Agenda item

The Planning Officer reported that two further neighbour objections had been received since the publication of the agenda and reiterated objections which were set out in the Committee report, namely that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers and that the development is unsuitable for the area and would bring no benefits for residents.  Officers considered that the material considerations were addressed in the report.  Additionally following the submission of the Committee report the Council received a further objection from Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (HMWT) which it was understood had been sent directly to Members of the Committee so they have had sight of the full comments.  However, in summary HMWT do not consider that the DEFRA metric had been correctly populated and as such the application does not achieve 10% Biodiversity Net Gain and the Forester Moth had not been appropriately compensated for.  Officers considered that ecology matters are fully addressed in the Committee report.  There were no further updates.

The Chair thanked the officer for a very comprehensive report.

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 support of the application.

Local Ward Councillor Phil Williams made reference to the map of the site and local area and the proximity to the resident’s houses.  The Councillor referred to the location of the M25 which was 2 miles away but the proposed warehouses would only be 13 metres away from resident’s houses.  How it was possible to say, the Member believed it was the Cole Jarman report that there was not going to be detrimental impact on those residents 13 metres away when we can hear the M25 here now from over 2 miles away.  The Councillor felt the Cole Jarman noise report was flawed and it needs to be looked into.  The residents had looked into it and had commissioned their own report.  The primary focus of the noise assessment is to protect our residents and this report does not protect them.  Members needed to throw the report into touch and protect our residents.  We also need to be looking at the Water Framework Directive obligations to prove there would be no harm.  The Council have an obligation to protect our drinking water. They were planning to put 3,000 piles into the aquifer or certainly above the aquifer and our duty was to protect that aquifer.  The Councillor knew at the moment due to the emails they were receiving from the residents of Maple Cross we cannot police the parking there much less police the 3,000 piles going into the ground so how are we going to police those piles going in when we have trouble getting a wheelchair around the corner because of cars parked on the kerb.  We have also got the ecology report to look at and the priority species the Forester moth although we must give a nod to the applicant for saying they are going to make provision for the Forester moth elsewhere.  But the plants that the Forester moth feed on are plentiful in Hertfordshire.  It was not the plants they want it is this location they want as that is the right land they had chosen to be on.  The moth is a priority species and we have to protect it we can’t just throw money at it and plant some plants elsewhere and hope the moth was going to turn up they are not.  The Member asked that the Committee reject the application on the grounds made.

County Councillor Paula Hiscocks wished to oppose this application for three main reasons.  Firstly the water supply from the chalk aquifer is used by the residents in the whole of Rickmansworth area and beyond.  This development seriously threatens our water supply. As the previous Councillor said 3,310 piles would be put into the chalk aquifer and Affinity Water cannot guarantee that no harm would occur and in fact they state that risks still exist.  Should we be gambling with this and future generation’s ability to have enough clean water?  The Councillor did not believe that this Council had enough manpower to adequately monitor and enforce on this development to ensure that the public drinking water was not impacted.  Secondly the developers report stated that there would be a reduction in the flow of water by 4% to Maple Lodge Nature Reserve.  With or without climate change this would have an adverse effect and even this 4% reduction could upset the ecological balance on the nature reserve causing an effect on wildlife and habits for in perpetuity.  Once again should we be gambling with our eco systems for the generations to come for the sake of a warehouse?  Finally we must protect very near residents and especially those in Longmore Close by changing condition C19 concerning noise.  An actual noise assessment had now been undertaken rather than the model one submitted previously.  The Planning Inspector actually commented that they had reservations on the previous model noise assessment.  With the new data acquired by this actual assessment they asked the Committee to change the wording to protect the resident’s health which would be compromised by constant noise.  This new report proved that residents would still suffer from sleep disturbance at night and thereby also ask that a new condition be added asking for restricted operating hours to protect our resident’s health and wellbeing.  Our residents deserve the right for an Independent Inspector to make the final decision at appeal if necessary but the application on the current evidence should be turned down tonight.  This Green Belt site should be for an industry which would not destroy the lives of our residents or compromise our precious environment for generations to come.

Councillor Alex Michaels had requested to speak to which the Chair advised that the Councillor could not as they were not a Ward Councillor.  It was up to the Chairs discretion and the Chair had used their discretion and would not allow the Councillor to speak.

