Agenda item

The Planning Officer gave the following update:

There had been one further objection letter that reiterated objections that had been set out in the Committee report, that the amended plans did not overcome the concerns, in relation to the use of Little Green Lane and to access the development, the impact on the Conservation Area and the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of number 5 Little Green Lane. 

Councillor Sara Bedford said this was the third time the Committee had looked at this application.  Three months ago the Comittee had proposed the application be deferred in order to obtain an independent highways report. The report did not give an official seal on those highways issues that were believed to be a danger so the Councillor believed highway safety should be discounted from the reasons as to why this application was not right for the site.  The Councillor pointed out that the Local Plan Inspector had allocated the site in the Local Plan and made an important statement: ‘the site was able to deliver significant housing whilst maximising the scope for sensitivity vis a vis the Conservation Area.’  That assumed access would be via Grove Crescent not Little Green Lane as proposed in this application.  Grove Crescent access was proposed several years ago in talks with the previous owner of Killingdown Farm.  The current developer did not attempt to take up that access until earlier this month and were still not committed to using this access.  This application hinged on 2 points: Would the development cause harm to the Conservation Area? Can the harm be mitigated or was it outweighed by the public benefit?  The Councillor supported the findings of less than substantial harm that this development would cause to the Conservation Area.  The reason for that was almost entirely around the access due to be created from Little Green Lane.  Widening the lane and increasing the traffic using the lane to the development would urbanise the semi-rural area.  By removing the hedgerow and creating greater access the development would create a permanent scar in the Conservation Area.  The large houses proposed looking across the Green would totally change the character of the area.  The only reason for access across Little Green Lane was to increase the land value of saleability and profit.  New homes were needed in this area and this could be achieved by providing sole vehicular access via Grove Crescent and leaving Little Green Lane for pedestrians and cyclists only. 

Councillor Sara Bedford proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.   The proposed development by reasons of form scale and layout along the site’s western edge would detract from the overall appearance of the wider landscape and result in less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Croxley Green Conservation Area and Grade II listed buildings and that the loss of hedgerow to facilitate the new and widened vehicular access and the widening of Little Green Lane, together with the intensification of vehicular use of Little Green Lane would also result in a detrimental urbanising impact.  This would further exacerbate the harmful impact on the rural character and appearance on the Croxley Green Conservation Area and result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area.  It is considered that the identified harm is not considered to be outweighed by public benefits and the proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy to the Croxley Green Conservation Area appraisal and paragraph 196 of the NPPF.

2.   The proposed development on Plot 26 by virtue of its siting, mass and design and proximity to the western boundary would result in an overbearing and visually intrusive and enabling form of development to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of No 5 Little Green Lane, and the development would therefore be contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12. 

If refusal was agreed this would leave the Council without the required Section 106 agreement so a 3^rd reason for refusal would need to be provided around that; in order to maximise sustainable travel options a travel plan and financial contribution towards supporting the implementation processing and monitoring of a travel plan was required.  In the absence of a signed agreement under provisions of Section 106 of the Town Country Planning Act the development fails to meet this requirement.  Officers were asked to add the relevant policies. 

Councillor Chris Lloyd had met with the County Highways Officer, the County Chair of Planning and the Officer and was amazed there was no highway objection.  The Councillor had requested the accident statistics for the junction and was sure if it were used the number of accidents would increase.  Because of increasing deliveries people use that lane to get to Canterbury Way and go down an unmade road. The Councillor was of the opinion that, from the pond to the school, the road should be closed to vehicular traffic, apart from emergency and farm vehicles.  The hedges had been particularly important for other applications on the Green.  The impact of widening the road, adding lighting and a footpath would change the more rural part of the Green used by cyclists, walkers, runners and various leisure interests.  The Councillor was happy to second refusal on the grounds given. 

Councillor Debbie Morris said the Chair had said at the start of the meeting that Members should not come with prepared speeches but it did not look like one of the Members had followed that advice and the Councillor had concerns about how this played out to the public and all other parties. 

