Pickles refuses 501-home Essex scheme, citing green belt harm

Developer Westview Properties applied to Thurrock Borough Council in December 2012 for outline permission to build 501 homes and 985 square metres of commercial, community and health floorspace at the site of the former Aveley Sports and Social Club in Purfleet. The majority of the 14.5 hectare site consisted of football pitches and the entire site lay within the metropolitan green belt.

The application was called in for determination by the SoS in February 2014 and, after an inquiry in July, planning inspector Jennifer Vyse recommended that the application be refused. A letter on behalf of the SoS, dated 8 January (74-page / 717 KB PDF), said Pickles agreed with the inspector's recommendation and refused permission for the scheme.

The letter noted that the Council had a "significant and longstanding shortfall in its five year housing supply" and said the SoS gave substantial weight to the "valuable contribution towards the supply of housing land" offered by the scheme. Pickles also gave limited weight to the contribution of the proposal towards affordable housing and education in the local area, the letter said.

However, the letter noted that both parties agreed the proposal constituted "inappropriate development in the green belt". It said Pickles considered that the proposal would "reduce significantly the openness of this part of the green belt" and that it would harm the purposes of the green belt to check unrestricted sprawl, to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The letter drew attention to a written ministerial statement of 1 July 2013, which it said "confirms, in relation to housing, that the single issue of unmet demand is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development in the green belt". It said Pickles gave "substantial negative weight" to the proposed harm to the green belt and its purposes and concluded that the very special circumstances to justify the proposed development did not exist in the present case.

The developer, or any other interested party, has six weeks to challenge the decision in the High Court.