HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 AT 10.00 AM
Agenda No.
WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH - APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED
AGRICULTURAL UPGRADE AND IMPROVEMENT TO LAND BY THE
3
IMPORTATION OF INERT SOIL TO LEVEL OUT AN AREA OF DEPRESSION IN
THE FIELD AT FRIDAY GROVE FARM, HAWKSHEAD ROAD, NORTH MYMMS,
HATFIELD
Report of the Director Environment & Commercial Services
Contact: Rob Egan Tel: 01992 556224
Local Member: Bill Storey
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider planning application reference 6/02677-11 for the proposed agricultural upgrade and improvement to land by the importation of inert soil to level out an area of depression in the field at Friday Grove Farm, Hawkshead
Road, North Mymms, Hatfield.
2 Summary
2.1 This application proposes the importation of some 2,900 cubic metres of inert waste material to raise the level of land, infilling a depression in order to prevent the recurrence of seasonal waterlogging and to improve the agricultural quality of the land.
2.2 The application site is located in Welwyn Hatfield and is located between
Brookmans Park and Potters Bar in relatively open countryside in the
Metropolitan Green Belt.
2.3 The area of land to be raised amounts to approximately 0.58 hectares of the total land holding of 5.5 hectares. The development is partly retrospective, with approximately 50% of the development complete. The applicant estimates that a further 153 lorry loads of soils are required to complete the works, which will take approximately 2.5 weeks.
2.4 The report concludes that the development will result in inappropriate development within the Green belt as it has an adverse impact on openness.
2.5 The report concludes that the Director Environment and Commercial Services should be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: -

The carrying out of land raising has resulted in
– and when completed is likely to have a further – adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to national planning guidance contained within PPG2. As a result, the development is considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome this fundamental harm to the Green Belt.
726868677
- 1 -


No evidence has been put forward to show that the land is derelict or degraded. Neither has it been demonstrated that the development will result in significant agricultural, land drainage, landscape enhancement or other environmental benefit. The development is therefore contrary to Waste Policy
24 of the Waste Local Plan.
3. Description of the site and proposed development
3.1 The application site lies in open countryside between Brookmans Park and
Potters Bar. It consists of an irregular shaped piece of grassland, approximately 5.5 hectares in total area, sub-divided roughly into three separate fields. Development is only proposed on a relatively small part of the application site of the eastern-most field, with the area affected by development amounting to approximately 0.58 hectares in area. The site is located in the
Metropolitan Green Belt.
3.2 The application site is located on the northern side of Hawkshead Road. There is vehicular access on the eastern boundary of the site directly off the highway.
The land slopes south to north away from the entrance. Cross-sections of the site provided by the applicant indicate that the land falls 7 metres from the road to the rear of the eastern-most field across its total length of approximately 150 metres (equating to a 1 in 21 slope). The land slopes further away beyond this to the north. Surrounding land is agricultural in nature, with a farm track running adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site.
3.3 The northern-most field on the application site is presently being used for the grazing of sheep. However, there is little evidence of any present agricultural activity on either the eastern field where the development is proposed, or the field to the west of this; both of which appear to have been used for car boot sales, with signage and paraphernalia associated with such sales being present.
3.4 The development is part retrospective, with the application arising from an enforcement investigation into the importation and deposit of soils. The proposal is for approximately 2,900 cubic metres of inert soils to be imported.
As matters stand, approximately 50% of this amount had been imported to the land. Upon the advice of the enforcement team, the landowner has held the completion of the development in abeyance pending the outcome of this application.
726868677
- 2 -

3.5 The soils are to be deposited on the eastern-most field at its northern end. The justification for this is that improvement is required as the site is subject to seasonal waterlogging, is difficult to cut for hay because of dips and hollows, and has been the subject of trial trenching for an archaeological investigation resulting in bricks and flints protruding from the surface. Consequently, the application states that the proposed works would result in significant agricultural, land drainag e and landscape enhancements. The applicant’s ultimate intention is to establish a free-range egg business on the land where poultry houses will be on skids in order to be moved from one part of the site to another by towing by tractor or a similar machine. Therefore, the stated reasons for the development are as follows:

Ease of relocation of poultry sheds.

Safety of grazing sheep.

Greater yield of hay/silage.

Year round beneficial use of land.

