Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).  

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) which sought outline permission (with all matters reserved except for access) for up to 125 dwellings, a care facility for up to 60 bedrooms and a scout hut. Vehicular and pedestrian access to/from the development would be provided via an extension to Bradmore Way at the southern boundary of the site. Of the 125 dwellings, 36% would be affordable housing (45 units) and 8% (10 units) would be self-build.

Members were informed by the case officer that they will be aware that an updated response which was received from Natural England a day before Committee removing their objection to the application following the submission of additional information from the applicant.  It was stated that this overcomes recommended reason for refusal 5 which relates to potential effects of the development on a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Member also informed by the case officer that additional information in response to reason for refusal 4 was provided by the applicant this week in response to issues raised by both Hertfordshire Ecology and the Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust and that Hertfordshire Ecology responded at around 5pm on the day of Committee.  Members notified that their response addresses part of this reason for refusal and it is recommended that the first sentence of this reason for refusal as well as the word ‘furthermore’ which follows is omitted.

Members updated by the case officer with regard to Hertfordshire County Council Contributions set out in paragraph 11.117 of the Committee Report.  In terms of primary education, another option at the County Council’s discretion is a payment of £1,117,889 toward new primary school provision up to 2 forms of entry inclusive of land costs.  Also, the childcare service contributions is no longer requested by County Council as it would not meet the planning obligation tests.  All financial obligations would be subject to indexation.

Late representations also raised and considered by the case officer.

The site is eight hectares and lies within the Green Belt and Potters Bar Landscape Character Area.  The southern boundary of the site is bordered by properties on Peplins Way and Bradmore Way and access is proposed to be taken from Bradmore Way.  A line of trees run along the eastern boundary and on the other side is Brookmans Park Golf Club.  Peplins Wood wraps around the western boundary of the site and a majority of the northern boundary and a section of the north-east boundary is open affording longer range views of the countryside.  The railway line run close to the site on its western side.

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because: it had been called-in by Councillor Rebecca Lass; North Mymms Parish Council submitted a Major Objection; and the Assistant Director for Planning considered it prudent for this application to be determined at Development Management Committee.

Alan Perkins, Applicant, stated that full council met on 26 July 2022 to consider the local plan. At that meeting, it was specifically decided that any sites that cause high harm to the Green Belt should be deleted from the local plan. At paragraph 1.14 it states that the draft Local Plan makes provision for growth in Brookmans Park. In his round up notes following the Stage 9 Hearings (EX273) the Inspector identified that site HS22 (Land west of Brookmans Park Railway station), which is a significant allocation, has been found sound and there are exceptional circumstances to justify its removal from the Green Belt. However, full council has now formally disagreed with the inspector and will insist that HS22 which is a high harm Green Belt site is deleted from the plan so there is no provision for growth in Brookmans Park. As a consequence of full council’s decision the list of sites to be allocated is limited to two small allocated sites in Brookmans Park for just 24 dwellings in the entire plan period. That is a significant material change of circumstances. The site before you is the only large site in Brookmans Park and the other 3 large villages will be required to deliver between 500 and 600 new dwellings each. The proposal will include 36% affordable homes and will contribute over £3.6millon to s106 contribution.

Ellen Bisnath, Objector, stated that she had lived in the village since 2014. She noted that there were 513 comments on the proposed development, 494 objections made and the majority were from Brookmans Park residents. There is inadequate road access on Bradmore Way to and from the proposed development site, oversubscription of public services, education and the local GP surgery, erosion of the Green Belt and more urbanisation which will increase pressure on wildlife and will cause ecological damage. The development access at Bradmore Way is a narrow road in Brookmans Park. It is 4.9 metres wide which does not meet modern standards and it passes in front of Brookmans Park Primary school. During the week school runs block Bradmore Way and Peplins Way. It is already dangerous for parents walking their kids to school and dodge cars. The traffic survey in February 2022 capture the bare minimum as it was completed during the Walk to school week and Spring Half term. Bradmore Way and Peplins Way would suffer crippling congestion from construction traffic and delivery vehicles. Coaches to the primary school cannot get to the school due to limited access. The public services are oversubscribed, residents at Brookmans Park are currently on a waiting list for the primary school and secondary schools. The GP Surgery has a waiting list and people will be waiting weeks for appointments. This site provides a natural resource for both people and animals and provides a buffer between Brookmans Park and Welham Green preventing the two villages from merging together. The area is home to endangered species such as badger and bats. Not a sustainable development as it takes away essential habitats from endangered species.

Cllr Mia Americanos-Molinaro, from North Mymms Parish Council, stated that the site has not been accepted by the borough’s emerging local plan and was not accepted in the draft local plan, therefore it is inappropriate to develop on the Green Belt. It will affect the openness and visual amenity of the area and would result in a loss of green space and therefore conflicts with paragraph 149 of the NPPF. The sites rating has been classed as moderate to high harm meaning its loss would be damaging. The position of the site would result in the loss of environmentally green gap, and would potentially increase the coalescence of Welham Green and Brookmans Park. The site includes the heritage asset of Peplins wood an ancient woodland and would be obscured by the proposed development.  The site is also in close proximity to the SSSI. Access is fundamental as this application poses serious issues due to the narrowness of both Bradmore and Peplins way. In terms of design and sustainability the application will be alien in the present form contravening paragraph 130 of the NPPF and D2 of the borough policy as it is not sympathetic nor respects the character of the existing rural neighbourhood.

