Yesterday, I spoke for local residents at a planning appeal to build 173 houses on Green Belt in Daws Heath. We should not have to give up our farmland to meet an arbitrary housing target set by the Government, especially when they are requiring inner city and more urban areas to build less homes.
This is an opportunistic land grab by developers who know that Councillors have committed to saving Green Belt sites like this in their draft local plan, which I understand they are still planning to release in a matter of weeks. I was pleased to stand with residents and local councillors in opposition to this opportunistic attempt at land grabbing by developers and I sincerely hope the planning inspector dismisses this appeal.
You can find a full copy of my speech below:
"Firstly may I say thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of my residents and indeed for kindly agreeing to allow me to speak so early in today’s proceedings so I can get back to my duties representing residents in Parliament as soon as possible.
This is the third time in a year I have spoken in this chamber on behalf of my residents to defend the Green Belt in Daws Heath. Sir, they quite rightly feel that the Green Belt central to the semi-rural character of Daws Heath is under siege.
Sir, you will no doubt be aware that common sense and sound argument prevailed on both of those previous occasions. Your colleagues agreed that development on the Green Belt is inappropriate and I sincerely hope you will be able to come to the same judgement and preserve the Green Belt in Daws Heath for future generations to appreciate.
The arguments I wish to make against this appeal and in many instances the specifics of the Appellant’s case, fall around six key areas:
1) Status of the land as Green Belt
2) The Green Belt functions the site fulfils
3) The traffic generated by the development
4) Specific concerns about flooding and drainage
5) Concerns about wildlife
6) The status of the withdrawn local plan and the emerging new local plan the Borough Council are currently working on
Before I begin my substantive points though Sir, I wish if I may to make a few comments about the opening remarks by the appellant’s (the developer’s) barrister.
Firstly, he referred to the circa 700 annual housing target imposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, The Rt Hon. Angela Rayner MP as housing ‘need’. Sir, that is not a housing ‘need’, that is a target set by a politician in Westminster based on political objectives. The objectively assessed need outlined by the Council is the true need figure. Although the Deputy Prime Minister may direct you, or the Borough Council, to adhere to her own annual housing figure, it should not be referred to as ‘need’. It is an arbitrary local target set by a politician far from here.
Counsel for the appellant also stated that over 50% of the Borough is Green Belt. Although that is true on paper, a lot of the Green Belt is inaccessible to anyone but lapwings because it is marshland. The percentage of the Borough that is Green Belt that could potentially be built on is significantly lower.
Moving on to my main points.
Firstly, I am deeply concerned by the outrageous assertion made by the appellant in points 2.1 to 2.4 and in several other places throughout their Statement of Case, that because Policy GB1 from the 1998 adopted local plan was not saved by the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears in 2007, the relevant Green Belt designation and protections contained within the adopted 1998 Castle Point Local Plan do not apply.
Sir, this is the second time I have seen an appellant push this assertion during a planning appeal to justify building on local Green Belt in the space of a year. The first time, was during the appeal that took place between 4th-7th June last year for an application to build 455 homes on pristine Green Belt on ‘Land east of Rayleigh Road, Thundersley’, little more than a stone’s throw away from the site of this appeal. It is a case that the Borough Council have included in their evidence for consideration so I will not quote the application number. In a judgement delivered on the 22nd August last year, that appeal was dismissed and the appellant’s highly flawed assertion that Green Belt designation in Castle Point has not existed since 2007 was not mentioned once in the judgement, indicating this assertion was completely dismissed. I urge you Sir to find in accordance with that precedent. For your benefit, I will briefly run through the arguments I submitted against this assertion at that appeal. I apologise to those who have already heard them as clearly the appellants haven’t.
In September 2015, I made a lengthy submission on behalf of residents in a four-day planning appeal, an appeal for a proposed circa 265 home development on Green Belt South of Jotmans Lane in Benfleet. After a lengthy legal battle we were successful. The appeal reference was APP/M1520/A/14/2216062 and in the decision notice from the Secretary of State for that appeal, a decision notice incidentally legally tested at the Court of Appeal, Sections 10-11 state:
“In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan (LP), adopted on 17 November 1998. Policy GB1, which dealt with control of development in the Green Belt, was not saved. The Secretary of State has taken into account the Court of Appeal’s decision that notwithstanding the failure to save LP Policy GB1, the Green Belt designation, shown on the Proposals Map, persists.”
