Land At Broadway Gardens Hanover Farm, Central Avenue, Hullbridge, Essex

1. 1.The proposed retention of three storage containers and associated perimeter fencing represents inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The development does not fall within any of the exceptions to inappropriate development set out in Policy GB7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) and is therefore harmful to the Green Belt by definition. In addition, the containers and perimeter fencing introduce built form, enclosure and a secured storage compound onto an otherwise open area of Green Belt land. Collectively, the development reduces openness in both spatial and visual terms and results in an urbanising encroachment into the countryside that is inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of Green Belt policy. Substantial weight must be given to this harm. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and 26/00551/FUL the additional harm to openness. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies GB6 and GB7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) and Policy GB1 of the Rochford District Core Strategy.
2. 2.In the absence of adequate ecological information, the Local Planning Authority is unable to properly assess the effects of the development on biodiversity interests, Priority Habitat, European Protected Species and protected species. The application site comprises meadow grassland containing a pond, lies within a Great Crested Newt Amber Risk Zone, includes habitats with potential suitability for protected species, and the applicant has reported the presence of a badger sett within the site. Furthermore, the Council's ecological adviser, Place Services Ecology, has advised that evidence of habitat degradation and clearance appears to have occurred, including impacts to grassland, scrub and hedgerow vegetation, and has identified the potential for impacts upon Priority Habitat, Great Crested Newts, badgers and reptiles. Place Services Ecology maintains an objection and advises that additional ecological information, including habitat surveys, protected species surveys and any necessary mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures, is required before the impacts of the development can be properly understood and assessed. Insufficient information has been submitted to establish the ecological baseline of the site; determine whether protected species, Priority Habitat or habitats of principal importance have been affected by the retrospective development; assess the significance of any impacts arising from the works; or identify any necessary avoidance, mitigation, compensation or enhancement measures. Consequently, the Local Planning Authority cannot conclude, on the basis of the information submitted, that the development would conserve and enhance biodiversity interests, avoid unacceptable harm to protected species and Priority Habitat, or maintain the favourable conservation status of any affected species. Nor can the Authority be satisfied that it has sufficient information to discharge its statutory duties in relation to biodiversity conservation. Applying the precautionary approach required by national policy and legislation, and having regard to the advice of Place Services Ecology, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the ecological impacts of the development have been adequately assessed or that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to biodiversity interests. The proposal therefore conflicts with Chapter 19 of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026), Policy DM27 of the Rochford District Development Management Plan (2014), Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and the principles contained within ODPM Circular 06/2005, which require sufficient information regarding the presence of protected species and the likely effects of development to be available prior to the determination of a planning application.
3. 3.The proposed retention of three storage containers and associated perimeter fencing, by reason of their siting, form, appearance and prominence within a visually open rural setting, would appear as an 26/00551/FUL incongruous and visually intrusive form of development that fails to respond positively to local character or integrate successfully with its surroundings. The utilitarian appearance of the containers, together with the extent and prominence of the perimeter fencing, would introduce an uncharacteristic and urbanising feature that is out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development along this part of Central Avenue, resulting in material harm to the character and appearance of the site, the street scene and the wider rural locality. The proposal therefore fails to achieve the high standard of design required by national and local planning policy and is contrary to the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026), Policy CP1 of the Rochford District Core Strategy (2011) and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Rochford District Development Management Plan (2014).

From the council's decision notice.

Application type

Full Application

Parish

Kidsgrove

Date validated

4 August 2026

Consultation end

23 September 2026

Target decision date

22 September 2026

Applicant

Private applicant

Agent address

Unit F2, Launchpad, Cherry Orchard Way, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1YH

Case officer

Mr Richard Kilbourne - planning.applications@rochford.gov.uk

Documents

8