arable land would be regrettable, in the context of the Borough as a whole, it would not be so significant to justify the refusal of the application on these grounds.

Flooding

The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore at limited risk from flooding. The Lead Local Flooding Authority (LLFA) consider that surface water management is achievable in principle without causing flooding on site or elsewhere. Neither Anglian Water nor Essex and Suffolk Water have objected to the proposal.

Given the lack of objections to the development from the LLFA and other consultees, it is considered that flooding could be reasonably addressed by way of conditions had the application been recommended for approval.

Emerging New Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan

Work is currently underway in preparing a new Local Plan that will provide the planning framework for the future growth and development of the City Council’s area until 2036. The parish of Danbury has also been designated a Neighbourhood Planning Area.

The first stage of public consultation on the Local Plan “Issues and Options” took place in 2015/16. This contained three options showing broad locations for where new development could take place. Since then the Council has assessed the comments received to that consultation and has developed a ‘hybrid’ option.

The second stage of consultation “Preferred Options” took place between 30 March and 11 th May 2017. The following documents were published for the purposes of this consultation:

Chelmsford Local Plan Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Sustainability Appraisal Non-Technical Summary Habitats Regulations Assessment

The Preferred Options Local Plan includes 38 sites to provide for around 10,875 new homes and 55,000sqm of new employment floorspace located in three Growth Areas. The sites are focused on land within or next


to Chelmsford, South Woodham Ferrers and the Key Service Settlements outside of the Green Belt including Broomfield, Boreham, Bicknacre, Danbury and Great Leighs.

The Policy for Growth Site 10 of the Preferred Options requires “An allocation of 100 new homes to be accommodated within or adjoining the Key Service Settlement of Danbury. The site(s) to accommodate this allocation will be identified and consulted upon through the emerging Danbury Neighbourhood Plan.”

A Neighbourhood Plan group has formed and the group are currently in the process of preparing business and public questionnaires which will be sent out in July. The group then plan to carry out a call for sites later in the summer which will run for approximately 6 weeks.

In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the Preferred Options document has limited weight in the determination of planning applications as the City Council is still at an early stage of the Plan making process.

The pre-submission local plan and sustainability appraisal is scheduled for consultation in autumn 2017.

The Planning Balance

Paragraphs 7-8 of the NPPF advise that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

Economic

Although a relatively generic benefit, the proposal has an economic role in supporting/creating jobs during the construction stage of the scheme. In addition, the new dwellings would offer homes to residents who would contribute to the labour supply, some of whom would be likely to be local. The development would result in a number of new residents who are likely to support the existing local services and businesses in the village.

The delivery of housing evidently has an economic benefit in boosting housing supply and providing a mix of both market and, in particular, affordable housing. However, the growth needs of the Council’s administrative area are being realised primarily through the Council’s current development plan and Spatial Strategy. The Council can demonstrate five years’ worth of specific deliverable sites such that the Strategy and the identified areas for growth are robust. Only moderate weight can therefore be attached to these economic benefits.

Conversely, the proposal also has negative impacts in relation to economic growth as it would result in the unnecessary sterilisation of a minerals resource. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction. This therefore weighs considerably against the development.

Taking into consideration the economic benefits and the economic losses only limited weight is attributed to the scheme in fulfilling its economic role in the context of sustainable development

Social

The delivery of housing has a social role in supporting the local and wider community in providing a mixed range of housing supply, including affordable housing.

Page

The indicative site plan includes significant areas of open space including a new woodland with woodland walks. Whilst this would enhance local facilities and support the well-being of the local community, the provision of local open space is a standard requirement for a development of this size. The level of landscaping and open space proposed does exceed policy requirements but this is largely in an attempt to screen and integrate the development into the landscape character area as this is a site with high visual sensitivity. Moderate weight is ascribed to the social benefits of the proposal.

