Developers have submitted an application for 675 homes, a care home and a primary school on Jotmans Farm. Castle Point Borough Council have also put forward a new draft Local Plan, with evidence documents that classify Jotmans Farm as ‘potential Grey Belt’. This designation increases the chances it will be developed in the future if the Labour Government tell them to increase the number of houses they are planning for.
I have stood side-by-side with local residents on the Jotmans estate many times over the last sixteen years to fight against development on Jotmans Farm. Once again, this treasured local Green Belt site is being threatened with development. Once again, as your local MP, I will stand with residents and fight to preserve this site for future generations.
IT IS VITAL THAT AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE WRITE TO THE COUNCIL OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION FOR ‘VALID PLANNING REASONS’!
As your local MP, I have submitted an objection to the planning application based on valid planning reasons that the Council can use to defend the site, but the more people who submit objections, the stronger the Council’s hand will be. Valid planning reasons I used in my objection include:
· The site’s Green Belt status
· The capacity of the local road network
· Predetermination of the local plan
· Concerns about surface water flooding
You can find the full documents for the application here: https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/find-planning-applications and by searching the reference number 26/0310/OUT.
The Council would like you to register on their website if you wish to comment on planning applications, but I have spoken to the Chief Planning Officer, and you can also email your own objections to: [email protected]
Guide to commenting on planning applications
In the event the application goes to appeal, I will request to speak against the application at the public hearing on behalf of residents and put our case directly to the Inspector.
THE COUNCIL MUST REMOVE JOTMANS ‘POTENTIAL GREY BELT STATUS’!
SIGN the petition to remove Jotmans Farm’s ‘Potential Grey Belt Status’ in the Council’s new draft Local Plan- at the bottom of this page.
We have seen off development on this site many times before, and I am determined that we put forward the strongest possible case and fight as hard as we can against it again. Please see my own objection below:
Dame Rebecca Harris MP, Member of Parliament for Castle Point...OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 26/0310/OUT
Land at Jotmans Farm, Benfleet
I am writing to formally object to this outline planning application for up to 675 dwellings, a primary school, healthcare facility, residential care home and associated development on Green Belt land at Jotmans Farm.
Throughout my time as Member of Parliament for Castle Point, I have supported the provision of new homes in appropriate and sustainable locations. I recognise the acute need for both market and affordable housing and the importance of ensuring that local families and young people have somewhere suitable to live.
However, housing need does not make every site suitable for development. New homes must be located where the environmental harm is acceptable, where the transport network can accommodate them and where the necessary infrastructure can genuinely be delivered.
Jotmans Farm is the wrong location.
This land performs an important strategic function at the western edge of South Benfleet. It helps contain the built up area, protects open countryside from encroachment and contributes to a clear boundary between Castle Point and Basildon along the A130 corridor.
Residents have fought hard over many years to protect Jotmans Farm. The previous refusal was defended by the former Government through the courts, reflecting the seriousness of the Green Belt and planning issues associated with developing this land.
The present application is not identical to earlier proposals and must be determined on the evidence and national policy applying today. Nevertheless, the fundamental physical consequences remain clear. An extensive area of open land would be permanently changed into a substantial urban development containing hundreds of homes, roads, buildings and infrastructure.
Although the applicant seeks to rely upon changes to national planning policy, the Council’s emerging Local Plan and the site’s designation as “Potential Grey Belt”, none of these matters justify the granting of planning permission. The proposal would still result in significant and permanent harm to the openness, function and purposes of the Green Belt. It also raises serious concerns regarding highway capacity, flood risk, surface water drainage, infrastructure provision and the cumulative effects of development across the wider area.
Local residents already experience surface water flooding on Watlington Road during periods of heavy rainfall. The application site forms part of the wider catchment draining towards this area and the surrounding drainage network is already under pressure. Given the site’s topography, the reliance on a comprehensive surface water drainage strategy and the importance of ensuring that development does not increase flood risk elsewhere, the Council should only grant planning permission if it is entirely satisfied that the proposed drainage system will operate effectively throughout the lifetime of the development, including during extreme rainfall events and taking full account of climate change.
I am also concerned that the application does not adequately confront the wider cross boundary context. Basildon’s emerging Local Plan includes a significant employment proposal at Policy E4 on the western side of the A130 near Sadlers Farm. The Government has now directed Basildon Council to continue progressing its Local Plan, meaning that proposal forms part of a reasonably foreseeable strategic planning context rather than a matter which can simply be ignored.
Development at Jotmans must therefore be considered not only as an isolated housing scheme, but for its potential cumulative effects with development on the opposite side of the A130, wider housing growth, existing congestion and pressure on the strategic road network.
For the reasons set out below, I respectfully request that Castle Point Borough Council refuses planning permission.
Summary of Grounds for Objection
The proposal would permanently transform a substantial Green Belt site at the edge of South Benfleet into a major residential neighbourhood.
In my view, permission should be refused for the following principal reasons:
1) Inappropriate development in the Green Belt
The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that every condition required by national policy for the development to be treated as not inappropriate on Grey Belt land has been met. If those conditions are not met, the proposal is inappropriate development and the applicant has not demonstrated very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the resulting Green Belt harm and all other harm.
2) Harm to openness and the purposes of the Green Belt
The development would permanently urbanise open land, extend the built form of South Benfleet westwards and weaken the strategic role of the countryside surrounding the A130 corridor.
3) The applicant’s Grey Belt case is not determinative
The Council’s emerging assessment is relevant evidence, but the designation “Potential Grey Belt” is not a planning permission or an allocation. The Council must independently assess this application, the precise site, the consequences of the proposed development and whether all the tests in national policy are satisfied.
4) Inadequate assessment of the wider strategic and cross boundary context
The proposal has not been sufficiently assessed alongside Basildon’s emerging E4 employment allocation and other reasonably foreseeable development affecting the A130 and Sadlers Farm. The cumulative consequences for the Green Belt, landscape and transport network require fuller consideration.
5) Highway capacity, cumulative impact and network resilience
The proposed roundabout may superficially address the immediate means of access, but it does not by itself demonstrate that the wider network can sustainably accommodate the traffic generated by 675 homes and the associated uses. The assessment must address cumulative demand and the extremely limited resilience of the A130, Sadlers Farm, Tarpots and the routes serving Canvey Island.
6) Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage
The application has not yet demonstrated that the proposed drainage strategy would avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere or adequately address existing surface water flooding affecting land adjoining the site. Given the existing flooding experienced on Watlington Road, the Council should require robust evidence that the development will not worsen flood risk and, wherever possible, will improve the existing drainage situation.
7) Infrastructure delivery has not been secured with sufficient certainty
The proposed school, healthcare facility and other infrastructure are presented as important benefits, but outline permission should not be granted unless their delivery, funding, timing and long term operation can be secured. Providing land or buildings does not by itself guarantee that services will be commissioned, staffed and opened when residents need them.
8) Conflict with the plan led consideration of strategic growth
The application would determine the future of one of Castle Point’s largest strategic Green Belt sites before the Local Plan Examination has resolved the appropriate scale and distribution of growth or properly considered all reasonable alternatives.
9) The adverse impacts outweigh the benefits
Housing, affordable housing and community facilities attract significant positive weight. However, those benefits do not overcome the permanent Green Belt, landscape, transport and strategic planning harms identified in this representation.
1) Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt
The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposal would introduce up to 675 homes together with a school, healthcare facility, care home, roads and associated infrastructure onto land which is presently predominantly open and undeveloped.
Under the National Planning Policy Framework, development on Grey Belt land may be treated as not inappropriate only where all the conditions in paragraph 155 are met. These include that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area, that there is a demonstrable unmet need, that the location is or can be made sustainable and that the applicable Golden Rules are satisfied.
The applicant asserts that those conditions are met and also advances an alternative case that very special circumstances exist. It relies upon a severe housing land supply shortfall, the delivery of 50 per cent affordable housing, a primary school, healthcare provision, a care home and other claimed benefits.
Those are substantial considerations and should be recognised honestly. However, they do not remove the need for the Council to test the proposal rigorously against each part of national policy.
In particular, the Council must be satisfied that:
· The application site itself properly falls within the national definition of ‘Grey Belt’
· Development of this land would not fundamentally undermine the purposes served by the remaining Green Belt across the relevant plan area
· The site is genuinely sustainable when the likely travel behaviour and wider highway network are considered
· The Golden Rules and associated infrastructure requirements are fully secured and deliverable
· There are no other material harms which make the application unacceptable when the Framework is read as a whole
The applicant’s own case acknowledges harm to the Green Belt, landscape and agricultural land, although it characterises the Green Belt harm as limited to moderate and argues that the benefits outweigh it.
I do not consider that assessment gives sufficient weight to the scale and permanence of the proposed urbanisation, the site’s strategic location or the evolving development context on the opposite side of the A130.
If the Council concludes that any of the paragraph 155 conditions are not met, the development remains inappropriate. In those circumstances substantial weight must be given to Green Belt harm, and permission should only be granted if very special circumstances clearly outweigh that harm and every other identified harm.
In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated that exceptionally demanding test.
2) Harm to Openness and the Purposes of the Green Belt
Jotmans Farm is not merely a vacant parcel on the edge of an urban area.
It is an extensive area of open land which contributes to the transition between South Benfleet and the countryside to the west. It limits the outward expansion of the built up area and helps protect the A130 corridor from becoming surrounded by continuous urban development.
The proposal would replace that openness with a substantial new neighbourhood. Roads, homes, the school, healthcare facility, care home, lighting, parking and associated activity would permanently change the spatial and visual character of the site.
Landscaping may soften the appearance of development over time, but it cannot recreate the openness that would be lost. Nor can planting reverse the physical extension of the built up area into the countryside.
The applicant’s assessment accepts that the relevant Green Belt parcel makes at least a moderate contribution to purposes concerning sprawl, separation and encroachment.
That finding is important. A conclusion that land does not strongly contribute to one of the purposes used in the national Grey Belt definition is not the same as concluding that it makes no contribution or that its development would cause no harm.
The Council must therefore assess:
· The extent of the westward extension of South Benfleet
· The loss of countryside and openness
· The increased perception of urban development along the A130
· The relationship between the site and development in Basildon
· The permanence of the remaining Green Belt boundary; an
· The cumulative effect upon the identity and setting of the adjoining communities
In my view, the proposal would result in a major and irreversible change to the character and function of this part of the Green Belt.
That harm should be weighed fully and should not be reduced to an assumption that development is acceptable simply because the site has been described as “Potential Grey Belt”.
3) The Applicant’s Reliance on “Potential Grey Belt”
The applicant places considerable reliance upon the Council’s Green Belt Assessment and Housing Capacity Topic Paper, which identify the relevant area as potentially meeting the national definition of Grey Belt. The Planning Statement expressly uses those findings to support the application.
It is important to state the correct planning position.
The emerging assessment is a material consideration. However, designation of “Potential Grey Belt” is not a separate statutory land classification and it does not grant permission or allocate Jotmans Farm for development.
Nor is it necessary for the emerging Local Plan to be adopted before the Council can decide whether land is Grey Belt. National guidance specifically expects planning authorities to determine Grey Belt status where necessary when deciding applications.
The decisive point is therefore not simply that the Local Plan is emerging, it is that the Council must make its own application specific judgement rather than treating a broad evidence base assessment as conclusive.
That judgement must address:
· Whether the assessment area was drawn at a sufficiently appropriate and granular scale
· Whether every part of the application site performs in the same way
· Whether the site strongly contributes to any relevant Green Belt purpose
· Whether development would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt
· Whether other protected assets or constraints provide a strong reason to restrict development
· Whether the proposal satisfies all the further requirements of paragraph 155.
Government guidance makes clear that Grey Belt identification is only one element of the decision. Wider development plan policies and other material considerations continue to apply, and Grey Belt status does not require the application to be approved.
I also remain concerned that insufficient weight was attached in the Council’s assessment to Jotmans Farm’s strategic role along the A130 and to the risk of development taking place on both sides of that corridor.
The Committee should not therefore ask only whether the applicant can point to the words “Potential Grey Belt”. It should ask whether the evidence, when tested against the precise development now proposed and the full cross boundary context, demonstrates that national policy supports permission.
In my view, it does not.
4) Wider Strategic and Cross Boundary Planning Context
The application cannot properly be assessed as though land west of the A130 will necessarily remain open and undeveloped.
