HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2013 AT 10.00 AM
Agenda No.
1
EAST HERTS DISTRICT
APPLICATION FOR RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE
RETENTION OF A STEEL FRAMED BUILDING TO STORE AND MAINTAIN
VEHICLES, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT AT BEDWELL PARK QUARRY,
BEDWELL AVENUE, ESSENDON, HERTFORDSHIRE
Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
Contact:
Rob Egan
Tel: 01992 556224
Local Member:
Ken Crofton
Adjoining Member: Mark Mills-Bishop
1.
Purpose of Report
1.1
To consider retrospective planning application reference 3/01557-13 for
the retention of an unauthorised extension to a building workshop for a
period of two years with full restoration of land within the two year
period at Bedwell Park Quarry, Bedwell Avenue, Essendon.
2
Summary
2.1
This is a retrospective planning application seeking to retain a large
unauthorised extension to an existing steel-framed workshop building
on the site of the existing quarry for a period of two years, with full
restoration of the area that the extension sits on and the land
immediately around it within a two year period. The unauthorised
extension has facilitated the use of the workshop building for the
maintenance and repair of vehicles associated with the applicant’s
wider fleet of vehicles, which includes a significant number of HGVs.
2.2
The application site is located to the east of the village of Essendon in a
predominantly rural area, and is located within the Metropolitan Green
Belt.
2.3
The original workshop building was previously extended without
planning permission, with retrospective planning permission being
granted in 2008. That extension has since been demolished, with a
further and much larger extension being built without the benefit of
planning permission. It is this further extension that is the subject of
this planning application. A previous retrospective application was
submitted in 2012 to permanently retain the unauthorised extension,
but this was refused permission on 6 December 2012.
-1-
2.4
The report concludes that the development is inappropriate in the
Green Belt, being visually intrusive and adversely affecting openness.
There are no very special circumstances that overcome the harm as
the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is an overriding need
for this building to be located at the quarry, nor has it been
demonstrated that the removal of the development will result in a loss
of jobs. In addition, the proposed early restoration of a small part of the
quarry, together with the removal of the unauthorised extension to the
building within the two year timeframe, is not considered to amount to
very special circumstances.
2.5
It is recommended that planning permission be refused on the basis of
the following planning policy considerations:

2.6
The development constitutes inappropriate development within the
Green Belt. It results in a substantial and disproportionate addition to
the original workshop building. It is visually intrusive and has a
significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is
therefore contrary to the aims of Policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local
Plan, Minerals Policies 12 and 18 of the Minerals Local Plan, and
planning guidance contained within the National Planning Policy
Framework. There are no very special circumstances that overcome
this harm.
Furthermore, it is recommended that authority be granted to take
enforcement action to secure the removal of the development from the
land should the applicant fail to voluntarily carry this out:
-2-
3.
Description of the site and proposed development
3.1
The application site lies within the confines of an active quarry. Much
of the quarry has been restored, with quarrying activities now restricted
to the winning and working of chalk. Restoration is achieved through
the importation of soils to infill areas that have been worked, returning
the land to grassland. These activities take place under the terms of
the Interim Development Order permission granted in 1993, reference
3/1387-92. This permission sets an end date of 21 February 2042 for
the winning and working of minerals.
3.2
Bedwell Park Quarry is located approximately 5.5 kilometres south
west of Hertford and 500 metres east of the village of Essendon.
Access to the site is obtained off the southern side of the B158 Lower
Hatfield Road, which leads onto the private road known as Bedwell
Avenue; this latter road running for approximately 500 metres before
reaching the quarry entrance. Bedwell Avenue also serves as a
bridleway and follows the western boundary of the quarry, doubling as
an internal quarry road. This links with a footpath that runs along the
southern boundary of the site, with other footpaths linking from it.
3.3
Chalk extraction is limited to the southern-most part of the quarry. The
majority of the rest of the quarry has been infilled and restored and is
predominantly in use for equestrian purposes. Apart from the chalk
extraction area, an area alongside the eastern boundary of the site still
requires final restoration.