Environmental

The proposed development would result in an unwelcome urban encroachment into open arable land. The development would be harmful to the landscape character of the area and would be intrusive in the context of the setting, harmful to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The application also does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the development would not result in unacceptable recreational pressure on the nearby SSSIs. Insufficient information has been provided in this respect.

Considerable weight is given to the environmental harm that would be caused by the development; this weighs against the application.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case. The Council can demonstrate a five year supply of housing land using an up to date OAHN so the development is not needed in the context of housing supply; the social effects of the development would be limited and the development would not fulfil an environmentally or economically beneficial role through the sterilisation of aminerals resource and harm to the landscape character. Accordingly the proposed development would be contrary to Policy CP1, CP2, CP5, DC2, DC13 and DC18 of the Core Strategy and would not be sustainable development in the context of paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF.

CONCLUSION

Paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the nature of sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out the approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy CP1 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD reflects the sustainability objectives of the NPPF. The Council will seek to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

The principles of sustainable development are not fulfilled. As set out above, the development would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape quality of the locality. It would also sterilise a mineral resource andresult in unacceptable increase in air pollution.

Additionally, the application in unable to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Essex Council Highway Authority, that it would not have a detrimental impact on the highway network. It is also unable to demonstrate that the development would not result in recreational pressure on local SSSIs.

The environmental, economic, ecological and highway impacts of the proposal weigh heavily against the delivery of housing and other benefits such that the development does not amount to sustainable development for the purposes of paragraphs 7 and 14 of the Framework and Policy CP1 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL)

With the exception of affordable housing which is exempt from CIL, the development is CIL liable. Given the


application is outline, the extent of the CIL receipts for the development is not known. This would be better understood at the next application stages, i.e. Reserved Matters, Application for Full Planning Permission.

RECOMMENDATION

The Application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

Reason 1The City Council's Spatial Strategy for the period to 2021 is set out within Policy CP2 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. Sites have been allocated for residential development within the Council's adopted development plans that will accommodate its Spatial Strategy. In accordance with Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework this provides a five-year rolling supply of deliverable housing sites against an Objectively Assessed Housing Requirement.

In accordance with Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP2 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD is considered up-to-date as a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites has been demonstrated.

The site is located within the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt. As such, the site is not allocated for development within the adopted Site Allocations DPD and lies outside of the Defined Settlement of Danbury.

The proposed development is not required to meet the Council's Objectively Assessed housing requirement and is contrary to the Spatial Strategy as set out in Policy CP2 of the adopted Core Strategy and DevelopmentControl Policies DPD. The development is, therefore, harmful as it does not comply with the Council's development plan which is a reflection of sustainable development through the simultaneous fulfilment of the social, economic and environmental needs of the Council's administrative area, consistent with the planning policy requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 2Policy CP5 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD seeks to contain urban growth by defining the physical limit of the Urban Areas of Chelmsford and South Woodham Ferrers and the Defined Settlements to prevent the erosion of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside from inappropriate forms of development.

Policy DC2 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD sets out the specific forms of development that will be granted in the Rural Area, provided that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon.

Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

The development does not fall within the specific forms of development allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, by virtue of its size and presence, the development would be an unwelcome urban encroachment into open arable land. The development would be harmful to the landscape character of the area and would be intrusive in the context of the setting. It would be a visually dominant and unacceptable urban development impacting on the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and valued landscape contrary to Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CP5 and DC2 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

Reason 3The application does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local Highway Authority that the impact of the development on the highway network, in particular at the junction

Page

of A414 Eves Corner with Little Baddow Road and Mayes Lane, is acceptable in terms of highway capacity.

Reason 4Policy DC29 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document states that planning permission will be refused for development which will or could potentially give rise to polluting emission to land, air, and water by reason of fumes (amongst other matters) unless appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place and permanently maintained.