Basildon’s emerging Local Plan contains Policy E4, proposing employment development to the west of the A130 near Sadlers Farm and close to the north western part of Jotmans Farm.
The Basildon proposal remains emerging and must not be described as certain development. However, the Government intervened on 21 July 2026 and directed Basildon Council to continue progressing its Local Plan. The Minister’s letter emphasises the importance of completing the plan and avoiding piecemeal and speculative development.
The applicant itself relies upon emerging planning evidence where that supports its case. It is therefore entirely reasonable for the Council also to consider the emerging cross boundary proposals which may increase the harm arising from Jotmans.
If significant employment development comes forward west of the A130 and this housing development is permitted to the east, there would be major development on both sides of a road which currently helps form a clear and understandable edge to the urban area.
The cumulative consequences could include:
· A substantial urbanisation of the A130 and Sadlers Farm corridor
· Weakening of a recognisable Green Belt boundary
· Increased encroachment into the countryside
· Greater visual and physical linkage between development in Castle Point and Basildon
· Additional peak hour demand at Sadlers Farm and on the A130 and A13
· Reduced confidence in the permanence of the remaining Green Belt
The Transport Assessment considers a number of other applications but excludes several proposals because they were not sufficiently certain at the time of preparation.
That approach may have been understandable when the assessment was compiled, but the Government’s subsequent intervention in Basildon’s plan making process is a material change in context. Before determining the application, the Council should require the applicant and the highway authority to confirm whether the cumulative analysis remains adequate.
At minimum, the Committee should not accept a planning balance which treats the Jotmans site as though its western surroundings are fixed and unaffected by reasonably foreseeable strategic development.
5) Highway Capacity, Cumulative Impact and Network Resilience
The application proposes that residential traffic would use a new roundabout on the A130, with the northbound through movement designed to bypass the roundabout. Vehicular access to the residential element would not be provided through the existing Benfleet streets.
That is materially different from a scheme which directs all traffic through Jotmans Lane, and the proposed access arrangement should be assessed on its actual merits.
However, demonstrating that the new junction itself can operate safely and within capacity does not answer the wider transport question.
The Transport Assessment states that the new access would operate within capacity and concludes that additional traffic would not materially affect the operation of Canvey Way at that location.
The relevant issue for the Committee is broader:
Can the surrounding strategic network accommodate the total additional demand generated by the development, alongside committed and reasonably foreseeable growth, without unacceptable highway safety effects or severe residual cumulative impacts?
The submitted assessment considers the A130 access, Sadlers Farm, Tarpots, Cemetery Corner, Waterside Farm and other local junctions. Its principal modelling scenarios compare a 2031 baseline with a 2031 baseline plus the proposed development.
The Council should nevertheless seek clear answers to the following matters:
Cumulative development
The assessment excluded some emerging developments because permission had not been granted or their future was uncertain. That includes significant proposals affecting the wider Basildon area.
The Council should establish whether the cumulative scenario remains robust following the Government’s intervention in Basildon’s Local Plan and whether the E4 allocation has been adequately represented.
Network resilience
Castle Point depends upon a limited number of strategic routes. Disruption at Tarpots, Sadlers Farm, the A130 or the routes serving Canvey frequently produces consequences across a much wider area.
The recent major Cadent works at Tarpots have again demonstrated how congestion can spread when an important junction is constrained. That experience is not, by itself, a technical reason for refusal. It does, however, illustrate why capacity modelling under standard conditions should be supplemented by a proper understanding of network resilience and recovery during disruption.
Existing highway safety record
The applicant’s own assessment records 110 injury collisions within the study area over five years, including 29 serious collisions. At Sadlers Farm it identifies 37 collisions, ten of them serious, while 15 incidents were recorded around Tarpots, six of them serious. The applicant concludes that these do not reveal an inherent network deficiency, but the figures underline the need for close scrutiny by the highway authority.
Travel behaviour
The Transport Assessment records high local car ownership and identifies driving as the dominant journey to work mode. It also reports comparatively low levels of walking, cycling and bus use.
The proposed bus route, walking links and cycling improvements are welcome, but assumptions about modal shift must be realistic and supported by enforceable measures, funding and monitoring.
Impact upon Canvey access
Traffic from the development using the A130 would share parts of the same strategic network relied upon by residents travelling to and from Canvey Island. The assessment must therefore demonstrate that the proposal would not materially worsen congestion or reduce resilience on routes which already perform a critical access function.
The emerging Castle Point Plan itself recognises that several junctions are at, close to or above capacity and requires cumulative impacts and mitigation to be examined carefully.
I therefore ask the Council not to determine the application until Essex County Council has provided a clear and fully reasoned conclusion on:
· The adequacy of the cumulative development assumptions
· The treatment of Basildon’s ‘E4 employment land’ allocation
· Resilience of the wider network
· The deliverability and timing of all proposed mitigation; and
· Whether the residual cumulative impacts would be severe or highway safety would be unacceptably affected.
6) Flood Risk, Surface Water Drainage and Climate Resilience
National planning policy is clear that development should not increase flood risk elsewhere and should incorporate sustainable drainage systems that remain effective for the lifetime of the development.
The principle of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) is supported and, where appropriately designed, they can make a valuable contribution to reducing flood risk. However, the issue before the Council is not simply whether SuDS are proposed, but whether the applicant has demonstrated that the drainage strategy will operate effectively under all reasonably foreseeable conditions and leave existing residents no worse off.
Local residents already experience surface water flooding along Watlington Road during periods of heavy rainfall. Whilst I recognise that runoff from agricultural land behaves differently to runoff from developed land, the site forms part of the wider drainage catchment and illustrates the sensitivity of the surrounding drainage network. The Council should therefore be satisfied that the proposed development will improve, rather than simply accommodate, existing drainage conditions.
The development would replace a significant area of permeable land with roofs, roads, parking areas and other hard surfaces. Although attenuation basins and other SuDS features are proposed to manage this change, their effectiveness depends upon robust design, adequate storage capacity, long term maintenance and the ability of the receiving drainage network to accommodate flows during severe rainfall events.
Particular attention should be given to the ultimate discharge arrangements for surface water. If the proposed drainage strategy relies upon an overflow route beneath the railway line towards Benfleet Creek during extreme rainfall events, the Council should be satisfied that this infrastructure has sufficient capacity, can operate reliably throughout the lifetime of the development and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.
