Case Reference: 3265925

Appeal Decisions
Inquiry held between 26 April – 6 May 2021
Site visits made on 1 April 2021 and 4 May 2021
by C Masters MA (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 14 June 2021
Appeal A: APP/B1930/W/20/3265925
Roundhouse Farm, Land Off Bullens Green Lane, Colney Heath
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against St Albans City & District Council.
• The application Ref 5/2020/1992/LSM was dated 28 August 2020.
• The development proposed is outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings,
including 45% affordable and 10% self build, together with all ancillary works (All
matters reserved except access) at Land off Bullens Green Lane, Colney Heath.
Appeal B: APP/C1950/W/20/3265926
Roundhouse Farm, Land Off Bullens Green Lane, Colney Heath
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Welwyn Hatfield Borough
Council.
• The application Ref 6/2020/2248/OUTLINE, dated 28 August 2020, was refused by
notice dated 2 December 2020.
• The development proposed is outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings,
including 45% affordable and 10% self build, together with all ancillary works (All
matters reserved except access) at Land off Bullens Green Lane, Colney Heath.
Decision
1. The appeals are allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of
up to 100 dwellings, including 45% affordable and 10% self build, together
with all ancillary works (All matters reserved except access) at Land off Bullens
Green Lane, Colney Heath, in accordance with the terms of the applications:
5/2020/1992 /LSM dated 28 August 2020 and 6/2020/2248/OUTLINE dated 28
August 2020, subject to the conditions set out on the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The boundary between St Albans City & District Council (SADC) and Welwyn
Hatfield Borough Council (WHBC) transects the appeal site with the proposed
access falling within WHBC off Bullens Green Lane and the western part of the
site abutting Roestock Park and the Pumping Station falling within SADC. The
planning applications, subject to these appeals, were essentially the same and
were submitted to each of the planning authorities and considered collectively
at the same public inquiry. For this reason, I have considered the proposed
scheme in its entirety rather than as two separate and divisible schemes. I
have thus determined the appeals on that basis.
3. In the context of appeal APP/B1930/W/20/3265925, this scheme was
presented to planning committee on 18 January 2021 to request that members
confirm how they would have determined the application had it not been
subject to an appeal against non determination. At this committee meeting, it
was resolved that the Council would have refused planning permission.
4. The reasons for refusal given by WHBC and putative reasons by SADC were
similar, in respect to objections related to the suitability of the location,
character and appearance, highways, ecology, archaeology, impacts on local
infrastructure and services, Green Belt and heritage matters.
5. It was common ground that the Councils could not demonstrate a 5 year
supply of housing sites. However, the parties disagreed on the extent of this
shortfall. It was agreed that the variation between the two parties was not a
matter which was material to the decision on these appeals. I will return to
this matter below.
6. Since the appeals were submitted, the appellant has submitted an updated
Ecological Impact Assessment. An agreed statement of common ground
(SoCG) was submitted prior to the start of the inquiry which set out, amongst
other things, principal matters of agreement and disagreement. This confirmed
that objections relating to archaeology, ecology and impacts on local
infrastructure and services could be addressed by suitably worded
conditions/the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Where necessary, I
return to these matters within my report. In addition, appendix A to the SoCG
included an agreed facilities plan illustrating the location and average distances
to a number of services and facilities within Colney Heath and beyond. I return
to this matter below.
7. At the start of the inquiry, a further SoCG was submitted in relation to
highways matters. The Councils, Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) as
highways authority and the appellant agreed that the appeals would have an
acceptable impact on highways safety and therefore reason for refusal (RfR)
number 3 on the WHBC decision and putative RfR number 4 of SADC were
therefore withdrawn. Notwithstanding this position and in light of third party
representations in relation to this issue, this topic was still subject to a round
table discussion as part of the inquiry.
8. A replacement access drawing was submitted prior to the inquiry. It was
subject to a separate consultation. Neither WHBC or SADC objected to the
plan being substituted and all parties had an opportunity to comment on the
drawing. Accordingly, I do not consider anybody would be prejudice by my
taking this drawing into account and have considered the appeals on this basis.
9. The appellants submitted an unsigned Section 106 (S106) to the inquiry. This
was discussed at a round table session and I allowed a short amount of time
after the inquiry for the document to be signed. The signed version was
received on 24 May 2021. The agreement made included a number of
obligations and provision for payments to be made to WHBC, SADC and HCC. I
return to this matter below.
Main Issues
10. The appeal site is located within an area of Green Belt. It was agreed between
the appellant and the Councils that in the context of the Framework, the
proposals would present inappropriate development within the Green Belt, a
matter that must attract substantial weight against the proposals. I concur
with this view. As a result and against the background I have set out above,
the main issues are:
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
• the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the
purposes of including land within it;
• the effect of the proposed development on the setting of the nearby listed
building 68 Roestock Lane;
• whether the site is in an accessible location with regards to local services
and facilities;
• whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is
clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very
special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Reasons
Effect on Character and Appearance
11. The appeal site comprises a parcel of land of approximately 5 hectares on the
eastern edge of Colney Heath. It is bounded by residential development to the
northern boundary. There is a short terrace of cottages to the eastern corner
along Bullens Green Lane before the boundary opens out into open countryside
and beyond. To the south, the site is contained by Fellowes Lane where again
residential dwellings are present on the south western corner. The western
boundary comprises Roestock Park and the Pumping Station.
12. The parties agree that the site is not a valued landscape under the Framework
paragraph 170 definition and that no other landscape designations are
applicable to the appeal site. The Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy, 2005
notes the site is located within the Mimmshall Valley, where the landscape
character is described, amongst other things, as being strongly influenced by
the major transport routes and the surrounding settlement which give it an
urban-edge rather than rural character.
13. The A1 and railway line do not have any visual impact on the appeal site.
From what I saw on the site visits, the character of the area is a mix of edge of
settlement and countryside. Walking along the footpaths which traverse the
site, the experience is one of being on the edge of a settlement rather than a
wholly rural context. Whilst the open countryside to the south and east is
clearly visible, the surrounding residential properties either facing the site or
their rear gardens and associated boundary treatment is also clearly visible.
These range in scale and form from bungalows fronting Fellowes Lane,
glimpsed views of the 3 storey dwellings within Admiral Close and Hall Gardens
and the rear elevations and gardens of properties along Roestock Gardens.
Bullens Green Lane and Fellowes Lane serve to enclose the appeal site and
provide a degree of containment from the wider countryside and beyond. My
judgement leads me to conclude that the site strongly resonates with this
urban edge definition provided by the 2005 Landscape Strategy.
14. Turning to consider the area beyond the appeal site itself, the sense of
countryside prevails via the public footpath network and road network. These
public footpaths continue within Bullens Green Wood and further beyond the
appeal site at Tollgate Farm. Contrary to the views expressed by the Council,
my experience of the views to the appeal site within Bullens Green Wood are of
glimpse views of the appeal site. From the south and in the wider landscape
context, the appeal site appears against the backdrop of the existing dwellings
as a relatively self contained parcel of land on the edge of the settlement.