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

District Councillor Margaret Hofman said the latest report stated that the heritage objection was strong.  The Heritage Officer said despite its allocation, the development of the site to provide 160 dwellings was fundamentally harmful.  The application site used only parts of the allocation site so the numbers should be reduced to mitigate the harm.  The addition of land off site for flood mediation distorted the density.  The proposed new building at 1 to 3 The Green should be removed as it was too close to the boundaries and the access would open up the hedge.  The listed farmhouse had been omitted from the application area.  This application did not represent proper planning and was contrary to the objectives of the site allocation.  Access should be from Grove Crescent where highway infrastructure already existed.  Access from Little Green would have permanent harm and would impact on the character of the Green.

District Councillor Dominic Sokalski had four concerns at the February Planning Committee Meeting: the proximity of plot 26 to No5 Little Green; damage to the Conservation Area; damage caused by construction traffic and vehicle access should be changed to be via Grove Crescent.  The amended application did not address concerns over access and construction traffic, had very little about the Conservation Area and insufficient changes to plot 26.  Vehicular access should be via Grove Crescent, as the traffic flow would be better and more sustainable and better for the Conservation Area.  It would benefit place making and community cohesion and called for the application to be rejected.

Croxley Green Parish Councillor Chris Mitchell asked for the application to be refused on Conservation Area grounds.  The Independent Highways Engineer measured the road.  To make it 4.8 metres wide the footway would need to be reduced to 1.45 metres rather than 2 metres which was unsatisfactory.  The site lines from Little Green Lane to Baldwins Lane were poor and it was considered a dangerous junction.  The Parish objected to the use of Little Green Lane for access.  The mix of housing should more accurately reflect the Three Rivers and Local Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the Neighbourhood Policy Plan HO1.

Councillor Debbie Morris was pleased that Members, District Councillors for the Ward and Parish Councillors had taken on board everything said at the February meeting about the impact of the scheme on the Conservation Area and heritage assets and read out an email received from a resident.  Councillor Debbie Morris supported the refusal.

The Planning Officer clarified as follows: 

·                The Site Allocations Document did not specify that access must be from Grove Crescent.  The master plans prepared during the allocation process did indicate access from Grove Crescent but this was an indicative master plan that indicated how a site could be developed to accommodate development there.  There was no requirement for any subsequent planning application to reflect an indicative master plan.  Points had been raised regarding highway safety but Members had noted the independent report and therefore there was no support from County Council’s Highways Authority or the Independent report for a highways refusal. 

·                The impact on No5 Little Green Lane, the applicant had made changes so the building on plot 26, both the detached garage and dwelling were set a significant distance from the boundary.  Officers raised no objection to the initial scheme and additional spacing had been created to the boundary therefore the view was maintained that there would not be demonstrable harm to the occupiers at No5 Little Green Lane. 

·                With regards conservation impacts in terms of development on the western edge, the access and road widening, the Officer report identified that there was less than substantial harm so that needed to be weighed against public benefits and as set out in the report, Officers consider that there were public benefits that outweighed the less than substantial harm.  Members may attach different weight to the public benefits and therefore conclude differently, but the site was allocated and the allocation did not preclude development from within part of the site which was within the Conservation Area. 

·                Members were referred to Section 7.2.1 of the report.  The Local Planning Authority could not currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply which meant Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was engaged.  This required that should there be a presumption in favour of sustainable development and therefore if Members were minded to refuse planning permission they must be clear that the adverse impacts that they had identified were either less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area which was not outweighed by public benefits and harm to neighbouring amenity.  Those needed to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the policies in the NPPF as a whole. 

·                Regarding the access, the Planning Officers had to consider whether the application before them was acceptable.  There were no highways objections and they considered there would be public benefit. 

·                The footpath was 2 metres wide in most places but was reduced in a couple of places but exceeded the County Council standards. 