The Council should therefore require clear evidence that:
- Post development runoff will not increase flood risk to neighbouring land or properties;
- Existing flooding affecting Watlington Road will not be exacerbated;
- Exceedance flows have been properly modelled;
- Climate change allowances have been fully incorporated into the drainage design;
- The receiving drainage infrastructure possesses sufficient long term capacity; and
- Future maintenance responsibilities for the drainage system are secured for the lifetime of the development.
Until those matters have been satisfactorily demonstrated through robust technical evidence and confirmed by the Lead Local Flood Authority and other statutory consultees, I do not believe the Council can conclude that the proposal complies with national planning policy relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage.
7) Infrastructure Delivery and Existing Services
The application includes land for a two form entry primary school, early years provision, a healthcare facility and a 60 bed care home. Those are potentially significant benefits and should not be ignored.
The applicant’s Education Needs Assessment identifies an immediate need equivalent to approximately one form of primary entry, while the application safeguards enough land for a two form entry school. The applicant argues that the additional capacity could also help meet need from wider development.
The Healthcare Needs Assessment acknowledges that local GP provision is already under pressure. The application proposes a 1,500 square metre healthcare facility, which the applicant says would exceed the floorspace directly generated by the development and assist with an existing shortfall.
These claims should be independently tested with Essex County Council, the NHS and the relevant service commissioners.
The central issue is not simply whether land or a building appears on an illustrative plan. The Council must establish:
· Who will fund construction;
· Who will commission and operate each facility;
· Whether a healthcare provider is committed to occupying the building;
· Whether revenue funding and staffing will be available;
· When the school and healthcare facility would open;
· How many homes could be occupied before each facility is operational;
· What happens if the relevant provider does not take up the land;
· Whether the facilities would remain available for their intended purpose; and
· Whether all obligations meet the statutory tests and are secured through the section 106 agreement.
The submitted draft heads of terms remain broad and state that the final scope is subject to negotiation. They include the provision of land for the school, healthcare facility and care home, rather than setting out a complete delivery mechanism for each facility.
A development should not receive substantial positive weight for facilities unless there is adequate certainty that they will be delivered and operated at the stage when the additional demand arises. Nor should existing residents be expected to bear further pressure while promised infrastructure remains unbuilt or unstaffed.
If those matters cannot be satisfactorily resolved through enforceable obligations and phasing conditions, the claimed infrastructure benefits should attract reduced weight and the application should be refused.
8) Conflict with the Plan Led Consideration of Strategic Growth
The application is being submitted while Castle Point’s Regulation 19 Local Plan is under examination.
The emerging Plan pursues an urban first strategy and does not allocate Jotmans Farm. It seeks to provide 6,196 homes over the plan period, compared with a standard method figure of 11,662, on the basis of the Borough’s Green Belt, highways, environmental and healthcare constraints.
The applicant disputes that strategy and argues that the housing shortfall, lack of a five year supply and Grey Belt policy justify permitting Jotmans now. That case must be considered under the national policy applying to this application.
However, the scale and strategic significance of the proposal remain highly relevant.
This is not a small windfall site. It is a proposed new community of up to 675 homes with major infrastructure, on land previously considered through earlier Local Plan processes.
National policy warns that refusal on prematurity grounds will seldom be justified, but recognises that prematurity may be relevant where a proposal is so substantial, or its cumulative effect so significant, that granting permission would undermine the plan making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development.
The Council should therefore consider whether permitting Jotmans now would:
· Predetermine a central issue before the Local Plan Inspectors
· Weaken the Council’s case concerning the strategic importance of its Green Belt
· Pre-empt the assessment of reasonable alternatives
· Materially alter the planned distribution of growth across the Borough.
I have consistently argued that the Council should make the strongest possible case to Government for a lower housing requirement reflecting Castle Point’s exceptional constraints.
If the Local Plan Examination ultimately concludes that Green Belt release is necessary, that release should follow a comprehensive and comparative assessment of strategic alternatives.
I believe North West Thundersley (colloquially better known as the ‘Blinking Owl Site’) should have received much fuller assessment because of its potential to support a new strategic road connection, improve network resilience and produce a more balanced distribution of development.
That does not mean the Planning Committee should refuse Jotmans merely because another site exists. It does mean that the Council should be extremely cautious about permitting one strategic Green Belt site before the Local Plan Examination has completed the task of assessing the Borough’s overall strategy and reasonable alternatives.
9) Planning Balance
I note the considerable benefits described by the applicant.
The proposal would deliver up to 675 homes, including a proposed 50 per cent affordable housing contribution. It would provide employment during construction, additional local spending, land for education and healthcare facilities, a care home, open space, biodiversity improvements and transport measures.
Given Castle Point’s housing shortfall, I recognise that those benefits attract weight in planning terms.
Nevertheless, the planning balance must be undertaken against the proposal actually before the Council and not against housing need in isolation.
The adverse impacts include:
· The permanent urbanisation of a substantial Green Belt site
· Loss of openness and countryside
· Westward extension of the built up area
· Weakening of the strategic A130 Green Belt corridor
· Potential cumulative urbanisation on both sides of the A130
· Unresolved questions concerning cumulative traffic and network resilience
· Uncertainty concerning the delivery and operation of community infrastructure
· Potential prejudice to the plan led consideration of Castle Point’s spatial strategy.
If the site is not found to satisfy every requirement of paragraph 155, the proposal is inappropriate development and substantial weight must be attached to Green Belt harm. In that event, the applicant has not demonstrated that very special circumstances clearly outweigh that harm and all other harm.
Even if the Council concludes that the proposal is not inappropriate development under paragraph 155, that does not mean permission must follow. The application must still comply with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and it must be acceptable when the Framework is read as a whole. Government guidance expressly confirms that Grey Belt status does not require approval.
In my view, the claimed benefits do not outweigh the permanent Green Belt, landscape, transport, infrastructure and strategic planning harms.
I therefore respectfully request that planning permission is refused.
Final Comments
Jotmans Farm has been defended for many years because it performs a real and important planning function. It has in fact been defended by a decision made by a previous Secretary of State under the last Government, and indeed a High Court Judgement by Mrs Justice Lang less than a decade ago in 2017.
