Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Following concerns that were expressed after the previous development management committee meeting regarding the level and consistency of member engagement in the item, and after officer review and legal advice, officers have recommended that the item is reconsidered by members of the committee, with an open mind, in order to ensure that any decision is ultimately defensible to challenge. Any member who feels unable to consider the matter afresh was asked to excuse themselves for this item.

 

RESOLVED:

(13 in favour, unanimous)

 

That the previous resolution be rescinded, and the application be reconsidered afresh by the Committee today.

 

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.

 

Officers shared images to help show the site and the proposed development within the surrounding context. The site is located to the south of Cuffley outside the settlement boundary and within the Green Belt.

 

The Committee report includes a thorough assessment of the planning history for each building at paragraphs 11.5 to 11.18. Officers have looked in detail at the evidence, and at the site itself, and concluded that none of the buildings remain in agricultural use and the site comprises previously developed land.

 

The submitted Design and Access Statement, demonstrates the scale and massing of the development. The proposal would replace buildings that have a large individual footprint with much narrower, proportioned buildings which helps to break down the scale and more closely replicate the linear barn aesthetic of traditional farmsteads. The proposed scheme demonstrates well-considered layouts and reflects rural typology. There is a formal Manor House at the centre of the site presenting a central focus to the development.

 

In terms of the visual impact, views of the development from publicly accessible vantage points would be predominantly partial and glimpsed, this is because the site is situated close to the bottom of a steep valley and is well screened by landform, existing mature trees, and hedgerows. The only clear view of the site from a public right of way is directly opposite the site entrance, although this is a short glimpse view and the site is set well back from the road, with the principal building visible being the existing cottage lying just outside the development boundary.

 

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.  HS30, together with several other parcels of land were combined for assessment, and cumulatively, their release from the Green Belt was 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.  In order 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.  The Council is to consider its next steps following the receipt of the Inspector’s 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.

 

In terms of 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 previously used or developed land, these objectives are consistent with the NPPF which supports the development of under-utilised land and buildings.

 

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) is relevant to applications involving redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL).

 

An application involving PDL must a not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or 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. 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.

 

The impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt requires a judgement based on 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 was acknowledged that there are strong objections from neighbouring occupiers and the Parish Council based on Green Belt harm, 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.  The application must be assessed on its merits against the development plan policy. Speculation in relation to future development proposals which may or may not come forward is not considered sufficient justification to withhold planning permission.

 

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

 

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

 

The delivery of housing represents a benefit, and this development would boost the supply within the borough. The 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 will be subject to the standard three-year time limit for commencement of development, therefore there is every prospect that the dwellings will be delivered within five years and this factor is afforded significant weight. It is acknowledged within the report that the redevelopment 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.

 

Officers are of the view that the benefits in favour of the proposal outweigh the conflict with Policy EMP8 and the less than substantial harm to Green Belt openness.  It was therefore recommended that the Committee resolve to grant planning permission subject to the suggested conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement, securing planning obligations and the agreement of any necessary extensions to the statutory determination period to complete this agreement.

 

Jonathan Collins, Agent, stated:

 

As a local business they take pride in consulting with residents and key stakeholders and have now had an opportunity to listen to members and hear their concerns regarding the potential harm in the Green Belt, the increase in build volume, housing need, and the delivery mechanism for affordable housing.

They appreciate that this site is within a large parcel identified by the Council's consultants as high harm. However, the local plan process has concluded that the area in the south-west corner of the 117-acre parcel is well-screened and not high harm. The proposals only cover a small part of this area, which is only 1% of the total parcel and is already occupied by buildings. The site has been rigorously assessed by officers and has been found to be appropriate development allowable within the Green Belt. Members have suggested that an increase in volume of this site would be contrary to design policies. They have listened to Members' and have now measured the increase in volume, which is 60%. Whilst most of this increase in volume would be allowable under permitted development rights for the commercial buildings, this would not result in a well-designed scheme and, as officers note in the report, this proposal would instead replace buildings of large individual footprints with much narrower proportioned buildings which would help to break down the scale and more closely replicate the linear barn aesthetic of traditional farmsteads. They have submitted a visual impact assessment and the report concludes that the only clear view of the site would be a short, glimpsed view down the site entrance and that this would be acceptable, especially given the high quality of design. Councillors have asked whether these new homes are required, given that housing sites will be identified in the emerging Local Plan. It was noted that there is a chronic shortfall in housing supply and that this site will help meet that need. It has been agreed with housing officers to provide nearly £1 million to cross fund affordable housing, because it would be inefficient for the council or registered provider to manage a small number of homes on this site. It was confirmed that they are not expecting this money back and if the Council required longer to spend it, the applicant would be willing to sign a legal agreement to extend this period.