These longer distance views of the appeal site reinforce the urban edge
definition.
15. The Councils contend that the appeal site provides a positive element of the
countryside that frames Colney Heath. I do not agree. The very clear sense of
countryside is only evident when you travel beyond the appeal site south along
Tollgate Road. Here the landscape character changes from mixed residential
and open field to predominantly open fields with dotted farm buildings and
isolated residential dwellings set within this open landscape. This is entirely
different to my experience of the appeal site which I have outlined above.
16. The Councils raised specific concerns regarding alleged harm which would arise
as a result of the new vehicular access off Bullens Green Lane and also the new
pedestrian footpath and access point along Fellowes Lane. The new access
road would be located towards the northern end of Bullens Green Lane, where
the character of the existing area is already influenced by cars parked on the
public highway, and the visibility of the residential properties beyond, all
contributing to the edge of settlement character. Along Fellowes Lane, a new
pedestrian access to the site would be introduced along with a public footpath.
These characteristics are entirely compatible with the urban edge environment
which currently exists.
17. The changes brought about by the built development and changes to the
surrounding roads would result in visual changes to the area, which in my view
would be localised in impact. Landscaping of the site which would be the
subject of any reserved matters submission would mean that in the context of
the existing immediate locality, the impacts of the development would be
significantly reduced over time. Nevertheless, the proposed development
would introduce built development here where currently no development exists
which would cause some harm to the character and appearance of the area.
18. Taking into account all of the above factors, I conclude that the proposals
would cause limited harm to the character and appearance of the area. I attach
moderate weight to this factor. There would be conflict with policy D2 of the
Welwyn Hatfield District Plan, 2005. Policy D2 requires all new development to
respect and relate to the character and context of the areas. Proposals should
as a minimum maintain and where possible should enhance or improve the
character of the existing area.
19. The Council have also referred to policies D1, RA10 and RA11 in their reasons
for refusal. Policy D1 requires a high standard of design in all new
developments. Policy RA10 relates specifically to the Landscape Character
Assessment outlined above, requiring proposals to contribute, where
appropriate to the maintenance and enhancement of the local landscape
character. Policy RA11 refers to the location of the site within the Watling
Chase Community Forest boundary. The policy requires, amongst other things,
that proposals seek to include planting, leisure and landscape improvements,
where this accords with Green Belt policies. I shall return to the matter of
Green Belt below. However, in broad terms I see no reason why these policy
objectives could not be readily achieved at reserved matters stage through an
appropriately designed scheme and landscape strategy for the site.
20. For the same reasons, the proposals would conflict with policy 2 of the St
Albans Local Plan, 1994. Policy 2 of the St Albans Local Plan 1994 identifies,
amongst other things, Colney Heath as a Green Belt settlement whereby
development will not normally be permitted except for the local housing needs,
local services and facilities needs of the settlement and development must not
detract from the character and setting of the settlement.
21. The Council have also referred me to policies 69, 70 and 74 of the St Albans
Local Plan, 1994. There would be some conflict with policy 69. In relation to the
requirements regarding scale and character in terms of plot ratios, height, size
and scale, as well as the requirements in relation to materials, I can see no
reason why these matters could not be satisfactorily addressed at the reserved
matters stage. However the policy also cross references to the requirements of
policy 2 outlined above which I have already identified a conflict with. Policy 70
goes onto set out a number of design criteria and layout criteria including but
not limited to the dwelling mix, privacy between dwellings, parking and
materials. Policy 74 relates specifically to landscaping and tree preservation.
Again noting this is an outline scheme, and subject to the reserved matters
submission, I can see no reason why the matters raised by policies 70 and 74
could not be appropriately addressed at the reserved matters stage.
Purposes of including land within the Green Belt
22. The Framework and in particular paragraph 133 makes it clear that the
Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt and the protection of
its essential characteristics. It was common ground between the parties that
the proposals represent inappropriate development as identified by the
Framework. In terms of the five purposes of the Green Belt identified at
paragraph 134 of the Framework, it was also common ground that the key
tests in the context of these appeals are the effect on openness, encroachment
and urban regeneration. I deal with each of these matters in turn.
Openness of the Green Belt
23. The appeal site comprises an open agricultural field with a number of public
footpaths which traverse the site. It is entirely free from built development.
The appeal proposals would introduce built development to the site in the form
of 100 dwellings with associated access roads and pavements, residential
gardens, open space and driveways. The precise layout and form of the
development would be determined at reserved matters stage. Even taking into
account the potential for boundary treatment and landscaping which could
include open green space and play space and could be integral to the layout of
the residential development proposed, this would have the effect of a
considerable reduction in the openness of the site. The proposals would lead to
conflict with policy 1 of the St Albans District Council Local Plan, 1994. This
policy identifies the extent of Green Belt within the Borough, and outlines the
developments which would be permitted which broadly align with the
development identified by the Framework. This, harm, in addition to the harm
by inappropriateness, carries substantial weight against the proposals.
Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
24. It was generally agreed that the impact of the appeal proposal would be limited
in terms of the impact on the wider integrity of the Green Belt. This is a view
that I share. In terms of the impact of the development on the purpose of
safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, my attention has been
drawn to a number of background evidence documents including Green Belt
studies. These include a report prepared by SKM Consultants in 2013 which
included an assessment of Green Belt in both WHBC, SADC and Dacorum
Borough Council. Here, the appeal site is assessed as part of parcel 34, a
419ha parcel of land. Reflective of the size and scale of the parcel of land, the
report sets out a number of key characteristics of the land. With reference to
the gap between Hatfield and London Colney, preventing the merger of St
Albans and Hatfield, and preserving the setting of London Colney, Sleapshyde
and Tyttenhanger Park, the report states that the parcel makes a significant
contribution towards safeguarding the countryside and settlement patten and
gaps between settlements. These characteristics bear little or no relationship
to the appeal site, and given the sheer size and scale of the land identified
within the report when compared to the appeal site, I place only very limited
correlation between the conclusions drawn here in relation to the function of
the land or assessment of its function relative to the purposes of the Green Belt
when compared to the appeal site.
25. The most recent Green Belt Assessment which was prepared in relation to the
WHBC Local Plan review is noted as a Stage 3 review and was prepared by LUC
in March 2019. Only the part of the appeal site which falls within Welwyn
Hatfield forms part of the assessment, and is included within the much wider
site area known as parcel 54. The report notes that whilst residential
development is visible across much of the parcel, the parcel as a whole makes
a significant contribution to the safeguarding of the countryside from
encroachment. The report notes that the impact of the release of the parcel as
a whole from the Green Belt would be moderate-high, however the impact on
the integrity of the wider Green Belt would be limited. Again, I place only
limited weight on the findings of this report relative to the appeal site as the
assessment and conclusions drawn relate specifically to parcel 54 as a whole
which includes a much wider area and excludes part of the appeal site in any
event.