The updated air quality assessment submitted as part of the application advices that the cumulative effect of development (committed development in the Maldon district and this proposal) will cause Nitrogen Dioxide to increase at receptor points close to the Bakers Arms Public House. The modelled increase in Nitrogen Dioxide applied to the Councils own air quality monitoring recordings would take the air quality above the AirQuality Objectives and threshold for declaring an Air Quality Management Area. Inadequate and indirect mitigating measures have been suggested by the applicant. The development therefore fails to comply with Policy DC29.

Reason 5Paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy and not normally permit other development proposals in mineral safeguarding areas where they might constrain potential future use for these purposes

The application site is located within the Essex Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) and the Mineral Consultation Area (MCA) for Royal Oak and therefore subject to Policy S8 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan (MLP), 2014. Policy S8 requires that a non-mineral proposal located within an MSA which exceeds defined thresholds must be supported by a minerals resource assessment to establish the existence, or otherwise, of a mineral resource capable of having economic importance.

A Mineral Resource Assessment has been submitted by the applicant in order to consider the case for prior extraction. The assessment concludes that prior extraction, processing and infilling/engineering works to support the proposed housing development is not feasible and therefore not proposed. Essex County Council, as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority is unable to agree with the conclusions of the Mineral Resource Assessment. It has not therefore been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Minerals and WastePlanning Authority that the mineral resource is not to be needlessly sterilised by the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S8 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan and the NPPF.

Reason 6Policy DC31 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document seeks to secure the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units as affordable housing.

The proposal fails to secure affordable housing through a suitable mechanism, as such it is contrary to Policy DC31 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

Reason 7Policy CP4 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document states that the City Council will require, through the use of planning contributions, that all new development meets the necessary on and off-site infrastructure requirements which are required to support the development and mitigate the impact of that development on existing community interests.

Since the proposed development would be in excess of the statutory walking distance from the nearest secondary school and there is a statutory duty on the part of the Essex County to provide transport, a financial contribution to mitigate this impact is required. The proposal fails to secure contributions to be


directed toward secondary school transport provision and therefore the development is contrary to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

Reason 8Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authoritiesshould aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. If significant harm resulting from a development cannotbe avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as alast resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Policy DC13 of the Core Strategyand Development Control Policies Development Plan Document states that in determining planningapplications appropriate weight will be attached to designated sites of national importance.

The site is located within risk impact zones for nationally designated sites; Woodham Walter Common Site ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSI), Danbury Common SSSI and, Blakes Wood and Lingwood Common SSSI.

A recreational strategy was submitted as part of the application but that strategy does not include an assessment of the existing level of visitors at the SSSIs, nor analysis of what the likely impact of new residentsmay be on the notified features. The suggested mitigation strategy is not accompanied by any calculations orassumptions around the costs for proportionate mitigation of impacts to the SSSIs.

On the basis that insufficient information has been provided, the City Council cannot conclusively determinethe impact of the development on these nationally designated sites. The proposal therefore fails to complywith paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Policy DC13.

Notes to Applicant

1 Refusal reasons 6 and 7 relate to the absence of a completed legal agreement. The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure 35% affordable housing on-site and contributions to provide secondary school transport would overcome these refusal reasons.

2 This application would be liable for a payment under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as Amended) 2010 if planning permission had been granted. If an appeal is lodged and subsequently allowed, the CIL liability will be applied.

Positive and Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority provided advice to the applicant before the application was submitted but the applicant did not take on board all or some of that advice. The local planning authority has identified matters of concern with the proposal and the report clearly sets out why the development fails to comply with the adopted development plan. The report also explains why the proposal is contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework to deliver sustainable development.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

DC28Development Control policy DC28 Air Quality - The City Council will promote measures to improve air quality and will expect development proposals to reduce sources of air pollution. Specialist reports will be required for sites within an Air Quality Management Area.