Removal of waterlogged area.
Planning history
3.6 There have been a number of planning applications and applications for prior notification of agricultural developments, all of which have been submitted to
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council.
3.7 A planning application was submitted in 2003, reference S6/2003/1701/FP for the erection of a new country house, which was refused permission on 29 July
2004. A revised application was submitted in 2005, reference
S6/2005/0625/FP. This was refused on 6 April 2006, with a subsequent appeal being dismissed on 11 July 2007.
3.8 A prior notification application was submitted in 2010 in respect of the erection of a barn. This was refused on 25 March 2010. A further application was submitted in in respect of an agricultural building, reference S6/2010/0748/AG.
This was refused on 20 May 2010. Another application was submitted later that year for the same development, reference S6/2010/1222/AG, which was refused on 14 July 2010. A further application was then submitted in the same year for an agricultural building, reference S6/2010/2173/AG, which was refused on 25 October 2010. A fifth and final application was submitted in
2010 for the erection of an agricultural building, reference S6/2010/3136/AG, which was refused on 19 January 2011.
4. Consultations
4.1 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council does not object to the proposal: there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with such development only being granted in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The carrying out of development is inappropriate development unless it maintains openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In this case, it is considered that the proposed levelling out of a depression would not be harmful to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and thus would not conflict with the aims and purposes of PPG2.
726868677
- 3 -

Policy RA10 of the local plan states that “proposals for development in the rural areas will be expected to contribute, as appropriate, to the conservation, maintenance and enhancement of the local landscape character of the area in which they are located, as defined in the Hertfordshire Landscape Character
Assessment.” The application site is located within Landscape Character Area
54 ‘Potters Bar Parkland’ where there is a strategy to “improve and restore” the condition and character of the area. Landscape Character Area 54 includes the relic parkland of the Brookmans and Gobions Estates and the application site is bound to the east by a Registered Historic Park and Garden (Grade II).
In dismissing the appeal against refusal of planning application
S6/2005/0625/FP, which included the application site, the Inspector described the site as a “pleasant agricultural landscape of gently undulating land sloping generally down to the valley with attractive hedgerows and tree belts, and to be part of a valuable buffer among areas of buildings and horse grazing.” The area was also considered by the Inspector to have a “fragile countryside character.”
Within The Character Assessment, Character Area 54 is assessed as:
“A strong historical and cultural pattern is evident in the landscape and parkland features are common throughout, although the landscape has evolved to accommodate modern urban fringe uses, such as recreation.
This is a fragmented landscape, with a strong urban influence. The area has a more rural character further north, along Bulls Lane, where it is relatively open with good access and long views. There are relic parkland features at Gobions Park within the public open space and nature reserve, while the more informal estate farmland with parkland trees is used for dairy farming associated with the veterinary college. The Brookmans Park golf course contains historic parkland trees. Fenced and walled estate boundaries can still be found and the ornamental garden planting can still be seen in the linear wood called The Legg, west of Bell Bar.”
In respect of existing trees, the Council has no objections to the increase in soil level in the area indicated as this will not affect any trees.
Local Plan Policy R19 Noise and Vibration Control is also relevant. The separation distance from the site and the nearest residential properties is likely to protect residential amenity from the low level noise pollution that is likely to result from carrying out the proposed development.
There is no objection to the import of materials on the basis that they are clean and inert.
In summary, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council does not object to the proposal on the understanding that suitable conditions are attached to ensure that the materials are clean and inert and consideration is given to the advice of the highways authority.
4.2 North Mymms Parish Council objects: the proposal would be an inappropriate alteration to Green Belt land where agricultural use has not been evident and it is questionable whether or not this proposal would improve drainage.
726868677
- 4 -

4.3 The Environment Agency does not object: we have reviewed the submitted information and due to the location have no objection to the proposed development.
4.4 North Mymms District Green Belt Society comments: the Society is very concerned about the proposed development. Having consulted a civil engineer on this subject, we would like answers to the following questions:

What will be the consequences to the surrounding land and are there any other drainage systems being proposed? The normal method would be for porous clay pipes to be buried in the field with a filter media to a suitable outfall.