26. I have already set out in my assessment of character and appearance above
that the appeal site has an urban edge/ edge of settlement character. I have
made a clear distinction between the appeal site and its separation from the
countryside beyond to the south and east of the appeal site. In this way, the
appeal site is influenced by the surrounding residential development. As a
result of these locational characteristics and influences, the consequences of
the development at the appeal site would mean that the proposals would have
only a localised effect on the Green Belt. The broad thrust of, function and
purpose of the Green Belt in this location would remain and there would be no
significant encroachment into the countryside. I therefore conclude that the
appeal proposal would not result in harm in term of the encroachment of the
Green Belt in this location. This is a neutral factor which weighs neither in
favour nor against the appeal proposals.
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other
urban land
27. The harm alleged here is limited to WHBC where the Council contend that the
proposal would not assist in respect of this fifth purpose of the Green Belt. I am
aware that the emerging plan proposes a number of urban regeneration sites,
some of which already have planning permission. However, I have no
substantive evidence to suggest that the development at this site would
disincentivise the urban regeneration of sites elsewhere. Given the scale of
development proposed to be located within the WHBC boundary I do not
consider that the proposals would be likely to adversely impact on the
regeneration of urban redevelopment sites elsewhere. There would as a result
be no conflict with this purpose. Again, this is a neutral factor which weighs
neither in favour nor against the appeal proposals.
The effect of the proposed development on the setting of the nearby listed building
68 Roestock Lane
28. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 requires that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving a
listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic
interest that it possesses. It is therefore necessary to consider the effect of the
appeal proposals on the setting of the listed building itself.
29. The heritage asset concerned is a grade II listed residential dwelling. It is
located adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. The house which was
formerly two cottages, dates from the late C17 and has been subject to a
number of modifications and extensions over the years. The dwelling is
accessed from Roestock Lane. In this context, it is seen within its garden
enclosure set back from the road adjacent to the Pumping Station and within
the build fabric of residential development along Roestock Lane extending into
Roestock Gardens.
30. From what I saw on my site visits, the significance of the heritage asset is in
the main, locked into its built form and fabric. Given the mature vegetation
which borders the rear garden, the extent of its setting that contributes to its
significance is limited to the rear garden, and the way the front of the house
addresses the main road. From Roestock Lane, the aesthetic value of the
dwelling is evident through architectural detailing to the front elevation which is
clearly visible.
31. The appeal proposals would see residential development introduced to the
existing open agricultural field which abuts the rear boundary of the heritage
asset. There would be no change to the built form or fabric of the dwelling, or
the relationship of the heritage asset with its immediate garden. To my mind,
these are the factors which provide the greatest contribution to the significance
of the heritage asset.
32. The Councils heritage witness stated that the listed building has an historical
association with the surrounding agricultural land and that the appeal site
allows the listed building to have uninterrupted longer range views towards the
south east. I do not agree. There is no evidence which confirms that the
occupiers of the heritage asset were engaged directly with the appeal site.
Neither does this serve to demonstrate any functional relationship between the
appeal site and the heritage asset concerned. There is no evidence of an
existing or former access that existed between the appeal site and the heritage
asset. Whilst the property may well have been at times occupied by
agricultural workers, I have no doubt that this would be common to many
residential dwellings in the area at that time and would indeed be reflective of
the historical associations with farming in years gone past in the immediate
area and beyond.
33. Turning to consider the issue of views, I am unable to agree with the Councils
contention that uninterrupted longer-range views across the appeal site from
the property contribute to the significance of the listed building. The extensive
and mature boundary vegetation to the property provides significant screening
to the boundary of the property, such that these views would at best be
described as limited. In any event, given my conclusions above regarding the
linkage between the appeal site and the heritage asset, I am not convinced
that longer-range views from the property make any contribution to the
historical significance of the dwelling. As I have already set out, the main front
of the dwelling addresses Roestock Lane. That situation would not be changed.
Neither, given the existing screening, that could be augmented through
reserved matters, would the significance the listed building derives from its
garden setting be undermined by the proposals.
34. Looking at the issue of views of the dwelling from the appeal site, the
appreciation of the architectural interest of the building is limited. The rear
elevation has been subject to extensions over time. The property is seen in the
context of the other immediate surrounding residential dwellings which lie
adjacent to the appeal site, their rear gardens and extensive and mature
vegetation to these boundaries, not as an isolated heritage asset with any
functional or historical link to the appeal site. The reserved matters submission
will afford the Councils the opportunity for enhancements to the landscape
setting in the vicinity of the site boundary.
35. It is common ground between the parties that the harm to the significance of
the designated heritage asset would be less that substantial. It is also common
ground that the public benefits of the scheme outweigh the less than
substantial harm. For the reasons I have outlined above, even the appellants
assessment at the very lowest end of the broad spectrum of less than
substantial harm overstates the schemes likely effect in this context. As I have
already set out, the main aspect of the dwelling is from Roestock Lane. In such
views, the appeal proposals would have a very limited effect on the current
position.
36. I conclude that the proposals would not result in any harm to the setting or
significance of the heritage asset concerned. As such, s.66(1) of the planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not engaged, and there
would be no conflict with policy 86 of the St Albans District Local Plan (1994)
which states, amongst other things, that where proposals effect the setting of a
building of historic interest, the Council will have due regard to the desirability
of preserving the building, its setting, or any features of architectural or
historic interest which it possesses. Policy D1 is also referred to from the
Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (2005). However, this policy concerns the
provision of high quality design and is not of relevance to the heritage matters
before me.
Whether the site is in an accessible location with regards to local services and
facilities
37. The Councils contend that the appeal site is in an unsuitable and isolated
location and as a result, it would fail to provide satisfactory access to services
and facilities by means other than the private motor car. The appeal site is
located on the eastern edge of Colney Heath. The parties agreed a facilities
plan which clearly demonstrates the location of the appeal site relative to
services, facilities and public transport and included walking and cycling
distances from the appeal site. I will firstly assess the availability of and access
to services and facilities outside of Colney Heath by means other than the
private car, before turning to consider the facilities and services available
within Colney Heath itself and how accessible these maybe to potential future
occupiers at the appeal site.
38. In terms of public transport and travel outside of Colney Heath, there are a
number of bus stops available most notably on Roestock Lane, Fellowes Lane
and Hall Gardens. These are all within an 800m walking distance of the site, a
flat comfortable walk. These stops provide services to both Potters Bar, Welwyn
Garden City, St Albans and Hatfield Tesco Extra where more extensive
shopping, medical, education, employment and leisure facilities are located.