This in itself references section 5.1 and 5.2 from the Inspector’s report accompanying the decision notice for said appeal which states:
“The statutory development plan for the area includes the saved policies of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan, adopted on 17 November 1998. The appeal site lies within the boundaries of the Green Belt, as defined on the Proposals Map. The Saving Direction, dated 20 September 2007, did not include Policy GB1 which dealt with the control of development in the Green Belt. The Court of Appeal decided that notwithstanding the failure to save LP Policy GB1, the Green Belt designation, shown on the Proposals Map, persists. In the absence of any Local plan policy controlling development in general in the Green Belt, the Council makes no reference to the development plan in its reasons for refusal, nor does it rely on it in evidence. Instead, the Council has been largely guided by the approach set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, and the subsequent Planning Practice Guidance.” End Quote
Incidentally, the Court of Appeal decision referred to in that judgement was a successful decision against a planning appeal for land at Glebelands in Thundersley which the Council, myself and hundreds of local residents fought against a few years before then.
Sir, the reason why that decision is particularly relevant is that again, here for this appeal right now, the Borough Council Development Control Committee also makes no reference to the 1998 development plan in its reasons for refusal, nor does it rely on it in evidence. The great emphasis that the appellant has placed on the fact that GB1 from the 1998 plan was not saved is a complete red herring at best or a deliberate attempt to undermine all Green Belt sites across the Borough at worst and I contend irrelevant to the main arguments surrounding this case.
In their statement of case, when it comes to the planning balance the appellant seems to be putting all their eggs in one basket, the basket being this argument that the application is in accordance with the 1998 adopted local plan, openly stating that the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tilted balance test need not apply. Sir, you can quite clearly see on the proposals map contained in the 1998 plan that the Court of Appeal agreed was relevant, that this site we are discussing today is consequently, unequivocally in Castle Point’s designated Green Belt and therefore should be protected as such.
Just as I was when I made these arguments in June of last year, I remain deeply worried that a ruling that accepts the appellant’s assertion that Green Belt designation hasn’t existed in Castle Point since 2007 in any meaningful way, sets a dangerous precedent completely at odds with the sentiment behind the Secretary of State’s decision on the Jotmans appeal in 2017. It would have serious consequences for any future appeals and potentially weaken the protection that land designated as Green Belt in the 1998 adopted plan enjoys, which incidentally is ALL of the land that local residents and the Council currently identify as Green Belt.
Sir, reading the Statement of Common Ground for this appeal it would seem that the Borough Council are willing to concede this point to the appellant, however Sir I am not and I don’t believe any resident who in Castle Point would want that point conceded either today.
2)
Sir, the application site clearly fulfils many of the functions of Green Belt:
- It checks the unrestricted urban sprawl of Daws Heath
- It safeguards the countryside from encroachment
- It prevents neighbouring settlements from merging into one another, in this case Hadleigh and Daws Heath
- Its existence assists with urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of brownfield land in the existing urban periphery of Castle Point
The very existence of the site as undeveloped Green Belt means it meets the first two purposes by default, as indeed does any site in the Green Belt.
The Council in their Statement of Case make a strong argument for the importance of the site in preventing the merger of Daws Heath and Hadleigh. A birds eye view, available through Google, shows that if the site is developed there will be an unbroken string of houses along the bow of Daws Heath Road between house numbers 469 and I believe 479. There is a gap in the housing of about 30 yards on the east side of the road, but this is negated by the fact there is a property on the other side of the road making the ribbon of housing between this site and Hadleigh unbroken.
Sir if this application is granted, as there would be that continuous ribbon of housing along the road, it would undermine the purpose of the Green Belt immediately to the south of this site and to the south of Solby Farm on the other side of Daws Heath Road, as the settlements of Daws Heath and Hadleigh will have already effectively merged in planning terms. It therefore weakens the permanence of the new Green Belt boundary that would be established by this development and makes the Green Belt land to its south and south west far more vulnerable to development in the future.
While I cannot support the Borough Council’s concession about Green Belt policy in the 1998 plan as it relates to this application, I fully support the Council’s arguments about the openness of the Green Belt made in their Statement of Case on the site and the loss of visual amenity. Castle Point as a Borough has a semi-rural feel that is crucial to its character. This is because between every major settlement in the Borough and indeed between them and settlements in neighbouring Boroughs, there is at least one field or a patch of woodland between them. I would say this is particularly the case for Daws Heath where I know local residents truly treasure the village feel of their community. Undermining the openness of the Green Belt with this application risks irretrievably damaging the character of Daws Heath in that respect and that should be taken into account.
