Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) on the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 14 dwellings.

 

This application is presented to DMC because Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council submitted a Major objection.

 

The application site is located south of Cuffley, outside of the settlement boundary and within the Metropolitan Green Belt.  The application site forms part of a larger parcel of land, known as HS30, which was proposed for allocation in the emerging Local Plan submission in 2016.  Its release from the Green Belt is considered to constitute high harm.  For that reason, in late 2020 the Council, in response to submitting additional sites to the Examination sought to remove the proposed allocation from the draft Local Plan.

 

Since the publication of the officer’s report, the Local Plan Inspector has responded to the strategy put forward following a decision of full Council in July.  The Inspector is supportive of a plan that seeks to provide a ten-year post adoption supply that is linked to a commitment to a review of the Local Plan within 5 years.  He has set out the requirement to meet the first ten years.  To meet the requirement, he considers it is necessary for the plan to include sites submitted that have been found sound and are not in the supply put forward following the decision of full Council in July.  This includes site HS30, a much larger parcel of land than the current application.  The Council is to consider its next steps following the receipt of the Inspectors response.  Notwithstanding the Inspector’s response, HS30 is not within the strategy agreed by full Council in July.  Also, as stated in the officer’s report the release from the Green Belt and allocation of development of HS30 as part of the Local Plan relates to a much larger parcel of land compared to the current application.  Members are advised that in relation to the Green Belt assessment and the planning balance in this case, no positive weight should be afforded to the proposed allocation of HS30.

 

Turning to the application before Members this evening, and the principle of development, District Plan Policy R1 states that in order to make the best use of land in the district, the Council will require development to take place on land which has been previously used or developed.  These objectives are consistent with the NPPF which supports the development of under-utilised land and buildings (Para.120). 

 

Notwithstanding this, as Members will be aware, a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt, unless one of the limited exceptions apply.  Exception g) in relevant to applications involving redevelopment of Previously Developed Land which I will refer to as PDL going forward.  An application involving PDL must:

 

(a) not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or

 

(b) not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use PDL and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

 

In this case, as an affordable housing contribution is being made, the Planning Application is assessed under the second limb of exception g, meaning it must not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

 

The definition of PDL in the NPPF excludes land that is or was last occupied by agricultural buildings.  The site supports a number of buildings identified A-G on the plan currently displayed on the screens.

 

It is reasonable for Officers to exercise judgement to conclude on the basis of the evidence available that all buildings within the site meet the definition of PDL. In addition, Officers have conducted a site visit which supports this conclusion. The late representation circulated to Members points to some potential uncertainty, and the report acknowledges that lawful uses for every part of the site have not been confirmed.  Nevertheless, it is judged, based on the evidence provided, that all buildings are considered to meet the definition of PDL.

 

The objector has stated that it is possible that parts of the wider site, such as grassed areas, may not be PDL.  It is the view of Officers that a conclusion that all of the site is within the curtilage of the buildings which have been assessed as PDL is reasonable.  Furthermore, the case law referred to by the objector (Lee Valley Regional Park v Broxbourne Borough Council) gives some support here, as it was accepted in that case:

 

•   that the flexibility in the NPPF for PDL may not require every part of the application site to have been PDL; and

•   that where PDL is so large a proportion of the whole site, it could make the distinction… 'one which could reasonably be ignored'.

 

The impact of a proposal on the openness of the Green Belt requires a judgment based on the circumstances of the case.  In this case the report acknowledges that the proposed development would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt compared to the existing situation.  However, the proposal is not considered to cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and it would contribute to an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.  Therefore, it is judged by officers that in principle, the proposal accords with the exception under Paragraph 149 g) of the NPPF and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 

 

It is acknowledged that there are strong objections from neighbouring occupiers and the Parish Council based on harm to the Green Belt.  In particular there is concern that the determination of the application would inevitably lead to development of the wider parcel of land, and further land beyond.  However, the application before Members this evening must be assessed on its merits against Development Plan Policy.  Speculation in relation to future development proposals, which may or may not come forward, is not considered sufficient justification to withholding planning permission.

 

In terms of supporting facilities a comprehensive package of planning obligations are set out under sub-heading 6 of the Officer’s assessment at paragraph 10.117.  These include financial contributions to mitigate the impact of the development on services, such as education, libraries and youth services.  Contributions are also required towards sustainable travel, play facilities and Green Space, among others.

 

The impacts of the proposal have been considered and found acceptable in terms of transport, access, and traffic; environmental impacts; heritage, landscape and visual impacts; residential amenity and impact on neighbouring occupiers; supporting facilities and other material considerations.

