Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 21/02973/PIP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

“Due to there being no unmet need for a shop facility in Barley, there is no policy support for the proposed shop and 9 enabling dwellings on land outside of the village boundary. The proposed development would have adverse harm on the context of open landscape and edge of village setting in this location as well as unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining neighbour number 36. As a result, the application is considered to fail to comply with the provisions of saved Policy 6 of the Local Plan 1996 and emerging Policies CGB1, CGB2b and D3 of the Submission Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking) securing obligations towards education, library and youth services. The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure and services in accordance with policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 – with Alterations (Saved Policies 2007) and proposed Local Plan Policy SP7 of the Council’s Proposed Submission Local Plan (2011-2031) (Incorporating Proposed Main Modifications 2018). Without this mechanism to secure these previsions the development scheme cannot be considered as sustainable form of development contrary of the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).”

Audio Recording: 1:47:15

The Principal Planning Officer advised that an update to this application had been added as a supplementary agenda pack prior to the meeting but summarised the points including:

·         The Consultation response from the HCC Growth Infrastructure Unit was not received by the Planning Department and came to light only today;

·         This response was seeking contributions towards education, library and youth services;

·         Due to this application being less than 20 housing units the contribution should be obtained by a Unilateral Undertaking;

·         This application does have a Unilateral Undertaking but one which does not include the contributions previously mentioned;

·         As a result of this, a second reason for refusal has been tabled.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 21/02973/PIP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair then invited Jerry Carlisle to address the Committee against the application.

Mr. Carlisle thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation including:

·         Reconfirming the Parish Council’s unanimous objection to this application;

·         Since the Parish Council voiced their objections the plans have not changed;

·         Support the village shop and recognise it is a highly valued village amenity; but that support cannot be at any price;

·         The landowner wishes to see the entire area from the existing housing to the North up to Picknage Corner developed; if the application were to be approved it would be very difficult to resist further development of the remainder of the site.

The Chair invited Councillor Gerald Morris to speak as a Member Advocate against the application.

Councillor Gerald Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation including:

·         Councillor Morris is District Councillor for the ward which includes the village of Barley;

·         Speaking in support of the officer’s recommendation to refuse this application;

·         The application is based in part on North Herts Council not having a 5-year land supply; this is a way for the Government to try and force Council’s to adopt a Local Plan as quickly as possible, failure to do this penalises the Council and the public by encouraging random house building;

·         This site was originally submitted during the early call for sites while the Local Plan was still being prepared; at around 2016 the Local Plan Officer concluded that this location was inappropriate and should not be included as a selected site.

The Chair invited John Ridge to address the Committee in support of the application.

Mr. Ridge thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation including:

·         Mr Ridge has been a local resident of Barley for 46 years, and is speaking on behalf of residents in surrounding villages and hamlets in favour of this application;

·         This application provides a golden opportunity to create a well-run and financially viable village store and post office in a sensible location to meet the needs of the local area;

·         The existing shop is not successful and there is an urgent need for new premises; the current premises is not fit for purpose;

·         The existing shop has no disabled access and no area for lorries to make their deliveries, resulting in deliveries being made through the entrance of the shop; there is no on-site parking leading to parking on roads nearby and congestion;

·         There is a major impact in losing the village shop; Barley is fortunate to have a post office and its loss would be a major impact on the surrounding villages;

·         There will be an adverse effect on the environment with the loss of the village shop as the nearest supermarket is 12 miles from Barley;

·         The proposed 9 new dwellings will not change the character of the village but will assist in keeping the village shop and nearby schools viable.

In response to a question of clarification from Councillor David Levett, Mr. Ridge advised that the post office has major security issues which is reflected in the insurance problems they have had and would like to see a more safe and substantial building. As the building is LPO licensed shop they are unable to put shutters up to protect the shop.

In response to a question of clarification from Councillor Ian Mantle, Mr. Ridge advised that the shop is currently not financially viable, if the application was not approved the shop will likely close.

In response to points raised by public speakers, the Principal Planning Officer advised:

·         The information put forward in the application of this site was for a shop with a larger range of items and longer opening hours; it was not specifically stated that the shop is on the brink of closure and the application is not being considered on this basis.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·         Councillor Tony Hunter

·         Councillor David Levett

Councillor Tony Hunter proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 21/02973/PIP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

“Due to there being no unmet need for a shop facility in Barley, there is no policy support for the proposed shop and 9 enabling dwellings on land outside of the village boundary. The proposed development would have adverse harm on the context of open landscape and edge of village setting in this location as well as unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining neighbour number 36. As a result, the application is considered to fail to comply with the provisions of saved Policy 6 of the Local Plan 1996 and emerging Policies CGB1, CGB2b and D3 of the Submission Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking) securing obligations towards education, library and youth services. The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure and services in accordance with policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 – with Alterations (Saved Policies 2007) and proposed Local Plan Policy SP7 of the Council’s Proposed Submission Local Plan (2011-2031) (Incorporating Proposed Main Modifications 2018). Without this mechanism to secure these previsions the development scheme cannot be considered as sustainable form of development contrary of the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).”