I am slightly baffled that in their Statement of Common Ground, the Castle Point Borough Council and the appellants seem to have agreed that this site does not fulfil the function of promoting the recycling of local brownfield land, when I and I am sure many local residents would very much contend that it does.
The large number of new flatted developments and the intensification of sites already in the urban area is a testament to the success of the local Green Belt. Developers will always prefer virgin greenfield land compared to brownfield land simply because there are no overheads from demolition. Effectively banning development on the Green Belt forces developers to recycle underutilised brownfield land and that is exactly what we have seen here in Castle Point.
Sir, there is no doubt that this site fulfils many functions of Green Belt and if this appeal is won, it would cause very substantial harm to not just this site, but potentially other local Green Belt sites as well, and I believe it should be soundly rejected.
3)
Moving onto transport, I share the many sensible concerns of local residents about the increase in traffic that Daws Heath Road itself would face as a result of this development. Looking at the mix of housing, from experience, I believe we are looking at an extra 300 cars on our local roads if not more, as well as the associated delivery vehicles etc.
Sir, the vast majority of vehicle movements along Daws Heath Road have to also pass through one of three junctions, The Woodman’s Arms junction on Rayleigh Road in the North West, the Junction with London Road by St James the Less Church in Hadleigh Town Centre in the South, or the T junction with no slip roads at the end of St Michael’s Road onto the national speed limit A127 dual carriageway in the North East. All of these junctions are already very congested at peak times and the vehicle movements generated by the development will only make the situation worse.
Sir I am pleased to hear you are planning to include a site visit in your itinerary for this enquiry. I urge you to pay a visit at rush hour to the Woodmans Arms junction and the junction of Daws Heath Road and London Road. It would not be safe for anyone to stand at the junction of the A127 and St Michael’s Road however. That I feel is the only way you will get a true representation of just how overloaded those junctions are already at peak times.
As I have stated in previous planning appeals for development on Green Belt in Daws Heath, the A129 Rayleigh Road around the Woodmans Arms and Rayleigh Weir junctions is one of the most congested roads in Castle Point. Both junctions are already severely overcapacity at peak times and frequently close to gridlock throughout most of the day. Rayleigh Weir is the southern boundary of the Rayleigh Air Quality Management Area and several concerns have been raised about the nitrogen dioxide levels in the locality. Adding further congestion to Rayleigh Weir and the A129 is only going to exacerbate the problem and I cannot see any specific mitigation measures included in the appellant’s planning application.
The T junction at the end of St Michael’s Road is a junction based on an ancient right of way that would not meet modern safety standards for new junctions if it were to be installed today. I am very concerned about even more pressure being put on that junction through developments such as this.
The junction of Daws Heath Road and London Road is a junction that sees a lot of pedestrian footfall and is often congested as it is where two lanes merge to one on the London Road, which as the A13, is one of the two main routes East-West for the whole of South Essex. This junction also suffers from congestion, and extra vehicle movements from this development if it is approved, would only make it worse.
Now, I fully acknowledge that the developer may well allocate money via a ‘Section 106 Agreement’ for road and junction improvements, but no possible junction improvements will deal with the central problem of the increase in traffic volume that will be added to our already over-congested road junctions that local residents are forced to use every day.
4)
As well as concerns about the extra traffic the new homes will generate, I also have concerns regarding the drainage of the site and the possible effects of extra built environment on the nearby Prittle Brook.
Sir, on the 20th July 2014 dozens of my residents across Castle Point were flooded in the middle of the night, a significant number of them in Hadleigh, when the Prittle Brook and its tributary to the South of this site overflowed and flooded people’s houses. My office was receiving calls from terrified residents asking for help as the emergency services lines were engaged and they were watching helplessly as water flooded into their homes from their back gardens and up through surface water drains.
I appreciate that if this appeal were to be granted, the appellant would have to incorporate a ‘Sustainable Urban Drainage System’ into the development. Sir I know from harsh experience how nearby development, even with sustainable urban drainage systems in place, can lead to flooding around the Prittle Brook. Residents less than half a mile away who have a tributary of the Brook running at the end of their gardens have experienced flooding where they had not had it before since the building out of the nearby Ashcroft Place development for example.
Sir, the main point I wish to make here however, is that Anglian Water made the following comment on the original application;
“Desktop analysis show that the proposed development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. A feasible drainage strategy must be achieved. The preferred method of water disposal would be sustainable urban drainage."
Sir this is I believe the first time I have ever seen a water company take the trouble to raise such a concern at application level, which tells me a lot about the serious level of concern they must have about the application. It is certainly Sir, the first time I have ever seen an application with such a stark comment regarding comment regarding flood risk, reach the appeal stage.