 

Turning to the planning balance, it is considered that the presumption in favour of sustainable development (also known as the tilted balance) does apply in this case.

 

The delivery of housing represents a benefit, and this development would boost the supply within the Borough.  This proposal would provide a significant contribution towards affordable housing via a commuted sum which is afforded substantial weight.  This application is for full detailed planning permission and, if granted, would be subject to the standard three-year time limit for commencement of development.  Therefore, there is a good chance that the dwellings will be delivered within 5 years.  This factor is afforded significant weight.

 

It is acknowledged within the report that the redevelopment of the site would result in the loss of an employment site in conflict with Policy EMP8 of the District Plan.  However, more recent advice under paragraph 123 of the NPPF, encourages local planning authorities to take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses of land which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose in plans, where this would help to meet identified development needs.  As such, it is considered that the delivery of housing, including a financial contribution towards affordable housing outweighs the loss of this employment site.

 

Having regard to all the factors described in detail within the committee report, Officers are of the view that the benefits in favour of the proposal clearly outweigh the conflict with Policy EMP8.

 

It is therefore recommended that the Committee resolves to grant planning permission subject to the suggested conditions; the satisfactory completion of a S106 Agreement securing planning obligations; and the agreement of any necessary extensions to the statutory determination period to complete this agreement.

 

Jonathan Collins, Agent, stated:

 

They have worked through a long and rigorous consultation process with officers, statutory consultees, and local stakeholders since it was submitted in December 2020. As local SME business they take consultation very seriously and welcome genuine feedback on proposals. They are pleased to see praise for these proposals from residents and support from statutory consultees. They have sort to address legitimate concerns with officers. They believe there is nothing new to the late objection received from an objector that does not live in Cuffley. All the points have already been fully addressed during the last 21 months working with the council. They are grateful for the rigour and effort that has been applied by officers and said that winning their support with a strong recommendation for approval has not been an easy process. Officers are clear that this site qualifies as previous developed commercial land and there is no evidence to the contrary. The development of this site predates the settlement of Cuffley itself. This site is suitable for delivery of much needed family housing now and the position would be the same under a new plan as a windfall brownfield site. This is a sustainable site closer to the train station and local amenities of Station Road than many of the existing houses to the north of Cuffley. The proposed family homes are arranged around a pinwheel courtyard with a focal manor house surrounded by narrow linear barn like buildings. These homes will include a carbon reduction of 40-55% above the current building regulations, using low carbon and renewable technologies for onsite energy generation. In addition, there will be improvements to pedestrian linkages, a reduction to hard surfacing as part of the sustainable drainage strategy, restrictions to water usage, enhancements to biodiversity, and an electric charging point for every home. The scheme will provide financial contributions to affordable housing, local transport, education, and health facilities. They urged the committee to approve this sustainable development of 14 homes on a brownfield site today without forcing it to appeal.

 

 

Barry Knichel, Objector, stated:

 

He believes this application needs to pass a much more stringent test of rules than are required for a local plan. There also needs to be much more objectivity and balance than has been presented in the officer’s report. To correct this, the committee has separately received expert representation advising it doesn't meet the NPPF tests. There will be substantial harm to the green belt if this goes ahead. There are no very exceptional circumstances to justify this. The description that the site is at the bottom of the sleep valley is misleading as is the assertion that large buildings will be designed so they look much smaller. Not evaluating the significant increase in building volume when the data is easily available doesn't make sense. The council have committed to not build on high harm green belt, for sound planning and policy reasons, which hasn't changed in the few months since this decision was ratified. The development will be significantly larger in comparison to the current farm buildings. The officer or the developer has had ample time to give an objective assessment of this significant increase, but they have chosen not to. During the local plan deliberations, the officers warned of planning by appeal, but expert advice is that should it get that far any appeal would likely fail. In Clifford Chance’s summation of this application, they say, ‘the above points mean any decision granted on the basis of the report would be wrong in planning and at law and thus will be exposed to the legal challenge’. Therefore, he believes the officers report is deficient and any decision to accept the recommendation would be unlawful, and if that was the outcome then a legal challenge would be viable. He asked councillors to uphold their commitment to residents and apply sound planning judgement based on the expert advice provided and refuse this application.