Members asked if the lack of a 5 year land supply is sufficient enough to justify development in the Green Belt. Officers stated that no it was not.

Members asked about the categorisation of the level of Green Belt harm from the site.  Officers stated that there has been no specific site assessment known to the site as BRP12a. There has been an assessment of a larger site in the Green Belt review which identified parcel 66 which encompasses this site and additional land. Causes moderate to high harm to the Green Belt, limited to no contribution to purpose ‘a’ (unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas); a partial contribution to purpose ‘b’ (preventing the merging of neighbouring towns); a significant contribution to purposes ‘c’ (safeguarding the countryside from encroachment); limited or no contribution to purpose ‘d’ (preserving setting and special character of historic towns); and a significant contribution to purpose ‘e’ (assisting urban regeneration).

Members were interested in the application because of the number of affordable homes, it passed the council’s site allocation process and that the Inspector has not found this plot of land unsound. However, there has been no specific site allocation meaning that there is not much room for the committee to move towards this plot to develop on. In the larger assessment there was a range of moderate and high harm plot but not specific to this plot.

Members asked if reasons for refusal 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have now been complied with and the application is being refused on items 1 and 2 of the recommendations in light of what had been said Officers stated no that is not the case. Additional information had been submitted, firstly with regard to ecology and the impact on the SSSI. Natural England responded yesterday outlining that they were satisfied that there would not be an adverse impact on the SSSI and there would be no justification for reason for refusal 5 to remain as such. With regard to reason for refusal 4, the impact on ecology and biodiversity is split into two parts. The first part was in regards to impact on legally protected species which include bats, great crested newts and reptiles. The second part of that condition is the failure to demonstrate the positive impact on biodiversity. The response from Hertfordshire Ecology was that sufficient information has been submitted in regard to the protected species. They have outlined that there appears to be a demonstration of a biodiversity net gain, but that needs to be secured through an appropriate mechanism which is the legal agreement that has not been secured through this application. It was noted that officers did not have a response yet from Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust.

Members thought that some of the information asked for in the application was unreasonable at outline stage. Officers responded saying that it needs to be satisfied at outline stage that there wouldn’t be any significant impacts on protected species, that the application would not have an adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity, that development of the site as proposed would not increase flood risk on the site or elsewhere and that highway impact is acceptable. If the flooding information was deemed to be acceptable by the Lead Local Flood Authority, their position would be to secure a condition for detailed engineering drawings. Members raised that Brookmans Park will only have 24 dwellings and there needs to be more houses in Brookmans Park. The site will have 36% affordable homes which is much needed in the borough.

Members were concerned about access to the site as it has one road in and one road out. The site proposes 125 houses and this will increase traffic dramatically on the road. Officers stated that insufficient information has been submitted with regard to the impact of highways safety and capacity. The surveys were completed over a two week period – the first week being a walk to school week promoted by Brookmans Park Primary School and the second week being half term. The Highways Authority have guidance as to when surveys should be completed in order to ensure that they represent the actual situation. They were not satisfied with the information that was submitted and as it does not give a true picture of the highway impact. They need that information in order to come to an accurate decision on the highway impact of the proposal.

Members stated that there were a lot of contradicting statements which were not the fault of the council or applicant. It was queried whether members can look at this at a stage when they can evaluate it properly given that it is a major development. Members did not want to refuse it before they had all the information needed to evaluate it and possibly defer the application. Officers stated that bearing in mind they have not received the information required and that the application has been with the authority for some time, do not have sufficient information that would allow the council to approve the application. Think that there is so much information that is still not clear. Once you approve an outline development, you accept the principal of the development.

Members stated that it was not just the applicant who has not provided the information. The Lead Local Flood Authority, Highways, Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and Natural England were also mentioned. Officers confirmed  that if the technical reasons for refusal were not there (reasons for refusal 3, 4, 6 & 7), the application would still be refused on the first two reasons of refusal which is the impact on the Green Belt and character and appearance. If the application was to be deferred to allow more discussions with consultees, they would still bring a report to you for recommendation for refusal based on reasons for refusal 1 and 2.

Members asked if officers were still happy that reasons 1 and 2 for refusal are robust enough and do we feel that they would stand up to further scrutiny if needed. Officers said yes and that what happened at full council has not changed the recommendation.

Members wanted to know that if the application was refused could the applicant submit another application at a later date. Officers stated that the applicant can submit another application in the future to try and satisfy the technical reasons for refusal and for it to be brought back to committee.

Members asked if there was any other way of getting emergency vehicles to the site. Officers stated no. Members said that Hertfordshire County Council have a policy on how many homes can be supported by a single entry. Officers stated that it came up in the objections and Hertfordshire County Council confirmed that development of this scale on the site with the single access is acceptable.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors C.Juggins and C.Stanbury to refuse the application and

RESOLVED:

(12 in favour and 1 Abstention)

That planning permission be refused for reasons set out in report (excluding reason for refusal 5 and with an amendment to the wording reason for refusal 4 as set out by the case officer).