 

Paul Singleton, 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. These errors and omissions are very well documented from expert lawyers, not just Clifford Chance, but the opinion of three other submissions from independent experts. 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 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 have been several representations made by experts, including Clifford Chance, highlighting technical defects in the report, with the conclusion that it would be unsafe to give consent based on the report, and that any appeal would fail. He reminded Members that their role is to challenge and probe the officers and hoped that tonight they would. He does not agree that the site is PDL. He finds it strange that very limited visuals have been shown, so members can’t really have an appreciation of the scheme and impact. The development is materially higher than the existing buildings but there are no real comparison drawings to show how much higher they will look. The site entrance will be widened to enable more easy access, and that's a requirement of Herts County Council. That will have a material impact on visibility from the road. The overall volume we've heard is a 60% increase and that's material but wasn't referred to in the officer's report. The officer makes reference to the recent successful appeal on Colesdale but fails to mention that the total development volume in that case was actually smaller than the buildings that were on there. There is going to be additional landscaping at the rear the site but there have been no visuals. He reminded Members that HS30 was considered high harm, it was taken out a local plan for that reason, this decision would be inconsistent and wrong in fact, law and planning policy so should be rejected.

 

Councillor B. Sarson, Ward Councillor, stated:

 

He noted that officers knew the application has problems in July when it was withdrawn from the committee. He promised to support the Council’s pledge to prevent development on high harm Green Belt. The Council resolved to maintain this pledge and remove high harm Green Belt sites from the Local Plan. The special motion to keep HS30 in the Local Plan was soundly defeated by members. The stance was fully supported by the borough’s MP. The plan was approved for 12,775 homes and this site was not included. The applicant claims this is all previously developed land, but this is challenged by independent experts. Officers have acknowledged that the development will significantly increase the volume of buildings, but this was missing from the officers’ conclusions. He feels the application has not met several NPPF criteria. The community has received expert advice that any potential appeal would not be successful. He asked that councillors uphold their commitments to the community and refuse the application on sound and significant planning grounds.

 

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

 

The site is within the Green Belt, so absent of any exemptions the proposal would be inappropriate development. However, in this case exemption g) to paragraph 149 of the NPPF can be applied because the site is previously developed land (PDL) and an affordable housing contribution is being made. Accordingly, the proposal would not be inappropriate development as long as it does not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Officers’ opinion is that there would be an impact on openess, but this wouldn't amount to substantial harm, therefore, it is judged by officers that the proposal accords with the exception under Paragraph 149 g) of the NPPF and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. These are however matters of planning judgement and the decision rest with Members.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to loss of an employment site. However, 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 specific purposes.  As such, it is considered that the delivery of housing, including a financial contribution towards affordable housing outweighs the loss of this employment site.

 

Members need to take into consideration the housing which would be delivered from this, and the affordable housing provision. Concerns were raised in relation to the fact that affordable housing is not being provided on site.  However, in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, a commuted sum has been agreed by the Council's Housing Team.  The draft S106 legal agreement includes a clause which prioritises the delivery affordable housing in Cuffley for 24 months, after which time the sum can be allocated to a suitable scheme within the wider borough.

 

Concerns raised about the volume increase. Overall, there would be a 6% reduction in footprint and a 60% increase in volume. However, the concept of openness is not limited to a volumetric assessment and must consider other factors such as the visual impact.  Officers are of the opinion that whilst the proposal would have a greater impact on openness, this would not amount to substantial harm.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the legal advice provided by objectors and whether or not the Council has taken this into account.  Legal advice provided by third parties was not on a reliance basis to the Council, and the points raised have been considered and the officers conclusion remains that the land is PDL.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the design of the building. Officers considered this is reflective of the vernacular of the wider area.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to highways, however, there has been no objections from the Highways Authority. There has also been no objection from the councils refuse collection team.

 

Concerns raised in relation to density and design. Officers are of the view that the density provides an efficient use of the land and maintains the character of the site and a good standard of amenity for future residents. Methods have also been used to reduce the bulk, and in the officers' view, this is not overdevelopment.

 

Concerns raised in relation to whether the buildings were deliberately allowed to fall into an unserviceable condition. Officers’ view is that they are serviceable for their current use.

 

Concerns raised in relation to the setting a precedent. Members need to consider this application on its own merits. Land surrounding the site would remain Green Belt in the absence of any changes to the Local Plan. Should any future planning application be submitted to the Council, it will be assessed against the relevant national and local planning polices for land which has not been previously developed, which includes stringent protection of the Green Belt.

 

It was noted that Members need to take into account that the Council currently has no 5-year housing land supply.  The development would contribute 14 market dwellings and £914,000 for affordable housing, along with a number of other s106 provisions.

 

There is a mixture of parking provision with garages, carports and on and off street parking provided.  There are a total of 32 parking spaces, of which two are allocated as visitor bays at the entrance to the site.  Every dwelling would have an EV charging point.

 

Concerns were raised that Members wouldn't be able to make a lawful decision at this meeting. The legal advisor explained that the officers report sets out the facts and rationale, so there is no reason why Members cannot make a lawful decision tonight.

 

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor Roger Trigg and seconded by Councillor Stan Tunstall to approve the application.

 

RESOLVED:

(11 in favour, and 2 against)

 

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions in the report.