We know from a member of the Society who has in the past kept horses at
Raybrook Farm further down the hill from Friday Grove of flooding problems.
Will this proposal make this situation worse?
4.5 The Campaign to Protect Rural England objects: we have some concerns regarding the application. Friday Grove Farm has been subject to a series of applications from the Applicant for residential development, going back to
2003. All of these have been refused by Welwyn Hatfield Council and lost on subsequent appeals. While the present application is not for development, the levelling out of the land as indicated on the drawing would facilitate future development of this type. This side of the valley, rising from Gobions, is an historical agricultural landscape, untouched for several hundred years. In the appeal decision rejecting the 2007 proposa l, the Inspector noted that “the site is currently a pleasant agricultural landscape of gently undulating land sloping generally down to the valley.” Levelling of the type proposed would destroy that historic field form. We note from the items of correspondence between the applicant and various companies included with the submission documents that
“it is intended that the land will be used for free range poultry.” It is our view that chickens do not require undulating countryside to be levelled in order to forage successfully. Nor do we think that they require the land to be remediated. The Inspector similarly did “not consider the existing area defective or degraded and hence not in pressing need of improvement.” The application states that the work would require the importation of 2,900 cubic metres of inert waste. It is disconcerting, therefore, to note from the response of the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre that at least half of that amount appears to have been deposited in anticipation of approval. Like the HBRC we are also concerned that the ponds on the site are not shown on the accompanying drawings. Their loss would also impact on the landscape character of the site. Consequently, we urge the Council to reject this application and, if work has already started, to require the Applicant to restore the land to its original form.
4.6 The Highway Authority does not object: subject to conditions to restrict HGV lorry movements to 24 per day (12 in, 12 out) in any one working day, and to ensure that best practicable means are taken at all times to ensure that all vehicles leaving the development site during the construction of the development are in a condition such as not to emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway.
726868677
- 5 -

4.7 Herts Biological Records Centre comments: the cluster of small fields at the site have survived for some time and they can be found, in their current form, on c1868 maps. From a landscape and historic perspective therefore, we consider the fields to be important and scarce in a county context. We are very concerned about the application, particularly with regard to the fact that 50% of the inert soils have already been spread. Although the fields do not meet
Wildlife Site criteria, we still consider them to be important as surviving seminatural neutral grassland in an ecological, landscape and historic context. The two ponds are also important and we are concerned that they may have been filled in. Ponds are recognised as being functionally important because they support a wide range of species, even if they are seasonably dry. In conclusion:

We consider the spreading of large amounts of imported inert soil to be completely inappropriate.
 If part of the field system is wet, and this is very debateable at the moment given that the SE of England is officially in drought (Environment Agency), then it could be drained, preferably into one or both of the ponds..
 The spreading of inert soils will result in the levelling of the fields’ surfaces.
 It will destroy the existing neutral grassland and possibly the pond.

It will destroy the historic form (levels) of the fields that, until recently, have survived for centuries.
4.7 Spatial and Land Use Planning Unit’s landscape officer comments: the proposed regrading of the land in the central section of the field will have a very minor effect on the landscape character of the field. Assuming the land is returned to pasture following completion of the regrading, it will be of an almost identical character, albeit without the area of waterlogged ground in the centre of the site. Since this waterlogged area is not considered to be a landscape feature of particular importance, its removal will not have a significant impact on the landscape character. It is recommended that the rubble layer of the access track (made up of brick and concrete blocks) be removed following completion of the works and returned to the cinder gravel path. The dark coloured gravel path is less intrusive in the landscape and is of a similar material to an existing path in the adjacent field.
The proposed grading will have a negligible effect on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, assuming that the land is restored to its existing use as pasture. The regrading will level out an existing dip in the landscape, and on completion, should appear in character with the surrounding existing landscape. The site is also contained by field boundary vegetation and views into the site are limited. The undulating landform also screens long distance views of the site and it is not visible from the public footpath to the north of the site. The site will be visible from a number of properties in Brookmans Park residential area to the north. However assuming that the land is returned to pasture, it will form part of a wider view across several fields of pasture and there will be no apparent change.
Third Party Comments
4.8 The application was advertised in the Welwyn and Hatfield Times on 14
December 2011 and a total of 16 letters were sent to residents in the surrounding area. No responses have been received.
726868677
- 6 -

5. The Development Plan
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 For the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the development plan comprises the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005, The
East of England Plan 2008, and the Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan 1995 –
2005.
5.3 The most relevant planning policies to consider for this application are:
Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan 1995 – 2005
WP1 – Sustainable Development
WP24
– Land Raising
WP34 – Landscape
Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005
Policy GBSP1 – Definition of the Green Belt
Policy RA10 – Landscape Regions and Character Areas
6. Planning Issues
Green Belt considerations and the impact of the development
6.1 The development site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Planning Policy
Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) states that there is a presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts and that such development should not be granted, except in very special circumstances.
6.2 Paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 states:
“The statutory definition of development includes engineering and other operations, and the making of any material change in the use of land. The carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
”
6.3 Paragraph 3.13 of PPG2 continues by stating:
“When any large-scale development or redevelopment of land occurs in the
Green Belt (including ….the tipping of waste….) it should, so far as possible contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts .”
6.4 It is claimed that the land is presently used for agricultural purposes and that this remain unchanged. In fact, the claimed justification for carrying out the development is to ultimately improve the quality of the land for agricultural purposes. As such, the proposed continued agricultural use of the land is not contrary to Green Belt policy and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Therefore, the overall use of the site is considered appropriate within the Green Belt. However, there is some debate as to whether the land is being presently used for agricultural purposes as the
726868677
- 7 -

