Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/00262/FP LAND AT NEW POUND FARM EAST SIDE OF, OLD HALE WAY, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 0SA

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of one detached dwelling.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 26/00262/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

A)          The receipt of no objection from the Environment Agency and the addition of any recommended conditions.

 

B)          The conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 03 hours 27 minutes 10 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on Application 26/00262/FP and advised that the recommendation was to grant permission subject to the receipt of no objection from the Environment Agency as they were being consulted on a revised flood risk assessment submitted by the Applicant.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00262/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             It was unknown whether the dwelling would connect to the main sewage system.

·             The dwelling would be market housing.

·             Permission would not be granted if the Environment Agency upheld their objection.

·             The land had been concluded to be Grey Belt using the Grey Belt assessment but was within a wider parcel of the Green Belt.

 

The Chair informed Members that the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Ian Albert had given their apologies and was unable to attend the Committee meeting to provide a verbal presentation. The Chair proceeded to read out a written statement on their behalf, and highlighted the following:

 

·             There were no clear long-term intentions for the land after multiple applications had been submitted on it.

·             Ickleford Parish Council had clearly articulated their reasons for objecting.

·             The Environment Agency had rejected the flood risk assessment, and the revised version had not covered the questions raised by them on the previous version.

·             The recommendation to grant permission should be revised or given more justification as it would go against the advice from the Environment Agency.

·             The Inspector for the previous application on this land stated that substantial weight must be given to the harm to the Green Belt as very special circumstances had not been demonstrated, and the conclusion for this application should be the same.

·             Harm to the Green Belt would also disengage the presumption in favour of development, as per the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

The Chair invited the Applicant and their Representatives, Mr Bruce Parker, Ms Frances Barry and Mr Mike Jones to speak in support of the application. They thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             Planning permission was sought to build a modest dwelling to live in and to support and protect the land.

·             The landowner did their utmost to create a landscape that supported biodiversity and ensured public access so that public wellbeing could be maintained.

·             The dwelling would have exemplary environmental credentials and this should be encouraged in light of the climate crisis.

·             This land formed a vital part of a wildlife corridor with a chalk river.

·             The land was well used and appreciated by local people.

·             A sensitively designed farm dwelling would reinforce the identity of the rural land, help to preserve its character, and provide security to protect it and secure its long-term future.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Val Bryant

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Bruce Parker advised that:

 

·             They would live in the dwelling once it was built.

·             Pirton sewage system went through the land and it would be possible to connect to this.

·             Wildlife in nearby chalk streams was monitored, and their sewage output was kept to a minimum.

·             A new track for pedestrian access was being created at the bottom of the site, but the existing track would be made private.

 

In response to points raised in the verbal presentations, the Senior Planning Officer advised that a Section 73 application would need to be submitted to obtain a connection to the sewage system as the application form had advised that a connection would not be needed.

 

The following Members asked additional questions:

 

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Claire Winchster

 

In response to additional questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             A self-build dwelling would require the Applicant to enter into a legal agreement, but this application was for market housing.

·             The revised flood risk assessment superseded the original assessment.

 

Councillor Dave Winstanley proposed to refuse planning permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Val Bryant.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

 

The following points were made during the debate:

 

·             There would be unjustified harm to the character of the Green Belt and countryside.

·             Material impacts identified by the Inspector on the last application had remained the same and had been downplayed in the report.

·             There was a conflict at paragraph 4.3.4 of the report as the recent Green Belt Review found the land to be Green Belt rather than Grey Belt, and the development would erode openness, and could contribute to incremental encroachment on this parcel.

·             This application would not join two settlements but would create pressure for further development within the wider parcel of land.

·             The benefits of this application were modest as one house would barely impact the five-year housing land supply.

·             If the concerns from the Environment Agency could not be addressed, the application was not satisfactory.

·             The land on which this dwelling sat was not Grey Belt and would impact the Green Belt if granted permission.

·             The dwelling would be behind an existing large barn.

·             The previous application had only been refused as it had been designed for rural workers with no justification.

·             The wider parcel of land had seen previous development, and the application should be approved if it was classed as Grey Belt.

·             Building one dwelling would not make a difference to the openness of the area.

 

In response to points made during the debate, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that the Inspector had declared the land as Grey Belt at the appeal and this did not require an assessment of openness as the harm on openness was not a consideration.

 

In response to further questions raised by Councillors Martin Prescott and Dave Winstanley, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             The principal of development would be established by granting permission.

·             If the land had a weak or moderate contribution to purposes A, B or D of the Green Belt assessment in the NPPF, then they had to weigh harms and benefits of the application, and one dwelling would present a benefit.

·             The appeal decision letter gave a steer on how the Planning Inspectorate classed this land.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the motion to refuse planning permission was LOST.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to grant planning permission and Councillor Martin Prescott seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 26/00262/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

A)          The receipt of no objection from the Environment Agency and the addition of any recommended conditions.

 

B)          The conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of the item Councillor Ruth Brown left the Chamber at 23:20 and did not return.

Supporting documents: