Agenda item

Outline application: Demolition and clearance of existing buildings and hardstandings to allow for the construction of a data centre of up to 84,000 sqm (GEA) delivered across 2no. buildings, engineering operations and earthworks to create development platforms, site wide landscaping and the creation of a country park. The data centre buildings include ancillary offices, internal plant and equipment and emergency back-up generators. Other works include an ancillary innovation, education and training centre of up to 300 sqm, internal roads and footpaths, cycle and car parking, hard and soft landscaping, security perimeter fence, lighting, drainage, substation, and other associated works and infrastructure (all matters reserved).

Recommendation: That Outline Planning Permission be REFUSED.

The application was for outline permission for the construction of a data centre of up to 84,000sqm delivered across 2no. buildings including ancillary offices, internal plant and equipment and emergency backup generators, engineering operations and earthworks to create development platforms, site wide landscaping and the creation of a country park.  Along with the construction of an ancillary training centre, internal roads and footpaths, cycle and car parking, hard and soft landscaping security perimeter fencing, lighting, drainage, a substation and other associated works and infrastructure following the demolition and clearance of existing buildings and hardstanding.

The application had been called in by three members of the Committee who had cited concerns over the impact the development would have on the Green Belt.

It was noted that, following the publication of the agenda, an article published by Data Centre Dynamics regarding the Government’s plans to boost UK data centres had been provided by the applicant and had been circulated to the Committee for information although it did not change the Officer recommendations.  Agents acting on behalf of the owner of the land to the south of the site, to the rear of Mansion House Farm had responded to the planning application consultation raising concerns including regarding the potential impact of the development on the proposed adjacent site allocation.  In response, it was stressed that the emerging Local Plan was at an early stage and was therefore afforded very limited weight at this stage.  In addition, nine further objections to the proposed development had been received which reiterated comments already summarised at paragraph 4.2.4 of the committee report and one neutral comment had been received stating that it seemed a reasonable and necessary development given the forthcoming expansion of Artificial Intelligence.

The agent spoke in support of the application citing the investment and economic benefits that the development would bring to the local area and the improvements that would be made to the site’s biodiversity.  A local resident and a representative from Abbots Langley Parish Council spoke in objection to the application citing concerns about the adverse impact that the development would have on the Green Belt and the accessibility of the site.

It was clarified that it had not yet been established who would have ongoing responsibility for the maintenance of the proposed country park had not yet been established. It was noted that there were already a number of existing rights of way through the area earmarked for the country park and the site was close to Leavesden Country Park which was publicly accessible.

Whilst the Committee acknowledged that there was a need for a development of this type it was felt that the site proposed on this occasion was not an appropriate location and the proposed development was of a size and scale that would be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt site.  It was considered that the proposed application presented no exceptional circumstances to warrant building on the Green Belt.

The Officer Recommendation to refuse the application on the following grounds:

1.    The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would result in harm to openness in both spatial and visual terms, and would conflict with two of the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Substantial weight is given to the harm to the Green Belt. Other harm has been identified to the character and appearance and landscape of the area. The harm to the Green Belt and other harm is not clearly outweighed by other material considerations such as to constitute the Very Special Circumstances necessary to permit inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The development is therefore contrary to Policies CP1, CP11 and CP12 of the Core Strategy, Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies LDD and the NPPF (2023).

2.    The proposed development by virtue of its siting, scale, height and massing would fail to protect and enhance the natural environment from inappropriate development or to conserve or enhance the character of the area and would therefore result in significant demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area and the natural environment, contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy, Policy DM7 of the Development Management Policies LDD and the NPPF (2023).

3.    In order to maximize sustainable travel options, a financial contribution towards supporting the improvement of cycling and walking routes in the vicinity of the site is required. In the absence of a relevant completed undertaking 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 and the NPPF (2023).

Was proposed by Councillor Debbie Morris, seconded by Councillor Ruth Clark, put to the vote and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 23/106/OUT be refused.