·                The housing mix had been reviewed by the Housing Team at TRDC who were supportive.  It was providing 45% of affordable housing.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst noted the Officer’s comments in terms of the indicative masterplan and public inquiry that decided this was a site was for development.  The Councillor said that masterplan would have featured in the Inspector’s mind as an indicative proposal. The Inspector had not indicated access had to be from Grove Crescent but that would have been a factor.  Removal of the hedgerow, urbanisation of Little Green Lane with lighting and a footway would completely change the nature of it as a rural country lane.  The Councillor was surprised that the benefits outweighed the complete change and the effect on Killingdown Farm and the change on the Conservation Area.  They hoped the owners and developers of the site would take on board the comments that had been made.  The Councillor supported refusal of the application.

Councillor Raj Khiroya said the 346 objectors should not be ignored together with all the emails received and supported refusal of the application.

The Case Officer summed up that Members had explained they did not consider there were public benefits that outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.  Members would need to consider that as a whole and also the impact on No5 Little Green Lane, they would need to be clear they were identifying that these adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits when assessing the application as a whole.

Councillor Sara Bedford pointed out that the Council had to ensure they were getting the maximum amount of social housing, whether private social rented housing or shared ownership housing and getting the family houses that were needed.

The Chair advised that this was the third time this application had been heard by the Planning Committee in various forms.  It was unfair to say views had been pre-determined as there had been updates at each meeting that had to be taken into consideration. 

The Planning Officer summarised the three reasons for refusal as follows with the exact wording to be circulated to Members after the meeting:

1.      The heritage assets and the fact they had referenced form, scale and layout particularly to the western edge.  Detracting from the overall appearance of the landscape and less than substantial harm, with reference to both the conservation area and the listed buildings, particularly the farm and numbers 1 to 3 Little Green Lane.  The loss of the hedgerow in relation to the new access and widening of the vehicle and pedestrian access and Little Green Lane and associated with that intensification of the use of Little Green Lane.  There were comments about that having a detrimental urbanising impact and causing further harm.

2.      Plot 26 relates to the impact on No5 Little Green Lane, specifically in relation to the development on plot 6 with reference to its siting, massive design and proximity to No5 Little Green Lane resulting in harm to the amenities of occupiers of that property. 

3.      Section 106 agreement had not been completed to secure the travel plan and associated financial contributions.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked for the inclusion of the Grade II Croxley House and Well House that had been identified in the Heritage Officers report as being adversely impacted by the proposals.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst clarified that their comment were with regard to the urbanisation of Little Green Lane and therefore its detrimental effect on the Conservation Area.

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

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED (overturn of the recommendation) for the following reasons: Refused on grounds relating to impact on heritage assets not being outweighed by public benefit; impact on amenity of occupiers of No. 5 Little Green Lane; and in the absence of a S106 agreement to secure a Travel Plan and associated financial contribution. The exact wording to be circulated to members of the Committee for agreement and as set out below:

R1The proposed development, by reasons of its form, scale and layout along the site's western edge would detract from the overall appearance of the wider landscape and result in less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Croxley Green Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Buildings (Killingdown Farm, No's 1-3 Little Green Lane, Croxley House and Well House).  The loss of hedgerow to facilitate the new and widened vehicular and pedestrian access and widening of Little Green Lane, together with the intensification of use of Little Green Lane, would also result in a detrimental urbanising impact, further exacerbating the harmful impact on the rural character and appearance of the Croxley Green Conservation Area and would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area.  The identified harm is not considered to be outweighed by public benefits and the proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policy DM3 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted July 2013), the Croxley Green Neighbourhood Plan (adopted December 2018), Croxley Green Conservation Area Appraisal (1996) and paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019).

R2 The proposed development on Plot 26 by virtue of its siting, mass and design, and proximity to the western boundary would result in an overbearing, visually intrusive and unneighbourly form of development to the detriment of the residential amenities of occupiers of No. 5 Little Green Lane.  The development would therefore be contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and the NPPF (2019).

R3 In order to maximize sustainable travel options, a Travel Plan and financial contribution towards supporting the implementation, processing and monitoring of the full travel plan is required.   In the absence of a signed agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the development fails to meet this requirement.  The application therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies CP1, CP8 and CP10 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and the NPPF (2019).