Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 24/02343/FPP be REFUSED subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manage and supplementary document.

Audio Recording – 45 minutes 58 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of Application 24/02343/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked for points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

 

In response to points of clarification, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Although it did not look like the site was being used for agricultural purposes he understood that it was until 2018.

·       This was a retrospective application for the change of use from agricultural to a Class B8 for storage and distribution purposes.

·       There was an enforcement investigation on this site.

·       There was nothing in the application about manufacturing

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and invited Mr Tim Wise to speak against this application. Mr Wise thanked the chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       He represented 30 objectors who all lived in Codicote and surrounding areas.

·       This site has been brought to the attention of the Council several times over the last 14 months.

·       During that time, the use of the site had changed and the road leading to the site entrance had been destroyed by HGVs, which used the road almost daily.

·       There had been instances of HGVs reversing blind from a country road onto the 60MPH highway, which was unsafe for other road users.

·       Hertfordshire Highways had advised that the road was unusable for HGVs.

·       Church Wood and Crouch Green Wood had suffered environmentally due to non-native plants being planted around the site boundary.

·       The current site use was unsustainable especially considering it is Green Belt land.

 

In response to points of clarification from Councillor Nigel Mason, Mr Wise advised that:

 

·       The lane that was being inappropriately used was the one opposite the dinosaurs and permanently has a flood sign on it.

·       Turning either way coming out of the lane would cause a HGV to cross over onto the other side of the carriageway.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Wise for his contribution and invited Mr Simon Warner to speak in support of the application. Mr Warner thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The site was classified as grey belt, not Green Belt.

·       The applicant had tried to negate any damages done during site transition, including the replacement of fences and clearing ditches.

·       Similar sites had been converted into housing, instead the applicant has tried to make the site something with benefit to the local area.

·       He also wished to add equestrian area to the site which could add to the community.

·       The current permission allows for the site to be used for agricultural purposes without restriction, the applicant was happy to work within any restrictions laid down by the Council under a new permission.

·       The HGVs did use the site, but if it returned to agricultural usage then the lane would be used by large agricultural vehicles.

·       The applicant would also be willing to plant trees and reintroduce native species to the surrounding woods.

·       The applicant wished to add to the local economy with this site.

·       He requested the decision be deferred until the applicant could resolve some of the issues raised in the report.

 

The following Members asked for points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Amy Allen

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Warner advised that:

 

·       The officers had clarified the land was grey belt and the only discrepancy between the view of officers and the view of the applicant was the perceived need for such a business in the local area.

·       Grey Belt land is partially decided on the previous activities at the site, but as the photos in the presentation showed, there is an increase to hard standing area which may mean the whole site could now be seen as grey belt.

·       In terms of vehicle access, during its time as an agricultural premises, he understood that large agricultural vehicles used it which would have been similar to the HGVs. the applicant is also willing to commit to using smaller transit sized vehicles to protect the integrity of the site if Members where minded to condition this.

 

In response to points of clarification, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Grey Belt classification was relatively new and came into place when the National Planning Policy Framework was updated in December 2024. ‘Grey belt’ was defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land.

·       In the opinion of officers, the application was not sustainable and there was no need for the business therefore it did not meet the requirements to recommend approval.

 

 

In response to points of clarification, the Senior Planning Solicitor advised that:

 

·       For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in NPPF paragraph 143.

·       In this case, the Senior Planning Officer had advised that, in their opinion, the proposal did not comply with criteria b and c of NPPF paragraph 155 and therefore should be regarded as inappropriate development within the Green Belt .

 

In response to points of clarification the Chair confirmed the definition of Grey Belt from the Government website.

 

Councillor Amy Allen proposed to refuse permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

 

The following members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnel

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·       The application was not a sustainable proposal, and it was not appropriate for this area.

·       The recommendation by Highways was crucial and an important reason for refusal.

·       The access to the site was unsafe and this was enough reason to refuse the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: That application 24/02343/FPP be REFUSED subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and supplementary document.