Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Development Management Services Manager introduced the report which sought full planning permission for the residential development of the site for three four-bedroom dwellings, and took the meeting through a presentation. There had been debate as to whether Bell Lane was a village or hamlet; previously some applications had been refused as it was not deemed a village and an appeal decision from 2022 which referenced the then Local Plan took the view that in planning terms, Bell Bar was a village; that was a material consideration in determining this application.

Simon Hansard, applicant's agent, addressed the committee:

“Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to address the Development Management Committee. Your planning officer has prepared a very detailed and comprehensive report addressing all the planning matters which are relevant to this planning application. The conclusion contained within that report recommends the grant of planning permission. Members will be aware that the Council's own annual monitoring report for the year ending March 2023 identified the greatest housing need in the borough to be at least 480 additional family homes each year. However, in the year ending March 2023, only 85 family homes were actually built. In stark contrast the Council's annual monitoring report states that 80% of all new dwellings built in the year ending March 2023 were one and two bedroom flats mainly in Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield. It is therefore clear that the distribution of new housing is unfairly and disproportionately focused in Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield with the provision of one and two bedroom flats dominating the supply.

In February of this year, we received positive pre application advice from the council's planning officers, and we have followed that advice carefully and positively.

It has been confirmed that green belt policy does not apply to this application and confirms that the site is in a sustainable location with local services, facilities, amenities all in close proximity and within walking distance.

In terms of the impact on neighbours, your Planning Officer has confirmed in her report ‘it is considered that the proposed development would not have any significant adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.’

In accordance with the pre-application advice and the subsequent planning application, your planning officer recommends that the planning permission for the this development should be approved. On behalf of the applicant, we extend our thanks to the Council's Development Management Team.”

Trina Golland, Bell Lane Action Group, addressed the committee:

“Good evening. I'm here to speak on behalf of Home Farm and the many Bell Bar residents who have objected to this application to build three large 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom detached houses on this rural paddock. This is contrary to and undermines the Local Plan. There is a fundamental objection on green belt grounds. Chapter 6 of the Local Plan sets out very clearly the settlement strategy for the borough. Policy SB 3 shows that Bell Bar is one of the small green belt villages and settlements, lowest of the settlement hierarchy, which are not generally suitable for development unless it's compatible with green belt policy. Bell Bar is a small settlement, population of less than 300, without any recognisable facilities, which is not one of the largest settlements which are excluded from the green belt. It's washed over by green belt and policy SADM 34 will need to be applied. NPPF makes quite clear that unless a proposed development falls within specific categories, which this development doesn't, the development will constitute inappropriate development in the green belt and is therefore harmful and should be approved only in very special circumstances. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated, and this new residential development is clearly not one of the exceptions to SADM policy 34. In terms of the NPPF, this development is clearly inappropriate development in the green belt. There are exceptions - paragraph 1 5 4 E refers to infilling in villages but Bell Bar is not an excluded village where that would apply. The Local Plan explains infilling for the purposes of SADM 34, limited infill development is defined as development within an otherwise substantially built up road frontage within the built-up area of a village, for example, filling a narrow gap between buildings or the redevelopment of an existing property and plot that are capable of taking a limited number of modest sized dwellings. The applicants’ claim that this is infill development. But, contrary to what has been said, the photograph provided shows it is not contained within a continuous built-up frontage. It is on the edge of Bell Bar adjacent, not within the built-up area of the village, and is an open field which has been part of a working farm for well over 60 years. This proposal fails every requirement of SADM 34. I would remind Members of the stage 3 green belt study 2018, where the site, which was adjacent parcel 66 to the north of Brookmans Park. It was concluded that parcel made significant contribution to purpose 3 as a green belt, in that it preserves the openness of the countryside, the absence of built development. You will hopefully have read the details of all our objections, but I must conclude by stating that to approve this application as recommended would be in direct conflict with the fundamental aims of both national and local policies to protect the green belt, leaving the way wide open for future development of the fields surrounding Bell Bar. We urge you to dismiss this application.”

A member asked about the difference between this application and one submitted earlier this year. Officers did not have the detail to hand but felt it was likely due to the proposed design.

A member queried the definition of villages and hamlets. Officers noted planning definitions were not the same as dictionary definitions. There had been an appeal in Bell Bar which had been refused partly because it was in a hamlet rather than a village; the Inspector had said that whether a site was in a defined village boundary in a development plan was not conclusive in determining whether or not a site was in a village – it was for the decision-maker to decide whether, as a matter of fact and degree on the ground, the site appeared to be in a village. The Inspector had gone on to say that there was nothing before them to suggest that a settlement of this scale with houses and associated buildings such as a restaurant or public house cannot be a village. Figure 6 of the Local Plan identified Bell Bar as a village and for those reasons the Inspector had concluded Bell Bar was a village and subsequently allowed the appeal on those grounds. 

A member agreed with officers’ recommendation but felt it would be positive to have some architectural variation. Officers appreciated the sentiment and noted that while the house types were the same, there was some variety in terms of different brick for a gable, for example.

A member reflected that the application would be a step towards helping meet targets for family homes and supported the officer recommendation.

A member queried whether there was a requirement to make the road good in order to accommodate the three houses with potential parking for up to nine cars. Officers said it was a private road and the view of officers including Highways officers was that additional traffic would be limited. 

RESOLVED

(For 11, Against 1, Abstain 0)

That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.