Agenda item

To consider application UTT/22/1261/FUL.

The Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of 10 existing structures, the conversion and restoration of 8 existing buildings to form 8 holiday cottages and 1 dwelling, the construction of 3 single storey dwellings and the creation of a pedestrian and cycle link path.

He recommended that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 17 of the report.

In response to questions from Members, officers clarified the following:

• Place Services had raised concerns regarding the proposed installation of glass balconies and balustrades. It was therefore conditioned that samples of the materials to be used on the external finishes would need to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of construction.
• Developments in the Green Belt were only deemed acceptable in “exceptional circumstances”. In this case, this would be by bringing a non-designated heritage asset back into use.
• The site owners would be required to apply for further Planning Permission if they wished to change the buildings from one Use Class to another: for example, the conversion into residential properties.
• The construction of the three single story dwellings were required in order to enable the non-designated heritage asset to be brought back.
• The decision to depart from the original site footprint was made by the developer.

Officers confirmed that the 2019 appeal had not been referenced in the report, nor considered in the officer’s recommendation. The appeal had been for a larger site with more dwellings but had been dismissed for various reasons including the impact on the Green Belt, the character and appearance of the area, heritage and highway safety. These had since been addressed in the most recent application.

Members discussed:

• If approved, the proposal may open pathways for other developers to build on Green Belt.
• Mill Lane was too narrow to accommodate the additional traffic and could not be widened as householders owned the land adjacent to the highway.
• Holiday homes in Hatfield Heath was not a viable proposal.
• There was a need for more affordable housing in the area.
• The proposal was an opportunity to bring back a non-designated heritage asset which would otherwise deteriorate further and be forgotten.
• Both members and the applicant did not consider the application to be enabling development and there was no evidence submitted in support of it. 
• A scheme for the site needed to be brought forward which was sympathetic to the heritage.
• The decision could be subject to Judicial Review as the recent appeal was not considered.
• The application could be deferred to revisit the appeal and consider if the dismissal reasons had been addressed in the current application.
• There was no consensus within the local community as to what should happen to the site.

The Legal Officer confirmed that the 2019 appeal decision was a material consideration and the lack of reference could be challenged at a Judicial Review.

Councillor Lemon proposed that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse permission for the development on the grounds of Policy S6 (building on the Metropolitan Green Belt).

This was seconded by Councillor Loughlin; however she later withdrew her support, following the Legal Officer’s advice regarding the 2019 appeal decision.

The proposal was withdrawn.

Councillor Sutton proposed that the application be deferred so that consideration may be given to the 2019 appeal decision.

This was seconded by Councillor Emanuel.

RESOLVED that application be deferred.

.

D Cox and Councillor N Robley (Hatfield Heath Parish Council) spoke against the application and S Bampton (applicant) spoke in support.

The meeting was adjourned between 11.11 and 11:21