Whilst I accept that the buses serving these stops are limited in number and
frequency and could by no means support regular commuting, they
nevertheless provide an alternative mode of transport to the private car and
could provide an important alternative to those sectors of the community who
do not have access to a private car. Although the reliability of the services was
questioned, I have no robust evidence to suggest that the service is so
severely unreliable that it would lead me to reach a different conclusion on this
issue.
39. For travel further afield, the nearest train services are provided at Welham
Green, approximately 3.5km away with direct and frequent services to London.
Turning to consider cycling, the Council’s witness raised a number of concerns
in relation to the nature of the roads and suitability for cycling. HCC as
highways authority advised that cycling facilities are adequate with safe routes
and access to the national cycle route network. These include National Cycle
Route 61 approximately 3km from the appeal site providing access to St Albans
and cycle route 12 approximately 2km to the south east providing access to
both Welham Green and Hatfield. The agreed facilities plan indicates that
taking into account average cycling times, a number of services and facilities
would be available between 6 and 12 minutes away. I saw evidence on my site
visits of both Bullens Green Lane and Fellowes Lane being well used for
recreational purposes, including walkers and cyclists. Taking into account the
average cycle times and distances to facilities outside of Colney Heath as set
out within the facilities plan, I concur with HCC that cycling provides a
reasonable alternative in this location to the private car.
40. Turning to consider journeys possible on foot, Colney Heath itself has a number
of facilities and services which one would expect in a settlement of this size.
These include but are not limited to a public house, primary school which has
some albeit limited capacity and pre school, church, takeaway, village hall,
hairdressers, scout hut, post office and mini mart. The availability of the public
rights of way (PROW) within the site mean that these facilities and services
could be accessible through a choice of routes, utilising the connections to
either Roestock Lane or Fellowes Lane and then onwards to the High Street.
This choice of routes adds to the quality of the walking experience in this
location however I acknowledge the concerns expressed regarding the use of
the underpass under the A1 and the quality of the pedestrian environment
provided here. In common with other lower order settlements in both SADC
and WHBC, residents are expected to travel to larger settlements highlighted
above for medical facilities, larger scale supermarkets, employment and
secondary education and beyond. To my mind, the facilities and services
available within Colney Heath and the accessibility of these facilities both on
foot and by cycle mean that a number of day to day needs could be met
without reliance on the private car. As a result, the location of the appeal site
cannot be described as isolated. These factors weigh in favour of the appeal
proposals.
41. Overall and to conclude, taking into account the essence of the Framework test
as to whether a genuine choice of transport modes is on offer, the appeal
proposals would in my view represent a sustainable location for new residential
development.
42. My attention has been drawn to policy 2 of the St Albans Local Plan 1994 which
identifies, amongst other things, Colney Heath as Green Belt settlement
whereby development will not normally be permitted except for the local
housing needs, local services and facilities needs of the settlement and
development must not detract from the character and setting of the
settlement. Given the policy wording, there would be a conflict with this policy.
In relation to WHDC, I also conclude that the proposals would accord with
policies SD1 and H2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan, 2005. Policy SD1
confirms that development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that
the principles of sustainable development are satisfied. Policy H2 applies a
criteria based approach to windfall residential development, which includes,
amongst other things, the location and accessibility of the site to services and
facilities by transport modes other than the car.
43. Policy GBSP2 is also referred to however this is a policy relating to towns and
specified settlements where development will be located and the settlement of
Colney Heath is not identified by the policy however the supporting text to the
policy identifies Bullen’s Green and refers to development to support services
and facilities. Overall, the proposals would not accord with this policy.
44. Policy R1 requires development to take place on land which has been
previously used or development. It goes onto state that development will only
be permitted on ‘greenfield’ land where it can be demonstrated that no suitable
opportunities exist on previously used or developed land. The proposals would
conflict with this policy.
Whether very special circumstances exist
45. Substantial weight is attached to any harm to the Green Belt by reason of
inappropriateness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the
potential harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations. It is widely acknowledged that the
definition of very special circumstances do not in themselves have to be rare or
uncommon1. I now turn to consider the factors which I have taken into
account in making this assessment.
Provision of Market Housing
46. Paragraph 59 of the Framework seeks to support the Governments objective of
significantly boosting the supply of homes. In order to achieve this, the
Framework notes that it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of
land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with
specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is
developed without unnecessary delay.
47. I am aware of the Written Ministerial Statement of December 2015 which
indicates that unmet need is unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to Green Belt
and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances. However, in
common with the appeal decision2 referred to, I note that this provision has not
been incorporated within the Framework which has subsequently been updated
and similar guidance within the Planning Practice Guidance has been removed.
I can therefore see no reason to give this anything other than little weight as a
material consideration.
48. It is common ground that neither SADC or WHBC can demonstrate a five year
supply of deliverable homes. Whilst there is disagreement between the parties
regarding the extent of this shortfall, the parties also agreed that this is not a
matter upon which the appeals would turn. I agree with this position. Even
taking the Councils supply positions of WHBC 2.58 years and SADC at 2.4
years, the position is a bleak one and the shortfall in both local authorities is
considerable and significant.
49. There is therefore no dispute that given the existing position in both local
authority areas, the delivery of housing represents a benefit. Even if the site is
not developed within the timeframe envisaged by the appellant, and I can see
no compelling reason this would not be achieved, it would nevertheless, when
delivered, positively boost the supply within both local authority areas. From
the evidence presented in relation to the emerging planning policy position for
both authorities, this is not a position on which I would envisage there would
be any marked improvement on in the short to medium term. I afford very
substantial weight to the provision of market housing which would make a
positive contribution to the supply of market housing in both local authority
areas.
Provision of Self Build
50. Turning to consider the issue of Self Build, as part of the overall dwelling
numbers, the proposal would deliver up to 10 self build or custom build
dwellings. The Government attaches great importance to the provision of this
element of the supply. Notably, paragraph 61 of the Framework identifies that
planning policies should reflect the housing needs of different sectors of the
community including, but not limited to people wishing to commission or build
their own homes. Footnote 26 gives further explanation with reference to the
requirements of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as
amended). The Planning Practice Guidance advises that local authorities
1 Wychavon DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Butler [2008] EWCA Civ 692.
2 APP/C2741/W/19/3227359
should use the demand data from registers, supported by additional data from
secondary sources, to understand and consider future need for this type of
housing in their area. Furthermore, it goes onto note that the registers are
likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and
custom housebuilding.
51. In the case of these appeals, there are no development plan policies which
relate specifically to the provision or delivery of self building housing in either
authority. Emerging policy SP7 at WHBC identifies four allocations which would
contribute towards self build plot provision although the allocations do not
specify how many plots. Furthermore, neither authority has an uptodate
assessment of likely future demand for this type of housing in line with the
Planning Practice Guidance. The appellant provided detailed evidence in
relation to the Custom Build Register, none of which was disputed. Evidence
also presented demonstrated that the statutory duty to provide for base period
plot provision has also not been met in either authority, in some periods by a
significant margin. Taking into account other secondary data sources, these
shortfalls may well be on the conservative side.