CP1Core Policy CP1 Securing Sustainable Development - The City Council will promote and secure sustainable development by linking housing and employment needs and directing development to locations supported

Page

by effective transport provision, leisure, community and other essential services, whilst minimising damage to the environment and actively securing environmental enhancements. When considering development proposals the City Council will take a positive approach reflecting the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

CP2Core Policy CP2 The City-wide Spatial Strategy - All proposals for development will be considered in the context of the City-wide Spatial Strategy which sets out the City Council's vision for development growth in the Borough in the period up to 2021.

CP4Core Policy CP4 - Securing Infrastructure - The Council will require, through the use of planning contributions,that all new development meets the necessary on and off-site infrastructure requirements required to support the development and mitigates the impact of that development on existing community interests. Standard charges and/or standard formulae, as appropriate, will be imposed for payment of financial contributions towards infrastructure, works or facilities.

CP5Core Policy CP5 Containing Urban Growth - Urban growth will be contained by defining the physical limit of the urban areas of Chelmsford and South Woodham Ferrers and the Defined Settlements.

CP9Core Policy CP9 Protecting Areas of Natural and Built Heritage Importance - The City Council is committed to protecting and enhancing the City's important natural and historic environment and will therefore seek to sustain biodiversity, archaeological and geological conservation.

CP10Core Policy CP10 Protection from Flooding - The City Council will require that development is protected from flooding and that appropriate measures are implemented to mitigate flood risk and will work with the Environment Agency to put in place strategic flood defence measures.

CP11Core Policy CP11 Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Recycling - The City Council will expect development to have a net beneficial effect on the local and global environment by promoting more energy efficient development, minimising energy consumption, pollution and waste, and incorporating recycling facilities.

CP13Core Policy CP13 Minimising Environmental Impact - The City Council will seek to ensure that development proposals minimise their impact on the environment and that they do not give rise to significant and adverse impacts on health, amenity including air quality, and the natural environment.

CP18Core Policy CP18 Providing New Community and Social Facilities in Major New Developments - The City Council will ensure that new community facilities are developed as an integral part of any proposals for major new residential development and will be accessible to all sections of the community.

CP20Core Policy CP20 Achieving Well Designed High Quality Places - The City Council will require the layout and design of all development to create well designed high quality successful places for living and working.

CP14


Core Policy CP14 Environmental Quality and Landscape Character - The City Council will promote and supportthe enhancement of the environmental quality of the City's countryside and settlements through the preparation of a Landscape Character Assessment and Village Design Statements.

CP15Core Policy CP15 Meeting the Housing Needs of Our Communities - The City Council will require a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including affordable housing, to be provided in each new housing development to accommodate a balance of different household types and contribute to the creation of mixed and inclusive communities.

CP18Core Policy CP18 Providing New Community and Social Facilities in Major New Developments - The City Council will ensure that new community facilities are developed as an integral part of any proposals for major new residential development and will be accessible to all sections of the community.

DC2Development Control Policy DC2 Controlling Development in the Countryside beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt - The countryside within the rural area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt will be protected for its intrinsic character and beauty. Planning permission will be granted for development within the rural area provided that the intrinsic character and beauty is not adversely impacted upon and provided it is for a new building that supports sustainable growth of an authorised viable rural business and there is a justified need and no adverse impact upon character, appearance and visual amenity of the countryside; or promotes development and diversification of agriculture and other appropriate land based rural businesses or is accommodation in connection with such uses; or is for affordable housing for local needs; or is for the replacement of a building; or is for local transport infrastructure; or is for residential infilling in villages. Theseare subject to compliance with policies DC33, DC32, DC11 and DC12.

The extension or reuse of an existing building is acceptable subject to compliance with Policy DC47 or DC57.

Engineering or other operations or changes of use of land are acceptable provided they would have no material effect on the appearance and character of the countryside.

DC4Development Control Policy DC4 Protecting Existing Amenity - All development proposals should safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of any nearby properties by ensuring that development would not result in excessive noise, activity or vehicle movements, overlooking or visual intrusion and that the built form would not adversely prejudice outlook, privacy, or light enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties.