National policy may have changed, and the housing pressures facing Castle Point are undeniably serious, but the physical consequences of developing this land have not disappeared. Once this countryside is urbanised, it cannot be restored. I support the delivery of the homes Castle Point genuinely needs, but those homes must be planned in the right locations, with infrastructure that is certain to be delivered and through a process which properly assesses the consequences and alternatives.
This application fails that test.
I will continue standing with local residents and doing everything I can to protect Jotmans Farm.
Thank you for considering my objection.
Dame Rebecca Harris DBE MP
Member of Parliament for Castle Point
--
APPENDIX A
Draft Framework for Suggested Reasons for Refusal
Important: These draft reasons are for reference reasons by local councillors on the development control committee only and should only be made or used for reference after full review and consultation with by the Council’s planning and legal officers after considering the complete consultation responses, any amended documents and the formal advice of Essex County Council. A highways or infrastructure reason should not be adopted unless the evidence available at determination supports it.
Reason 1: Failure to demonstrate that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt
The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that all the conditions required by paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework are met, including that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area and that the development would be in a sustainable location.
The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Substantial weight is attributed to the resulting Green Belt harm and the applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances which clearly outweigh that harm and all other harm.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the relevant saved policies of the Castle Point Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason 2: Harm to openness, countryside and the strategic Green Belt function of the A130 corridor
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, extent and urbanising effects, would result in a substantial and permanent loss of openness and encroachment into the countryside. It would extend the built form of South Benfleet westwards and weaken the clear and recognisable Green Belt corridor adjoining the A130.
When considered in its wider and evolving cross boundary context, including reasonably foreseeable development west of the A130, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to landscape character, settlement pattern and the long term integrity of the Green Belt in this location.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the relevant saved landscape and Green Belt policies of the Castle Point Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason 3: Insufficient assessment of cumulative highway impacts
On the evidence presently available, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the Transport Assessment has adequately assessed the cumulative effects of the development together with reasonably foreseeable growth affecting the A130, Sadlers Farm, the A13, Tarpots and the wider routes serving Castle Point and Canvey Island.
In the absence of a robust and up to date cumulative assessment, the Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed mitigation would prevent unacceptable highway safety effects or severe residual cumulative impacts upon the road network.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant local transport policies.
Reason 4: Failure to secure necessary infrastructure
The application has not demonstrated with sufficient certainty that the education, healthcare, public transport and other community infrastructure necessary to support the development would be funded, delivered, commissioned and made operational at the appropriate stages of occupation.
In the absence of an adequate planning obligation and enforceable phasing arrangements, the proposal would place unacceptable additional pressure upon existing services and would not constitute sustainable development.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the relevant infrastructure policies of the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason 5: Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage
The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development would avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere or that the proposed surface water drainage strategy would operate satisfactorily throughout the lifetime of the development.
In particular, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that existing surface water flooding affecting land adjoining the site, including Watlington Road, would not be exacerbated, that exceedance flows have been satisfactorily addressed, that the receiving drainage infrastructure possesses sufficient capacity or that the proposed Sustainable Drainage System would remain effective during extreme rainfall events taking account of climate change.
Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with national planning policy requiring development to avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and to incorporate effective and sustainable drainage arrangements.
Reason 6: Prematurity and prejudice to the plan making process
By reason of its scale, location and strategic significance, the proposal would predetermine decisions concerning the scale, location and distribution of development which are central to the ongoing examination of the Castle Point Local Plan.
Granting permission before the Examination has considered the soundness of the spatial strategy, the treatment of the Green Belt and reasonable strategic alternatives would undermine the plan-making process.
The proposal is therefore premature and contrary to the plan-led principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Overall Recommendation
For the reasons set out in this representation, the Council should conclude that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development is acceptable under national Grey Belt policy or that the substantial benefits of the scheme outweigh the permanent Green Belt, landscape, transport, infrastructure and strategic planning harms.
Planning permission should therefore be refused.
..............................................................................
SUPPLEMENTARY OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 26/0310/OUT
Land at Jotmans Farm, Benfleet
Submitted by Dame Rebecca Harris DBE MP
Member of Parliament for Castle Point
I am writing further to my detailed objection to this outline application for up to 675 homes, a primary school, healthcare facility, residential care home and associated development on Green Belt land at Jotmans Farm. Since my original objection was submitted, a number of important consultation responses have been received and further issues have become clearer from the technical material accompanying the application. Most significantly, Natural England has formally objected and advised Castle Point Borough Council that planning permission should not be granted at this stage. Essex County Council has lodged a holding objection in respect of the proposed school site and Cadent Gas has objected because of existing gas infrastructure crossing the site. I have also considered the drainage proposals in greater detail, which appear to rely upon surface water being conveyed south through the development, beneath the operational railway and ultimately towards a tidal outfall. These matters reinforce a central point in my original objection: the Council should determine whether the development now proposed can actually and lawfully be delivered, rather than assume that major environmental, infrastructure and third-party constraints can all be resolved after outline permission has been granted.
10. Natural England's formal objection
Natural England's response of 10 August 2026 is very significant. It formally objects because further information is required to determine the effects of the development on internationally protected Essex coastal habitats and considers that this development of 675 homes would have recreational impacts on those sites in its own right. Natural England requires the appropriate Essex Coast RAMS contribution to be secured, but makes clear that this alone is insufficient. It also requires 12.96 hectares of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace, including a minimum 2.3 kilometre circular walk, appropriate parking and arrangements securing the land and its management for at least 80 years. The current proposal does not provide this. Natural England records 9.37 hectares of greenspace, leaving a shortfall of 3.59 hectares, and does not accept the applicant's reliance upon existing Public Rights of Way as part of the required circular walk because those routes cannot be secured as mitigation in perpetuity. It also considers that the present pattern of smaller areas of greenspace and green corridors does not amount to a SANG meeting its essential criteria.
This is therefore considerably more than a request for additional landscaping. Resolving the objection may require a meaningful reconsideration of the masterplan and the disposition of development across the site. That is important because there is only a finite amount of land available while the applicant seeks to accommodate up to 675 homes together with a primary school, healthcare facility, care home, highway infrastructure, drainage infrastructure and open space. If significantly more land must be devoted to appropriate SANG provision, the Council needs to see how this affects the remainder of the proposal and whether all of the facilities and benefits relied upon in the applicant's planning balance can still genuinely be delivered.
