Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of one detached self-build 2-bed retirement dwelling and ancillary works (additional plans received 16.04.2025).

RESOLVED: That 25/00309/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the delegation of authority and additional Condition 10 as follows:

 

(a)         That delegated authority be granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to resolve whether the decision should be subject to a condition relating to archaeology in consultation with the Hertfordshire County Council Archaeologist, and

 

(b)         ‘Condition 10

 

The dwelling herby permitted shall incorporate integrated swift bricks which shall be retained thereafter.

 

Reason: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with the aims of the NPPD and the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Policy NE4.’

 

Audio recording – 53 minutes 25 seconds

 

The Planning Officer advised that there were no updated matters to report on since the publication of the agenda.

 

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/00309/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Louise Peace

 

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·             The main policy change since the previous scheme in 2022 was that the Council did not have a five-year housing land supply, therefore the tilted balance applied.

·             The site conflicted with Policy CGB1 and Policy SP2 in the Local Plan as the application fell outside of the settlement boundary in Barley, but due to the absence of a five-year housing land supply, those policies were deemed to be out of date and the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) were given greater weight than those in the Local Plan. 

·             Policies in the NPPF emphasised that dwellings should be located close to existing facilities within settlements, but not in isolated locations, therefore, a dwelling in this location was acceptable in principle.

·             Improvements had been made to the design of the scheme since the previous application.

·             The Conservation Officer, who had objected to the previous scheme did not object to this one as the significance of the impact on the conservation area was low compared with the previous scheme.

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that the balcony would be set into the roof and walled either side, therefore all views from it would be the same as those from a window.  

 

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Barley Parish Councillor Yvonne Lee to speak against the application. Councillor Lee thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following: 

 

·             Two objections with detailed comments had been made by Barley Parish Council on the application.

·             The scheme conflicted with Policy SP2 in the Local Plan as it was not within the settlement boundary of Barley in addition to Policy CGB1 as it did not meet any of the criteria for development in rural areas beyond the Green Belt.

·             As it did not comply with key policies, it should be refused planning permission.

·             The appeal decisions referenced in the report of the Planning Officer were materially different to this application as one was in Kelshall which was a Category B Village that complied with Policy CGB1, and neither were in a conservation area, making them irrelevant.

·             Adopting a tilted balance in the absence of a five-year housing land supply was questionable as it meant that the policies in the NPPF overrode the policies in the Local Plan.

·             The application also failed to meet key policies in the NPPF as it provided no affordable housing and the vitality of the rural community would not be maintained.

·             Barley Parish Council were convinced that there were no mitigating factors in the application to justify granting permission.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Lee for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Mr Andrew Huzzey to speak against the application. Mr Huzzey thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             The original application in 2022 was previously rejected by the Council.

·             The application was contrary to approved planning policy in the Local Plan, particularly Policies SP2 and CBG1, and would cause harm to the conservation area and adjoining listed buildings.

·             It was clear that the proposed dwelling would not enhance or preserve the surrounding area as it would impact its appearance and be extremely imposing. 

·             If the application was granted permission, there was concern over a precedent being set for homeowners with large gardens being able to build in their own boundaries despite living in a conservation area.

·             The proposed development would be directly opposite their cottage and while the Applicant had reduced the rear height of the dwelling by half a metre, it would still be 8.8 metres higher than their property at the front which would reduce their main source of light from their front window and impact their right to light.

·             The existing cluster of heritage assets made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, whereas the height, fenestration and position of the proposed dwelling would contribute negatively.

·             Serious consideration should be given by Members to the points that had been raised in their verbal presentations.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Huzzey for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Joe Graziano to speak against the application. Councillor Graziano thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             There were four comments of objection to this application on the Council website and three referencing the need for provision of swift boxes.

·             Barley Parish Council resolved to object the application at a meeting in April.

·             Barley had seen substantial development in recent years, both from infilled development and windfall sites and there were three sites in development presently in the village.

·             The key issue was that the application was outside the settlement boundary but within a conservation area. 

·             Policy SP2 within the Local Plan identified Barley as a Category A village where development was allowed within settlement boundaries, but the application was well outside of these.

·             Because of this, it was classified as rural land beyond the Green Belt, but it did not satisfy any of the criteria listed in Policy CGB1 of the Local Plan to grant planning permission on this type of land either.

·             The Applicant referenced sustainable policies and self-build considerations in their application but given the development did not comply with key fundamental policies in the Local Plan, these were not relevant. 

·             The site lay within the conservation area and development inside these areas must preserve or enhance the character and make a positive contribution to the appearance by considering sighting, design, scale and use of materials.

·             In his opinion, the development would erode the significance of the conservation area as the properties that fronted Smiths End Lane such as Blythe and South cottages opposite to the site and Ravello Rose Cottage adjacent to it were listed and made a valuable contribution to the setting of the conservation area.

·             The verdant gap between Ivy’s Cottage and Ravello Rose Cottage also contributed significantly to the setting of the conservation area. 

·             Built form on the site would be changed by the proposal.