3.4
The surroundings of the site are very rural and quite open in character.
To the west of the site is a large mature golf course. To the south is
agricultural land. To the immediate north is a large detached dwelling
with agricultural land beyond it. Alongside the eastern boundary of the
site is a rural road known as Howe Green Lane, which has a small
number of large detached houses along its length. Beyond this is
further agricultural land. The site is located within the Metropolitan
Green Belt.
3.5
The planning application is retrospective, with the development already
built. The application relates to the retention of an extension to a large
steel framed building located in the south western corner of the quarry,
adjacent to the bridleway that runs along the western boundary of the
site. The development, as built, consists of two interlinked buildings.
The majority of the western-most building is historic and benefits from
planning permission, although it itself has been slightly extended
without planning permission. This is a ridged steel-framed building
measuring 28 metres by 16 metres, with a ridge height of 8.3 metres
and a height to eaves of 5.3 metres. The new building to the east of
this does not benefit from planning permission. It measures 40.6
metres by 16.5 metres. This also has a ridged roof, although with a
-3-
shallower pitch than its adjoining building. Its height to ridge is 8.3
metres, with a height to eaves of 6.3 metres. The eastern side of the
building has six large openings – secured with metal shutters – capable
of accommodating HGVs. A large concrete pad has been provided to
the east of the building as a parking area.
Relevant planning history
3.6
The winning and working of minerals is permitted by the Interim
Development Order permission granted on 18 January 1993, reference
3/1387-92. The following does not planning history does not detail all
of the lengthy history of the site, only those matters considered relevant
to this application.
3.7
Retrospective planning permission was granted by the county council
on 9 May 2008 for the retention of an existing building to store and
maintain plant and equipment used on the quarry and reclaimed land,
reference 3/0626-08.
3.8
A planning application was submitted to East Herts District Council in
2009 for a steel portal framed agricultural building for the storage of
hay, straw and implements with the provision for servicing quarry
vehicles, reference 3/09/0272/FP. Permission was refused on 22 April
2009.
3.9
A subsequent planning application was submitted to East Herts District
Council in 2010 for a steel portal framed industrial building, reference
3/10/1079/FP. That application was refused on 20 August 2010.
3.10
Planning application reference 3/1169-11 was submitted in 2011 for a
proposed crushing and screening facility to reduce in size by crushing
the flints that are produced on site as a result of chalk quarrying and
the importation of concrete, bricks, rubble and soils in order to
supplement the activity and produce secondary aggregates and top
soil. The application was subsequently withdrawn.
3.11
A retrospective planning application was submitted to East Herts
District Council in March 2012 for the retention of existing steel framed
building to store and maintain vehicles, plant and equipment used on
the quarry, including vehicles used to transport chalk to customers,
reference 3/12/0479/FP. That application sought permission for the
building that is the subject of this report. As it became clear to the
district council that the application should be considered by the county
council in its role as minerals planning authority, the application was
withdrawn in May 2012 before being submitted to the county council
under reference 3/1547-12. Permission was refused on 6 December
2012 for the following reasons:
“The development constitutes inappropriate development within the
Green Belt. It results in a substantial and disproportionate addition to
-4-
the original workshop building. It is visually intrusive and has a
significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is
therefore contrary to the aims of Policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local
Plan, Minerals Policies 12 and 18 of the Minerals Local Plan, and
planning guidance contained within the National Planning Policy
Framework. There are no very special circumstances that overcome
this harm.”
3.12
A retrospective planning application has also been submitted alongside
this application to East Herts District Council, seeking permission for
the temporary use of land for a parking area for up to 12 HGVs for a
period of two years with full restoration of parking area within the two
year period, reference 3/13/1424/FP. That application relates to the
yard area in the north western corner of the quarry where Bedwell
Avenue enters the quarry site, and which has been used for the
unauthorised parking of HGVs by the applicant.