52. In common with both market housing and affordable housing, the situation in
the context of provision of sites and past completions is a particularly poor one.
To conclude, I am of the view that the provision of 10 self build service plots at
the appeal site will make a positive contribution to the supply of self build plots
in both local planning authority areas. I am attaching substantial weight to this
element of housing supply.
Provision of affordable housing
53. The uncontested evidence presented by the appellant on affordable housing for
both local authorities illustrates some serious shortcomings in terms of past
delivery trends. In relation to WHBC, the affordable housing delivery which has
taken place since 2015/16 is equivalent to a rate of 23 homes per annum. The
appellant calculates that the shortfall stands in the region of 4000 net
affordable homes since the 2017 SHMA Update, a 97% shortfall in affordable
housing delivery. If the shortfall is to be addressed within the next 5 years, it
would required the delivery of 1397 affordable homes per annum. In SADC,
the position is equally as serious. Since the period 2012/13, a total of 244 net
affordable homes have been delivered at an average of 35 net dwellings per
annum. Again, this equates to a shortfall also in the region of 4000 dwellings
(94%) which, if to be addressed in the next 5 years, would require the delivery
of 1185 affordable dwellings per annum.
54. The persistent under delivery of affordable housing in both local authority areas
presents a critical situation. Taking into account the extremely acute affordable
housing position in both SADC and WHBC, I attach very substantial weight to
the delivery of up to 45 affordable homes in this location in favour of the
proposals.
Other Matters
Other Appeal Decisions
55. I have been referred to no fewer than 21 other appeal decisions3 in addition to
9 Secretary of State decisions4 as part of the evidence before me in relation to
these appeals. Both the appellant and the Councils have sought to draw
comparisons and similarities between this extensive array of decisions before
me for a variety of reasons. Two historical decisions at the appeal site, as
acknowledged by the Councils, were determined under a different planning
policy framework and accordingly I attach very limited weight to these. In
relation to the appeal decision at the neighbouring site5, I do not have the full
details of the evidence which was before that Inspector, the main issues were
different to these appeals and the decision predates the current Framework.
56. Rarely will any other appeal decision provide an exact comparison to another
situation. In some of the cases referred to, there are similarities in the size
and scale of the proposal, in other cases there are entirely different planning
policy positions, housing supply considerations, land use considerations,
locational characteristics, main issues and other factors which have been
weighed in the balance. Furthermore, it remained common ground that each
appeal should be considered on its own merits as is the case here. It is for the
decision maker in each case to undertake the planning balancing exercise and
as a result, the weight I have attached to these other appeal cases is limited.
Other Matters
57. I have considered the effect of the proposals on the occupiers of the
neighbouring dwellings in terms of effect on living conditions, highways
impacts, flooding and loss of agricultural land. There are no objections from
either SADC , WHBC or HCC in relation to these matters. I acknowledge
concerns expressed by local residents in relation to existing flooding which
takes place on Bullens Green Lane, however I am satisfied that appropriately
worded conditions in relation to surface water and drainage can satisfactorily
address any impacts of the appeal proposals in this regard. Similarly, I have
no evidence before me which would lead me to reach a different conclusion to
the Councils in relation to the effect of the development on the living conditions
of neighbouring properties.
58. In terms of highways impacts, I acknowledge that a number of local residents
have expressed concerns regarding localised congestion and parking and
overall highways impacts. I am also mindful of the concerns expressed by
Colney Heath Parish Council in connection with the data used to support the
appeal proposals. However, taking into account the likely vehicular traffic to be
generated by the development and the conclusions reached by the supporting
3 Two historical appeal decisions at the appeal site E6/1973/3202 & E6/1954/0860, APP/B1930/W/19/3235642,
APP/Y0435/W/20/3251121, APP/C2714/W/19/3227359, APP/D2320/W/20/3247136, APP/P0119/W/17/3191477,
APP/P1615/W/18/3213122, APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 & 3214498, APP/W0530/W/19/3230103,
APP/C1570/W/19/3234530 & 3234532, APP/X0360/W/19/3238048, APP/H1840/W/20/3255350,
APP/P3040/W/17/3185493, APP/L3815/W/16/31652283165228__https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3165228__View appeal 3165228 on ACP website__true__ on ACP website__true__, APP/D0840/A/13/2209757, APP/G1630/W/14/3001706,
APP/G5180/W/16/3144248, APP/G5180/W/18/3206569, APP/E2001/W/20/3250240,
4 APP/W4705/V/18/3208020, APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827, APP/C4235/W/18/3205559, APP/P1615/A/14/2218921,
APP/A0665/W/14/2212671, APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & 2199426, APP/P4605/W/18/3192918,
APP/Q3630/A/05/119826, APP/W1850/W/20/3244410
5 APP/B1930/W/15/3137409
transport assessments, I concur with the view that this will not have a severe
impact on the operation of the wider highways network.
59. The site access would be located off Bullens Green Lane where it is currently
subject to the national speed limit. The Highways Authority consider that the
introduction of a transitional speed limit restriction may be necessary to the
south of the site. As a result, two Grampian conditions are proposed to
address this issue. I conclude that the development would not cause harmful
levels of congestion or increase risk to highway safety.
60. I note the conclusions the Councils have drawn in relation to the loss of
agricultural land and the inconsistencies between the development plan policies
and the Framework in this regard and can see no reason to disagree with the
conclusions drawn by the Councils in relation to this matter.
61. The Councils argued that the site is not a suitable location for housing as it
does not form part of the emerging policy context for either SADC or WHBC.
Whilst I acknowledge this to be the case, this in itself is not a reason that the
appeals should fail. In neither SADC nor WHBC is there an emerging policy
position to which any significant weight can be attached. The SADC Local Plan
Review was adopted in 1994, some 27 years ago. The most recent
replacement plan was withdrawn. As a result, there is currently no uptodate
strategic housing land requirement assessment which has been subject to any
rigorous soundness assessment through the local plan examination process.
62. Turning to consider the position at WHBC, the adopted plan dates from 2005,
some 16 years ago. The emerging plan was submitted for examination some 4
years ago. As was outlined during the inquiry, Interim Findings issued by the
Inspector in October 2020 and subsequent round up notes issued by the
Inspector in March 2021 set out that findings in relation to the FOAHN, windfall
allowance and green belt boundaries at proposed development sites are yet to
be issued. As a result, I am unable to conclude with any certainty when the
WHBC Plan will be found sound and as such attach very limited weight to this
emerging plan.