11. Habitats Regulations Assessment
Natural England also raises an important concern about the Habitats Regulations Assessment submitted with the application. It notes that the assessment was prepared by the applicant rather than by Castle Point Borough Council. I recognise that it is perfectly normal for an applicant to commission ecological evidence and prepare a shadow HRA or other material intended to inform an Appropriate Assessment. There is nothing inherently improper in the applicant providing this evidence. The statutory responsibility, however, remains with Castle Point Borough Council as the competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It is the Council which must make or adopt the assessment, critically consider the evidence, consult Natural England and take responsibility for the conclusion ultimately reached.
Natural England's present advice is that the assessment before the Council is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to justify a conclusion that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites. It specifically advises the Council not to grant planning permission at this stage. This is important because the Habitats Regulations impose a separate statutory test rather than simply creating another planning harm which can be placed on one side of an ordinary planning balance and outweighed by housing need. Before permission can be granted through the normal Habitats Regulations route, the Council must be satisfied on sufficiently complete and robust evidence that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the relevant protected sites. Natural England's current advice is that the evidence does not allow that conclusion to be reached. The applicant should therefore be required to provide the further information Natural England considers necessary and Castle Point must then reach its own properly informed conclusion as competent authority. Given the scale of the proposal and Natural England's criticism of the assessment presently submitted, I also believe the Council should consider whether independent ecological advice is required to assist it in discharging that responsibility.
12. Consequences for the applicant's Grey Belt case
Natural England’s objection is also directly relevant to the applicant’s contention that Jotmans Farm has already been demonstrated to be Grey Belt.
The applicant’s Planning Statement expressly relies upon the proposition that none of the areas or assets protected through footnote 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework, other than the Green Belt itself, are relevant to the application. Its Grey Belt assessment therefore concludes that no footnote 7 policy provides a strong reason for refusing or restricting development and states categorically that “The site is Grey Belt”.
Natural England’s subsequent consultation response means that this conclusion cannot now be treated as settled. Jotmans Farm is not itself an internationally protected Habitats Site, and I do not suggest otherwise. However, Natural England considers that the development of 675 dwellings would have recreational effects on protected Essex Coast Habitats Sites in its own right. It has concluded that the present Appropriate Assessment is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to rule out an adverse effect on their integrity and has advised the Council not to grant planning permission at this stage.
This is relevant because the national definition of Grey Belt excludes land where the application of policies protecting the areas or assets identified in footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. The test is not confined to circumstances where the development site itself lies within a protected designation. It also requires the decision-maker to consider the effect of the particular development upon those protected assets.
I do not suggest that Natural England’s current objection means Jotmans Farm can never qualify as Grey Belt. Natural England has identified mitigation which it considers could potentially address the recreational effects, including appropriate SANG provision. If satisfactory mitigation is subsequently demonstrated, Natural England’s objection is withdrawn and Castle Point is able through a legally robust Appropriate Assessment to conclude that there would be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the protected sites, the Grey Belt question will have to be reconsidered on the evidence then available.
What Natural England’s response does demonstrate is that the applicant has not presently established the footnote 7 limb of the Grey Belt definition in the categorical manner asserted in its Planning Statement. The Council’s earlier description of Jotmans Farm as “Potential Grey Belt” should therefore be treated for what it is: a provisional strategic assessment rather than a determination that this specific development satisfies the national Grey Belt definition.
The application-specific Habitats Regulations assessment must now be completed and the outstanding Natural England objection resolved before the Council can safely reach a final conclusion on this aspect of Grey Belt status. This materially strengthens the concerns raised in Ground 3 of my original objection.
13. The presumption in favour of sustainable development
The applicant places considerable reliance upon Castle Point's housing land supply position and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Housing need is important and I have never disputed that. However, national policy places an important limitation upon that presumption where Habitats Sites are concerned. Where a development is likely to have a significant effect upon a protected Habitats Site, the presumption does not apply unless an Appropriate Assessment has concluded that the proposal will not adversely affect its integrity. Natural England has now expressly advised that the assessment presently before the Council is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to support that conclusion.
The consequences of Natural England’s objection are not confined to the unresolved Grey Belt assessment. There is a separate issue concerning the applicant’s reliance upon the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where a proposal is likely to have a significant effect upon a Habitats Site, that presumption cannot be relied upon unless an Appropriate Assessment has concluded that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. Natural England has expressly advised that the assessment presently before the Council is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to support that conclusion.
14. Essex County Council's holding objection to the school
Essex County Council has lodged a holding objection concerning the proposed primary school. The County Council states that the required Land Compliance Study Report has not been submitted and that it therefore does not presently have the information necessary to establish whether the education land is fit for purpose. It also considers the current illustrative masterplan unacceptable because the proposed school faces the development's main vehicular route, whereas Essex school design guidance requires a traffic-free frontage. The Local Education Authority has therefore asked for the school site's environment to be reconsidered.
This matters because the applicant presents the school as one of the substantial benefits of the development. I accept that this is a holding objection and that layout remains a reserved matter, so the problem may ultimately prove capable of resolution. However, until Essex County Council is satisfied that a safe, suitable and deliverable school site can actually be provided, the Council should be cautious about attaching substantial positive weight to it. There is also an obvious relationship between this objection and Natural England's requirements. If additional land is needed for SANG while the school site also requires reconsideration, the Council needs to understand how those changes work together and whether the scheme can still accommodate everything promised.
15. Cadent Gas
Cadent Gas has also formally objected because a low pressure gas pipeline crosses into the site. Cadent requires a minimum three metre building proximity distance, identifies restrictions arising from its easement and has asked for the plans to be amended and resubmitted. On the information presently available I do not regard this as a freestanding reason for refusal because it appears capable, in principle, of being addressed through design and agreement with Cadent. It is nevertheless another physical constraint which will have to be accommodated within any revised masterplan and which should be taken into account when the Council considers whether all the competing requirements affecting this site can actually be delivered together.
16. Surface water drainage
I have also considered the drainage drawings in greater detail since submitting my original objection. My earlier representation referred cautiously to the possibility of water being taken beneath the railway towards Benfleet Creek. The plans appear to show that this arrangement is more fundamental than that. Surface water appears to be collected across the development and conveyed generally southwards through attenuation infrastructure, with the drainage system then continuing beneath the operational railway to further infrastructure south of the railway before ultimately discharging towards the receiving watercourse. Sheet 6 of the Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy identifies a controlled design flow of 106.7 litres per second and shows substantial attenuation infrastructure and an outfall headwall. The drawing is expressly marked "PRELIMINARY" and states that it is not intended to constitute detailed design and that the final layout may require refinement to meet technical criteria.