4.
Consultations
4.1
Local Member – County Councillor Mark Mills-Bishop
Is opposed to the application on the grounds that the building is:




sited within the Green Belt;
inappropriate development in the Green Belt resulting in industrial
use within the countryside;
activity already taking place on site without planning permission;
impact on highway and highway safety as a result of increased HGV
movements on a narrow already congested road within the village.
The local member does not believe that exceptional circumstances
exist to warrant any grant of planning permission.
4.2
East Herts District Council Planning Department
Does not object to the application.
The site has been the subject of a number of planning applications.
Planning permission was refused by East Herts District Council for a
permanent workshop building in this approximate location in 2010
(reference 3/10/1079/FP). An application for this building was originally
submitted to the district council in 2012 (reference 3/12/0479/FP) but
was withdrawn as the building was for purposes related to the quarry,
and therefore required an application to the county council.
During the consideration of that application, evidence was provided that
the site had been in use as a Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
testing facility. This use did not appear to have been advertised for
external customers, but rather seemed to have been for the applicant’s
own vehicles. The services provided at the site appeared to be in use
-5-
by vehicles owned by the applicant and associated with other
operations taking place at the quarry. This resulted in HGV traffic to
and from the site in excess of that previously considered acceptable.
The permanent retention of the building would be likely to result in an
ongoing unacceptable level of HGV traffic operating from the site. The
roads around the site are narrow and not well suited to HGV traffic, and
the site access is located close to a bend and directly adjacent to a
junction. In addition, the size of the building, particularly when
combined with the building approved in 2008, was considered to result
in an unacceptable intrusion into the Green Belt. The site is adjacent to
two established Rights of Way (Essendon 025, which runs north-south
to the west of the buildings, and Little Berkhamsted 002, which runs
east-west to the south). The building was considered to result in a
significant impact on the openness of the surrounding area when
viewed from these public paths. Finally, officers had concerns
regarding potential harm to groundwater as the site falls within the
Source Protection Zone for both Water Hall and Essendon boreholes.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the current proposal for the short-term
temporary retention of the workshop is considered to be an application
of a very different nature. I am aware that the quarry is approaching
the end of its approved working life and that operations will shortly
cease. Although the harm arising from the presence of the building
would remain, the proposed reparations appear acceptable in principle.
On the understanding that the building is to be used for the quarry, and
provided that it were to be removed promptly and the restoration works
were to follow in short order, the district council is prepared to view of
the building as acceptable in the short term. Therefore, subject to the
imposition of strict conditions relating to the timescale for removal of the
building and implementation of approved restoration works, East Herts
District Council does not object to the application.
4.3
East Herts District Council Environmental Health Department
Does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.
4.4
Little Berkhamsted Parish Council
Initial submission
This is a retrospective application for a period of up to 2 years of an
unauthorised extension to a building which was itself built without
permission in 2007 and for which retrospective permission was given
by Hertfordshire County Council on 9 May 2008 (reference 3/0626-08).
The structure for which retrospective permission was given in 2008
comprised two interlinked buildings with a total floor area of 667 square
metres. The width and depth of one of the buildings were substantially
extended in December 2010 and January 2011 so the total footprint of
-6-
the structure is now around 1,100 square metres, an increase of about
440 square metres or approximately 65%. A retrospective application
for the permanent retention of the extended building was refused by
Hertfordshire County Council in December 2012 (reference 3/1547-12).
The purported justification for the unauthorised extension contained in
the retrospective application refused in December 2012 was that the
existing structure was too small for the purposes of storing and
maintaining vehicles and plant used on the quarry. In its submission
dated 28 September 2012 on that application, the Parish Council
expressed scepticism about this ‘justification’ as the quarry had
operated for many years with the apparently adequate capacity
provided by the unextended structure and other buildings on the site,
particularly as activities permitted at the quarry are phasing down rather
than expanding. The Parish Council expressed concern that the
building was in fact being used to maintain a substantial external fleet
of road haulage vehicles operated by the applicant which are not
supposed to be parked or maintained at the Bedwell Park site, rather
than solely for the permitted purpose of servicing plant used on the
quarry.
