Agenda item

Erection of 20 dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated parking and landscaping, provision of new vehicular access to Church Lane and pedestrian link to public footpath at Land Rear of 76-78 Church Lane, Sarratt.

Recommendation:

(1)     to delegate to the Head of Regulatory Services and subject to the recommendation of no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the inclusion of any conditions recommended by the LLFA and following referral to the Secretary of State and subject to them raising no objection, and following completion of a S106 Agreement (securing the affordable housing provision and a monitoring fee in relation to BNG) that planning permission is granted; or

(2)     in the event that the LLFA maintains their objection, that planning permission is refused on the grounds set out by the LLFA and in the absence of a S106 Agreement securing the above referenced contributions.

The application was for erection of 20 dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated parking and landscaping, provision of new vehicular access to Church Lane and pedestrian link to public footpath at Land Rear of 76-78 Church Lane, Sarratt.

The Planning Officer reported that since the report had been published, the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that it had no objection to the proposal, subject to four conditions.  Accordingly, recommendation (2) was no longer required.  The revised recommendation was to delegate authority to the Head of Regulatory Services to refer the application to the Secretary of State, and subject to the Secretary of State raising no objection and following the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the affordable housing and the biodiversity net gain monitoring fee, grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report and the conditions requested by the Lead Local Flood Authority.

The Planning Officer reported that there were also a number of changes proposed to the published conditions.  These were: merging the requirements of conditions 9 and 13 into condition 11 and removing conditions 9 and 13 as a result; merging the requirements of condition 17 into condition 7; and changing the trigger points for conditions 21, 25 and 30 so that their terms had to be met before the first occupation of the dwellings.

The Planning Officer also reported that a correction was required to paragraph 7.3.30 of the report.  The reference to the development failing to comply with purpose (b) of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework should refer to purpose (c).

The Planning Officer reported that outline planning permission for 20 houses, with all matters other than access being reserved, had been granted at appeal in July 2023, with a Section 106 agreement to secure all of the housing as affordable.  The current application was a full application.  The differences between the two applications were set out in the report and included a reduction in the amount of affordable housing which was proposed to 50% affordable (split 70/30 between social rent and intermediate) and 50% market housing.  The Planning Officer summarised that whilst it was considered that the proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt and would cause some harm, officers considered that very special circumstances existed which would outweigh this and the other harms identified.

Parish Councillor James Alder of Sarratt Parish Council and Councillor Ciaran Reed spoke on the application.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Committee Members asked questions about the detail of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions, and concerns raised by speakers, included the following:

·       In addition to a reduction in the amount of affordable housing, the development also proposed a change in the dwelling size mix, with a significant number of 4-bedroomed properties which were not in great need in the area.

·       The proposal included a reliance on footpath 30, adjoining the site at the rear, to enable pedestrian access to Sarratt, as there was no footpath on Church Lane.   Footpath 30 was considered to be unuseable for a significant part of the year by those using wheelchairs or buggies or with other mobility difficulties due to being unpaved and was also unlit.

·       Other concerns raised by speakers included a lack of parking provision and the lack of overspill parking; oversight into other properties; insufficient sewage capacity; the harm to high quality Green Belt; the reduction of affordable housing; the dwelling size mix and associated lack of compliance with the emerging Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan; impact on the conservation landscape area; impact on wildlife and nearby woodlands by light and noise; and impact of increased traffic on already congested roads.

·       Officers responded that the amount of affordable housing remained in excess of what was required by the Local Plan and had been weighted on that basis; the benefit of the footpath link had only been given limited weighting for the reasons set out in the report; the distances and use of obscure glazing had been considered sufficient to prevent overlooking of nearby properties; the dwelling size mix and lack of compliance with the emerging Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan was acknowledged and addressed in the report, but was not considered to result in a harmful situation.  The delivery of housing was important, particularly given the district’s lack of a 5-year housing land supply and housing need and this had been given great weight. Finally, officers confirmed that the appeal decision had not been the main reason for officers reaching a recommendation for approval but had been one of a number of considerations.

·       A Committee Member commented that the district’s current Local Plan set out that 1% of total housing delivery should be provided within small villages over the plan period.  The amount of housing which had been proposed for Sarratt had exceeded this, and the cumulative impact of development in a location which was not sustainable needed to be considered.  The appeal decision was not considered to be a fall-back position, as the applicant mentioned that that scheme was not viable and so would not be implemented.  Further, the reduction in the amount of affordable housing down from 100% would preclude the site’s classification as a rural exception site;  the key ratios given by the Inspector in the appeal decision no longer applied; and the affordable housing provision was less than 50% when calculated by floor space and therefore was not compliant with either the Local Plan or the new NPPF (if the site was found to be Grey Belt).  In summary, the reasons which the Inspector had given for approving the development no longer applied, and justifiable reasons for refusing the application did apply.  Sarratt village was not a sustainable location: there was only one shop, a lack of other amenities and highways connections, and experienced significant traffic congestion.  The Inspector found harm to the AONB (now National Landscape), harm to the character of the area, and found it wasn’t sustainable for highways reasons.  The previous benefits no longer existed.

·       Other Committee Members commented that the reduction in affordable housing had affected the ‘tilted balance’ test and that the public benefit of the proposal did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the National Landscape and the other harms identified.  In considering the benefits of the scheme, Committee Members agreed that although there had been a reduction in affordable housing since the previous application, 10 affordable homes would be provided in an area where there was an identified shortfall and this should be given weight.  However, provision of housing (whilst still a benefit) was in contradiction with PSP4 and therefore overall a disbenefit of the scheme, particularly where it was not the type of housing required in the area.

Councillor Cooper moved, and Councillor King seconded, that the application be refused due to it being inappropriate development in the Green Belt, impacting the setting of the national landscape, impact on the character of the village and it being contrary to the emerging Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan, the Local Plan and the NPPF.  Final wording would be circulated to Committee Members before the decision was issued.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED: that the application be refused due to it being inappropriate development in the Green Belt, impacting the setting of the national landscape, impact on the character of the village and it being contrary to the emerging Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan, the Local Plan and the NPPF.  Final wording to be circulated to Committee Members before the decision is issued.