Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/02109/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 24 minutes 37 seconds.

 

Erection of one 4-bed and two 3-bed detached dwellings including alterations to existing access.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/02109/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans and provided the Committee with the following updates:

 

·                Paragraph 4.3.24 of the report should be amended to refer to “3 dwellings”

·                Paragraph 4.4.1 of the report should be amended to omit “and to a designated heritage asset.”

 

The Chair invited Jeanette and Suzie Deards to address the Committee.

 

Jeanette and Suzie Deards gave a verbal presentation including the following:

 

·                They had lived next to the proposed development site for 40 years and in that time had never been overlooked or disturbed;

·                The 3 detached properties proposed would result in overcrowding and would not be in keeping with the area;

·                2 of the proposed properties would overlook their property and have a material impact on their privacy and natural light as well as an impact on the value of their property;

·                The proposed entrance to the site had never been used as an entrance before; it was off a busy road with a double corner and therefore dangerous;

·                The amount of cars associated with the development would outstrip the proposed parking allocated by the plans and would have a negative environmental impact;

·                The developments surrounding the proposed site met existing demand;

·                Waste and water drainage in the area was not strong and new residences would result in increased strain on the infrastructure;

·                The development was in a conservation area and a green belt site;

·                Local schools were oversubscribed; busses were infrequent; there would likely be 2 cars associated with every property which were necessary due to the rural location of the site.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Lisa Nash (Member Advocate) to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Lisa Nash thanked the Chair and addressed the Committee including the following:

 

·                Councillor Nash was ward member for the applicant and seeking permission for the applicant to build in their unused back garden;

·                The site sat next between a business park against one boundary, residential flats on another and a road on the third, with a well established hedgerow overlooking a small party boundary into open fields;

·                A development in this site would not result in any loss of openness;

·                The proposed development utilises a small private garden which serves no other purpose at present;

·                Some objections contained in the report from nearby residents were not founded on relevant planning considerations;

·                In view of Section 13 of the NPPF this development would not alter the boundary of the green belt and would not lead to a loss of openness;

·                Previous developments in green belt land had been approved;

·                The LEP allowed for this sort of development on other sites.

 

The Chair invited Mr Stephen Rice to address the Committee.

 

Mr Rice thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including the following:

 

·                In view of the housing supply shortfall the provision of 3 dwellings should be given some weight;

·                The principle in favour of sustainable development meant that unless an exception was in play approval should be given, and that while the land in question was in the green belt a decision of the Supreme Court included in their application indicated that approval could be granted;

·                The site was a private garden and not open land and therefore a development would not impact the openness of the green belt; there was no conflict of purpose with the green belt policy and no harm to the existing character of the area;

·                The site was well enclosed;

·                The site was not situated in an unsustainable location; local facilities were a short walk or cycle away in Knebworth and a bus route ran nearby;

·                Development in Old Knebworth nearby had been permitted.

 

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

·                Councillor Tony Hunter

 

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

 

·                The proposed dwellings would not have first floor windows facing neighbouring residences and no loss of privacy was anticipated;

·                HCC Highways officers had not objected to the proposal;

·                The development would have limited ecological impact given the nature of the location;

·                Infrastructure and sewerage were not relevant considerations here;

·                Each application had to be considered on its merits and permission granted to other applications was of no bearing;

·                In assessing whether the proposed development was inappropriate for a green belt site the Committee had to consider what development was already present; the site consisted of an area of hard standing and a lawn and the addition of built development represented a significant loss of openness;

·                The provision of 3 new dwellings was not significant enough to outweigh the harm resulting from a loss of openness;

·                The new dwellings would be reliant on private vehicles and the site was not well connected to public transport routes, with infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists lacking;

·                The proposed development would be in excess of any Permitted Development Rights attached to existing properties, notwithstanding that none of the existing properties had PDR providing the basis to construct outbuildings;

·                Advice had been given to the applicant in the pre-application stage about the problems with the proposal;

·                The application had reduced the total number of proposed dwellings from 4 to 3 in order to represent a more spacious development and improve relationship with the character of the area.

 

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

·                Per Section 143 of the NPPF development on the green belt was by definition harmful and could only be approved in very special circumstances;

·                An exceptional could include development on previously developed land as long as there is no adverse impact to openness;

·                ‘Openness,’ in a Planning context had a more expansive definition than merely visual openness;

·                New built development on otherwise undeveloped land did represent a significant reduction in openness;

·                The Officer cannot comment on other approvals as he was not familiar with them, however each application must be determined on its own merits in any case;

·                There were no very special circumstances to approve development apparent in this application.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Tony Hunter, seconded by Councillor Mike Rice and:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/02109/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.