The Planning Statement accompanying the present application
effectively concedes that previous applications misrepresented the
purpose for which the building was being used by stating in paragraph
2.5 that “the building is predominantly used to maintain and repair
vehicles that are used as part of BP Mitchell’s business. Some of these
vehicles are directly associated with the quarry use but others are used
as part of BP Mitchell’s wider recycling business.”
The chronology above suggests that the applicant has consistently
shown a casual disregard for the requirements of the planning system
and emphasises the need for a rigorous approach to be adopted in
dealing with the present application.
The essence of the present application is contained in the following
extracts from the Planning Statement:


Para 3.2 – “Planning permission for the building is sought for a
period of two years only and furthermore, within this two year
period, the applicant will restore the land in accordance with a
wider restoration strategy for the quarry.”
Para 9.3 – “The applicant will restore both areas to a very high
standard of restoration, within the life of the two year planning
permissions to enhance the openness of the Green Belt. The
restoration of these areas would not otherwise take place until
much later in the life of the 2042 planning permission….”
The applicant therefore appears to be offering a ‘quid pro quo’ whereby
if the present application is granted, operations at Bedwell Quarry will
cease and the degraded land will be restored within a two year period.
-7-
This offer has some superficial attractions but the Parish Council has
reservations about whether it can be relied upon, particularly with
regard to the following issues:
1.
2.
There is a potential inconsistency within an application that
seeks permission to retain a building for two years and at the
same time appears to undertake to remove it and restore the
land within the two year period. The demolition and restoration
phase will presumably take some considerable time and it is not
at all clear how this can be accommodated within a two year
timescale.
The application refers to complying with a restoration strategy for
the quarry site but contains no detail of this strategy or how it will
apply to the area currently occupied by the workshop building.
The Parish Council considers that further information is required from
the applicant to clarify these issues before the application can be
determined. In any event, to seek to guard against the risk of the
application being a gambit to disguise an intention to retain the building
for the foreseeable future, any grant of permission should include the
imposition of strict conditions with regard to timescale for removal of the
building and completion of restoration.
Supplementary submission
This is a supplementary submission following information received from
the case officer that he had established the applicant’s intentions with
regard to restoration of the site within the two year period are limited to
restoring the land immediately around the workshop and removing the
unauthorised extension to the workshop and not the building itself.
These intentions are completely inconsistent with the impression given
by the undertakings contained in the Planning Statement submitted
with the application that if the application were granted, operations at
Bedwell Quarry would cease and comprehensive restoration of the site
would be initiated within the two year period.
As it is now clear that the applicant has no intention of undertaking
within the two year period any meaningful restoration of the site that
would enhance the openness of the Green Belt, the Parish Council can
state that it is totally opposed to the application and urges strongly that
it be refused, for the same reasons as the application for permanent
retention of the extended building was refused by the County Council in
December 2012.
4.5
CPRE Hertfordshire
CPRE Hertfordshire urges the council to reject this application. This is
essentially a resubmission of application number 3/1547-12, which the
council refused in 2012. The only difference between the two
-8-
applications is the period of two years which is now being requested.
The very special circumstances put forward in this application are the
same as the economic development and operational uses outlined in
the previous application, as are the references to National Planning
Policy Framework paragraphs 28 and 90. It was the council’s decision
on the earlier application that the development constitutes inappropriate
development within the Green Belt. It results in a substantial and
disproportionate addition to the original workshop building. It is visually
intrusive and has a significant adverse impact on the openness of the
Green Belt. It is therefore contrary to the aims of Policy GBC1 of the
East Herts Local Plan, Minerals Policies 12 and 18 of the Minerals
Local Plan, and planning guidance contained within the NPPF. As
circumstances have not changed, a similar decision should apply in this
instance.