·             The proposed ridge height of 6.8 metres combined with the two-metre site elevation above properties opposite would cause demonstrable harm to all properties in this part of the conservation area.

·             He agreed with Barley Parish Council in that there were no mitigating factors that would justify this application to be exempt from the planning framework in the Local Plan and recommended that the application should be refused.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Nigel Mason, Councillor Graziano advised that there was a population of swifts in the area which would be supported through swift boxes. 

 

In response to verbal presentations, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             This was a unique site on Smiths End Lane as it had a large garden and development on all three of its boundaries, making it an infill plot.

·             Significant weight had been given to the assessment carried out by the Conservation Officer who had raised no objection to the application.

·             An amendment had been made since the previous application to set the proposed dwelling further back to ensure that site lines of Ravello Rose Cottage and Ivy’s Cottage would be retained when driving on Smiths End Lane.

 

In response to verbal presentations, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·             The proposed dwelling would be to the north of Ravello Rose Cottage and would not cause overshadowing on this property.

·             If Members considered that the development would cause harm to the setting of the listed buildings and to the character and appearance of the conservation area, this would constitute less than substantial harm to the conservation area and would have to be balanced against the public benefits arising from the development.

·             The main public benefit would be the delivery of a dwelling to the Council housing stock in the absence of a five-year housing land supply. 

 

The following Members asked additional questions:

 

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

 

In response to additional questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·             In a heritage context, substantial harm was a high threshold as it only took place when heritage interest was removed from a heritage asset, for example, through the demolition of a listed building.

·             Less than substantial harm was defined as anything less than this which meant that there was a broad spectrum within this category.

·             Where there was less than substantial harm, the degree of this would have to be balanced against any public benefits, however, the Conservation Officer had deemed that there would be no harm to the setting of the nearby listed buildings or the character and appearance of the conservation area, therefore, assessing the balance with public benefits arising from the scheme would not be necessary.

·             If Members considered there to be harm from the application in a heritage context, this would be less than substantial, and they would have to balance this with the public benefits of the application as mentioned previously.

·             It was acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would affect the character and appearance of the conservation area, however, it would not do this in a harmful way.

·             In their opinion, the insertion of a dwelling in a conservation area could not result in substantial harm to the heritage significance of a conservation area or to the architectural or historic interest of neighbouring listed buildings.

·             For there to be substantial harm to those listed buildings, the Courts have found that a proposal would have to vitiate their architectural or historic interest, which would not be the case in this instance.

 

In response to additional questions, the Planning Officer advised that the height of the proposed dwelling would be greater than Ivy’s Cottage but lower than that of Ravello Rose Cottage.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Clare Billing.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Daniel Allen

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·             Councillor Val Bryant

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·             There were listed buildings surrounding the application site and it was outside the settlement boundary but within the conservation area.

·             There were reasons to refuse this proposal that had been highlighted by the public speakers and careful consideration should be given to these.

·             This application would interfere with an area that had seen no development for a long time, and officer assessment on harm in a heritage context had not taken into consideration the harm that residents would feel from this application.

·             Given the lack of objection from the Conservation Officer and the policies within the NPPF, there was no clear reason to reject this application.

·             It was positive that residents wanted to stay in the area and build a dwelling that suited their needs, but the objections to the application were sympathised with.

·             An archaeological condition should be placed on the application.

·             Upon a standard internet search on the conservation area within Barley, there was little historic interest here, however, they could request for a desktop survey to be carried out which would be the lowest form archaeological intervention. 

 

In response to points made in the debate, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·             The Hertfordshire County Council Archaeologist did not respond to the consultation which is why the application did not include an archaeological condition.

·             If Members required a condition relating to archaeology, a standard condition would require a watching brief whereby an archaeologist would be appointed and paid to watch over the site while its foundations were excavated, however, there was no evidence to suggest that the site was of archaeological interest or that historical development had taken place in the nearby area, but this decision would be up to Members.

 

Councillor Martin Prescott proposed that delegated authority be granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to resolve whether the decision should be subject to a condition relating to archaeology in consultation with the Hertfordshire County Council Archaeologist.

 

Following a point raised by Councillor Martin Prescott, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that authority could be delegated to him to resolve any outstanding archaeological concerns, alongside the Hertfordshire County Council Archaeologist, and include any required conditions. This was accepted by Councillor Nigel Mason as the proposer.

 

Councillor Dave Winstanley proposed an amendment for an additional Condition 10 for the application to include integrated swift bricks and this was seconded by Councillor Jon Clayden.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason accepted the amendment into the substantive motion. This was also accepted by Councillor Clare Billing as seconder.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, and following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That 25/00309/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the delegation of authority and additional Condition 10 as follows:

 

(a)         That delegated authority be granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to resolve whether the decision should be subject to a condition relating to archaeology in consultation with the Hertfordshire County Council Archaeologist, and

 

(b)         ‘Condition 10

 

The dwelling herby permitted shall incorporate integrated swift bricks which shall be retained thereafter.

 

Reason: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with the aims of the NPPD and the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Policy NE4.’