DC7Development Control Policy DC7 Vehicle Parking Standards at Developments - All development will be required to comply with the vehicle standards as set out at Appendix C of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

DC13Development Control Policy DC13 Site of Biodiversity and Geological Value - The City Council will seek to restore, maintain, and enhance biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Appropriate weight will beattached in respect of designated sites when determining planning applications.

DC14Development Control Policy DC14 Protected Trees and Hedges - Planning permission will be refused for any development that would be liable to cause demonstrable harm to protected woodland, trees and hedgerows, unless conditions can be imposed requiring the developer to take steps to secure their protection.

Page

DC24Development Control Policy DC24 Energy Efficient Design and Use of Materials - The City Council will require new dwellings and non-residential buildings to incorporate sustainable design features to reduce carbon emissions and the consumption of natural resources. Five or more dwellings, non-residential developments greater than 1000 sqm are required to achieve 10% reduction or more in carbon dioxide emissions above current building regulation requirements. A statement must be submitted specifying how this will be achieved. All new dwellings are required to achieve a minimum rating of level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or its successor). Non-residential buildings shall have a minimum BREEAM rating (or its successor) ofVery Good. Where possible new buildings to utilise a minimum of 20% of sustainable building materials and/or reuse of recycled materials.

DC25Development Control Policy DC25 Water Efficiency and Sustainable Drainage Systems - The City Council requires developments to incorporate measures that reduce the demand for water, and the provision of sustainable drainage systems for the disposal of surface water within and leading from development sites.

DC40Development Control Policy DC40 Public Open Space for New Residential Developments - Outlines requirements for provision and, where appropriate, commuted sum payments.

DC42Development Control Policy DC42 Site Planning - Planning permission will be granted for development proposals where the site planning and design of building spaces arranges access points, routes within the site, public and private spaces, building forms and ancillary functions in an efficient, safe, workable, spatially coherent and attractive manner, incorporates existing site features of value and does not cause unacceptable effects on adjoining sites, property or their occupiers.

DC43Development Control Policy DC43 Promoting Public Art in New Development - The City Council will seek the provision of public art in association with all developments of 10 or more dwellings or for more than 1,000 square metres of floorspace or that have significant impact upon the public realm or a high degree of public access.

DC44Development Control Policy DC44 Private Amenity Space - All new dwellings will be required to have a high degree of privacy and the use of private amenity space appropriate for the type of dwelling and its location.

DC45Development Control Policy DC45 Achieving High Quality Development - Planning permission will only be granted for new buildings and extensions to existing buildings provided that they are well designed in themselves and amongst other matters, the siting, scale form and detail of the proposed buildings has an appropriate visual relationship with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Background Papers

Case File


Appendix 1 – Consultation Response Summary

Consultee Comments

Essex County CouncilHighways

Objects to the application as insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority that the impact of the development on the highway network is acceptable in terms of highway safety and capacity.

It is noted that junction modelling has been submitted, however the parameters andfindings appear to be inaccurate, in particular at the junction of A414 Eves Corner with Little Baddow Road and Mayes Lane. As such the Highway Authority does not consider the modelling to be satisfactorily reflective of the existing or expected future situations.

ECC Minerals & Waste Planning

Initial response:Objects to the application. The site is within the Essex Mineral Safeguarding Area and Mineral Consultation Area. A more thorough minerals resource assessment is required.

Response following receipt of a minerals resource assessment:

The Minerals and Waste Planning Authority is unable to agree with the conclusions of the Mineral Resource Assessment and maintains its objection until it can be demonstrated that the mineral resource is not to be needlessly sterilised by the proposed development

ECC School Organisation & Planning

ECC would seek a school transport contribution. The developer should also ensure that safe direct walking and cycling routes to local early years and childcare facilities and Primary schools are available.

