This application was for a proposed redevelopment comprising of the construction of 15 detached dwellings, new access, retention of woodland, provision of new footpath and landscaping.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Parker.

 

Mrs Caroline Corrigan was present at the Committee and summarised the report.

 

A statement from Ms Griffiths was read by the Chair objecting to the application:

 

“The reasons I feel that this planning application should be rejected are listed below.

No valid very special circumstances have been presented. The argument that it is an eyesore is subjective and if you visit the site, you will see what a wonderful, good job Mother Nature has done at restoring the area. Fly tipping can be equally prevented by CCTV. Previous use as landfill and multiple enforcement issues and blatant disregard for planning laws seems a strange thing to reward as a special circumstance for residential development to be granted on Green Belt. Note that the latest planning application in 2009 concluded the same. 

The proposed redevelopment is significantly larger than the footprint that the current illegal structures cover (equivalent to at least a 20 fold increase of the bulk on the site). The primary use of this land was Agricultural (evidenced by both the planning history and this land still had horses, pigs and chickens until the owner passed in 2016) which shouldn’t give rise to special circumstances to develop beyond the existing footprint. The Size of the dwellings (>5k square foot) and the associated price tag does not aid the Brentwood Local Plan where the Council’s latest SHMA indicates that the greatest need for Market housing is two bedroom units. There is also no Affordable Housing provisioned. The Local Development Plan already has an allocation (RH34) only 600m from this Site which has a provision for 30 houses on Green Belt land. The applicant has also made no attempt to address the additional strain on local resources when considering this redevelopment

The size of the proposed dwellings is also not in keeping with that of properties in Doddinghurst. The average property in Doddinghurst (and Brentwood) a is 3bed dwelling 1000-1500 sqft in size. Therefore these are not ‘modest’ but in fact not in keeping with the size, character or appearance of those in its vicinity. 

In regards to the argument that the development needing to be this size for the developer to make a profit, the effect of the value of your property is not considered relevant when commenting on planning applications, so I argue that the profitability of the proposed development is also not relevant. The applicants acceptable profit is subjective, £1 is still profit!

The size and scale of this development will take years to complete, subjecting local residents to years of noise and disruption which will undoubtedly have an impact on their enjoyment of their property and their quality of life, especially at weekends.

Dagwood Lane is a single track carriageway that is not designed for high volumes of cars, delivery, waste and construction machinery. Lay-bys will only destroy more trees and habitats.

Doddinghurst Woods is found within the Site and is described by an independent study (Local Wildlife Site Review 2012) as having “an important role to play in terms of providing close and interesting woodland habitat that is accessible to local residents” (GB2). Nature and residents lose if this is application passed.”

 

A statement in support of the application from Mr Jacques was read by the Chair:

          Representation in support of application 20/00704/FUL Dagwood Lane

I write on behalf of Myself and residents of Doddinghurst who fully support this application.

 

For over two decades, we have suffered ongoing issues arising from the landfill site on Dagwood Lane. Firstly, the convoy of 40 ton trucks arriving at site all days of the week was an obvious nuisance. Disposing their loads across the site filled with contaminants. This activity was never scrutinised.

 

Very soon we notice the decimation of the ancient woodland. However, the activity continued unchecked without enforcement for over a decade.

 

Most of the bluebell woodland has now been destroyed, the contamination on-site continues to leach into the surrounding area and is further killing the trees.

 

The former owner died and the site become a target for Anti-Social-Behaviour, illegal incursions, trespass, and vandalism, with an increase of fly tipping often rendering the road unusable.

 

The benefits of this development are obvious and would benefit the wider area of Doddinghurst. It’s clear the Parish Council understand this, and their support for the application cannot be ignored.

 

The proposals to decontaminate the highly contaminate land at Dagwood Lane will prevent further loss and erosion to the ancient woodland of which will never be able to be re-established as well as protecting the local watercourse.

 

Point 3.13 of the transport assessment states “The off-site highways improvements of Dagwood Lane will provide a significant improvement to highway safety not only to the new residents of the development but also to the general public currently using Dagwood Lane”. In addition, the two proposed pathways, one running along Dagwood Lane itself and another which extends from the north of the site will add to the safety of pedestrians.

 

The design and spread of the proposed dwellings will allow permeable views across the site and the plans to plant mature trees throughout will go a long way to replace what has been already lost to landfill. All homes provide a minimum of 15m buffer between the dwellings and the ancient woodland. It would be wonderful to re-establish a tunnel of trees throughout Dagwood Lane again.

 

The local village will benefit from the economical uplift this development will bring. Local jobs during construction period, once completed benefiting local shops, restaurants, and small businesses.”

 

Mr Andrew Tabachnik QC was present at the meeting and addressed the Committee in support of the application on behalf of the Applicant.

 

Cllr Parker, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application.

 

Parish Cllr Potter spoke in support of the application on behalf of Doddinghurst Parish Council.

 

Cllr Gelderbloem, Ward Cllr and Committee Member, also addressed the Committee in support of the applicant.

 

Following debate Cllr Mynott MOVED and Cllr Dr Barratt SECONDED that the application be refused.  This motion was subsequently withdrawn.

 

Following discussion and with regard to the need for clarification of the highways position and additional site visits for Members Cllr Mynott MOVED and Cllr Fryd SECONDED a motion to DEFER the application.

 

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

 

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barratt, Bridge, Cuthbert, Fryd, Laplain, Mynott (6)

 

AGAINST:  Cllrs Barber, Cloke, Gelderbloem, Heard, Jakobsson, Wiles (6)

 

ABSTAIN: (0)

 

The Chair had the casting vote.  The motion to DEFER was lost.

 

 

Cllr Mynott MOVED and Cllr Dr Barratt SECONDED that the application be REFUSED.

A vote was taken and Members voted as followed:

 

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barratt, Cuthbert, Fryd, Laplain, Mynott (5)

 

AGAINST: Barber, Cloke, Gelderbloem, Heard, Jakobsson, Wiles (6)

 

ABSTAIN:  Bridge (1)

 

The motion to REFUSE the application was lost.

 

A motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Wiles and SECONDED by Cllr Barber.

 

 

Members discussed the requirement for conditions to be imposed.  These included Grampian conditions to submit a scheme prior to commencement and not commence until approved in writing by the Council for the implementation of the link path to the north of the site linking to the PROW to be usable and the PROW to be made good prior to occupation, and the making good of Dagwood Lane including provision of passing places prior to the contamination remediation of the scheme.  Members also considered necessary a requirement in s.106 Agreement to deal with a clawback of monies to be used for affordable housing in the Borough to meet policy based on the developer providing viability documents for assessment and the site being more viable than that previously suggested.  Wording of conditions to be drafted by officers.

 

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

 

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Cloke, Gelderbloem, Heard, Jakobsson, Wiles (6)

 

AGAINST:  Cllrs Dr Barratt, Cuthbert, Fryd, Laplain, Mynott (5)

 

ABSTAIN:  Cllr Bridge (1)

 

 

The application was APPROVED subject to conditions and a s.106 Agreement.