If the railway crossing and downstream outfall form part of the principal means of draining 675 homes rather than merely an emergency overflow, their deliverability is fundamental to whether the development can satisfactorily be drained. The Council should therefore consider the drainage strategy as one complete system, from the roofs and roads within the development through to its ultimate discharge point. It is not sufficient to establish in principle that attenuation storage can be accommodated within the site if the subsequent route through which that water must be conveyed cannot be lawfully, safely or practically constructed and maintained. I understand that the Environment Agency has responded to the application. Its full advice should therefore be before Members and addressed expressly within the officer report before determination, particularly in relation to the final outfall, any interaction with tidal flood defences, environmental permitting and whether the receiving system can accommodate the proposed discharge without increasing flood risk elsewhere. This remains particularly important given the existing surface water flooding affecting neighbouring roads which I identified in my original objection.
17. The proposed railway crossing
The apparent crossing beneath the operational railway raises a separate question about the deliverability of the drainage system. Planning permission does not itself give the applicant the right to install drainage infrastructure beneath railway land. An under-track crossing would ordinarily require Network Rail's involvement through its Asset Protection process as well as whatever easement, wayleave or other property agreement is necessary to construct, inspect, maintain and if necessary replace the infrastructure. Network Rail would need to satisfy itself about matters such as the method and depth of the crossing, its effect upon the track and railway structures, ground movement, maintenance and the safe operation of the railway. These are matters which Castle Point cannot determine on Network Rail's behalf.
There is also a statutory consultation issue because rail infrastructure managers are statutory consultees in prescribed circumstances involving development close to railway land. At the time of writing I have not identified a published Network Rail response. That response may simply be outstanding and I do not suggest that an absence of a response means that Network Rail objects. However, its substantive position is plainly material where an infrastructure element which appears essential to the drainage of the development passes beneath its operational railway. The Development Control Committee should not be expected to reach a properly informed conclusion on the deliverability of the drainage strategy without knowing whether Network Rail considers the crossing technically acceptable and whether there is a realistic route to securing the necessary engineering and property agreements. If Network Rail's substantive response remains outstanding, I therefore ask that the application is not brought forward for determination until that response has been received and considered. If Network Rail has not yet been formally consulted, that should take place before determination.
Nor should it simply be assumed that any outstanding difficulty can necessarily be dealt with through a condition following the grant of outline permission. Where a solution depends upon works or agreements involving land outside an applicant's control, the Council should satisfy itself that there is a reasonable prospect of those works and permissions being secured. If the railway crossing is essential to draining this development, that reasonable prospect should be demonstrated before permission is granted.
18. The tidal outfall and Marine Management Organisation
A related issue arises at the downstream end of the system. The drainage route appears ultimately to discharge towards the tidal creek and, depending upon the precise location and form of the proposed works, an outfall within a tidal river or estuary may fall within the marine licensing jurisdiction of the Marine Management Organisation. I have not identified a published MMO response and I do not suggest that its absence itself amounts to a defect in the planning consultation process. The important question is whether the proposed outfall requires a marine licence or exemption and, if it does, whether there is a realistic prospect that the necessary approval can be obtained.
Before relying upon the drainage strategy, Castle Point should therefore establish precisely where and how the final discharge is proposed to take place, whether marine licensing is engaged, whether appropriate advice has been sought and whether any necessary approval is realistically deliverable. This is especially relevant given the sensitivity of the receiving environment and the separate issues now identified by Natural England. Natural England's current objection is not specifically an objection to the drainage outfall and I do not suggest otherwise, but the Council's own Habitats Regulations assessment must consider the project as a whole and therefore should include any relevant direct or indirect effects associated with infrastructure required to make the development function.
19. Cumulative effect of the new constraints
The most important point is that these matters cannot sensibly be considered in isolation. Natural England requires substantially more and differently configured greenspace. Essex County Council requires the school environment to be reconsidered. Cadent requires its existing pipeline and easement to be accommodated. The drainage strategy remains preliminary and appears to rely upon a crossing beneath operational railway land and a downstream tidal outfall. Each of these issues may, viewed separately, be capable of resolution. The important planning question is whether all of them can be resolved together while still delivering up to 675 homes and all of the community infrastructure which the applicant asks the Council to treat as benefits of the development.
That has not yet been demonstrated. If satisfying Natural England, Essex County Council, Network Rail or other regulators requires significant alterations to the amount of developable land, the location of the school, the drainage system, green infrastructure or the overall masterplan, those changes must be considered collectively rather than piecemeal. If the amendments which emerge are material, local residents and statutory consultees should have a proper opportunity to consider and comment upon the revised proposal before it is determined.
20. Updated planning balance
I continue to recognise the considerable benefits advanced by the applicant. Up to 675 homes, including substantial affordable housing, would make an important contribution towards Castle Point's housing needs, while a properly delivered primary school, healthcare facility, care home and good quality open space would also carry positive weight. The Council can, however, only properly attach weight to benefits which are genuinely capable of being delivered.
Since my original objection was submitted, Natural England has formally objected and advised that permission should not presently be granted. It has identified a substantial deficiency in the proposed SANG and concluded that the Habitats assessment is not sufficiently rigorous or robust. Essex County Council has not yet accepted that the proposed education land is fit for purpose. Cadent requires changes to accommodate existing gas infrastructure. The drainage strategy remains preliminary and appears to depend upon infrastructure passing beneath an operational railway and continuing towards a tidal outfall, with no published Network Rail response presently confirming that this crossing is technically acceptable and deliverable. These are not peripheral details. The Habitats Regulations issue is a statutory test which must be resolved before permission can properly be granted through the normal route, while the drainage issue goes to whether the development can function at all in the form proposed.
These new matters therefore strengthen the objections set out in my original representation. I continue to recognise Castle Point's very real need for additional housing, but those homes must be planned in locations where their environmental effects are acceptable, the necessary infrastructure can actually be delivered and the relevant legal and technical tests can be satisfied. On the evidence presently before the Council, this application has not demonstrated that. I therefore maintain my objection to planning application 26/0310/OUT and ask that planning permission is refused.
