90 extra care units at Land Adjacent To Larksmead, Barnet Lane, Elstree

What was proposed

The application sought 90 extra care units, communal and care facilities, access, landscaping, open space and associated works.

“DEVELOPMENT Demolition of existing stables and removal of associated hardstanding and the construction of an Integrated Retirement Community (IRC) of 90 extra care units (Use Class C2) with means of access; ancillary communal and care facilities; landscaping and open space; and all other associated works and infrastructure.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 3.2-hectare equestrian site was mainly open grassland, with trees, woodland, a public right of way and access from Barnet Lane.

“The application site consists of a 3.2 hectare parcel of land within existing equestrian use, located to the east of Elstree village. The site is predominantly open grassland with a cluster of mature trees in its north-eastern quarter, and…”

“The site’s southern boundary is to Barnet Lane (A411), from which it is separated by a mature hedge; on the southern side of the road are residential properties and gardens. There is an existing vehicular access provided into the site from Barnet Lane. To the west, the site is bounded by the residential properties and gardens which front onto the northern side of Barnet Lane. To the north the site is bounded by woodland (not subject to a Tree Preservation Order - TPO).”

Officer report

Main planning balance

The proposal was considered inappropriate in the Green Belt, but housing, older people’s accommodation, social, economic, infrastructure and community benefits were given weight.

“The social benefits of the development are, to some extent, captured within the benefits associated with the need for older people’s housing (set out above). Nonetheless, there are some wider noteworthy social benefits that the proposal would have, for instance in terms of offering a broader variety of accommodation choices.”

“The application is supported by an Economic Benefits Assessment. This details that economic benefits would arise during the construction phase through the creation of jobs (estimated 497 jobs) and indirect benefits achieved in the supply chain. Thereafter, the proposed development is stated to provide approximately 15 to 25 direct jobs in a range of positions.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways and several technical consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while the town council and Green Belt Society raised concerns.

“Consultee Comment The Highway Authority (HCC) Do not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to conditions to ensure that the access arrangement and off site works be carried out in accordance with works shown on the plans. National Highways No objections. Senior Flood Risk and SuDS Officer (LLFA – HCC) No objections subject to conditions. Environmental Health & Licensing No objections, subject to conditions for contamination.”

“Consultee Comment consequences of increased pollution and carbon emissions. - Question the long-term viability of the project. - The lack of affordable housing. - Impact on the living conditions of nearby residents (noise, privacy, and visual intrusion). - May exacerbate existing flooding issues in the area. Elstree & Borehamwood Green Belt Society Object. The site is in the Green Belt, and there are no very special circumstances for the development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke for the application, and Councillor H Cohen spoke against it as Community Advocate.

What members debated

Members questioned whether the benefits outweighed the harms, including openness, the Conservation Area setting and landscape impact.

“The Planning Officer clarified that this was a Green Belt site that did not comply with the Golden Rules as set out within the report and Very Special Circumstances (VSCs) did exist. Members were unconvinced that the Officer weightings in the Planning Balance showed that the benefits outweighed the harms of the proposal. In response to queries, The Planning Officer clarified that there would be a loss of an existing stable, where 3-4 horses were currently stabled.”

“It was proposed by: Councillor G Briski, seconded by Councillor B Rosehill that the application be REFUSED on all grounds; development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt owing to the harms outweighing the benefits. They afforded greater weight to those harms listed in the Officer report including harm to openness, harm to the Setting of the Conservation Area and the Landscape Impact.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because it was inappropriate Green Belt development and very special circumstances did not exist.

“-PL 81- RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED on all grounds; that the development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Very Special Circumstances did not exist owing to the harms outweighing the benefits including harm to openness, harm to the Setting of the Conservation Area and the Landscape Impact.”

Minutes