Agenda item

Change of use of land to create 4 gypsy and traveller pitches including 2 amenity buildings and associated hardstanding and access at Land to the North Of Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted.

The application was for change of use of land to create 4 gypsy and traveller pitches including 2 amenity buildings and associated hardstanding and access at Land to the North of Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

The Planning Officer provided updates as follows:

·         Officers considered it reasonable to add a condition to require that the new gated entrance shall at all times only open inwards towards the application site rather than outwards towards Toms Lane, for highways safety reasons.

·         A condition requiring on-site cycle storage should also be secured and made available for use by future occupants prior to first occupation of the development.

·         A further condition securing a fire hydrant on site was also required, to ensure that the development was adequately served in the event of a fire.  This would address concerns raised by Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue Service as outlined in the report.

Parish Councillor Jon Tankard of Abbots Langley Parish Council spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Points raised by the speaker against the application included: the character of the area was suburban rather than semi-rural and the application and change of use was not in keeping with the suburban character of Toms Lane; an un-related recent application at another site on Toms Lane had been refused by the committee on the basis of concerns which included intensification and the impact on the linear pattern of Toms Lane.  Consistency of approach was therefore needed with this application; and there were also concerns about contamination arising from the site’s previous use.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the application included: the application would provide good quality accommodation for a family, and would also free up two pitches on the Sandy Lane site for families who could not afford to develop their own site; there was an established need for gypsy and traveller pitches in the district; the site was Grey Belt and the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes for including the land in Green Belt; and the site was a carefully-designed traveller site with a large area of screening and would retain verdant land at the back.

In response to the points raised by the speaker against the proposal, the Planning Officer set out the reasons why the site was considered to be Grey Belt and not Green Belt, as presented in the report, and the previous planning and appeal history which had informed the officers’ view.  The Planning Officer also highlighted the need for the application to be assessed on its own merits, noting that there were differences in context in relation to the nearby unrelated application which had recently been refused.  In relation to contamination, there had been a requirement for an Environmental Phase One and Phase Two report to be submitted which had been assessed by an Environmental Health Officer who had concluded that the measures identified in the report could be adequately dealt with via planning condition.

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

·        A Committee Member commented that the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites set out that the golden rules did not apply to traveller sites. There was therefore only a requirement for the tests under paragraph 155 to be met.  However, development of traveller sites in the Green Belt would be inappropriate on the same basis as other kinds of development.  The issue of whether the site was Grey or Green Belt was therefore key.  In response the Planning Officer summarised the reasons for the officers’ assessment of the site as Grey Belt as set out in the report, noting that it was considered that the development would make a weak or no contribution to purposes (a), (b) or (d) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF and that the contribution towards purpose (c) was considered to be limited given the scale of the proposed development and the existing and enhanced screening.  Additionally, the development would not result in conflict with purposes d) or e). As a result, the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt when taken together. As such, it was considered that the application site constituted ‘Grey Belt’ land and would satisfy the first point of paragraph 155.  In debate Committee Members generally supported the conclusion that the site was Grey Belt, noting that whilst Abbots Langley and Kings Langley could be considered to be marginally-sized towns, Bedmond was not a town, and the site itself would not result in the merging of neighbouring towns.

·        A Committee Member expressed the view that great weight should be given to the need for gypsy and traveller pitches in the district.  The proposal was well-designed and would be sited in a sustainable location with both a school and sports pavilion in close proximity.  Additionally, it would make effective use of a parcel of land which would otherwise be difficult to develop.

·        A Committee Member expressed concern that the screening of the site and the verdant land at the back may be eroded or removed over time and queried whether there was a mechanism by which retention of these features could be secured in order to prevent any visual harm.  Additionally, it was considered that there was a risk that the use of the land to the front which was designated a garden may be subject to change, leading to visibility of domestic paraphernalia.  Another Committee Member highlighted the risk of encroachment at the back of the site and questioned whether planning conditions may be added to prevent the area becoming messy.  Officers responded that given that the hedgerow served a planning purpose, a Landscape Management Plan could be conditioned which would require the hedgerow to be replaced or replanted with similar native species if it should die or otherwise be removed and requiring ongoing management over the lifetime of the development.  With regard to the grassland at the back, this formed an important function as part of the Biodiversity Net Gain and accordingly would need to be safeguarded to ensure that those habitats and the BNG were secured for 30 years.  As the application was for residential use, planning permission would be required for any further development.  However, if considered necessary a condition could be added requiring that no residential use, including station of caravans, parking, or placing of domestic paraphernalia should take place on any other part of the land defined by the hatched blue line shown on location plan (i.e. the land to the north). The reason for the condition would be to safeguard biodiversity management and enhancement over the 30 years.

Councillor Gazzard moved, and Councillor Khiroya seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and (i) additional conditions relating to the gated entrance, cycle storage, fire hydrant and restricting residential use to the application site; and (ii) amendment to condition 17 to include a landscape management plan.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 8 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions.

RESOLVED: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and (i) additional conditions relating to the gated entrance, cycle storage, fire hydrant and restricting residential use to the application site; and (ii) amendment to condition 17 to include a landscape management plan.