Sir I have looked at the sustainable urban drainage scheme listed in the evidence for this appeal and to my absolute horror the scheme itself drains into Prittle Brook! Sir the utility company responsible for surface water drainage has said this development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream and the proposed sustainable urban drainage system does nothing to mitigate it and I believe that is reason enough to throw out this appeal alone.
Before I move on from flooding and drainage I wish to add that the Hadleigh and Benfleet areas contain a series of unmapped underground streams that feed into either Prittle Brook or the Thames. I have lost count of the times when I have been contacted directly by residents, or discovered through knocking on their doors, that they have issues with water coming up in their road or in their back gardens that neither Essex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority or Essex and Suffolk Water and Anglian Water as the local water companies can explain. Sir I believe the proximity of the Prittle Brook means that development on this site may well disturb an unmapped underground waterway and I do not believe the appellant has explored this possibility enough in their evidence.
5)
Sir I have fought hard during my time in Parliament to improve animal welfare and so wildlife preservation in planning is something I take a particular interest in. The residents of Castle Point have done a very eloquent job of raising their concerns about the negative effect on local wildlife this development may have in their public comments on the original planning application and I don’t wish to repeat an argument that has already been so well made.
What I will add however is that I believe utmost consideration should be given to the objection submitted to the original application by the Essex Badger Patrol. They stated that this proposal will:
“encroach on badger habitat resulting in displacement and inconvenience for local residents as badgers seek new foraging areas”.Local residents come to me with problems about badgers causing a nuisance in this area enough already thank you without displacing them and causing more!
Sir, that is a legitimate objection to this development that I do not believe has been properly addressed in the appellant’s evidence and I ask you to take it into the utmost consideration here today.
6)
Finally Sir, the last substantive points I want to make on behalf of residents relate to the status of the draft local plan withdrawn in 2023 and the emerging local plan that the Borough Council are due to take to Regulation 19 consultation in a few weeks.
Sir, the last draft local plan was withdrawn by Castle Point Borough Council precisely to prevent the development of this site and other large single plots of Green Belt around the Borough. In withdrawing the last draft plan, I know several Councillors and large numbers of the concerned public were of the understanding that it would no longer carry weight in planning decisions. I therefore am very disappointed and not a little surprised on behalf of residents that the developers refer constantly to the withdrawn plan throughout their case.
The appellant and the Council both agree that the policies in the withdrawn local plan have no weight. I can see why the appellant wishes to argue that the evidence used to justify the last plan has weight because reading it you could be forgiven for thinking that it was evidence compiled that is specifically designed to support development on sites like this in the Green Belt. Sir if that evidence is to be attributed weight in these proceedings, that should not outweigh the democratically expressed wish of local councillors to disregard the policies that ‘evidence’ was used to support.
Sir, looking at the timing of the appeal it is clear to me that the appellant is looking to exploit the fact that while the Council do not have a published draft local plan in place that can be afforded legal weight in planning appeals, they are vulnerable to piecemeal speculative development on the Green Belt. Sir, I understand that draft plan is due to be published by the Borough Council in a matter of weeks. If the Council choose to protect Green Belt sites like this in that plan, which I and I am sure an overwhelming majority of local residents are hoping they will, then I believe that decision contained in the draft plan will be given significant weight. On behalf of residents, I believe it is a shame then that this appeal is happening now and not then.
Sir, point 3.16 in the appellant’s statement of case states that currently “There is no short-or-medium term strategy to address this persistent and ongoing chronic lack of local market and affordable housing within the borough.” That is true for now, but I am confident it will not be true in a few weeks time when the Council have released their draft plan.
Sir, I urge you to consider that a draft plan from the Borough Council is mere weeks away and I urge you to not prejudice this long awaited plan before it is even released by agreeing this development on Green Belt.
And finally Sir, I urge you to let my residents have their voice heard through their elected Councillors as to the future shape of the Borough they live in through the development of a local plan and not allow opportunistic developers to deprive them of that voice through speculative planning applications such as this.
Thank you for giving me the time to speak on behalf of the residents I represent in Daws Heath and indeed around the whole of Castle Point. Sir, I sincerely hope you will reject this appeal and preserve this important local Green Belt site and with it the semi-rural character of Daws Heath and indeed the Borough as a whole. Castle Point’s new local plan is weeks away from being released, that is the vehicle to see the homes we need delivered in our Borough, not planning appeals on speculative planning applications on our Green Belt such as this. Thank you very much."