As The Sandon secondary school is in excess of the statutory walking distance from the proposed development ECC is obliged to provide free transport to the school result in in a long term cost to ECC. The cost would be £4.44 per pupil per day for 190 days a year for a period of 5 years equating to £84,360 index linked to April 2017 costs. Should permission be granted this should be subject to a section 106 agreement to mitigate its impact on education transport.

Essex County Council(SUDS)

No objections, subject to conditions

ECC Historic Environment Branch

The site is within an area of potential archaeology. A programme of archaeological work should be secured by condition.

Danbury Parish Council

Objects to the application for the following reasons:

- The proposal is not sustainable development- It would cause harm to the open character and appearance of the area- Concerns that this would set a precedent for developing the rest of the site

Page

- The site is outside of the Defined Settlement Boundary- The City Council is able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply- The development is contrary to the Danbury Planning Framework- The site is grade 3 agricultural land- Road infrastructure and capacity is already poor within the village. This

would worsen the situation, especially in combination with the housing proposed in Maldon and would result in rat runs on minor roads

- Concerns about pedestrians from the development being able to cross the A414 to access bus stops or to walk to other areas of the village

- Concerns regarding an increase in air pollution- There is insufficient capacity within the existing GP surgery and local primary

schools- Concerns regarding the impact of the development on wildlife and the

nearby SSSIs- The loss of agricultural land would worsen the issues with flooding on local

roads- Concerns regarding the condition and capacity of the current drainage

systems.- The site forms part of a Mineral Safeguarding Area- The development would result in an increase in noise and light pollution- There is insufficient employment opportunities in Danbury to support this

development

Little Baddow Parish Council

Objects to the application for the following reasons:

- Road infrastructure and capacity is already poor within the village. This would worsen the situation, especially in combination with the housing proposed in Maldon and a railway station in Boreham. This would result in rat runs on minor roads

- There is insufficient capacity within the existing GP surgery and local primaryschools

Maldon District Council

The application should not be supported for the following reasons:

- The City Council already have a five year housing land supply- The development is considered to be an illogical extension to the built

environment to the west with open fields to the south and south west. This would result in suburban encroachment into the countryside and would result in significant harm to the open character and appearance of the rural area.

- The development would fail to fulfil the environmental role within the three strands of sustainable development

- The development would contribute to the existing traffic problems on the A414 and would have a detrimental impact on the traffic flows to and from Maldon.

Woodham Mortimer and Hazeleigh Parish Council

Object to the application for the following reasons:

- This would extend the development boundaries of Danbury and would be inappropriate to the local environment


- It would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding countryside- Concerns regarding the impact of the development on the A414, especially

given the proliferation of the South Maldon Garden Suburb

Woodham Walter Parish Council

Object to the application for the following reasons;

- Significant adverse impact on the local roads which are already under extreme pressure only to be compounded by the already permitted major developments in Maldon

- The development would have a significant adverse impact on education and medical facilities

Natural England Initial response:

Further information is required on the potential indirect impacts the proposal will have on Woodham Walter Common SSSI, Blakes Wood and Lingwood Common SSSI and Danbury Common SSSI

Response following receipt of a Recreational Strategy:

There is still insufficient information to enable Natural England to provide a substantive response to the consultation.

No assessment has been undertaken of the existing level of visitors at the SSSIs, nor analysis of what the likely impact of the new residents may be on the notified features. The conclusion given is anectodal only. Once impacts have been asses then the mitigation stratgegy should include costed on the ground projects or measures at the SSSI (s) that are proporitionate to the impacts caused and agreeableto the site managers. The applicant in advised to initiate detailed discussions with the site managers Essex Wildlife Trust and the National Trust, together with the Council.

Public Health & Protection Services

Initial response:Concerns regarding noise from road traffic. The houses should be constructed so that internal noise levels meet acceptable standards.

Contaminated land condition needed as a phase 1 desk study has identifice potentialrisk of contamination from ground gases and previous agricultural uses

The site is near to an identified air pollution hotspot. An air quality impact assessment should be provided.