Biodiversity
63. Policy R11 of the WHBC Local Plan requires, amongst other things, that all new
development should demonstrate how it would contribute positively to the
biodiversity of the site by meeting a number of identified criteria. In the case
of these appeals, the criteria most relevant are (i) the retention and
enhancement of natural features of the site and (ii) the promotion of natural
areas and wildlife corridors where appropriate as part of the design. For SADC,
my attention has been drawn to policy 106 of the SADC Local Plan 1994
however this policy deals specifically with the effect of planning applications on
identified SSSIs, Nature Reserves, other sites of wildlife, geographical or
geomorphological importance which is not applicable to the appeal site. This is
a position confirmed by the Councils in their proof of evidence.
64. The appeals are supported by an amended Ecological Impact Assessment.
Hertfordshire Ecology, as ecological advisors to both WHBC and SADC
confirmed that subject to a suitably worded condition and obligations within the
Section 106 agreement, both of which I set out later within this report, the
appeal proposals adequately address the ecological impacts of the development
at the appeal site. I therefore conclude that the proposals would accord with
policy R11 of the WHBC Local Plan in this regard.
Planning Obligation
65. I have taken into account the various obligations identified within the executed
Section 106 Agreement with regards to the statutory requirements in
Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as well as the tests
identified at paragraph 56 of the Framework. The obligation would secure a
number of provisions relating to HCC, SADC and WHBC. I deal with each of
these individual matters in turn.
66. A number of clauses in relation to biodiversity measures are proposed. A
biodiversity offsetting contribution is included within the obligation, which
would contribute towards the creation of new habitats. This would be
calculated by using the Biodiversity Net Gain Matrix which provides for a
financial contribution based on the formula identified by the matrix which
measures and takes into account biodiversity losses and gains resulting from
the development. In support of this approach, the Councils have identified that
adopting the use of this matrix approach allows for landscaping and open space
proposals as well as on site mitigation to be taken into account at reserved
matters stage. In addition, the parties have also referred me to an alternative
appeal decision6 to endorse the use of the Biodiversity Net Gain Matrix
approach. Once calculated, a scheme would be submitted for approval to both
Councils referred to as the biodiversity offsetting scheme. In addition to this
offsetting, biodiversity onsite compensation would also be provided through
the identification of biodiversity measures to be implemented within the site as
part of an identified onsite compensation scheme. In both instances, the
Councils would be approving the onsite and offsetting schemes with reference
to the biodiversity metric formular approach.
67. A green space contribution, to be calculated based on the precise number of
dwellings and mix, will deliver the creation of a wildflower meadow at
Angerland public open space off Bishops Rise, South Hatfield. Officers
confirmed that this was the closest facility to the appeal site to which
improvement requirements have been identified.
68. I note the Councils expressed concerns that the appellant could rely on the
green space contribution as part of the biodiversity offsetting scheme and
biodiversity offsetting contribution. However the biodiversity offsetting
scheme, by definition, requires a scheme to be approved by both Councils to
include but not limited the identification of an appropriate receptor site(s). As
a result, I consider that this matter is adequately addressed by the obligation
and the concerns are unfounded.
69. Taking into account the information and evidence presented, I am content that
the obligations in relation to biodiversity, including the offsetting contribution,
offsetting scheme and onsite compensation are necessary, directly related to
the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. I draw
the same conclusion in relation to the green space contribution. These
obligations therefore comply with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and
can be taken into account in the grant of planning permission.
6 APP/Y0435/W/20/3251121
70. In addition to the above, the obligation would secure the provision of affordable
housing, apportioned equally between WHBC and SADC. The affordable
housing scheme would also secure the mix of units and tenures. In a similar
way, the obligation would secure the plots and associated provision for the self
build and custom housebuilding plots on the site. A district community facilities
contribution is sought, to provide improvements towards the Roestock Park
Scout Hut. Obligations relating to the highways works necessary to implement
the scheme, waste and recycling, bus stop improvements at Hall Gardens,
travel plan, libraries contribution towards improvements to the Creator Space
at Hatfield Library, education contribution for both primary and secondary
school provision, youth contribution towards increased provision at Hatfield
Youth Centre, indoor sports facilities contribution towards the University of
Hertfordshire and/or Hatfield Swimming Pools, and medical facilities in the form
of community healthcare, general medical services specified at Northdown
Road and/or Burvill House Surgery and mental health contribution specified at
Queensway Health Centre and Roseanne House are also included. Finally, a
monitoring fee, not to exceed £5000 would be payable to WHBC to cover the
reasonable and proper administrative costs of monitoring compliance with the
obligations.
71. The delivery of up to 100 dwellings in this location will result in an increase in
the local population, with subsequent impacts on schools, social infrastructure
such as medical facilities, libraries, sports and transport. A number of the
other obligations, for example the provision of self or custom build housing as
well as the provision for affordable housing weigh in favour of the appeal
proposals.
72. I conclude that all of the aspects of the obligations outlined above are
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly
related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind
to the development. As a result, the obligations therefore comply with
Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and can be taken into account in the
grant of planning permission.
73. The obligation also includes a contribution towards outdoor sports facilities,
specifically improving drainage at grass pitches at Welham Green recreation
ground and/or towards repairs to the bowls ground in the same location.
Welham Green is approximately 3.5km from the appeal site. There is an
existing recreational facility next to the appeal site, as well as outdoor sports
facilities, albeit within SADC, located locally within Colney Heath. I am not
convinced that this contribution would be necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms or directly related to the development.
Accordingly, I do not find this part of the obligation would satisfy the necessary
tests.
Conditions
74. A round table session was held at the inquiry to discuss a list of agreed
planning conditions. I have considered this list of conditions with reference to
the tests as set out at paragraph 55 of the Framework. Where necessary, I
have amended the wording of the conditions in the interests of precision and
clarity.
75. In the interests of certainty and highways safety, conditions outlining the
approved plans, including the access arrangements and their implementation,
as well as the visibility splays, are necessary. I have however not included the
suggested condition relating to the parameter plan as I do not consider a
condition relating to this is necessary or reasonable in this instance. As the
proposals are in outline form only, it is however necessary to specify the
reserved matters to be submitted for approval and associated time limits for
their submission and subsequent implementation. Two highways related
conditions are attached. The first relate to submission, approval and
implementation of any necessary Traffic Regulations Order (TRO). The second
relates to the provision of a safe and suitable pedestrian crossing and footway
on Fellowes Lane. Both of these conditions are necessary in the interests of
highways safety.
76. A condition requiring an archaeological written scheme of investigation is both
necessary and reasonable in order to establish the presence or absence of
archaeological remains. Conditions requiring the submission of a scheme
relating to surface water drainage and also relating to the arrangements for
surface water to be disposed of are necessary and reasonable to ensure the
satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site. To address
any risk of flooding, a further condition is attached requiring the development
to be completed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage
Strategy. In addition, to prevent contamination, conditions have been attached
which require full details of any substance containers to be submitted and
approved in writing and also specific details of works involving excavation. A
condition relating to indoor and outdoor noise levels is both necessary and
reasonable to protect the living conditions of future residents. Furthermore, a
condition relating to accessible housing is justified in order to ensure the needs
of accessible or wheelchair housing are met.
