Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning permission for up to 70 residential dwellings (including 40% affordable housing), new village gateway, new retail outlet/village facility, planting, landscaping, informal public open space, children's play area and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). All matters reserved with the exception of access.

RESOLVED:That, in respect of application 17/01781/1,

(A)      the Council’s putative reason for refusal of this application to be presented at the forthcoming Public Inquiry be revised to the following:

1.      By reason of its siting beyond the built limits of Offley, on open allotments and farmland in an area of countryside adjacent to the village, the proposal would be detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the area.  The urban form of the development would afford significant and demonstrable harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside in this sensitive location adjacent to the village of Offley. The proposal would be harmful to the landscape qualities of the area and given that the site is prominent from several public vantage points it would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and in particular the users of public footpaths within and in the vicinity of the site.  The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy 6 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with alterations and specific policies of the Framework.  The development would also be contrary to Policy SP5 of the North Hertfordshire Emerging Local Plan 2011-2031.

2.      The proposed development would afford harm to the setting of Great Offley Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.  The site presents an attractive open setting to the Conservation Area and these nearby listed buildings and the ability to appreciate these designated heritage assets.  The proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and would detract from the setting of the listed buildings.  The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets, which would not be outweighed by the public benefits of delivering new housing development.  The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

3.      The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Section 106 Obligation) setting out how the shop would be delivered, along with the provision of 40% affordable housing and other necessary obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006) and the Planning obligation guidance – toolkit for Hertfordshire: Hertfordshire County Council’s requirements January 2008. The secure delivery of these obligations and provision of the allotments is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations (Saved Polices 2007) or Proposed Local Plan Policy HS2 of the Council's Proposed Submission Local Plan (2011-2031). Without this mechanism to secure these provisions the development scheme cannot be considered as sustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.      [Not now required].

5.    The proposed development lies immediately adjacent to an Area of Archaeological Significance.  Records in close proximity to the site suggest it lies within an area of extremely significant archaeological potential. Given this and the large scale nature of the proposal, this development should be regarded as likely to have an impact on significant heritage assets with archaeological interest, some of which may be of sufficient importance to meet NPPF para 139. This could represent a significant constraint on development. In the absence of a full archaeological field evaluation, there is insufficient information to determine the importance of any archaeological remains on the site. The proposal will be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF; and

(2)     That, in the event of further progress on Archaeology or the Section 106 Obligation, the Council’s case to be updated in advance of the Public Inquiry depending on progress in relation to these specific matters.

Outline planning permission for up to 70 residential dwellings (including 40% affordable housing), new village gateway, new retail outlet/village facility, planting, landscaping, informal public open space, children's play area and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). All matters reserved with the exception of access.

[Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Faye Frost made a Declarable Interest, and clarified that her father-in-law did not own the land in the application site, but used it as set aside, with the agreement of the landowners, Pilkington Estates.]

The Development and Conservation Manager presented a report in respect of planning application 17/01781/1.

The Development and Conservation Manager introduced Shaun Greaves (GCPP Planning Consultants), who would be acting as the expert witness on behalf of the Council in the upcoming Planning Inquiry.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that Members would have seen the written submission from Councillor David Barnard supporting the officer recommendation.

The Development and Conservation Manager referred to some changes to the text of the report as follows:

·           Paragraph 4.3.4 – the word “re-assed” in the ninth line should be “re-assessed”;

·           Paragraph 4.3.6 – the last sentence changed to read “PROW 16 which passes through the site.  In addition there will be significant impacts on Luton Road and the edge of Offley”; and

·           Reason for Refusal 1 – the addition in the second sentence of the word “to” between the words “harm” and “the”.

The Development and Conservation Manager confirmed the appointment of Jonathan Billingsley of the Landscape Partnership to be the Council’s second expert witness who would be giving evidence on landscape impact at the Public Inquiry.  Shaun Greaves had already been appointed to give evidence on the setting of listed buildings, harm to the conservation area and the character of the area and the general planning balance.

The Development and Conservation Manager explained that the first two recommended putative reasons for refusal were the most important and could not, in his view, be overcome – these reasons were the basis of the professional case to refuse permission.

In respect of reason for refusal 3, the Development and Conservation Manager commented that this still stood, but he confirmed that the Council had received the first draft of a Section 106 Obligation and would continue to work with the appellant and their solicitors to try and ensure that the Section 106 Obligation was in place at the time of the Public Inquiry.  This needed to be in place as, in the event that the Inspector was minded to allow the appeal, all parties needed to ensure that the necessary Section 106 Obligation was in place to ensure that the necessary payments and affordable housing could be secured.

In relation to reason for refusal 4, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that he had received an update from the Lead Local Flood Authority, who confirmed that through a series of discussions with the appellant they now withdrew their objection to the proposal.  Therefore, this reason for refusal could now be removed from the recommendation.

With regard to reason for refusal 5, the Development and Conservation Manager stated that the County Council’s Historic Environment Team had just received a report from the appellant on the trial trenching that had been undertaken on the site and, again, the appellant would continue to work with the County Council to seek to address this reason.  However, at this time the reason still stood.

In relation to recommended reasons for refusal 3 and 5, the Development and Conservation Manager drew Members’ attention to recommendation 6.2 in the report – this allowed officers and the consultant team to remove any or all of these reasons for refusal in advance of the Public Inquiry should sufficient progress on these matters be made in the interim.