4.6
The Environment Agency
Has no objection to the proposal, nor any conditions to request.
4.7
The Highway Authority
Does not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission subject to the
imposition of the following condition:
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning
Authority, there shall be no more than 100 Heavy Goods Vehicle
movements (50 in, 50 out) at the site in any one working day.”
The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal provided that
the daily number of HGV movements does not exceed that permitted
for the whole complex in 1993.
4.8
Local residents
The application was advertised in the Welwyn Hatfield Times on 4
September 2013 and a site notice was placed on the site on 3
September 2013. A total of 23 letters were sent to residents in the
surrounding area. No responses have been received from local
residents.
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 East Herts Local Plan
2007 and the Minerals Local Plan Review 2002 – 2016.
-9-
5.3
The most relevant planning policies to consider for this application are:
Minerals Local Plan Review 2002 – 2016
Minerals Policy 12 – Landscape
Minerals Policy 18 – Operational Criteria for the Control of Mineral
Development
East Herts Local Plan 2007
Policy GBC1 – Appropriate Development in the Green Belt
6.
Planning Issues
6.1
The initial planning policy considerations are identical to those
considered when the previous retrospective planning application was
submitted in 2012, reference 3/1547-12.
6.2
The development site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the five purposes for
including land in the Green Belt as follows:





to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and historic character of historic towns;
and,
to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land.
6.3
The NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition,
harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very
special circumstances.
6.4
The NPPF continues by stating that certain forms of development are
not inappropriate in the Green Belt so long as they preserve the
openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of
including land in the Green Belt.
6.5
Policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan lists those new buildings that
are considered appropriate within the Green Belt. Buildings for the
storage, maintenance and repair of machinery and vehicles associated
with quarrying do not fall within this list, so the development must be
considered inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
6.6
Paragraph 89 of the NPPF also lists those buildings that may be
considered appropriate within the Green Belt, stating that “the
extension or alteration of a building (may be appropriate) provided that
it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size
of the original building.” In respect of this, the development must be
- 10 -
assessed against the building that was retrospectively granted planning
permission by the county council in 2008 under permission reference
3/0626-08.
6.7
The original historic authorised workshop building had a footprint of
approximately 392 square metres in area. The 2008 permission
allowed an extension of approximately 252 square metres, bringing the
total floor area to 644 square metres. That extension equated to a 64%
increase in floor area over that of the original building.
6.8
The combined floor area of the development that forms the subject of
this current application amounts to approximately 1,118 square metres.
This is a 185% increase over the floor area of the original workshop
building. It also represents a 73% increase in floor area over that
building that was retrospectively approved in 2008.
6.9
The height of the building has also increased. Whereas the extension
granted permission in 2008 had a ridge height of 6.55 metres, the
current extension has a ridge height of 8.3 metres.
6.10
These calculations demonstrate that the development as built results in
disproportionate additions over and above not only the size of the
original building, but also over that granted retrospective planning
permission in 2008. This increase not only applies to the floor area of
the building, but also to its overall volume. As such, paragraph 89 of
the NPPF cannot be applied and the development is clearly
inappropriate in the Green Belt.
6.11
Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that mineral extraction is not
inappropriate in the Green Belt provided it maintains openness. In fact,
the concept of mineral extraction on this site is not in dispute.
However, whilst the overriding use of the site may be appropriate, it is
clear that the workshop building is not wholly devoted to mineral
extraction taking place within the quarry. The unauthorised extension
was built to allow the servicing of the applicant’s wider fleet of HGVs,
many of which have no association with mineral extraction at Bedwell
Park Quarry. The substantial increase in the floor area and height of
the extended building results in an adverse impact on the openness of
the Green Belt. Whilst the development occupies a fairly sheltered
position within the quarry that is protected from wider views, it stands
adjacent to a bridleway that runs alongside the western boundary of the
original workshop building. Consequently, the bulk and scale of the
extended building results in it being highly prominent and visually
intrusive as one walks – or rides – along this Right of Way. This impact
is exacerbated by the large concrete pad and high retaining wall that
has also been constructed to the east of the building as part of this
development. Such intrusion could not be overcome by screening.
