The application was presented to the Committee as it was a major application in the Green Belt and was of strategic importance to the Borough.

The proposal was in outline, with all matters reserved for 71 dwellings on land off Hulletts Lane, Pilgrims Hatch. The applicant had submitted an illustrative layout which showed a housing mix of 48 three-bedroom dwellings, 18 four-bedroom dwellings and 5 five-bedroom dwellings. The proposal included 46 market housing with 25 affordable dwellings (35% of the total). The illustrative plan showed a proposed access onto Ongar Road, although access was a reserved matter for later consideration.

The site comprised 3.3 hectares on an irregular site. The site area could be divided into three main elements. The first element and largest was a field to the rear of properties fronting onto Orchard Lane and at the end of two cul-de-sacs Ash Close and Vale Close. The field had a number of boundary trees running along the northern and southern boundaries. A post and rail fence formed the eastern boundary and the western boundary was open and was joined to the second element.

The second element was another field forming the northern part of the site, which was located mainly to the rear of properties fronting onto Hulletts Lane and wrapped around the properties Fiesta and Cedars.

The third element was a triangular area of land that was between Ongar Road and Hulletts and included an area of land to the south of Hulletts Farm. This area included an overgrown enclosure, an open paddock and a group of farm buildings.

Mr Palmer on behalf of the Orchard Lane Residents Association was present and spoke in objection to the application.

Mr McGarr – the agent – was also present and spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members Cllr Mrs Davies, Cllr Kendall and Cllr Aspinell all spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr McCheyne MOVED and Cllr Trump SECONDED that the application be REFUSED.

A recorded vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Chilvers, Mrs Fulcher, Keeble, McCheyne, Morrissey, Mynott, Nolan, Mrs Pound, Reed, Ms Sanders, Mrs Slade and Trump (12)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt would materially detract from openness, would represent an encroachment of development into the countryside and it would result in sprawl of a large built up. It would therefore conflict with Brentwood Replacement Local Plan Policies GB1 and GB2 and the objectives of the Framework as regards development in the Green Belt.

2. Other matters that may weigh in favour of the proposal have been considered individually and collectively they do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt or the other harms identified.  Therefore, very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.

3. The proposed development would represent a high level of harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade ll listed buildings, Hulletts Farmhouse and Gents Farmhouse, by reason of the proposal’s urban sprawl in an open countryside setting where the interplay of landscape with the listed buildings are intrinsic to their setting. Furthermore, the proposal does not provide any assessment of the impact the proposal would have upon the significance of the Heritage Assets. The proposed development would lead to substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets as set out in paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the substantial harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.  The proposal is therefore in conflict with the Brentwood Replacement Local Development Plan Policy C16, and the aims and objectives of the NPPF and guidance set out in the NPPG.

4. The proposed housing density is significantly below that of the requirement set out in Policy H14 of the Brentwood Local Plan and is at odds with the prevailing pattern of built development in the surrounding area which is considered harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H14 and the provisions of the Framework.

5. The proposed development does not provide any small dwellings, i.e. one or two-bedroom properties, which will provide a harmful imbalance in the population structure of the future residents. Furthermore, the proposal, by not providing a range of units, would not fully meet the type of housing needs required in the Council’s objectively assessed needs. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H6 and the provision of the Framework.        

6 The proposal development from the submitted layout plans does not show a level of usable open space or provision for a LEAP/LAP which would adequately serve the future residents of the development. The proposed lack of public open space would be harmful to the well-being of the future residents and would be contrary to Appendix Policy 5 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework. 

7.The proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and pedestrian convenience due to the lack of an acceptable transport assessment and the potential significant increase in level of vehicle usage along Hulletts Lane, which is a registered byway (path no 164, Brentwood Parish) and is not suitable for such an increase in usage. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy T2 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework. 

8. The proposal would be harmful to the ecology and the habitat of the site and surrounding area due to the lack of appropriate ecological surveys to inform mitigation. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C5 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework.

9. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal can adequately drain the site due to the lack of a surface water drainage strategy and plan layout and flood risk assessment (as site is bigger than 1 Hectare). The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of the Framework. 

10.The applicant has not demonstrated adequately that the site is free of contamination by hazardous substances due to the lack of contamination report, given the previous use of the building(s). The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PC1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework.    

(Cllr Aspinell declared a non-pecuniary interest in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of regularly walking his dogs in Hulletts Lane (a by-way owned by Essex County Council).