Agenda item

Demolition of all buildings on the site including residential dwelling and construction of a light industrial (Use Class E(g)(iii)) building with biomass boiler, associated car parking, landscaping and alterations to land levels at South Bend, Station Road, Kings Langley.

Recommendation: Defer to the Head of Regulatory Services and subject to the recommendation of no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and Environmental Health Officer (EHO), the inclusion of any conditions recommended by the LLFA and EHO, and following referral to the Secretary of State and subject to them raising no objection, and following completion of a S106 Agreement (securing a monitoring fee in relation to BNG) that Planning Permission is granted.

Councillor Drury left the room for this item.

The application was for demolition of all buildings on site including residential dwelling and construction of a light industrial (Use Class E(g)(iii)) building with biomass boiler, associated car parking, landscaping and alterations to land levels at South Bend, Station Road, Kings Langley.

The application was before the committee as it had been called in by three members of the Planning Committee regardless of officer recommendation due to loss of the residential unit and land and the introduction of a business use in the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Planning Officer provided an update on the Green Belt assessment in relation to the application following the publication of the revised NPPF earlier in the day and also provided other updates as set out below:

‘The Officers’ report to committee sets out that proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt by definition and that there is some limited harm through failure to comply with criteria (c) which relates to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.  However, the report identifies that there are Very Special Circumstances which collectively combine to constitute material considerations of sufficient weight to amount to ‘very special circumstances’ that clearly outweigh the identified harm to Green Belt and the identified harm caused by loss of a residential dwelling to enable planning permission to be granted subject to conditions.

As noted at the start of the meeting, a revised NPPF was published today.  The revised NPPF includes changes in relation to development within Green Belt including the introduction of a new classification of land, ‘Grey Belt’.

The NPPF defines Grey Belt as:

For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘

Purposes (a), (b) and (d) are:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

As set out at paragraph 8.2.5 of the committee report, in this case some of the site would constitute previously developed land due to it containing a residential dwelling, and the pre-existing car servicing and repairs business. In addition, having regard to the location and characteristics of the application site it is considered that the site does not strongly contribute to purposes a, b or d. As such officers are of the view that the site should be classified as Grey Belt.

We must then turn to paragraph 155 of the revised NPPF which advises that;

The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where:

a) The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;

b) There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;

c) The development would be in a sustainable location, and

d) Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements.

In relation to (a) it is not considered that the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the Green Belt. In relation to (b) the committee report identifies that there is a need. In relation to (c) the development would be in a sustainable location and (d) is not applicable as it relates to housing development.

Therefore, in conclusion, the site is considered to be Grey Belt land and the development proposed would accord with paragraph 155 of the revised NPPF and would therefore not be inappropriate development. As such there is no requirement to consider Very Special Circumstances.

The recommendation for approval remains; however, as the development is not considered to be inappropriate there is no requirement to refer the application to the Secretary of State.’

In relation to other updates, in addition to omitting reference to referral to the Secretary of State, the Planning Officer advised that the officer recommendation should be updated to remove reference to Environmental Health and should now read as follows:

Defer to the Head of Regulatory Services and subject to the recommendation of no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the inclusion of any conditions recommended by the LLFA, and following completion of a S106 Agreement (securing a monitoring fee in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain) that Planning Permission is granted.

Condition 2 (plan numbers) should be updated to correct errors within the plan numbers. 

The Environmental Health Officer had recommended that details relating to the dust management extraction system should be submitted, and therefore an additional condition relating to this was suggested.

The applicant had raised queries in relation to the wording of some of the suggested conditions and their triggers. Officers were reviewing these and, where appropriate, the wording of conditions would be updated.  The Planning Officer suggested that a full schedule of conditions be circulated to the Committee prior to the issuing of any decision, and this would include any conditions suggested by the LLFA.

The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had requested amendment to the wording of Condition 39 to allow HGVS to access the site from 9am Monday-Friday, rather than 9.30am. The Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that due to background noise levels in the vicinity, HGVs accessing the site from 9am would be acceptable and therefore did not object to this amendment to Condition 39.

The applicant had also queried the imposition of Condition 38 which required windows and doors to be kept closed during working hours. The applicant had suggested that, rather than restricting the opening of windows and doors, a condition could be added requiring the applicant to operate within the noise limits for the nearest receptors as set out in the noise report.  This had been discussed with Environmental Health who had advised that this would be an appropriate solution and Condition 38 would therefore be amended.

Peter Forest, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Jon Tankard of Abbots Langley Parish Council, also spoke on the application.

In relation to parking, it was noted that the applicant had proposed to seek a lease of 20 off-site spaces at Kings Langley Railway Station Car Park in order to increase the parking provision.  In response to a question, the Planning Officer advised that this arrangement was not required in order to make the planning application acceptable in planning terms; therefore, it was not to be included within the S106 agreement.  However, this did not preclude the applicant from continuing to pursue this arrangement separately.

Committee Members also discussed the inclusion of Saturday hours within Condition 37 (hours of use) and Condition 39 (hours of delivery).  In response to questions the Planning Officer clarified that the permission being sought related to use class.  Whilst this applicant was not proposing to operate or accept deliveries on Saturdays, a future occupier of the site may.  Officers were of the view that the inclusion of some operational hours on Saturdays was acceptable for the proposed use class.

Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor Lloyd seconded, that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to consider the inclusion of any recommendations from the LLFA and, subject to the recommendation of no objection from the LLFA and the completion of a S106 agreement securing a monitoring fee in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain, grant planning permission subject to conditions.  The final set of conditions to be circulated to Committee Members ahead of the decision being issued.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: to defer to the Head of Regulatory Services and subject to the recommendation of no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the inclusion of any conditions recommended by the LLFA, and following completion of a S106 Agreement securing a monitoring fee in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain that Planning Permission is granted subject to conditions, with the final set of conditions to be circulated to Committee Members ahead of the decision being issued.