Agenda item

To receive a report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought planning permission for the erection of 44 dwellings following demolition of existing buildings and structures at Colesdale Farm with all matters reserved apart from access. The development would be served by new vehicular access taken from Northaw Road West located approximately 15m west of the existing access. A second existing access to the south east corner of the site would be retained to serve Colesdale Farmhouse and to provide pedestrian and cycle access to the development site. 

The application was brought to the Committee as Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council submitted a major objection.

The following statement was read to the Committee on behalf of Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council:

“This proposal represents a windfall site located in the London Metropolitan Green Belt, which is inappropriate in the Green Belt by virtue of the location, being outside of settlement envelopes, and a misalignment with national and local policies.

The former proposal, allowed at appeal, was approved in the context of the old Local Plan, prior to the Neighbourhood Plan coming into force and prior to the latest NPPF and adopted Local Plan.

This application must now be considered within this new policy context:

•           The applicant’s principal Green Belt arguments are based on a superseded policy framework.

•           The revised policy framework, read alongside WHBC Local Plan Policy SADM 34, limits in-fill development to no more than four dwellings. Therefore, the site cannot be considered infill  and has not sought to reduce its development footprint based on the extent of existing agricultural structures.

•           Welwyn Hatfield’s Local Plan was adopted nine months ago, and it allocates sufficient land to meet local housing needs. The site is not required to deliver the market homes and affordable housing required locally based on the submitted housing trajectory.

•           The site is contrary to both the Development Plan and national policy, which recognise that the fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl and maintain openness.

•           The site is washed over by the London Metropolitan Green Belt separating the inset settlements of Potters Bar and Cuffley, and neither the Local Plan nor Neighbourhood Plan allocate the Colesdale Farm site as a location suitable for development.

•           The development proposal extends into open countryside, and results in urbanising development in a countryside location. The Colesdale Farm site has no development in or around it to be justified as infill. The development proposal wouldn’t result in the re-use of buildings or of previously developed land capable of:

o Having less impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development (NPPF paragraph 154 g)

o Not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (NPPF paragraph 154g)

o Preserving openness and not conflicting with the purposes of Green Belt (NPPF paragraph 155)

•        The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that Very Special Circumstances exist and that any harm to the Green Belt is outweighed by the scheme’s benefits.

•        There is nothing in the applicant’s submission documents that evidence how the development would not fundamentally harm openness or prevent urban sprawl.

We believe that this application should, therefore, be rejected as inappropriate development within the Green Belt.”

Estelle Friedman spoke against the application as follows:

“I've lived in Cuffley for 25 years and I wanted to come and speak about this as a Cuffley resident. Having read the application it states on the Council's Local Plan that the proposal will be permitted where it can demonstrate that services, facilities and environmental values are not affected. I don't think this can be done. We are already full and well over capacity and stroke in struggling in Northaw and Cuffley. We have a new development that hasn't taken into account the added Problems in our infrastructure. It is currently being built at the moment.

Firstly let's address the traffic, within less than a mile of this development we queue from Cuffley Tennis Club, which you saw on the map, to Botany Bay through to Northaw or Northaw West, from 8 am to 9 am, 2:45 to 4pm and then again at 5.30 to 6.20pm. We’re queuing bumper to bumper every single day without fail.

The intersection with the site is already actually very dangerous, I was stationary there queuing to get out of the village and an artic truck reversed into me five years ago. It's so busy, it's such an awful intersection to have more traffic going there, and building work going there and then have people coming out of there, I think this is otter madness.

It states in your Plan 9.77 in the AM peak, 22 extra cars will be added to the traffic 20 extra cars in the PM. How is this even acceptable? I just don't understand. The new site is not included in these figures either.  The road out of Cuffley Hill going into Goths Oak stationary every single day. The back roads leading out of Cuffley towards Hertford, which would be your cut through as we all know, they're full of potholes. I witnessed an accident last week that I believe was a fatality in that situation.

So basically, for people who don't know or don't live in Cuffley and Northaw overall roads in and out of Cuffley are blocked. It is busy all the time so I don't understand how that's not an extra strain on the infrastructure.

Going on to schools. The average class size in a Cufflley school is 30, the national average is 26.6 so we're already over.  Doctors’ surgery - you can't get an appointment for two weeks in our doctors surgery.  There is no NHS dentist in Cuffley, so back to my original point it's up to the proposer to show how the infrastructure will be able to absorb this.

We are already at a critical point, it's not protecting the green belt, there is more traffic, we're already compromised, there's a detrimental effect on all the amenities and, more importantly, there is no need what is the need for this. That is simply my argument against this.”

The following points were made during the discussion:

•           Concerns were raised regarding traffic. It was confirmed no objection had been raised from the Highways Authority, and the County Council had been consulted who did not believe there would be a significant negative impact.

•           The sustainable drainage of the application was queried as it was different to that of the extant permission. Officers confirmed that different strategies can be delivered for different application proposals and that the developer’s drainage strategy now required a drainage basin.

•           Concerns were raised regarding the lack of sustainable travel options in the area. Officers confirmed that the County Council had a number of strategies to address this.

•           A member proposed that the entrance and exit access points should be changed. It was explained that the existing access point would be for the existing dwelling only. The main access would be in the position with the best visibility which for this site would be 15 metres from the current access point.

•           It was noted that the development would reduce the commercial traffic in the area.

•           The potential adopting of the roads by the County Council would be dealt with under the reserved matters application.

•           The highways impact was being considered and was not found to be severe

RESOLVED

(9 in favour, 3 against)

The planning permission be approved.