77. The submission of a construction management plan is required by condition 11.
This is necessary in the interests of highways safety and also the living
conditions of nearby residents. In order to promote sustainable transport a
condition relating to the provision of electric vehicle charging points has been
included. Conditions covering landscaping details, a landscaping and ecological
management plan and requiring a tree protection plan and method statement
are necessary to ensure that the appearance of the development is
satisfactory, biodiversity impacts of the development are suitably addressed
and that where necessary, to ensure that retained trees and hedgerows are
protected during the course of construction.
Conclusions
78. The proposals would cause harm by reason of inappropriateness and harm to
openness. Both of these attract substantial weight. I have also attached
moderate weight to harm to the character and appearance of the area.
However, these appeals involves two local authority areas, both of which have
acute housing delivery shortages and acute affordable housing need. The
proposals would make a contribution towards addressing these needs in the
form of market, self build and affordable housing in both WHBC and SADC. I
have attached very substantial weight to the provision of both market housing
and affordable housing. I have attached substantial weight to the provision of
self build housing. These factors, when considered collectively demonstrate
that very special circumstances do exist.
79. I conclude that in the case of these appeals, I find that the other considerations
in this case clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Looking at the
case as a whole, very special circumstances do exist to justify inappropriate
development in the Green Belt. My findings on the other matters before me do
not lead me to a different conclusion. As a result, I therefore conclude that the
proposals would comply with both the Framework and the development plans
taken as a whole. For the reasons given above, and having considered all
other matters raised, the appeals are allowed.
C Masters
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITES:
Matthew Fraser of Counsel Instructed by WHBC and SADC
He called:
Phillip Hughes BA(Hons) Director of PHD Chartered Town Planners Limited
MRTPI FRGS Dip Man MCMI
Other Participants at Round Table Discussions:
David Elmore Senior Development Management Officer, Welwyn
Hatfield Borough Council
Ruth Ambrose St Albans Borough Council
MA (Hons) MTP MRTPI
Martin Hicks Hertfordshire Ecology
Martin Wells Hertfordshire County Council Growth and Infrastructure
Unit
Chris Martin Hertfordshire County Council Children’s Services
(Education)
Lindsay McCauley Hertfordshire County Council Highways
Rob Walker Solicitor, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Zack Simons of Counsel Instructed by Russell Gray of Woods Hardwick
He called:
Andrew Crutchley BA (Hons) Director at the Environmental Dimension Partnership
PG Dip (Oxon) MCIfA
John Freeman
MEng CEng MICE MICHT MIOD Director of Woods Hardwick Ltd
Gary Holliday B.A (Hons) MPhil
CMLI Ltd Director at FPCR Environment and Design Ltd
Andrew Moger BA (Hons) MA Associate Director at Tetlow King Planning Ltd
MRTPI
James Stacey BA (Hons) Dip TP Senior Director at Tetlow King Planning Ltd
MRTPI
Russell Gray BA (Hons) DIP UP MRTPI Director of Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd
Other Participants at Round Table Discussion
Paul Arnett Town Legal
RULE SIX PARTY:
John Clemow – 4ColneyHeath
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Cllr Peter Cook Colney Heath Parish Council
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING INQUIRY
CD 10.13 Appeal Decision, land at Church Lane, Wittington
CD 7.07 Extracts from SADC SHLAA 2009
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter
called, the reserved matters) shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the
development shall be carried out as approved.
2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this
permission.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: drawing no. 17981 1002 (Site Location Plan),
drawing no. 18770-FELL-5-500 Rev B (Revised Site Access) and drawing no.
18770-FELL-5-501 Rev A (Proposed Footpath Connection).
4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved, whichever is the later.
5. No development of the site shall commence until:
a) A scheme to reduce speeds (to support the access proposals designed to
30mph) on Bullens Green Lane, Colney Heath, is provided to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any scheme is required to be
designed in line with the requirements of Hertfordshire County Council’s
(HCC) Speed Management Strategy (SMS); and
b) Any necessary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is made in respect of part
a) to this condition. ‘Made’ means that the TRO has been approved and can
be implemented.
No occupancy of the site can occur until the Traffic Regulation Order referred
to above is implemented and brought into force. Evidence of the
implemented scheme, in the form of a Certificate of Completion of the
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, must be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority.
6. No development of the site shall commence until a scheme for the provision
of a safe and suitable pedestrian crossing and footway on Fellowes Lane,
Colney Heath, in line with drawing number 18770-FELL-5-501 Rev A in
principle, is provided and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
and is designed in line with the requirements as set out in Hertfordshire
County Council’s Roads in Hertfordshire: Highway Design Guide (3rd
edition). No occupation of any part of the development may occur before
implementation of the approved scheme referred to in Part 1 of the
condition.
7. No works involving excavations (e.g. piling or the implementation of a
geothermal open/closed loop system) shall be carried until the following has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
a) An Intrusive Ground Investigation to identify the current state of the site
and appropriate techniques to avoid displacing any shallow contamination to
a greater depth
b) A Risk Assessment identifying both the aquifer and the abstraction
point(s) as potential receptor(s) of contamination including turbidity.
c) A Method Statement detailing the depth and type of excavations (e.g.
piling) to be undertaken including mitigation measures (e.g. turbidity
monitoring, appropriate piling design, off site monitoring boreholes etc.) to
prevent and/or minimise any potential migration of pollutants including
turbidity or existing contaminants such as hydrocarbons to public water
supply. Any excavations must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of
the approved method statement.
All works shall be carried out in accordance with approved reports listed
above.
The applicant or developer shall notify Affinity Water of excavation works 15
days before commencement in order to implement enhanced monitoring at
the public water supply abstraction and to plan for potential interruption of
service with regards to water supply.
8. Development must not commence until an Archaeological Written Scheme of
Investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of
archaeological significance and research questions; and:
a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;
b) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording as
required by the evaluation;
c) The programme for post investigation assessment
d) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording;
e) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and
records of the site investigation;
f) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of
the site investigation;
g) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake
the works set out within the Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.
The development must not take place other than in accordance with the
approved programme of archaeological works set out in the Written Scheme
of Investigation.
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported
in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority.
An investigation and risk assessment and, where remediation is necessary, a
remediation scheme must then be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved. The Local
Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of
commencement of the remediation scheme works.
The investigation and risk assessment must assess the nature and extent of
any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site and
must be undertaken by competent persons. A written report of the findings
must be produced and the findings must include:
(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
- human health;
- property (existing or proposed) including buildings;
- crops;
- livestock;
- pets;
- woodland and service lines and pipes;
- adjoining land;
- groundwaters and surface waters;
- ecological systems;
- archaeological sites and ancient monuments.
