Agenda item

5b.

24/01915/FUL

Demolition of existing agricultural buildings, construction of 4 new dwellings, associated parking and landscaping.

Tuffs Farm, Tower Hill, Chipperfield, Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, WD4 9LW

Cllr Riddick declared that this item is in his Ward but that he had come to the meeting with an open mind.

The Case Officer, Elspeth Palmer, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee due to contrary views of Chipperfield Parish Council.

Russell Kitching and Parish Councillor Patton spoke in objection to the officer’s recommendations.

It was proposed by Councillor Patterson and seconded by Councillor Maddern to REFUSE the application.

Vote:

For:                  Against:                         Abstained:

6                         5                                      1

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED.

RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons.

1.      Development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

            The proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances put forward although carrying some weight do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harms.

            The proposed development is therefore contrary to NPPF (2024) paras. 11 d) and 153,154 and 155 and Policy 5 of the Core Strategy (2013).

2.      The proposed scheme by nature of its scale, bulk, footprint, design and materials will result in 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets and NPPF (2024) Para 215 should be engaged within the decision-making process.  The harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

            The small public benefit from the demolition of the existing modern farm buildings would not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage assets resulting from the construction of 4 new market dwellings as proposed.

            The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy CS27 of the Dacorum Core Strategy (2013), saved policy 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and Paras. 135, 212 and 215 of the NPPF (2024).

3.      The application does not provide sufficient information to satisfy the Council, as the competent authority, that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation. There are no alternative solutions/mitigation or credible imperative reasons of overriding public interest why the proposed development should be permitted. In the absence of such information, and in the absence of an appropriate legal agreement to mitigate such adverse impact, the proposed development is contrary to Policy CS26 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013), Paragraph 195 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and the requirements of the Habitats Regulations (2017 and 2019).

4.      Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrated why the loss of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land and associated buildings is acceptable in this case and therefore it is concluded that the loss of the agricultural buildings and associated land is contrary to Paragraph 187 b) of the NPPF (2024), Policy CS 5 of the Dacorum Core Strategy (2013) and Saved Policy 108 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004).

5.      By nature of the size and shape of the amenity space proposed for each dwelling and the amount of amenity space provided in the more traditional dwellings nearby it is considered that the proposal will be contrary to Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Local Plan 1999-2011 and Policy CS 12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy (2013).

6.      By nature of their scale, bulk, design and materials the proposed scheme is contrary to CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy (2013), the Chipperfield Design Statement (2001) and the NPPF (2024) para. 187 b).

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 early engagement with the applicant at the pre-application stage. This positive advice has however been ignored and therefore the Council remains of the view that the proposal is unacceptable. Since the Council attempted to find solutions, the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) have been met and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2015.