primary use appears to be the holding of car boot sales, although there is evidence of low level grazing of sheep taking place on some of the holding.
The doubt over the agricultural use of the land is examined further in this report when the justification for the development is explored.
6.5 The proposed development consists of the raising of an area of 0.58 hectares of land through the importation and deposit of some 2,900 cubic metres of soils. This results in an average of 500mm of fill across the whole area. Due to the concave topography of the depression to be raised, there will be a maximum depth of 1000mm of fill where the depression is at its deepest. The filling of the depression will result in a continuous graded slope, removing the concave feature of the field in this location.
6.6 In landscape terms, the Spatial and Land Use Planning Unit’s landscape officer has indicated that the development will have a minimal impact and the land will be of an almost identical character once the development is complete.
6.7 In addition, the development will not result in visual intrusion as there will only be minor changes to the contours of the land. This will not be perceptible once development is complete as the land raising will have congruity with the surrounding land levels. Furthermore, the land is well screened, although some distant views are possible into the site. Again, however, the development, once returned to pasture, will not be perceptible from these views as the minor changes in level will allow the development to blend in relatively seamlessly.
6.8 The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has raised concerns about the development destroying the existing historic field form. However, the development merely involves the levelling out of one area of the field where a concave depression exists. It does not radically alter the landscape or the form of the field as the land will still be allowed to fall naturally away, reflecting the surrounding landscape. The CPRE also raises concerns that the development will facilitate some other form of unauthorised development in the future. Any future proposals would obviously require planning permission in their own right, however, so this concern can be discounted.
6.9 Returning to paragraph 3.12 of PPG2, the development must be assessed in terms of its impact, if any, on the openness of the Green Belt. Although the proposed development is not considered to be visually intrusive, the concept of openness in Green Belt terms means its freedom from development.
Consequently, the concept of openness is only partly concerned with the degree of visibility of development. Therefore, the fact that the land is being raised means that there must be some impact on the openness of the Green
Belt that would not be present if the land were to remain unaltered. Whilst the proposal does not for example result in the erection of a building, the raising of the land will have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt in this location. This impact on openness results in inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It is therefore for the applicant to demonstrate whether there are any very special circumstances present that override the harm to the Green
Belt and any other harm.
726868677
- 8 -

Justification for the development
6.10 The applicant justifies the proposed development on the basis that:

The land is derelict;

The land is subject to waterlogging;

That significant agricultural improvement will occur; and,

That it will result in landscape enhancement.
6.11 Waste Policy 24 of the Waste Local Plan refers to land raising and specifies that the disposal of waste by raising the level of land will only be permitted, inter alia, where the land is derelict or degraded or where it can be demonstrated that it will not give rise to unacceptable environmental and other effects and it would result in significant agricultural, land drainage, landscape enhancement or other environmental benefit.
6.12 In terms of its alleged derelict condition, the applicant states that the field has been the subject of trial trenching for an archaeological excavation resulting in bricks and flints protruding through the surface of the land.
6.13 From the details provided by the applicant, five trial trenches were dug in 2005, although only two of these appear to be on the part of the site that is the subject of this planning application. No remediation through land raising is proposed in respect of the other three trenches. Furthermore, no explanation has been provided as to why other forms of land remediation could not overcome the presence of bricks and flints at the surface of the field. It is considered that other methods could deal with this, such as disc harrowing the land to remove such extraneous materials coupled with hand picking. The raising of the level of the land is considered to be excessive in dealing with what is, on the face of it, a relatively minor issue.
6.14 The Applicant has also produced a letter from the Hertfordshire Biological
Records Centre dated 7 April 2005, which advises that the continued use of the site for intensive grazing or horse paddocks “is likely to continue to degrade the site.” The Applicant asserts that this is clear evidence of the derelict condition of the site. This letter can be discounted, however, as it relates to the ecological value of the land and does not refer to its agricultural condition.
6.15 In conclusion, therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the land is derelict or significantly degraded and that the works would improve this situation or are the only viable solution to improving its quality.
6.16 In terms of its alleged waterlogging, the applicant claims that this is seasonal.
He further claims the justification for preventing the waterlogging is to enable a free range egg business to be set up on the land, thus allowing poultry houses that will sit on skids (thus allowing them to be moved around the site) to be positioned on the newly levelled land.
726868677
- 9 -

