Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That application 20/00598/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reason:

“The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and causes harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In addition to the harm by reason of inappropriateness, other harm is identified in relation to one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and the impact on the character and appearance of the area. The harm by reason of inappropriateness, and the other harm identified, is not clearly outweighed by other material planning considerations such as to constitute the very special circumstances necessary to permit inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  The proposal does not comply with Policies 2 and 3 of the 1996 Adopted Local Plan; Policies SP1, SP2, SP5 and D1 of the Emerging Local Plan; and Sections 12 and 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Audio Recording – 2 hours 17 minutes 41 seconds.

Erection of one detached 4-bed and two detached 5-bed dwellings including garages and creation of vehicular access off Back Lane (as amended by plan received 19.11.2020).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00598/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs along with the following updates to the report:

·                An extension of time had been agreed with the applicant to 15 February

·                A neighbour objection from N.85 Codicote Road had been received stating that the road layout drawing 019/942/02F showed works being undertaken and a public footpath which were inaccurate; upon review the applicant confirmed that no such works were being undertaken.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Cllr Mike Rice

·                Cllr Val Bryant

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                It is the view of the planning officers that both Planning Authorities concerned with this application should come to a determination relating to the application as a whole;

·                Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council had already considered the application submitted to them and resolved to refuse planning permission;

·                Welwyn Hatfield were not of the view that the site was previously developed land, believed the development would have a more significant visual impact than the existing properties, and took the view that the development would have a suburbanising impact resulting in a spatial and visual loss of openness encroaching into the countryside;

·                The view taken by NHDC Planning Officers is that the site was on previously developed land on the basis that a certificate of lawfulness had been issued by NHDC and that the land was used for commercial equestrian purposes which is considered previously developed under the NPPF.

·                It was not his view that the dwellings would encroach any further than the existing dwellings or structures.

·                Welwyn Hatfield had a further grounds for refusal on the basis that no Section 106 Agreement had planned.

The Chair advised that it was the role of the Committee to adjudicate on the application before them and that the decision taken by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council was not a relevant planning consideration.

Councillor Tom Tyson asked for clarification on the legal situation with respect to the duplicate applications.

In response the Development and Conservation manager advised:

·         Where developments straddled planning authority boundaries it was incumbent on applicants to submit duplicate applications to all authorities concerned;

·         Each authority had to make a decision on the merits of the application before them;

·         Paragraph 1.2 of the Report highlights that NHDC had granted a Lawful Development Certificate considering that the use of the buildings was industrial not agricultural and was therefore considered previously developed land;

·         Welwyn Hatfield had started from the premise that the buildings were agricultural rather than industrial;

·         If Members were minded to refuse on the basis that the proposal was inappropriate development in the green belt the existence of the lawful development certificate issued in 2019 would have to be accounted for at appeal;

·         Viability was not a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96