Agenda item

Councillor Chris Mitchell left the room at 7.11pm.

The Planning Officer provided the following update:

It is noted that there are two structures currently on site, a timber structure, and a disused portacabin. The applicant has confirmed that these would be removed from site. However, officers consider that it would be reasonable to add one further condition requiring the structures to be removed prior to commencement of the development.

The height of the stables referred to in paragraph 3.6 as 4.8m, should be amended to read 4m.

A further comment has been received from Croxley Parish Council in respect of the re-consultation as follows:

The Parish Council maintains their concerns over creeping development within the Green Belt. The Parish Council wishes to draw attention to the condition of the wall around the site and ask that it be rebuilt wherever necessary immediately and maintained in perpetuity as a condition of granting of any planning permission.

In response, the red line on the plan does not appear to extend to the extent of the boundary which the wall is located on. Therefore, the wall is outside of the application site. Notwithstanding this, it would be unreasonable to require this via a condition, as the wall is not related to the development and therefore it would not be considered necessary or reasonable to add a condition in this regard.

Little Green Residents Association comment is not outlined in full in the report, the comments have been addressed, however, in short, they do raise concerns about what is being grown in the polytunnels, drainage impacts, and the impact of people stopping to look at the Alpacas.

One additional neighbour comment has been received:

In summary, this sets out that new buildings are inappropriate in the green belt, exceptions to this include buildings for agriculture and forestry which would not have a greater impact on openness than existing development. The proposed development would not meet this exception for a number of reasons including that the wall which limits views into the site is not ‘existing development’ and that the new structures would be prominent. As such very special circumstances would be required which have not been presented.

In response and as set out in 7.2.5 of the officer’s report, Paragraph 154 of the NPPF does not stipulate that buildings needed for forestry/agriculture should preserve openness of the Green Belt. It does not require local planning authorities to consider where they would result in greater harm than existing development.  The report sets out why the development meets the relevant exceptions and is therefore acceptable within the Green Belt. Officers do not consider that very special circumstances are required.

Mr. Lloyd, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Members raised concerns about the potential future repurposing of the buildings for residential or business use, inquiring about conditions that could prevent such changes.

The officer clarified that planning permission would be required for any change of use and outlines existing conditions related to the stable and polytunnel usage. There are a number of conditions already attached, such as condition five (C5), that the stable building shall be used solely for the keeping of four horses, should not be used for commercial purposes. Likewise, the polytunnels can only be used for agricultural purposes and would need to be removed, should that use cease. Therefore, if the applicant wishes, or someone else bought the site in the future and wish to change the use of building, planning permission would be required.

Members also expressed concerns about the condition of the boundary wall, access to the site, and the need for wheel washing facilities during the construction phase.

The officer advised that Hertfordshire Highways, during the course of the application, required further information to be submitted regarding the access. The applicant did submit further information. Hertfordshire Highways raised no objection, and although they are aware of the Killingdown farm site, which is in close proximity, they don’t feel that in terms of traffic movements associated with this development, would increase and cause a highway safety impact.

It is the officers’ understanding that the boundary wall is unregistered at this point, and officers don’t feel that it would be reasonable to tie the boundary wall repair works to this application as it is not related to the keeping of alpacas or the agricultural uses that are proposed. Some of those uses that are proposed on sites, including the alpacas and the polytunnels could be done without needing planning permission.

Members suggested the possibility of adding the same wording to condition five (C5) that is there for the polytunnels in condition six (C6), meaning the removal of the stables after 12 concurrent calendar months, should the use be no longer required. The officer advised that if Members wanted to change the wording of the condition to relate to the other structures, then the conditions could be amended.

Officers reiterated that they have a further plan, which indicates the turning head, highways were reconsulted, and raised no objection to the development.

In response to a request from Members regarding the distance of the gates of the site, the officer advised that they’re set back approximately 13 to 14 meters from the edge of the highway, so there would be sufficient space for vehicles to enter and exit the site.

Officers further advised that the current conditions don’t include a construction management plan, and with regard to wheel washing as a condition, officers were of the opinion that the development would not require that in terms of its scale, but should Members feel it is necessary, then officers can add that as a condition. Members agreed that it would be important and beneficial to the local residents in that area to have the wheel washing facility throughout the construction period added as a condition. Officers also confirmed that they felt it was a reasonable request to add the wheel washing facility on site, given that the lane is narrow, and it is not known at present what time of the year the construction would take place.

Councillor Sarah Nelmes moved, seconded by Councillor Abbas Merali, that subject to no new material considerations being raised, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the additional conditions requiring:

• existing structures to be removed.

• wheel washing facilities to be provided during construction.

• a timescale within which the stables could be removed following a period of non-use.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 7 For, 0 Against, 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That subject to no new material considerations being raised, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the additional conditions requiring:

• existing structures to be removed.

• wheel washing facilities to be provided during construction.

• a timescale within which the stables could be removed following a period of non-use.