6.17 As previously indicated, the proposed works are approximately 50% complete; their progress having been apprehended by an enforcement investigation.
When the applicant was first questioned about the nature of the works, he indicated that he allowed car boot sales to take place on the land and wished to improve part of the field t hat was subject to flooding to prevent car boot sellers’ vehicles from becoming bogged down on the site. Car boot sale paraphernalia is still present on the land. In addition, four of the five prior notification applications for a new agricultural building on the site that were submitted to
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council in 2010 were made in respect of the establishment of a free range egg business on the land. These were all refused on the basis that permitted development rights did not apply as no evidence of a viable agricultural activity was demonstrated as taking place on the land holding.
6.18 Whilst Waste Policy 24 states that land raising may be acceptable where it results in significant land drainage improvements, the applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate that the land is routinely waterlogged.
Even if waterlogging does occur on a seasonal basis, the area of the field that is subject to the waterlogging is relatively small when one considers the overall holding of 5.5 hectares. Therefore, should any proposed agricultural use of the land take place in the manner proposed, then the mobile poultry houses could easily be moved to other parts of the holding when waterlogging takes place.
6.19 Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any details of why other methods of land drainage would not be suitable, which would be less intrusive in their nature than the raising of the level of the land.
6.20 The Spatial and Land Use Planning Unit’s landscape officer has highlighted the presence of waterlogging during the site inspection carried out when consulted on this application. As the development was
– and remains – approximately
50% complete at the time of this inspection, the waterlogging witnessed could be attributed to the presence of imported soils creating an unnatural and artificial depression in the centre of the field. This does not therefore provide evidence of a historical issue of waterlogging on the site.
6.21 In conclusion, therefore, no evidence has been put forward to clearly demonstrate that the site is routinely waterlogged and, if it is, that this has an adverse impact on the use of the land which can only be improved through the proposed land raising.
6.22 In respect of any agricultural improvement, the applicant claims that the land raising will allow the safety of sheep, a gain in grazing land, and a greater potential yield of hay/silage.
6.23 In the first instance, the depression is approximately 80 metres long when measured from its highest point to the south to its lowest point at the north of the field. Over this distance, it never has a greater depth than 1000mm. This is not a significant change in the level of the land and certainly not one that would give rise to any danger to sheep grazing the field.
726868677
- 10 -

6.24 A letter has been produced from Osborne House Farm dated 7 September
2010, which relates to the applicant providing bales of hay to the farm. The letter states that “a more substantial crop could be obtained if the acreage was significantly improv ed by levelling or cultivating.” No further evidence has been put forward to support the applicant’s claimed agricultural use of the land.
Furthermore, no information or explanation is provided by the applicant in respect of the purported increased return that would be expected from carrying out these measures, or indeed why cultivation is not considered preferable to the carrying out of land raising.
6.25 Therefore, insufficient evidence has been put forward to justify the development in terms of any agricultural improvement.
6.26 In terms of landscape, whilst it is considered that the development will not have a detrimental impact on the landscape, it has not been demonstrated that the development will result in any enhancement. Also, no reasoning has been put forward as to why the site required enhancement of its landscape in the first place.
6.27 Therefore, in conclusion, the development fails to meet the criteria set out in
Waste Policy 24 of the Waste Local Plan. The land raising cannot be justified as it fails to provide any tangible or measurable agricultural, land drainage, landscape enhancement or other environmental benefit to the land. In addition, there is no evidence that the land is derelict.
7. Conclusion
7.1 The carrying out of land raising has resulted in – and when completed is likely to have a further – adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to national planning guidance contained within PPG2. As a result, the development is considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome this fundamental harm to the Green Belt.
7.2 No evidence has been put forward to show that the land is derelict or degraded. Neither has it been demonstrated that the development will result in significant agricultural, land drainage, landscape enhancement or other environmental benefit. The development is therefore contrary to Waste Policy
24 of the Waste Local Plan.
7.3 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused on this basis.
Furthermore, it is recommended that authority be granted to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the waste materials already imported and deposited on the land, with full restoration of the site, should the landowner fail to voluntarily carry out these works.
726868677
- 11 -

726868677
- 12 -