Dame Rebecca Harris DBE MP
Member of Parliament for Castle Point
APPENDIX A ADDENDUM
Additional and amended suggested reasons for refusal
As with the draft reasons appended to my original objection, these are provided to assist Members should they be minded to move refusal of the application. The precise wording should be settled with the Council's planning and legal officers by reference to the evidence, consultation responses and any amendments available at the date of determination. A reason should not be retained where subsequent evidence has satisfactorily resolved the concern upon which it is based.
Additional Reason 7 – Internationally protected habitats
Natural England has formally objected to the proposed development and advised that the Appropriate Assessment presently before the Local Planning Authority is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to enable the authority to ascertain that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the relevant Essex Coast Habitats Sites. The Local Planning Authority, as competent authority, is therefore unable on the evidence presently available to satisfy the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In particular, sufficient and appropriately configured Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace has not been demonstrated or secured together with the necessary long-term management arrangements, and the current masterplan does not provide SANG meeting the requirements identified by Natural England. In the absence of evidence enabling the Local Planning Authority to exclude an adverse effect upon the integrity of the protected sites, the development conflicts with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. Planning permission should therefore be refused.
Addition to existing Reason 1 – Green Belt and Grey Belt
The applicant has not presently demonstrated that the application site satisfies the national definition of Grey Belt. In particular, its assessment relies upon the conclusion that no policies protecting areas or assets identified in footnote 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Natural England has subsequently advised that the proposed 675 dwellings would have recreational effects upon internationally protected Essex Coast Habitats Sites, that the present Appropriate Assessment is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to exclude an adverse effect upon their integrity and that planning permission should not presently be granted.
The application-specific implications of those effects for the footnote 7 limb of the Grey Belt definition have therefore not yet been satisfactorily resolved. The Council’s earlier identification of the land as “Potential Grey Belt” cannot by itself determine that question.
Unless and until the Habitats Regulations issue has been satisfactorily resolved, the Local Planning Authority cannot safely rely upon the applicant’s categorical conclusion that the site is Grey Belt. If, at determination, the site has not been demonstrated to qualify as Grey Belt, or the other requirements necessary for the proposed development to be treated as not inappropriate development are not met, the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and permission should only be granted where very special circumstances clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and all other harm identified.
Addition to existing infrastructure reason – Proposed school
The Local Education Authority has lodged a holding objection because the applicant has not submitted the required Land Compliance Study Report and has therefore not demonstrated that the proposed education land is fit for purpose. The County Council has also advised that the present relationship between the school and the development's main vehicular route is unacceptable and requires reconsideration. Unless these concerns are satisfactorily resolved, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the education infrastructure relied upon as a substantial benefit of the development is safe, suitable and deliverable.
Replacement Reason 5 – Surface water drainage and flood risk
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development can be served by a safe, effective and deliverable surface water drainage system without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The submitted strategy remains preliminary and appears to rely upon infrastructure extending beyond the principal development area, including a drainage connection beneath operational railway land and downstream infrastructure leading towards a tidal outfall. The Local Planning Authority has not presently been provided with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the complete drainage route can be technically and legally delivered, that the necessary third-party rights and regulatory approvals are realistically capable of being secured, that the final receiving system has sufficient capacity or that satisfactory arrangements can be made for the long-term operation and maintenance of the system. In particular, the position of the relevant rail infrastructure manager in relation to the proposed under-track crossing has not presently been demonstrated. In the absence of a robust and deliverable drainage strategy, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development would avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere or provide satisfactory sustainable drainage throughout the lifetime of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Additional Reason 8 – Education provision
This reason should only be relied upon separately if Essex County Council's holding objection remains unresolved at the point of determination and officers advise that the matter cannot satisfactorily be addressed through reserved matters, condition or planning obligation. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a safe, suitable and deliverable site for the proposed primary school can be provided within the development. The required Land Compliance Study Report has not been submitted and the Local Education Authority has advised that the current relationship between the proposed school and the development's principal vehicular route is unacceptable and requires reconsideration. The Local Planning Authority is therefore unable to conclude that the education infrastructure necessary to support the development and relied upon as a benefit of the scheme can satisfactorily be accommodated and delivered.
Additional Reason 9 – Deliverability of critical drainage infrastructure
This reason should only be relied upon separately if the railway crossing and downstream outfall remain necessary to the drainage strategy at determination and satisfactory evidence of their deliverability has not been provided. The development relies upon critical surface water drainage infrastructure extending beyond the principal development area, including a proposed crossing of operational railway land and downstream discharge infrastructure. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that the necessary railway engineering approvals, property rights and other third-party or regulatory consents can be secured to enable that drainage system to be constructed, operated and maintained. In the absence of such evidence, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development is capable of being satisfactorily drained or that the mitigation upon which the application relies is deliverable. Planning permission should therefore be refused.
Network Rail response outstanding at determination
If Network Rail's substantive response has not been received by the time the application is otherwise ready to come before Committee, I do not suggest that the absence of a response should itself be treated as evidence of an objection. However, because the proposed drainage strategy appears to rely upon a crossing beneath operational railway land, I do not believe Members should determine the application without knowing the rail infrastructure manager's substantive position. In those circumstances I suggest that consideration of application 26/0310/OUT be deferred until the Council has received and considered the substantive response of the relevant rail infrastructure manager concerning the proposed development and, in particular, the surface water drainage infrastructure which appears to cross operational railway land, and until Members have sufficient information to assess whether the proposed drainage strategy is technically and practically deliverable.
Overall recommendation
The new consultation evidence materially strengthens the objections already made to this application. Natural England's objection creates an unresolved Habitats Regulations issue and may require substantial changes to the amount and arrangement of green space within the development. Essex County Council has not yet accepted the suitability of the proposed school site. The drainage solution remains preliminary and appears to depend upon an under-track railway crossing and downstream tidal outfall whose full deliverability has not yet been demonstrated. These matters must be considered alongside the Green Belt harm, highway and network resilience concerns, flood risk, infrastructure uncertainty and strategic planning issues set out in my original objection.
The applicant has not presently demonstrated that all of these constraints can be satisfactorily resolved while still delivering the development for which outline permission is sought. Planning permission should therefore be refused.