Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/00891/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons below:

 

The application site is within an area designated in the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations as Green Belt, within which there is a presumption against inappropriate development, such as that proposed, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated.  In the view of the Local Planning Authority the proposal is not supported by such circumstances.  Moreover, it would harm the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy which seeks to maintain the openness of the area.  As such, the proposal would not accord with the provisions of Policy 2 of the District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations 1996 or with the provisions of section 13 of the NPPF.

Audio Recording – 53 minutes 53 seconds.

 

Erection of five dwelling houses in association with a new access spur from the Lodge Court, on-site parking, landscaping (inclusive of new trees), formation of a pedestrian footpath and designated communal open space. (Amended plans received 22/06/20 and 07/12/20).

 

The Acting Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00891/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans along with the following updates to the report:

 

·                An additional condition was to be added to the report as follows:

 

“Condition 18:

No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

 

A full detailed drainage design and surface water drainage assessment should include:

 

1.         Full detailed drainage plan including location of all the drainage features.

2.         Where infiltration is proposed, evidence of ground conditions / underlying geology and permeability including BRE Digest 365 compliant infiltration tests.

3.         Evidence that if discharge to the local sewer network is proposed, confirmation from the relevant water company that they have the capacity to take the proposed volumes and run-off rates is provided.

4.         Discharge from the site should be at an agreed rate with the water company. This should be at Greenfield run-off rate; justification will be needed if a different rate is to be used.

5.         Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS features including their, location, size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs and all corresponding calculations/modelling to ensure the scheme caters for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40% allowance climate change event.

6.         Demonstrate appropriate SuDS management and treatment and inclusion of above ground features such as permeable paving.

7.         Final detailed management plan to include arrangements for adoption and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

 

Reason

 

To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site and To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.”

 

·                A letter of objection had been submitted by Ickleford Parish Council and circulated to all members of the Committee prior to the meeting;

·                The letter of objection did not raise any new issues additional to those brought during the consultation period and set out at paragraph 2.10 of the report.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Cllr Mike Rice

·                Cllr David Levett

·                Cllr Tom Tyson

 

In response to questions the Acting Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

·                The advanced stage of the Emerging Local Plan and that there were no objections to the change of the Ickleford settlement boundary was significant;

·                The Housing Delivery Test Action Plan adopted by the Council allows for green belt applications such as this to be determined in advance of the adoption of the emerging local plan where proposed sites are losing green belt designation and there are no outstanding objections to the change of designation;

·                The proposal was considered acceptable in its layout and design;

·                The inspector had not yet given a determination on larger strategic release sites from green belt designation in the Emerging Local Plan but the modifications and comments that had been received made no mention of objections to the change of the Ickleford settlement boundary;

·                Under the Emerging Local Plan the land in this site was undesignated and was therefore not considered alongside the strategic release sites designated for housing which had yet to be reviewed by the inspector;

·                The land in this site would become ‘white land’ under the Emerging Local Plan as it moved in to the Ickleford settlement boundary and as such there would be no objection in principle to residential development.

 

The Chair invited Kate Sargent to address the Committee.

 

Kate Sargent thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                She represented a group of local residents in reiterating their objection to this application;

·                The primary focus of their objection was the green belt status of the land which afforded it protection unless very special circumstances could be demonstrated;

·                The developer had failed to demonstrate these circumstances and as such the proposal was inappropriate development;

·                The developer had failed to articulate the benefits of the proposal which did not meet rural housing needs in failing to meet the requirements of the SHLAA and in view of the Emerging Local Plan which already went above and beyond in providing housing for the district;

·                A substantial amount of development had already taken place or was planned in Ickleford;

·                The land provided ecological benefit to the community and many objections cited the irreversible loss of biodiversity, trees and wildlife habitat;

·                The ecological report commissioned by the developer was conducted by a body not recognised by the CIEEM and relates to a survey carried out in late November 2020;

·                The developer had already felled mature trees on the land;

·                The Committee should consider whether approving development on this site was consistent with the Climate Emergency declared by the Council;

·                The application impacts on the Ickleford Conservation Area, 5 Grade-II listed buildings, and the Ickleford Village Archaeology Area in the immediate vicinity of the site;

·                There would be breaches of privacy and light amenity to residents of Lodge Court and Manor Close; the officer’s report noted with concern the proximity of the site to 4 Manor Close in particular;

·                The previous planning officer had objected to the layout and design of the proposed development and found them to be grounds for refusal;

·                33 comments had been made against the original application and highlighted the conditions in the village of Ickleford in particular the issue of traffic;

·                The developers transport statement underestimated the level of car ownership and use in the village;

·                Other objections identified the already overwhelmed sewerage system which would be exacerbated by further development;

·                There was support for sustainable development and the proposal to build new residences on a site nearby but there was no justification for holding the benefit of 5 additional houses as sufficient to constitute very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the manifest harms that would be caused by this development;

·                The development would contribute to the erosion of the boundary between Ickleford and Hitchin.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Cllr Tom Tyson

 

In response to questions Kate Sargent advised that she was not aware of why the site had not met the criteria outlined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) but only that it did not.

 

The Chair invited Cllr Sam North to address the Committee as Member Advocate.