Response following receipt of an air quality impact assessment:

The consultant has undertaken further modelling in light of the errors made in the original AQIA submission, and the main point that can be taken from the updated comments is that the cumulative effect of development (committed development inthe Maldon district and this proposal) will cause Nitrogen Dioxide to increase by 3.1µg/m3 at a defined receptor 12 almost opposite CB76. 2016 monitored levels at CB76 were 39.36µg/m3. This modelled increase applied to CB76 would take the air quality above the Air Quality Objectives and threshold for declaring an AQMA.

Page

Public Health and Protection disagree with the consultants optimistic conclusions and our own interpretation of the modelling suggests an exceedance could occur. Public Health and Protection object to the application on the grounds that air qualityis likely to be raised based on predicted exceedances of the Air Quality Objectives (ata nearby air pollution hot spot) as a result of the cumulative effect of development with the objection justified by the fact that no mitigating measures have been offered.

NHS Property Services Primary Care Estates Advisor

No objections. There is not a current primary care infrastructure capacity issue. Further work with the Local Authority on Infrastructure delivery plans will highlight longer term requirements for the area as an outcome of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Therefore, a future application for CIL funding may be made for this site to meet the future service delivery models adopted by the Clinical Commissioning Group.

Essex County Fire & Rescue Service

The development would require a new fire hydrant and compliance with Building Regulations.

The National Trust Initial Response:

Object to the application. The development is close to SSSI areas of Blakes Wood and Lingwood Common which together with Danbury Common are owned and managed by the National Trust. Each site currently receives high levels of footfall and mountain biking at Blakes Wood and Danbury Common. Car parking is also at full capacity during peak times. The current submission has failed to provide adequate information in relation to the potential indirect impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding SSSIs. The development would result in increased recreational pressure upon land within the National Trusts ownership.

Response following receipt of Recreational Strategy:

Objection is maintained. The recreational strategy is unclear and inadequate in a number of respects. The submission still fails to provide adequate information in relation the potential indirect impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding SSSI’s within National Trust ownership. Due to the lack of robust information and baselinedata it is not possible to set out appropriate mitigation measurements at this stage and as such the Trust are of the opinion that financial contributions should be made towards securing robust baseline data for these sites to inform a long-term mitigation strategy. The £100 per dwelling appears to be an arbitrary figure and there is no reasoning given for splitting this equally between the three sites.

The Trust is of the opinion that the proposed development would result in increasedrecreational pressure upon land within our ownership which would be detrimental to the ongoing positive management and conservation of the surrounding SSSI’s

Anglian Water Services Ltd

No assets affected and there is sufficient capacity for foul drainage and sewerage. The proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian


Water operated assets.

Local residents 410 letters of representation received. The main comments are as follows:

Principle of the Development

- Outside of the Defined Settlement boundary- This is contrary to the Council’s adopted development plan policies- Chelmsford City Council already have more than a 5 year supply of housing

land- This would not be sustainable development and is therefore contrary to the

NPPF- Concerns that this development would result in the merging of Danbury

with Maldon- Contrary to Danbury’s Village Design Statement- The preferred options consultation document cannot be given much weight - The Danbury residents have already embarked upon a neighbourhood plan

Amenity

- Concerns regarding an increase in noise and air pollution from the additionaltraffic

- Adjacent residents would suffer from a loss of privacy- Nearby residents would suffer from light pollution from car headlights and

street lights

Highway

- The roads in Danbury are already congested and cannot cope with any moretraffic

- Back roads will be used as rat runs even more than they are now which is a danger as cyclists and pedestrians (including children) use these roads

- Concerns about the safety of traffic turning onto the A414- Existing pavements are narrow- Concerns regarding the cumulative impact of proposed houses in the

