Agenda item

Demolition of an existing building to the rear of No.126 and construction of 2no. two storey detached self build dwellings with associated subdivision of the site and alterations to access, parking, landscaping works and construction of workshop and garage at 126 Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

Recommendation: that planning permission be refused.

The application was for demolition of an existing building to the rear of No.126 and construction of 2no. two storey detached self build dwellings with associated subdivision of the site and alterations to access, parking, landscaping works and construction of workshop and garage at 126 Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

The Planning Officer reported that officers were aware of the circulation by the applicant of additional information to Planning Committee members.  Having reviewed the material, officers did not consider that it altered the officer assessment or recommendation for refusal as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer also reported that paragraph 7.4.21 of the report referred to a 1.7 year housing land supply.  However, the updated published figure was 1.2 years.  The Planning Officer confirmed that this did not alter the weightings or officer recommendation as detailed in the report.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Points raised by the speaker against the proposal included: the different and harmful nature of the backland form of the development; the site is Green Belt and not Grey Belt and the development would cause harm to a Green Belt site which had an important role in preventing coalescence; the potential for a precedent for development to be set, leading to similar developments in neighbouring plots and an incremental erosion of the Green Belt; and concern about assessing the site as Grey Belt in isolation rather than as part of a wider land parcel.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the proposal included: the development would provide accommodation for family members who would otherwise not be able to afford the very high local housing prices; there had already been significant infill and splitting of plots in Toms Lane; the site was Grey Belt, the plot size was adequate, and there were no highways objections; and consideration had been given in the design to ensure that there would be no residential overlooking.

With regard to points which had been raised by speakers, officers clarified that the assessment of Grey Belt related to the application site only, and not to any wider parcel of land.  In assessing the application consideration had been given to the site’s contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d) set out at Paragraph 155a of the NPPF.  For the reasons set out in the report, officers considered that the site made a weak contribution to all three purposes.  Therefore, whilst officers were recommending refusal on the grounds of harm to the character and appearance of the area and amenity, the site was Grey Belt and there were no reasons for refusal arising from harm to the Green Belt.

Moderate weight had been attached to the provision of housing; however, in assessing the balance this benefit was not considered to outweigh the harm which would arise from the development.

Committee Members asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

·       A Committee Member recommended that the assessment of Green Belt or Grey Belt status should take account of all sites within an area which would be similarly classified, so that the test should be whether purposes (a), (b) and (d) set out at Paragraph 155a of the NPPF would be undermined if more, or all, of these sites were also to be developed.  Officers responded that Paragraph 155 referred to ‘the development’ as a singular, and so this suggested interpretation was not considered to be correct and the test, as outlined in the report, had been correctly applied.  The reason for refusal on the basis of harm to the character and appearance of the area reflected the importance of the Green Belt classification of the wider area and the significance of the linear boundary of Toms Lane. In response to a further question about the apparent disparity in approach which allowed a site to be classified as Grey Belt within an area which was identified in the Local Plan to be of fundamental significance to the Green Belt, officers responded that the large areas identified in the Local Plan were assessed at a high strategic level.  In appraising individual applications, officers were required to make assessments at a more granular level, on a site-by-site basis.

·       A Committee Member recommended that reference to backland development should be included within the reasons for refusal, and this was supported by other Committee Members.

·       A Committee Member noted that the speaker in favour of the application had stated that there were no issues of overlooking; however, the reasons for refusal recommended by officers referred to ‘unacceptable levels of overlooking and a perceived loss of privacy’.  The Planning Officer clarified that the concern about overlooking largely related to overlooking between the proposed two new units. Additionally, whilst there was no overlooking of neighbouring properties, there was a concern that the development would be overbearing and un-neighbourly.  In light of this, it was recommended by a Committee Member that the weighting given in the consideration of harm to neighbouring amenity should be increased from ‘moderate’ to ‘significant.’

·       Some Committee Members questioned the officers’ assessment of the site as Grey Belt.  One Committee Member strongly considered that the site was Green Belt, and that the proposal would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Gren Belt.  It was suggested that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should be added to the reasons for refusal, as this would be the case even if the site were to be accepted as Grey Belt.  This was because of the unsustainable nature of the site due to its rural location and lack of transport options.

Councillor Morris moved, and Councillor Lloyd seconded, refusal of the application for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the inclusion of reference to backland development within reason for refusal 1.  Additionally, the weighting given to the consideration of harm to neighbouring amenity should be increased from ‘moderate’ to ‘significant.’

Councillor Cooper tabled an amendment, seconded by Councillor Hearn, that inappropriate development in the Green Belt be added as a further reason for refusal.  The amendment was accepted by Councillor Morris (the proposer) but was not accepted by Councillor Lloyd (the seconder).

Councillor Nelmes then moved, and Councillor Lloyd seconded, refusal of the application for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the inclusion of reference to backland development within reason for refusal 1.  Additionally, the weighting given to the consideration of harm to neighbouring amenity should be increased from ‘moderate’ to ‘significant.’

On being put to the vote the amendment fell, the voting being 5 for, 5 against, 0 abstentions.  The Chairman’s casting vote was used.

On being put to the vote the substantive motion was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the inclusion of reference to backland development within reason for refusal 1.  Additionally, the weighting given to the consideration of harm to neighbouring amenity should be increased from ‘moderate’ to ‘significant.’