The Planning Officer responded to the points made and as a point of clarification to a comment made by Councillor Hiscocks the site was not in the Green Belt and had been allocated as a local employment site.  There was a very narrow strip of Green Belt by the access road but the built development i.e. the buildings, car parking etc. are not within Green Belt.   As Members are aware and as set out in the report it is an allocated employment site and there had been a previous application which was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal in relation to the impact on groundwater and for the reasons set out in the report officers consider that this issue had been addressed.  In response to some comments that Members had raised in relation to noise, as Councillor Hiscocks mentioned, a noise report was submitted by the Residents Association which was reviewed by an Environmental Health officer and they agreed that some of the points made were valid and there should be amendments to the conditions.  With reference to Condition C19 officers considered that it was a robust condition and would ensure that prior to the operation of the site by any prospective tenant a noise assessment had to be submitted.  The condition was intentionally worded to refer to “prior to the operation of the site” rather than “prior to the commencement of works” because if it was prior to commencement at that point the tenant might not have been confirmed and therefore any assessment would still be based on assumptions rather than the known operation and officers considered the wording of Condition 19 to be appropriate and to deal with the impact of noise.  This was not found to be an objection at the time of the previous appeal when the Inspector considered that point.  In relation to the water supply and the comments of Affinity Water which were set out in full in the report and as Members had noted, they do identify that the risk to public water supply remains however they also say that they recognise those risks can be managed and that appropriate conditions can be attached to the recommendation that would deal with that.  Officers do consider that the point had been appropriately addressed as set out in the report and with the number of conditions which were suggested.  With regards to the Maple Lodge Nature Reserve and comments in relation to impact on the ground water officers feel that the Council had undertaken its statutory duties in accordance with the Water Framework Directive and ultimately there was not demonstrable evidence to show that the proposed development would cause any material deterioration of the Maple Lodge Nature Reserve wetland ecosystem or the Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystem and feel that point had been addressed.  With regard to the Forester moth a Section 106 contribution is proposed to enable the creation and management of an appropriate species rich grassland which would provide suitable habitat conditions for the Forester moth and subject to this we would have complied with Act and our obligations in relation to our Biodiversity duty under Section 41 Species Responsibilities.

Councillor David Raw stated that the report referred to the TRIPP report and the Highways.  The reports are dated 2017 which was four years out of date. The data here referred to the impact on the local roads but asked if there would be a new TRIPP report done as even with these numbers for the hotel as well as the site there would be a huge amount of transport clogging up the roads around here.  We have schools here, people going to work and places tied up with cars and more lorries and vehicles are going to make it even more difficult. 

Councillor Alex Hayward felt that all the points that had been raised were totally valid around the drinking water, the Nature Reserve, the noise and the 3,310 piles for 16,000 square feet was huge.  Could officers clarify the position on access to this site and that there would be no access down Maple Lodge Lane through the houses would there? 

The Planning Officer responded in relation to the TRIPP figures that there had been extensive modelling and the County Council as the Highways Authority had reviewed the data.  Essentially the number of additional trips as a result of development would not be severe to cause a reason for refusal on Highways grounds.  In relation to access, access was proposed through the private access road with the introduction of a signalised junction with the A412 and access was not proposed via Maple Lodge Close.

Councillor Alex Hayward asked if it would be a definite, although they knew it was not proposed, would it be blocked off or would there still be an opening.

The Planning Officer advised that it was not proposed to block that access but there would be improvements to the junction with the A412.  Maple Lodge Close is a residential road with traffic calming measures and by improvements to the access with the junction with the A412 it was obviously making that access much more desirable for accessing the application site.  It is the closest access and it would be upgraded but it was not proposed to block Maple Lodge Close. In terms of managing that in terms of aspects of construction there would be a construction management plan required by condition and obviously that would include details of routing of vehicles and access to the site can be controlled that way and at the end there would be requirement for travel plan and these generally would be required to include details of information which would be given to occupiers of the building to work/employers with regards to access to the site and the new access would be promoted. Officers consider that the access would be acceptable for the reasons set out in the report.

Councillor Alex Hayward knew the officer had said the appeal was not allowed because they had not addressed but had now addressed those issues and the report was very comprehensive but based on the local knowledge and the risk of these not being controlled properly and with the potential risk to the water the Councillor wished to propose refusal of the application. 

Councillor Raj Khiroya as a Ward Councillor and a Member of this Committee had a duty to say what residents were feeling.  We had 286 objections to this application and not a single letter of support.  Enough is enough the residents have suffered enough and they keep on suffering.  An application on this site was refused in 2019 and at an appeal in June 2020 and it was again refused.  This is the same site and although the Councillor appreciated that most of the site was outside the Metropolitan Green Belt but part of it was still in the Green Belt.  The majority of the site was located in flood zone 1.  The Councillor asked why TRDC Traffic Engineer had not responded. 

The Planning Officer was not able to comment on why someone had not commented on an application.  They were not obliged to respond on the application as they are not a statutory consultee.  The Highways Authority had commented and their details were as set out in the report.

