Agenda item

A Planning Officer update was provided advising that two additional letters of objection had been received since the publication of the report. The Committee was also informed that an application to build a motorway service station had been refused by Buckinghamshire Council the previous evening on grounds relating to the landscape impact and impact on the Greenbelt.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke against the application and a member of the public spoke in favour of the application.

Local Ward Councillor Jon Tankard spoke, pointing out that the speaker in support of the  application did not mention any benefit to the area, other than employment, and believed the development would create an out of character addition to the area. The tiered and stacked nature of the proposal would become overbearing and would not be in keeping with the Wards of Gade Valley, Kings Langley and Abbots Langley.

Councillor Sara Bedford thanked the Planning Officer for the amount of work that they had put into this application. Councillor Bedford said this was the wrong application in the wrong place being too close to the South Mimms service station and too far from Cobham services, and would be too big, bringing unnecessary noise, light and air pollution to the area. It was a Greenbelt site and there would be no public benefit if the application was approved. Jobs would be provided during the construction phase and would occur wherever a new Motorway Service Station (MSA) was built.  While employment must always be looked at, it cannot be looked at in isolation and would require anyone to have the ability to drive in order to get to work, particularly at night.  Councillor Bedford added there would be a huge adverse impact on traffic at junction 20 of the M25, even with the migration of extra lanes, which would only serve to bring extra traffic, noise, pollution and fumes. Councillor Bedford asked if a further reason for refusal could be added, due to the application being an ‘offline’ service station, and therefore contrary to Government policy and circular 02/2013?

Councillor Alex Hayward said they were very protective of the Greenbelt.

Councillor Raj Khiroya thanked the Planning Officer for a fantastic report. Councillor Khiroya considered that the material consideration was the impact to the Green Belt and the locality. As previously pointed out, access should be direct, not via an already busy local road. The impact on local High Streets also needs to be considered when mentioning retail opportunities.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said that it was rare to get an objection from Herts County Council, so this was important to consider, and thanked the Planning Officer for the hard work put into the report.

Councillor Reena Ranger said that there were no special circumstances, you either believe in the Green Belt and localism, or you do not. Local people had said this was not the right location or the right size for the area, so there was no reason to do anything other than refuse the application. Councillor Ranger said it sat uneasy that there was still a number of documents outstanding.

The Planning Officer said an additional reason for refusal relating to the government circular could be considered, but it was their opinion that a standalone reason for refusal could be difficult to defend, and the wording referred to was not absolute, and rather a preference, and could be difficult to defend at appeal.

Councillor Sara Bedford said it could sit nicely within reason for refusal R3, as this talks above congestion at the junction. This could be removed if it were to be an ‘in line’ service station, as offered at other sites.

Councillor Alex Hayward said that as there were already firm reasons for refusal, could tweaking the reasons for refusal endanger the position?

The Planning Officer said a reference to the non-compliance to the government circular could be added within the third reason for refusal, and the wording could be circulated to Members after the meeting for approval.

Councillor Alex Hayward clarified that the amendment did not benefit the application in the future.

The Planning Officer said a new application would be materially different so would be considered on the same points, such as the Green Belt location.

Councillor Chris Lloyd, seconded by Councillor Reena Ranger, moved the Officer recommendation, with the amendment to the Reason for Refusal R3 to include reference to the non-compliance to the government circular and the amended wording to be circulated to Members after the meeting for approval.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

The Planning Permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Officer report with an amendment to the Reason for Refusal R3 to include reference to the non-compliance to the government circular and the amended wording to be circulated to Members after the meeting for approval.

Amended Reason R3 to read:

The application and accompanying documentation fails to demonstrate that the adverse impacts of the additional traffic volumes that would be attracted to the MSA on the A41 and using the M25 J20 roundabout, including the likely exacerbation of existing traffic queues and congestion on the approaches to the application site from the A41 and from the A4251, can be satisfactorily mitigated. It fails to demonstrate that the adverse impacts on the A41 would be less than severe. The proposed development would create an increase in traffic demand at local junctions by failing to provide an on-line facility contrary to Department for Transport Circular 02/2013, would fail to minimise the impact of travel by motor vehicle, would fail to provide a safe and adequate means of access and would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic and highway safety contrary to Policy CP10 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and the NPPF paragraph 109.