 

Councillor Bob Stubbs, speaking on behalf of Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council stated:

 

There is a comprehensive and detailed letter from Clifford Chance which all members of the committee should have received and sets out why the application should be refused. As stated by the officer, their conclusion is the whole site is PDL, but this is a flawed conclusion. Building G does not clearly qualify as PDL. Curtilage on the site is not PDL but has been assessed as PDL. The curtilage is about 50% of the site in question. The whole development site is therefore erroneously given PDL status. The terms of the green belt test for a PDL site is no great impact on openness, and not causing substantial harm. The report concludes these tests have been satisfied, in NCPCs view they have not. The proposed development will be significantly higher with a much greater volume. There has been no attempt by officers or the applicant to evaluate what the increase in volume is. There will be, at the rear of the site, additional landscaping which will also have significant impact on openness. HS30 has previously been defined by the council as being high harm but is now considered by officers that development of roughly 50% of the site is not high harm, this is not in line with the council’s previous assessment. The inspector has a different view, but too much weight and given to this view. The Councils’ preference is for a plan that would exclude this site. Too much weight is being given to the status of a plan, which is still contentious, and in any case omits this site as it is not considered appropriate for development. NCPC believe the application is premature for approval and would set a dangerous precedent. Clifford Chance’s conclusions are that if the committee refuses consent, an appeal would most likely be unsuccessful, but if approved it will be based on a flawed officer’s assessment and will be wrong both in planning policy and at law, and the council will be exposed to a legal challenge.

 

Councillor B. Sarson, Ward Councillor, stated:

 

He promised to support this council and the government's pledge to prevent development on high harm green belt sites. In late July the council resolved to maintain this pledge and remove high harm green belt sites from the local plan. There was a special motion to keep HS30, the larger of these sites, in the local plan. This was soundly defeated by members, and supported by the MP, and based on sound planning decisions. The Council has approved a plan for 12,775 homes, and this site is not included. This is not a windfall site as the definition of windfall are sites that would not have been envisaged at the time of the plan. Although the applicant claims this is PDL this is disputed by independent experts. What the officer has acknowledged is that the development will significantly increase the volume of buildings. The scale and significance should not be underestimated as it will lead to the whole site losing its openness and thus its high harm rating. Councillors will have received a detailed independent report from a specialist lawyer. This includes a significant increase in volume, and loss of employment, giving too much weight to the argument that this is in the local plan so should be developed. Councillors have also heard from the community, that if this were to be refused the potential appeal would not be successful. The Committee have a commitment based on planning law and government policy to protect high harm green belt; this development will significantly increase the prominence of this site. There are several NPPF criteria that this application has not met. He requested councillors reject this application, not for planning reasons, but to uphold commitments made to the community.

 

Members discussed the application and a summary of the main points raised are shown below:

 

The site is a high harm green belt site however has been previously developed upon. The site therefore falls within exemption G of the NPPF. The test therefore becomes not to cause substantial harm to greenbelt openness. Officers have advised that in their view the development would not cause substantial harm based on the substantial harm test to the green belt.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to development of the wider plot. Officers advised that each application needs to be addressed on its own merit and because of the specific nature of this being falling within exemption G it wouldn't be going against the council's committed approach in relation to the local plan about not developing on high harm sites.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the loss of employment sites. Officers have advised that the council can take a positive approach to land which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose in plans.

 

Concerns raised in relation to building volumes. Whilst the overall footprint is reducing by circa 100 square metres the properties will be double story so there is an increase in volume overall. However, officers are of the opinion that when taking into account viewpoints, screening from landscaping, etc. this wouldn’t cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the external legal advice given by Chance Clifford, in particular around the test and the application of the test. Officers have considered this advice in detail and concluded that the correct tests have been applied.

 

Concerns were raised that the council might be or committing or making an unlawful decision. Legal advice is that based on the information provided to members a legal decision can be made this evening.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the medieval farm. An archaeological investigation of the site can be secured by condition.

 

Members need to consider the council currently has no five-year housing land supply. There would be a committed sum for affordable housing of circa 900,000. The Legal Advisor said this would come through as a section 106 agreement. The length of time this money is available is negotiable within the agreement. The affordable housing would be provided offsite as officers are of the opinion this would be better provided elsewhere in the borough.

 

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor J. Broach and seconded by Councillor C. Juggins to reject the application.

 

RESOLVED:

(7 in favour, and 6 against)

 

That planning permission be rejected:

 

·        On the grounds that the increase from single storey to multi storey would result in unacceptable harm to the green belt and result in over development of the land contrary to D1/D2.*

 

*Please note that following the committee meeting, the decision notice was not issued whilst a review of the decision takes place.