Agenda item

Mr Barnes spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1377/FP planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

The Director explained that there was no in principle decision to grant planning permission for a residential development at this site.  At the meeting in June 2010, some Members had expressed support but there were concerns about the lack of detail and the amount of development proposed.  The application was then deferred to allow the applicant the opportunity of submitting a detailed application to address concerns with regard to the lack of detail and for a bat survey to be undertaken.    The Director explained that the application site was on Metropolitan Green Belt land and that any decision to approve the application must have very special circumstances.

Councillor J J Taylor stated that at the meeting on 2 June 2010 the applicant was under the impression that outline permission had been granted.  She felt that a residential development on Green Belt land was not appropriate as there were no special circumstances.  She acknowledged that the land was an “eye-sore” and that this would tidy up the area but this did not constitute planning permission.  Councillor Taylor felt that acceptance of the application would encourage further development on green belt sites. 

Councillor R Gilbert confirmed that the application was deferred on 2 June 2010 for the application to undertake a bat survey and for him to submit a full application.  He felt that the aim of green belt was to protect and enhance the quality of the countryside and that the proposal would enhance the area acknowledging that the existing buildings could not be refurbished.  Councillor Gilbert suggested that the application should be supported under Policies GBC14 and ENV1.  Councillor Gilbert reminded Members that they had gone against Policy before citing the Paradise Wildlife Park as an example.

Councillor K A Barnes suggested that the application had a lot of merit adding that he thought that the majority of Members in June were in favour of the application.  He referred to supported of the application by Brickendon parish Council and 17 other letters of support.

The Director stated that Members needed to be mindful of approving an application in the green belt on the basis of tidying up the area.  There should be sufficient very special circumstances to outweigh the clear national and local policy of development restraint in the green belt. 

Councillor R I Taylor referred to the fact that the whole curtilage was not going to be developed and that the previous attempts to sell the land for equestrian uses had not been successful.  He referred to asbestos being removed and felt that these were good reasons to allow planning permission.

Councillor M R Alexander queried whether the application, if approved would be referred to the Secretary of State for decision.  The Director confirmed that it would be as it was a departure from Policy.

The Director stated that the main purposes of green belt was to retain the open character of the area.  He felt that Members were being overly concerned about tidying up the site reminding Members that there did not appear to be sufficient very special circumstances to approve the application.

After being put the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1377/FP be refused for the reasons now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1377/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. No such special circumstances are apparent in this case that clearly outweigh the harm, and the proposal is therefore contrary to policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.            The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height and layout, would be out of keeping with the form and grain of development in the surrounding area, and the landscape character of the area contrary to policies ENV1 and GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.