 

Cllr Sam North thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                Cllr Sam North was speaking in objection to the application and wished to reinforce some of the points raised in comments submitted on the application and the evidence presented by Kate Sargent;

·                The Council had declared a Climate Emergency in 2019 and Members took this declaration seriously; the Council had an obligation to current and future residents of North Hertfordshire;

·                This land was currently in the green belt;

·                The Emerging Local Plan was still far from completion;

·                The removal of land from green belt designation was wrong;

·                The Campaign for Rural England had submitted a letter which Members were aware of that stated that until the Emerging Local Plan was adopted the current designation of sites under the Adopted Local Plan must take precedence, citing Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd [2017] UKSC 37;

·                The Committee should appreciate that the ruling in the cited case compels them to consider the designation of the site under the Adopted Local Plan as green belt with full strength;

·                The environmental impact of allowing this development would outweigh the slim benefits involved and therefore no very special circumstances were present;

·                Issues of sewage, traffic, proximity to sites of archaeological interest, and the overprovision of housing in the Emerging Local Plan were all factors Members should consider against this application;

·                The development would have a harmful impact on the conservation of heritage assets nearby;

·                Objection to this development had garnered significant local support.

 

The Chair invited James Clark to address the Committee.

 

James Clark thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                The developers had sought to reflect the character of the area and its edge of village location while at the same time using the site to meet the pressing housing needs of the borough;

·                The designs of the properties were of a traditional nature;

·                The built footprint of the properties including patios and hardstanding was small and the majority of the site would be open or garden development;

·                There was a range of housing size in the development including two two-bedroom units suitable for first time residents and the mix was compliant with Council policies;

·                The development had a dedicated area of green space as a buffer between the conservation area and the development which was visually attractive, enhanced biodiversity, and a future play area for residents;

·                The loss of the lime tree was regrettable but the development proposed to plant 9 heavy to medium trees and native hedgerows and soft landscaping;

·                The report by Cherry Field Ecology (a locally based company) provided confirmation that there was no high animal activity on the site and this report should not be downplayed;

·                The properties would all have solar panels and EV charging points;

·                The site had been designated for green belt release to white land in the settlement boundary of Ickleford and development would help meet the housing needs of the district;

·                The Council was under the presumption in favour of sustainable development and housing needs were pressing;

·                The residence proposed closest to 4 Manor Close would be situated 15-16 meters from the residence, with no side windows and angled to avoid sitting face on to the property to reduce loss of amenity;

·                Trees which had been cut down were cut down by an employee of the Council due to their condition of decay, not by the developer;

·                The case law on the applicability of historical local plans was not as clear cut as had been suggested.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Cllr Daniel Allen

·                Cllr Mike Hughson

 

In response to questions James Clark advised that

 

·                The trees felled had been on the western boundary of the site, were conifers, and were diseased; None of these trees were subject to a TPO; The trees had been felled by an employee of the Council.

·                The Supreme Court had made a number of decisions recently, including that in some cases historic Planning Policies should not be discounted, but also that in other cases housing need should take precedence over green belt designation.

 

The Chair thanked James Clark for his presentation.

 

In response to questions the Acting Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

·                The objections submitted by the Ickleford Parish Council made reference to the SHLAA and the fact that the site had been deemed incompatible due to access to the site impacting the listed buildings and conservation area in Lodge Court;

·                This SHLAA assessment was out of date and a second study had recommended that development in the village could be accommodated using access via Turnpike Lane, concluding that impact would depend on individual schemes;

·                The comments made by other officers and referenced by Cllr Sam North that mentioned less than substantial harm to the amenity and character of the heritage assets neighbouring the site referred to an earlier application for 8 houses not the present application for 5 including a large area of open space; these changes overcame the problem of harm to the listed buildings and conservation area.

 

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

 

·                Cllr David Levett

·                Cllr Tony Hunter

·                Cllr Val Bryant

·                Cllr Mike Rice

·                Cllr Mike Hughson

 

In response to questions the Acting Principal Planning Officer advised that applicants have a period of 6 months to appeal a decision.

 

The Legal Regulatory Team Manager & Deputy MO advised that applicants also had the option of applying a second time if circumstances had changed. 

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that if the Committee was minded to refuse on the basis of green belt designation under current policy circumstances the applicant would have a period of time to lodge an appeal and the planning authority would have to produce a case; if during that time the policy circumstances changed the Committee could be asked to reconsider this application and their decision in light of those changes.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed and Councillor Tony Hunter seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/00891/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons below:

 

The application site is within an area designated in the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations as Green Belt, within which there is a presumption against inappropriate development, such as that proposed, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated.  In the view of the Local Planning Authority the proposal is not supported by such circumstances.  Moreover, it would harm the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy which seeks to maintain the openness of the area.  As such, the proposal would not accord with the provisions of Policy 2 of the District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations 1996 or with the provisions of section 13 of the NPPF.

 

N. B at 9.15 PM the Chair adjourned the meeting for a brief comfort break.

The meeting reconvened at 9.20 PM whereupon the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer conducted a roll-call to determine the required Members, Officers and Registered Speakers were present.