Agenda item

Councillor Mitchell declared a personal interest in the item as she was speaking in objection to the application; she confirmed that she would not take part in the discussion or voting.

Cllr Maddern declared that she knows an objector. She was approached approximately 2 years ago by the objector and explained that she didn’t want to discuss the item as she sat on the committee and wanted to come with an open mind.

Cllr Guest also declared that the application is in her area and residents have approached her in regards to then item. She declared that she had not spoken to anyone, nor has she given her opinion so she will come and join the committee with an open mind.

The Case Officer, Martin Stickley introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee due to it being a significant major with proposed legal agreement

Residents Mike Ridley and Paul Harris, Councillor Mitchell and Councillor Pound spoke in objection to the application.

Planning Agent Steve Brown and Planning Highways Michael Kitching spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Guest and seconded by Councillor Weston to REFUSE the application in line with Officers Recommendations.

Vote:

For:        11      Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED.

RECOMMENDATION

The proposal is recommended for refusal for the reasons listed below.

Reason(s) for Refusal: 

1.    The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development and would result in spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In addition, the proposals would lead to a conflict with one of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt i.e. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The benefits of the scheme taken together do not clearly outweigh the harm and other harm identified. Very special circumstances have not been demonstrated to justify the proposed inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposals are therefore contrary to the Policy CS5 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and paragraphs 137, 138, 147, 148, 149 and 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

2.    The application does not provide Suitable Alterative Natural Greenspace (SANG). Consequently, there is a lack of certainty that the proposed mitigation would be secured in perpetuity to mitigate the recreational impacts on the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (CBSAC). Therefore, the council cannot rule out that the proposal alone or in combination with other plan and projects would not result in likely significant effects to the CBSAC that would adversely affect its integrity. As such, the proposal fails to comply with saved Policies 102 and 103 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004), Policies CS26 and CS29 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and paragraphs 174, 176 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

3.    There are a number of heritage assets within close proximity to the site, namely Gadebridge Roman Villa SAM, numerous listed buildings and the Piccotts End Conservation Area. Many of these assets are linked to the agricultural landscape, which includes the application site. The proposed development would be situated on the western valley slope and the built development would be prominent within the landscape setting, eroding the rural character. Consequently, the proposals would cause harm to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets. The identified harm is less than substantial at a moderate scale to the Conservation Area and less than substantial and at a low level to the listed buildings. There would also be harm to the setting of the SAM, as it existed in a rural farm setting.

When weighing up the public benefits of the proposed development, they are not considered to outweigh the harm to the heritage assets, which are given considerable importance and weight. The proposals therefore conflict with Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act (1990), saved Policies 119 and 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004), Policy CS27 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and Paragraphs 189-208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

4.    A suitable financial contribution has not been secured in relation to Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) to mitigate recreational pressure on the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (CBSAC). Despite the sum being agreed by the Applicant, it has not been secured by way of a signed S106 agreement. It cannot therefore be concluded that the proposals would not result in an unacceptable impact on the CBSAC due to increased recreational pressure, contrary to the requirements of saved Policies 102 and 103 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004), Policies CS26 and CS29 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and paragraphs 174, 176 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

5.    The proposed development fails to secure the adequate provision for necessary social infrastructure including education, health and sports facilities either through on-site provision or financial contributions in lieu. The mechanisms to deliver and maintain the social infrastructure in perpetuity have not been finalised and agreed by way of a signed S106 agreement. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS23 and CS35 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and Paragraphs 92 and 93 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

6.    The proposals provide 40% affordable housing, which is above the Core Strategy’s requirement of 35% (Policy CS19). In the absence of a completed S106 agreement and a mechanism to secure the provision of this affordable housing, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy CS19 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and Section 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

7.    The proposed development fails to secure adequate provision for alternative non-car methods due to the absence of obligations in a completed S106 agreement regarding the identified travel plan measures and bus service improvements. The development would therefore not provide a genuine choice of transport modes and a well-connected and accessible transport system as required by Paragraph 105 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) and Policy CS8 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013).

8.    Appropriate planning obligations have not been secured in relation to off-site highway, footpath and cycle improvements via a completed legal agreement. Therefore, the proposal would fail to protect and enhance public rights of way, mitigate significant impacts from the development on the transport network or improve public access to the countryside, conflicting with Paragraphs 100, 104, 106 (d), 110 and 120 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

9.      The submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not provide a suitable basis for an assessment to be made on the flood risk arising from the proposed development. Further information is required in order to establish if the site would not increase flood risk to the site and elsewhere and whether appropriate sustainable drainage techniques would be used. In particular, detail is lacking with regards to:

-       Lack of information on sequential test;

-       Insufficient detail relating to the southern overland flow route;

-       Missing updated drainage calculations; and

-       Missing water quality assessment during the construction phase.

It therefore cannot be demonstrated that the proposals would adequately prevent flood risk by ensuring satisfactory management of local flood risk, surface water flow paths, storage and disposal of surface water from the site in a range of rainfall events and ensuring that the sustainable drainage systems proposed would operate for the lifetime of the development. The proposals therefore conflict with Policy CS31 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

Informatives:

1. Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

2. Reasons 4-8 above are included in the absence of a suitable and completed S106 agreement.