Councillor Sara Bedford stated that we are very lucky at Three Rivers as despite the fact that we have a lot of very complex and difficult planning applications here we have the professional assistance, knowledge and experience of a great team of Planning Officers.  The Councillor was really unhappy with a number of people.  Officers make a decision on their professional knowledge and judgement they are not biased and are not working for anyone except the Council and its residents and for them to have received some of the comments they have received and for Councillors to have received the comments they have done about officers in derogatory and slanderous tones depressed the Councillor.  The Councillor had every faith in those officers and thought the other members of the Committee did too.  The Councillor wished to place that on record and to thank Claire and the team for hundreds/thousands of hours of work that they had been put into the application and the support they had from other members of the team and thanked the officer for that.  However just because we have officers who are professional and give us their judgement this Committee was still the Local Planning Authority.  We delegate some decisions to officers and we make the rest ourselves and the ones that come to the Committee we have chosen as Councillors to make ourselves and not delegate and this was why the application was here tonight.  Sometimes we do disagree with officers and officers are very good at taking those decisions and getting on with getting the best possible defence which might be needed for those cases which go to appeal.  The last application did go forward to appeal on this site.  For those of us who have gone through the 169 pages of the report not just once, twice but more than that we can all see that there are a number of situations where it is not necessarily easy to see how pre-commencement conditions might be satisfied or how some of the other conditions may be satisfied.  Most Members of the Planning Committee and officers were in the room earlier this year when we first looked at the Killingdown Farm, Croxley Green application and at that point there was some concern from most Members of the Committee about the reports on the Highways and the report carried out by the applicant and the report carried out on behalf of the County Council.  We were not happy with the remarks and asked for an independent report to be commissioned by this Council and funded by the Council to cover the aspects we were not happy with around Highways to the entrance of Killingdown Farm.  We obtained that report and were able to bring the application back to the Committee three months later and determine the application and refuse it although not on highways grounds.   The Councillor felt that at the moment there were so many contrary thoughts, comments and reports and everyone thinking they know better than anyone else and the only thing they felt we could do was get a once and for all report commissioned by this Council to settle those issues.  What the Councillor wished to propose was an amendment to the motion to refuse with something along the lines of, they were sure they could get support to get the wording right, but something along the lines of a deferment to get that report commissioned to give us the evidence we need to have if we want to make a refusal on these grounds.  The Committee is not satisfied that the risks the developments may pose to the neighbouring area and in particular the Maple Lodge Nature Reserve have not been fully understood or that the suggested conditions would meet the requirements of the various agencies to ensure that there was no harm caused and therefore call for the application to be deferred for the Council to instruct their own expert hydrologist or ecologist or similar in order to review the application and advise the Committee.  The Councillor wished to put that proposal forward so that the Council can get that information from a third party and an organisation not associated with either side in this application and felt at that point the Committee would be better able to make a decision.

Councillor David Raw was happy to second the proposal to refuse the application.

The Planning Officer sought clarification on the nature of the suggestion put forward for refusal.

Councillor Alex Hayward said their reason for refusal was that the previous application was also refused by the Inspector on the basis that the ground water issues had not been addressed properly and in the report they felt they still had not been.  The Councillor felt they had not been dealt with adequately enough for the Committee to give permission and there was still too much risk involved. 

The Planning Officer said that essentially the Councillor was saying they were not satisfied that the risks the development may pose to the ground water had been addressed

Councillor Alex Hayward said if another Councillor wished to contribute with any other reasons they could but nothing was put forward.

Councillor Keith Martin was happy to second the proposal to defer the application by Councillor Sara Bedford.  Having read everything in the report and everything emailed to Members and having worked in risk management for years and years they did not understand some areas of this and whether the information given was the most accurate.  Some information seemed inconclusive so thought it was a really good idea to an independent report, third party report as suggested by Councillor Bedford to look at these things so that once and for all we can get this right because we know we if we get it wrong it will be overturned at appeal.

The Planning Officer summarised the second motion for deferral was for the Council to instruct their own expert hydrologist or similar to review the application on the grounds that Members are not satisfied that the risks of development to the Maple Lodge Nature Reserve had been fully understood and the suggested conditions would meet the requirements.

The Head of Regulatory Services pointed out to the Committee that where Members may go against an officer recommendation, which both the terms of the motions put forward would, there was a risk of an appeal either against the refusal or non determination.  The application had an extended timescale to a week on Friday.  If that timescale was reached and the applicant did not agree an extension of time then they could go to appeal for non determination.  Officers would point that out on any application and felt that it needed to be advised to Members. 

Councillor Sara Bedford said Members were all aware of the risks of the applicant appealing on non determination however if we refuse the application the applicant would go to appeal anyway so either way we have the situation of appeal.  They felt if we are going to be heading towards an appeal which would be long and which we will need to engage our own planning consultant and other consultants we should have that information first.  If we have that information we are already half way down the line of what we need to do for the appeal and we need to have that information.  For us to refuse on the grounds that we don’t believe an expert report and there is no evidence to prove why we should not believe that expert report leaves us open to real problems at appeal.  If we believe that the reasons are strong enough we should be able to say instead of engaging our own expert to do this.  We can’t just go to appeal stating we feel like it is not right we need someone who knows in detail what they are doing to give us that information and if we actually believe that is true we should have the faith to do that otherwise we are putting people in an impossible situation at appeal.

Councillor Alex Hayward said where Affinity Water state that it is development neutral that backs it up for them that it is not a positive endorsement of this development and that the water is safe. They knew Councillors had commented on Policy DM6 and other issues as well and believed that there was an issue around landscaping in the surrounding area which had not been met but had not queried that at the time but it can come up in the paperwork. We talk about the residents suffering and we shall see who votes for another 3 months suffering.

The Chair advised that the motion to defer would allow the Council to appoint an expert to answer the questions the Committee were not quite sure about.

It was advised to the Chair by the officer that the amendment to the motion had to be taken first which was the motion to defer the application.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 7 For, 4 Against and 0 Abstentions.

                        RESOLVED:

                        That the application be DEFERRED.