COUNCILLORS on Thurrock’s planning committee went against the advice of their officers to give the green light to a new greenbelt development in South Ockendon.
At their meeting last week councillors were recommended to refuse an application for seven bungalows at Kemps Farm, off Dennises Lane, but after a lengthy debate decided the development would tidy up a rural site that had become an eyesore.
The site lies adjacent to a Grade II listed but derelict farmhouse where councillors also overruled the objections of planners when giving approval last year for the creation of 11 dwellings that would renovate the site.
Details of the latest application were put to the councillors by agent James Bompas who also ‘warned’ members that the site owner might seek to obtain lawful development to use the site for industrial purposes by obtaining a lawful development certificate if his housing hopes were not met. The unkempt site has been used as a storage area for materials and lorries for more than 10 years, meaning it was possible the applicant would gain approval for that use.
Mr Bompas said: “We do not share the same conclusions as the officer and believe that a small scale residential development at Kemps Farm has the ability to firstly provide seven new homes in South Ockendon at a time when new housing supply and housing choice in the Borough remains well below Council-identified need.
“It is fair to say that the development proposals do have a complex history. A former application for 11 dwellings was withdrawn as to allow the applicant time to digest representations and respond. This has culminated in a reduction in dwellings, enhancements to the design and additional information on the landscaping strategy for the application site.
“The Applicant does not dispute the site is allocated as greenbelt land in the adopted local plan. However, an important distinction to be made is that this is not virgin green land. Instead, this is a site that, as the report acknowledges, is characterised by HGV parking, pallet storage, plant and machinery. These uses have operated for a period of more than 10 years, as confirmed by a series of authenticated aerial photographs.
Likewise, this is not a site characterised by rolling countryside, but has a backdrop of eight lanes of the M25 motorway.
In this context, you will understand why the Applicant does not share the views of the Conservation Officer. Instead, we strongly believe that seven new homes will offer an enhanced setting that HGV parking, palate storage, plant and machinery. As members will be aware, if this application is indeed refused then an obvious option available to the client is to pursue a Certificate of Lawful Development to regularise the open storage uses on the site, operated since at least 1999.”
Councillors expressed their concern that they were being ‘blackmailed’ by the applicant, but in the end a majority supported the scheme.
Cllr Gerard Rice said: “I can remember another application in Bulphan where we had a similar situation and we did grant permission to get rid of the eyesore. It obviously isn’t liked by officers but we should take this into account. I think seven bungalows is an attractive consideration when you have HGV parking and machinery on there. We’ve approved this sort of thing in the past on derelict sites where we decided to have development in the greenbelt. I think this would bring a different feel to the area, If we can find the reasons I would support this.”
Cllr Barry Johnson said: “I think this kind of application is exactly why we have a committee of members who live in Thurrock. These properties being proposed are bungalows, it’s out of order to say it’s a sprawling development with inappropriate use. You can’t argue that it’s not in greenbelt but this scheme will help it. I actually think it will be a very nice site giving people a semi rural development.
Cllr Tunde Ojetola said: “I was a bit more open until the applicant started talking about a certificate of lawful development but I really don’t like being held over a barrel so to speak – ‘If you don’t; agree with this I will do something else, blah blah blah.’ I don’t like that.
“I am very much in favour of following due process and if this were major greenbelt then I would follow that. However, the developer has come back with seven dwellings rather than 11 and I am not totally sure I want to follow the officer recommendation.”
Cllr Barry Palmer was another who agreed with the applicant’s plan, saying: “This is just another untidy site. For far too long we have tolerated untidy sites that could be improved.”
Cllr Brian Little also agreed the plan would approve the site but felt there should be a process whereby land could be redesignated to help officers make their decisions.
He said: “This is trapped by a couple of roads, it’s derelict and we are never going to do anything to make this nice and pretty, it’s going to be a mess for 30 years. These sites should be taken out of the greenbelt. Hopefully when we next determine the area which is designated greenbelt we take this sort of place out of it. I will be supporting this site.”
However, there was a note of caution from Cllr Robert Ray who said: “I take on board everything my colleagues have said but I am concerned about whether there would be a precedent for further development on land the applicant owns to the north and south. Do we have control over that? He was assured by planning chief Andy Millard that any new application would be treated on its own merits. “
Even less impressed than Cllr Ray was local councillor Charlie Curtis who said: “I would argue that there isn’t any commercial use on that farm or has been for many years, I would think it would be very hard to prove. I find it unsettling that they say do this or else! It gets up my hooter. I wish they would have come to this with a plan, not threats. I think I am opposed to it.”
However, he remained in a minority when committee chair Cllr Terry Hipsey put the matter to a vote, saying: “There is old tut and rubbish on the site. You have the development on the old listed barn that we have given permission to and you have to now weigh up if this is also going to be detrimental to the greenbelt.”