Maldon area- Cherry Garden Lane is a narrow ancient country lane and unsuitable for

access to the estate- The data used in the applicant’s assessment is both out of date, inaccurate

and misleading- Concerns that more accidents will happen on the A414- Construction vehicles would be a hazard- Concerns that the public right of way would be blocked off- Concerns regarding access for emergency vehicles due to the congestion- Parking in Danbury is already a problem and this will make the situation

worse for residents to access local businesses, schools and shops- People in Cherry Garden Lane would be forced to drive through the new

housing estate- A new bypass for Danbury is needed

Page

Landscape and Character

- The development represents urban sprawl- The proposal would be harmful to the distinctive character and beauty of

Danbury- The development will destroy views across to the far horizon- The character and nature of what is a picturesque hillside village will be lost- The new open spaces proposed are not needed- Question who will maintain and fund the public areas proposed- The view and experience from the public footpath would be vastly changed

for the worse- Danbury is a draw for tourists, walkers & wildlife enthusiasts alike; this

development would lesson the attractiveness of the village to visitors- Any proposed screening by trees would take a long time to mature- This would turn Danbury into a town rather than a village- Loss of a view of open fields from the houses that back onto the site- The latest landscape sensitivity and capacity assessment finds that this site

has a high overall landscape sensitivity and low to medium capacity- The proposal is inappropriate in scale and nature given the characteristics of

the area

Ecology and Trees

- The development would result in a harmful impact on local wildlife includingrare birds and protected species

- The development would place additional pressure on nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest and local wildlife areas

Local Infrastructure

- Insufficient capacity for additional children at the local primary, secondary and pre-school

- The existing medical centre is already at capacity and could not accommodate the additional residents.

- This would put additional pressure on local dentists- Broomfield hospital would be put under additional pressure- Public transport in Danbury is inadequate- The existing sewage system would not be able to cope with the additional

dwellings- There are insufficient shopping facilities in Danbury to serve this

development- The developer has not made any reference to the required contributions

under the Community Infrastructure Levy for school places- Internet speed in this area is not good at the moment- The nearest secondary school is a long way away

Economy

- Limited employment opportunities in the village; this in turn would result in more traffic through the village as residents commute to work

- Loss of valuable agricultural land


- The site is a potential resource for mineral extraction

Other Matters

- Concerns that this would set a precedent for more houses to the east of Danbury; the planning statement documentation refers to 300/500dwelling schemes

- The public consultation clearly demonstrated that Danbury residents do not wish for this site to be developed

- The water table will rise with new development- Flooding is a problem in Danbury after heavy rainfall- No health impact assessment or air quality assessment has been provided- The field is currently used for dog walkers- Concerns regarding subsidence

Page

Appendix 2 – Position Statement

Five-Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement – April 2017

Using the agreed Objectively Assessed Housing need number of 805 dwellings per annum, the City Council has updated the calculation of its five year housing requirement. This Position Statement demonstrates a five-year land supply (for the years 2017/18 to 2021/22) by applying either the 5% or 20% additional buffer1

The five year housing requirement is based on the following figures:

Objectively Assessed Housing Need 805 dwellings per annum or 4,025 over 5 years

Historic Shortfall from the year 2013/14 130 dwellings

Scenario 1 - 5% additional buffer 4,025 + 130 = 4,155 + 5% (208) = 4,363 (873 dwellings per year)

Scenario 2 - 20% buffer (persistent under delivery)

4,025 + 130 = 4,155 + 20% (831) = 4,986 (997 dwellings per year)

As set out in the Housing Site Schedule April 2017 there is a supply of 6,116 dwellings forecast to be completed in the next 5 years. On the basis of the five year housing requirement and the forecasted housing supply the City Council can demonstrate a suitable supply of housing for the following number of years:

Scenario 1 – 7.00 years (6,116 / 873)

Scenario 2 – 6.13 years (6,116 / 997)

1 As set out at Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)


Documents

Danbury DECISION MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF · PDF fileDECISION MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Application No : ... enshrines the primacy of the Development Plan in legislation