Agenda item

                        The Planning Officer reported that there was no update.

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.

Sarratt Parish Council wished to object to the creation of a new dwelling in the Green Belt with no special circumstances sited.  Construction of a new dwelling would have a considerable impact on the openness of the Green Belt compared to the existing buildings and would result in inappropriate development.  A similar application was made on the site last December for a 3 bedroomed dwelling which was refused by the Council.  This application had reduced the dwelling to two bedrooms with reduced form and scale and the applicant had volunteered to enter into a Section 106 agreement to pay a contribution towards affordable housing thereby seeking to address the reasons for refusal of the first application and the very special circumstances demonstrated.  The changes did not mitigate the previous reasons for refusal.  If a new two bedroom dwelling had originally been proposed this would also have been refused on the same grounds.  Reducing its size and scale does not change the fact that it’s inappropriate development in the Green belt and no special circumstances.  The site remains unsuitable for this type of development due to its lack of essential services and transport infrastructure.  

The Planning Officer clarified that in respect of Green Belt applications the correct approach was to first consider the NPPF and whether or not the development proposed would fall within Paragraphs 145 or 146.  Within Paragraph 145 ‘the erection of new buildings’ there are a number of exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, one of which includes the redevelopment of previously developed land.  That was caveated by the fact that the development itself should not have a greater impact on the openness of Green Belt than the existing development that exists on the land.  The approach taken by the officer here was that the equestrian established use of the land does fall within the definition of previously developed land as defined within the NPPF and consequently it could fall within one of the exceptions within Paragraph 145.  This was subject to the fact that it should not have a greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt.  In respect of the previous application that was refused this was because it was considered there was a greater impact on the openness than the existing development.  Following some changes in respect of the removal of a bedroom, a gable projection, the reduction in the height by 0.6 metres and the further removal of another building within the site towards the rear it was considered this time that there was not a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  Therefore the conclusion was that it would be an appropriate form of development and automatically that would mean there was no harm to the openness.  If it was considered that there was greater impact then it would automatically mean it was inappropriate development and then you would also need to consider the impact on openness. A few speakers had highlighted the fact that it was inappropriate development but the officer’s view was that it does fall within one of the exceptions within the NPPF.  In terms of precedence one of the speakers said if anyone had a stable block that could allow the ability for a new dwelling but there does need to be a balance in respect of whether or not the harm was greater than what was there at present.  If there was a very small stable this would not obviously enable a new dwelling for various factors.  Affordable housing was also not voluntary it was a requirement as part of CP4 of the Core Strategy as it’s a new dwelling and the gain of one dwelling means there is an automatic requirement that they pay a commuted sum.  The applicants would enter into this agreement if the application was approved but it would have to be delegated in order for that agreement to be secured before granting planning permission. 

Councillor Debbie Morris thought that they had heard the speaker in support state that they had bred sheep on the land.  If that was correct does this genuinely fall into equestrian use or if some of the buildings concerned had been part of the sheep farming business.  Also what enquiries had officers made about the use of each of the buildings and had they been satisfied that there was total equestrian use here and also satisfied on the use of the fields. 

The Planning Officer advised that in respect of the established use of the site the primary use in the officer’s opinion was equestrian.  A ménage was permitted which enabled equestrian uses to take place on the land.  Furthermore there was a stabling block that was permitted which was again for the stabling of horses rather than grazing.  Whilst the applicant had mentioned there was grazing of sheep that potentially was a limited part of the land. It is the officer’s view that the primary use of the land was for equestrian use therefore any other purposes may meet the definition of agriculture but would only be a de minius element as clearly by virtue of the fact that being a ménage stabling for horses would meet the definition of equestrian rather than agriculture

Councillor David Raw stated that looking at Paragraph 3.3 of the report it stated the proposed 2 bedroom dwelling had been reduced in width, height and depth from the previous 3 bedroom dwelling.  Did officers feel the 2 bedroom dwelling was acceptable to grant planning permission?  What would happen if the dwelling was built and they decided to build an extension? 

The Planning Officer advised that if Members were minded to grant planning permission then the applicant would need to build in accordance with the plans permitted.  If there was any deviation from that it would be an enforcement matter.  Part of the recommendation for approval included a condition removing permitted development rights once the house was built.  Any further extension would be controlled and they would have to apply for planning permission. 

Councillor Alex Hayward knew the area well and a lot of concern had been raised on this application and the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and streetscene from foothpaths across New Hall Farm where you have a view of the valley to which this site is extremely visible.  Could officers clarify where it talks about protected trees that the property had to move a little to protect the trees?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the building had shifted away from the boundary with the woodland which it sits adjacent to. 

Councillor Alex Hayward argued that this would make it more prominent in this open space. The Councillor was also concerned that it refers to a ridge height which is not considered significant of nearly 1 metre but in this setting this was significant when looking across the valley and does make the property significantly bigger.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said having seen the views mentioned previously it would have an impact from the Sarrat side of the valley. 

Councillor Alex Hayward moved refusal in that it would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt area, seconded by Councillor Debbie Morris.

The Planning Officer questioned whether the Councillors views were in respect of the impact of the views from lower in the valley having an impact on the character of the area rather than the Green Belt. Was it that the building would not fit in or is it that the development does not meet the Green Belt exceptions given the its ridge height meaning it would  have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.  This just needs to be made clear. 

Councillor Alex Hayward confirmed that was what they were implying as the buildings as you look across at them are a mix of buildings and tucked into the trees but this is going to be more prominent and of a higher ridge height.  If you look across the valley it is a very open space and the development would be very significant.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst sought clarification from the Officer that the ridge height had been lowered from the previous application.  They understood it was higher could the officer confirm which was correct.  Could the officers also clarify in terms of the photographs which the new building would replace and indicate what the difference was in what was currently there and what will replace it and what the new buildings would replace.

Councillor Alex Hayward said there had been a lot of comparison to the previous application which was refused. This application was lower than the previous but higher than the existing buildings.

The Planning Officer said it would be lower than the previously refused scheme but the new building is still higher than the existing building by 0.9 metres.  In respect of where it is on site it was the furthest forward building towards Bucks Hill.  If Members were minded to refuse then it would need to include the absence of a legal agreement covering the affordable housing contribution.

The Planning Officer clarified the reason for refusal proposed and seconded that the development proposed by virtue of its height exceeding the existing buildings on the site and by virtue of its size would result in a development that would have a greater harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.  Therefore it would be inappropriate development as it would not meet the exceptions of Paragraph 144 and 145 of the NPPF and by virtue of its inappropriateness there would be harm to the openness by virtue of its height, size and its bulk from views across the valleys and there is no circumstances put forward which would result in very special circumstances that would outweigh the inappropriateness of the development and harm to openness with the wording to be circulated to Members after the meeting to agree.  The second reason for refusal being the absence of legal agreement covering the affordable housing contribution.

Councillor Alex Hayward asked if the siting could be included as it had been pushed away from the boundary. The Officer confirmed some wording could be included.

On being put to the Committee the motion to REFUSE the application was declared CARRIED the voting being 4 For, 3 Against and 4 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be Refused for the following Reasons (the final wording having been agreed by Members after the meeting)

R1: The proposed new dwelling by reason of its height, siting (positioned away from the north western boundary) and its size would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development and therefore constitutes inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. In addition to its inappropriateness there is also actual harm to the openness of the Green Belt. No Very Special Circumstances exist to outweigh the inappropriateness and actual harm to openness. The development is therefore contrary to Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and the NPPF (2019).

R2: In the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the development would not contribute to the provision of affordable housing. The proposed development therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (approved June 2011).