The Development and Conservation Manager commented that the substantive reasons for refusal 1 and 2, which outlined the demonstrable harm that he considered this development would cause to the character of the area, would remain and would be defended at the appeal by the Council’s appointed expert witnesses.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented a series of slides, which comprised photographs of the application site and drawings.

Shaun Greaves advised that he was a Chartered Town Planner and Director of GC Planning Partnership, a planning consultancy which assisted both public and private sector clients.  Most of his expertise was in local government, as he spent 6 years with Bedford Borough Council in charge of their Appeals Team, defending the Council’s decisions at planning appeals.  He had also spent 2 years as a Planning Inspector, before setting up GCPP some 11 years ago.

Mrs Patricia Cowley (Keep Offley Rural Group) addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/01781/1.  She reminded the Committee that it had considered and unanimously refused the application at its November 2017 meeting.  The Keep Offley Rural Group maintained its objections to the proposed scheme, and felt that they had been strengthened by the Planning Officer’s report.

Mrs Cowley advised that the application was seen by the residents of Offley as a purely speculative and opportunistic application.  The site was outside the village boundary and it was not offered up for development in the emerging North Hertfordshire Local Plan.  Furthermore, road access in Offley and the surrounding villages, especially Lilley, would be exacerbated by this potential development, as there were no associated plans for highway improvements.  The village school was also at full capacity.

Mrs Cowley stated that the applicant had carried out no public consultation with either Offley Parish Council or the people of Offley.  The development would result in an urbanising effect on the village, especially when approaching Offley from the west.  Offley had recently experienced a large development of 63 houses and flats (Garden Fields) on the other side of the road, and the granting of the current application would result in the further urbanisation of Offley, thereby eroding the whole concept of it being a village.  The development would also hide the historical asset of Westbury Farmhouse and surrounding buildings.

Mrs Cowley urged the Committee to refuse the application again

The Chairman thanked Mrs Cowley for her presentation.

The Committee supported the Development and Conservation Manager’s strengthening of the reasons for refusal, commenting as follows:

·      Opportunist application; nothing had changed since November 2017;

·      The site was not earmarked for development in the emerging Local Plan – indeed, land north of Luton Road formed part of the extended Green Belt in that Plan;

·      There were no special circumstances demonstrated in the application to warrant development in the Green Belt;

·      The affordable housing to be provided would not be available at affordable rates;

·      Offley would become a commuter village, with detrimental effects on shops, pubs, businesses and the wider community;

·      Offley had a well-established and well-supported village shop, with an integrated post office – to remove it and replace it with a standard chain store would completely alter the character of the settlement;

·      Part of the land earmarked for development was high grade agricultural land – there was no proven local need for additional housing in the village;

·      No satisfactory draft Section 106 Obligation had been submitted with the application;

·      How much due diligence and care had the applicant given to the application – even the fundamental information required on the appeal forms had been incorrectly provided.

The Development and Conservation Manager explained the process which had led to the Committee not being in a position to have jurisdiction over the application.  This had allowed the Committee the ability to strengthen and expand its reasons for refusal for submission at the forthcoming Public Inquiry.

Upon being moved, seconded, and put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED:That, in respect of application 17/01781/1,

(A)      the Council’s putative reason for refusal of this application to be presented at the forthcoming Public Inquiry be revised to the following:

1.      By reason of its siting beyond the built limits of Offley, on open allotments and farmland in an area of countryside adjacent to the village, the proposal would be detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the area.  The urban form of the development would afford significant and demonstrable harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside in this sensitive location adjacent to the village of Offley. The proposal would be harmful to the landscape qualities of the area and given that the site is prominent from several public vantage points it would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and in particular the users of public footpaths within and in the vicinity of the site.  The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy 6 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with alterations and specific policies of the Framework.  The development would also be contrary to Policy SP5 of the North Hertfordshire Emerging Local Plan 2011-2031.

2.      The proposed development would afford harm to the setting of Great Offley Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.  The site presents an attractive open setting to the Conservation Area and these nearby listed buildings and the ability to appreciate these designated heritage assets.  The proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and would detract from the setting of the listed buildings.  The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets, which would not be outweighed by the public benefits of delivering new housing development.  The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

3.      The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Section 106 Obligation) setting out how the shop would be delivered, along with the provision of 40% affordable housing and other necessary obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006) and the Planning obligation guidance – toolkit for Hertfordshire: Hertfordshire County Council’s requirements January 2008. The secure delivery of these obligations and provision of the allotments is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations (Saved Polices 2007) or Proposed Local Plan Policy HS2 of the Council's Proposed Submission Local Plan (2011-2031). Without this mechanism to secure these provisions the development scheme cannot be considered as sustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.      [Not now required].

5.    The proposed development lies immediately adjacent to an Area of Archaeological Significance.  Records in close proximity to the site suggest it lies within an area of extremely significant archaeological potential. Given this and the large scale nature of the proposal, this development should be regarded as likely to have an impact on significant heritage assets with archaeological interest, some of which may be of sufficient importance to meet NPPF para 139. This could represent a significant constraint on development. In the absence of a full archaeological field evaluation, there is insufficient information to determine the importance of any archaeological remains on the site. The proposal will be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF; and

(2)     That, in the event of further progress on Archaeology or the Section 106 Obligation, the Council’s case to be updated in advance of the Public Inquiry depending on progress in relation to these specific matters.