195 homes and community facilities at Land South Of Shenley Hill, Radlett

What was proposed

The outline application sought up to 195 homes, 50% affordable housing, school expansion land, a medical centre and associated access.

“DEVELOPMENT Erection of up to 195 new homes (50% affordable), safeguarded land for the expansion of Newberries Primary School and a new medical centre, along with associated access. Outline application to include the matter of ACCESS (with the following matters reserved: APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT and SCALE).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is pasture and woodland east of Radlett, entirely within the Green Belt, with access from Shenley Hill and nearby homes, school and wildlife sites.

“The site is located entirely within the Green Belt. Radlett itself is mostly excluded from the Green Belt. The neighbouring houses and their gardens on Newberries Avenue and other streets are not in the Green Belt, but the site and the primary school are within the Green Belt.”

“The site lies within the Green Belt. • The site is within the area that is covered by the Radlett Neighbourhood Plan. • The southern belt of trees that lies within the application site (to the north of Theobald Street) is part of the Theobald Street Wood Local Wildlife Site. • Outside the site the neighbouring land to the north (Porters Park Golf Club) and to the north-east of the site (an area of woodland known as The Gorse) are also Local Wildlife Sites.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and return

A similar application was refused and its appeal dismissed; the current application returned after legal advice questioned the earlier committee refusal process.

“This application is essentially a duplicate of the previous outline planning application (ref. 22/1539/OUT) which was refused by this Council on 2 March 2023 for the following reasons:”

“August inclusive and 6 and 9 October 2023. It should be noted that reasons for refusal 2 (archaeology) and 3 (flood risk/drainage) were addressed in advance of the Public Inquiry and as such the appeal was focused on Green Belt matters.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the site Grey Belt and the proposal compliant with the relevant policy tests, while alternatively finding Very Special Circumstances.

“In reaching the judgement on the site constituting ‘Grey Belt’ land (set out in more detail at paragraphs 7.4.1 – 7.4.9 inclusive of this report), this is based on the conclusion that the application site does not perform ‘strongly’ against Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d) as informed by both the Council’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 Green Belt Assessments produced by ARUP (produced to form part of the emerging Local Plan evidence base) and more recently by the Appeal…”

“In the eventuality that Members reach a different conclusion on the tests under NPPF paragraph 155 - including the ‘Grey Belt’ status of the site - so that it would still be considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, a ‘Very Special Circumstances’ assessment has been undertaken for this development.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, flood risk, ecology, archaeology and several other consultees raised no objections subject to measures, while landscape officers remained unable to support the proposal.

“The reduction of parameters including building heights and developable area, to provide appropriate response to the impacts identified and allow for the following improvements; • The provision of greater landscape boundary buffers to better assimilate development into the landscape; • Improved green infrastructure throughout the site through street trees, incidental open spaces and SuDS (roadside rain gardens and/or swales); • An indicative plan to provide illustrative…”

“No objection, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is considered to be in accordance with NPPF and Hertfordshire County Council policy in terms of flood risk and drainage subject to the inclusion of a number of planning conditions to address: detailed designs of a surface water drainage scheme; method statement for interim and temporary drainage measures; a detailed construction phase surface water management plan; and maintenance and management of the sustainable…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A representative of the Radlett Society and Green Belt Association spoke against the application, the agent spoke for it, and Councillor L Selby spoke against it.

What members debated

Members debated the Grey Belt designation, possible town merging, the medical centre, Very Special Circumstances, public space, affordable housing and highway safety.

“Members were concerned about the likelihood of the medical centre being built on site, the designation of Grey Belt and the potential merging of towns. If the site was therefore Green Belt land, members were unconvinced it had enough benefits to meet Very Special Circumstances (VSC) for building on the Green Belt.”

“Some members maintained that the application was not substantively different from the previous application which had been refused by the Committee. The Grey Belt designation of the site was seen as a subjective judgement by members based on their interpretation of the advice from legal counsel as attached to the report. Thus, if determined by members to be Green Belt, there were no VSC to justify building, in their view.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because it did not accept the Grey Belt designation and found no Very Special Circumstances for Green Belt development.

“Councillor B Rosehill proposed refusal on all grounds; that the application did not comply with the Grey Belt designation. There were no Very Special Circumstances (VSC) for building on the Green Belt demonstrated. Councillor D Lambert seconded.”

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED on all grounds; that the application did not comply with the Grey Belt designation it had been given and that there were not Very Special Circumstances for building on the Green Belt.”

Minutes