(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred
option(s).
The investigation and risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with
DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
Remediation Scheme
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme, a verification report which demonstrates the effectiveness of the
remediation carried out must be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority.
9. Development must not commence until the final design of the drainage
scheme is completed and sent to the local planning authority for approval.
The surface water drainage system should be based on the submitted the
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (prepared by Woods
Hardwick, ref: 18770/FRA and DS, dated August 2020). The scheme must
also include:
a) Detailed, updated post-development calculations/modelling in relation to
surface water for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year
return period, this must also include a +40% allowance for climate change;
b) A detailed drainage plan including the location and provided volume of all
SuDS features, pipe runs and discharge points. If areas are to be designated
for informal flooding these should also be shown on a detailed site plan;
c) Exceedance flow paths for surface water for events greater than the 1 in
100 year including climate change allowance;
d) Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS features including
cross section drawings, their size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet
features including any connecting pipe runs. This should include details
regarding the connection into the existing Thames Water surface water
sewer;
e)The drainage scheme shall also confirm use of an oil/water interceptor;
and
f) Final detailed management plan to include arrangements for adoption and
any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout
its lifetime.
The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in
accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the
scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in
writing, by the local planning authority.
10. Development must not commence until details of all substance containers
are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
These details must include:
a) Confirmation of bunding of 110% capacity; and
b) Confirmation of the presence of a leak detection system and methodology
that includes immediate notification to Affinity Water
11. Development must not commence until a Construction Management Plan has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter the construction of the development must only be carried out in
accordance with the approved Plan. The Construction Management Plan
must include details of:
a) Construction vehicle numbers, type, routing;
b)Access arrangements to the site;
c) Traffic management requirements including arrangements for the PROW
across the site during construction;
d) Construction and storage compounds (including areas designated for car
parking, loading / unloading and turning areas);
e) Siting and details of wheel washing facilities;
f) Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway;
g) Timing of construction activities (including delivery times and removal of
waste) and to avoid school pick up/drop off times;
h) Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of
construction activities;
i) Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and
temporary access to the public highway; and
j) Where works cannot be contained wholly within the site a plan should be
submitted showing the site layout on the highway including extent of
hoarding, pedestrian routes and remaining road width for vehicle
movements.
12.No development above ground level shall take place until a scheme to
protect the development from noise due to transport sources is submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme must
ensure that:
The indoor ambient noise levels in living rooms and bedrooms meet the
standards within BS 8233:2014. Relaxed noise levels in BS 8233:2014 will
not be accepted in living rooms and bedrooms unless it can be demonstrated
that good acoustic design practices have been followed and the
implementation of acoustic barriers/bunds to lower façade noise levels as
much as reasonably practicable, have been implemented. Internal LAmax
levels should not exceed 45dB more than ten times a night in bedrooms;
If opening windows raises the internal noise levels above those within
BS8233, the mechanical ventilation will need to be installed, with ventilation
rates required to meet those found within The Noise Insulation Regulations
1975. Alternative methods (such as passive systems) and rates can be
considered, however, evidence that overheating will not occur will need to be
provided in the form of a SAP assessment conducted with windows closed,
curtains/blinds not being used, showing the required ventilation rates to
ensure that the medium risk category is not exceeded. Details must be
provided of the ventilation system to be installed and to demonstrate that it
will provide the ventilation rates shown in the SAP Assessment; and
Outdoor amenity areas must meet the 55dB WHO Community Noise
Guideline Level
The approved scheme must be implemented prior to first occupation, unless
the Local Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing.
13.No development above ground level shall take place until a scheme setting
out the arrangements for the delivery of accessible housing will be supplied
to the council in accordance with the following requirements:
a) A schedule of units, together with appropriate plans and drawings, must
be submitted to and be approved by the local planning authority setting out
details of the number, layout and location of all units that will comply with
Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations 2010. At least 20% of all new
dwellings must meet Building Regulations Part M4(2) standards for
‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’;
b) All units specified as M4(2) in the agreed schedule and plans must be
implemented in accordance with that approval and in compliance with the
corresponding part of the Building Regulations in that regard;
c) The person carrying out the building work must inform the Building
Control body which requirements apply; and
d) Written verification of the completion of all dwellings in accord with part
(a) above will be supplied to the local planning authority within 30 days of
the practical completion [of the block it forms part of].
14.Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the
vehicular access must be provided and thereafter retained at the position
shown on drawing no. 18770-FELL-5-500 Rev B in accordance with the
agreed highway specification . Arrangement shall be made for surface water
drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not
discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.
15.Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a visibility
splay must be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on
drawing no. 18770-FELL-5-500 Rev B. The splay shall thereafter be
maintained at all times free from any obstruction between 600mm and 2m
above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
16.Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a minimum
provision of 20% of the car parking spaces must be designated for plug-in
Electric Vehicles (EV) and served by EV ready [domestic and/or fast]
charging points.
17.The development permitted by this planning permission must be carried out
in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy
(prepared by Woods Hardwick, ref: 18770/FRA and DS, dated August 2020)
and the following mitigation measures:
a) Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the critical storm events
so that it will not exceed the surface water run-off rate of 9.3 l/s during the
1 in 100 year event plus 40% of climate change event;
b) Providing storage to ensure no increase in surface water run-off volumes
for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + climate change
event providing a total storage volume in two attenuation basins;
c) Discharge of surface water from the private drainage network into the
Thames Water surface water sewer system located in Bullens Green Lane.
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation
of the development hereby approved.
Surface water must not be disposed of via direct infiltration into the ground
via a soakaway.
Notwithstanding the submitted ‘Updated Arboricultural Assessment – Version
2 (by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd, July 2020), a detailed tree
protection plan and method statement should be submitted as part of
application(s) for reserved matters approval as required by Condition 1.
18.Full details of both soft and hard landscape works should be submitted as
part of application(s) for reserved matters approval as required by Condition
1. The landscaping details to be submitted shall include:
a) existing and proposed finished levels and contours
b) trees and hedgerow to be retained;
c) planting plans, including specifications of species, sizes, planting centres,
number and percentage mix, and details of seeding or turfing;
d) hard surfacing;
e) means of enclosure and boundary treatments;
f) Details of toddler play area including play equipment; and
g) Any other structures (such as furniture, refuse or other storage units,
signs, lighting)
19.A landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) should be submitted as
part of application(s) for reserved matters approval as required by Condition
1 and include:
a) A description of the objectives;
b) Habitat/feature creation measures proposed
c) Maintenance of habitat/feature creation measures in the long term and
those responsible for delivery;
d) Lighting strategy (aim to ensure that illumination of the existing
hedgerows does not exceed 0.5 lux); and
e) A monitoring programme and the measures required to adapt the LEMP
should objectives fail to be met.
The LEMP should cover all landscape areas within the site, other than small
privately owned domestic gardens.