Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 22/01229/FP be REFUSED planning permission due to the following reasons; the scheme is considered contrary to Local Plan policies that inform on appropriate development in Rural Area beyond the Green Belt. The proposal fails to comply with any of the criteria within Policies SP2 and CGB1 of the Local Plan, as the proposal is not considered to fall within the remit of infill development given the sizable and spacious nature of the plot. Moreover, the scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the village and would be at odds with the sporadic pattern of development that makes up the settlement of Kelshall. The proposal is therefore deemed contrary to Policies SP2, D1 and CGB1 of the Local Plan, as well as Section 12 of the NPPF.

Audio recording – 30 minutes 12 seconds

 

The Planning Officer provided the following updates:

 

·         An amended ecological assessment was submitted on 6 December, but this did not change the report.

·         A number of emails had been circulated, including a statement from the ecologist, a statement from the agent of the applicant and further details on the plans regarding hedgerows.

·         The report details that the hedgerow would be removed, but the amended plans show that of the 55 metres of hedgerow, 12.5m would be removed and 8.3m would be replanted, leaving a space of around 4.2m for access.

·         Point 4.3.38 of the report should read that the ‘proposed development would not result in an increase in flooding.’

·         Councillor Morris, who had called in the application, had emailed Natural England to comment, but no response had yet been received.

 

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01229/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Michael Muir

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised:

 

·         There was roughly 12m of hedgerow to be removed and around 8.5m would be replanted, with new planting.

·         The new hedgerows to be planted total 121m in length, which would be 116.8m more hedgerow than on site currently.

·         The pond shown on plans was owned by the applicant, but it was outside of the application area, shown by the red line on the plans.

·         It would not be possible to condition the applicant to maintain the pond, as this was outside of the application area.

 

The Chair invited Mr Peter Gartside to speak against the application. Mr Gartside thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

 

·         He was representing the Parish Council and the objections of the parishioners are well documented.

·         There was much to like in the adopted Local Plan and they had no objections to the policy of infilling, but this application was on an awkward site squeezed between a footpath and a road.

·         The village dated back to Domesday and was popular with walkers.

·         For residents this site was the least suitable site for infill and there were concerns that if this application was allowed, much more infill would happen in the village.

·         Kelshall was currently made up of 44 houses, with spacing between each dwelling.

·         If all infill applications were the size of this application, there would be an additional 38 homes of this size in Kelshall.

·         This would drastically alter the character of the village and would not accord with the term ‘limited infill’ described in the Local Plan.

·         If this application was approved it would make infill developments a first-come-first-served basis and developers would be driving policy, not planning officers.

·         Kelshall was a category B village in the Local Plan and was one of the smallest for infill possibilities.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Gerald Morris to speak against the application, as Member Advocate. Councillor Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

 

·         The Local Plan allowed for small scale infill.

·         He had previous supported an infill application, but this site was different, as it was part of a larger 6-acre field, although the application site had now been fenced off.

·         The Planning Officer could not have envisaged a 6-acre field being infill for a £1million house.

·         The application would see the partial removal of 65m of hedgerow, which is at least 500 years old. There are conditions protecting ancient hedgerows and this stipulates that those over 30m and 20 years old should not be removed.

·         No response had been received from Herts Ecology for this proposal.

·         The replacement hedgerow proposed would take generations to be a suitable alternative.

·         Herts County Rights of Way and the Environment Agency had not been consulted.

·         The site was part of several protected zones and Herts County Council guidelines stated that the patterns of lanes and hedging should be protected.

·         If this application was granted permission it would lead to further similar applications in Kelshall and the ancient village character would be harmed.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Levett, Councillor Morris advised that the current use of the land was for grazing by livestock. He noted that a section had been fenced off recently to separate it from the wider meadow.

 

In response to points raised, the Planning Officer noted that:

 

·         Highways were happy with the access, along with proposed signage, following a speed test.

·         Due to the nature and scale of this development, it was unlikely Historic England or CPRE would have responded.

·         Speculation on future development cannot be used as a reason for refusal.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·         Councillor Steve Jarvis

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor David Levett

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·         The issue with the application was regarding whether or not it represented infill.

·         The location plan showed that the plot was opposite 4 other plots, demonstrating the size of the space to be filled.

·         The reference to the application in Ashwell approved on appeal was not relevant as this site did not meet the criteria outlined in the now adopted Local Plan. Ashwell and Kelshall were not comparable villages.

·         The merit of the hedgerow to be removed is different to a domestic hedge. Whilst it was good to see it would be replaced, it would still represent a loss of a considerable hedge.

·         This did not appear to be an infill site.

·         One of the deciding factors on a previous application had been whether the site was a paddock or garden, Members needed a clear answer as to what represents infill.

·         The use of the site is currently agricultural.

·         The site was large and did not appear to be bound, with woodlands and shrubs, further fields, a footpath and agricultural buildings surrounding the plot.

·         It was a big plot for one house and could not see how this could meet the infill criteria.

 

In response to points raised in the debate the Planning Officer and Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised there was no set definition of infill and each application was subjective and to be based on its own merit. It would depend on the land use of the existing plot and the relationship with the surrounding land. In this application the site had developments to the front and each side, albeit these were set slightly away.

 

Councillor Steve Jarvis proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the character of the village and the street scene. This was seconded by Councillor Michael Muir and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/01229/FP be REFUSED planning permission due to the following reasons; the scheme is considered contrary to Local Plan policies that inform on appropriate development in Rural Area beyond the Green Belt. The proposal fails to comply with any of the criteria within Policies SP2 and CGB1 of the Local Plan, as the proposal is not considered to fall within the remit of infill development given the sizable and spacious nature of the plot. Moreover, the scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the village and would be at odds with the sporadic pattern of development that makes up the settlement of Kelshall. The proposal is therefore deemed contrary to Policies SP2, D1 and CGB1 of the Local Plan, as well as Section 12 of the NPPF.