6.12
Minerals Policy 12 of the Minerals Local Plan states that “the county
council will have regard to the visual impact of proposals….on sensitive
- 11 -
uses, including areas of public access.” Criterion iv) of Minerals Policy
18 also states that all proposals for mineral extraction and associated
development shall, where appropriate “include measures to minimise
visual intrusion and any adverse impact on the local landscape.” The
highly prominent nature of the development and its visual intrusion to
users of the bridleway are clearly in conflict with the aims of these two
policies.
6.13
The concept of openness in Green Belt terms means its overall
freedom from development. Even though the development in question
is highly prominent from the bridleway, the concept of openness is only
partly concerned with the degree of visibility of development. With
reference to the NPPF, the development results in an encroachment
into the countryside and therefore fails to meet one of the purposes of
including land in the Green Belt. Due to its inappropriateness, it is for
the applicant to demonstrate whether there are very special
circumstances that overcome this harm.
The applicant’s very special circumstances
6.14
The principal differences between this application and the one refused
by the county council in December 2012 are the very special
circumstances that have been put forward by the applicant to justify the
retention of the development.
Protecting an important local business and its employees
6.15
In the first instance, the applicant states that the company provides
local employment and broadens the base of the local economy by
employing in the region of 100 staff to recycle and reuse construction
and demolition material. The extension of the workshop building has
therefore enabled the company to undertake vehicle repairs and
maintenance from Bedwell Park Quarry and to provide critical support
infrastructure to the wider business to ensure that the vehicles exist to
transport material to the business’s primary facility at Birchall Lane in
Welwyn Garden City. It is claimed that without this fleet of HGVs, the
Birchall Lane facility would not be able to recycle material and it would
be forced to close. It is further stated that the adoption of the county
council’s Waste Site Allocations Plan early in 2014 will enable the
Birchall Lane facility to be re-planned to accommodate the relocated
workshop as an ancillary facility to the main waste management use of
that site.
6.16
The Design and Access Statement that was submitted alongside the
2012 planning application stated that the purpose of the extended
workshop building was twofold; the first being to store and maintain
vehicles and plant that are used on the Bedwell Park Quarry site as
well as transporting chalk to customers, and the second being to store
equipment, materials and plant necessary for the restoration and
aftercare of that quarry. Further information was given in respect of the
- 12 -
need to maintain vehicles transporting chalk to more rigorous Ministry
of Transport standards, which the enlarged building allowed to take
place.
6.17
The present justification for the extension of the building is contrary to
that which was claimed 12 months ago. Whilst the county council had
concerns that the building was being used for the maintenance and
repair of the applicant’s wider fleet of HGVs (which were, at best,
loosely related to the Bedwell Park Quarry site), no mention was made
at that time of the need for the extended building to safeguard 100 local
jobs, the majority of which are located on other sites. The applicant
operates two other facilities; namely Burnside on the A414 just east of
Hatfield, and the recycling facility at Birchall Lane in Welwyn Garden
City. Furthermore, the applicant has operated these for a number of
years and certainly prior to permission being granted for the extension
of the original workshop in 2008. That extension was allowed on the
basis of it being necessary for storage and maintenance directly
associated with ongoing activities at Bedwell Park Quarry. No mention
was made of the need to maintain and repair vehicles associated with
the applicant’s two other sites when that application was submitted, nor
has there been any historic issue with the operation of those other
facilities prior to the workshop being extended at Bedwell Park. Whilst
Ministry of Transport standards may be more rigorous than they were in
2008, there was still a need to maintain and repair the applicant’s large
fleet of HGVs back then, which must have taken place elsewhere and
without the need for it to occur at Bedwell Park Quarry.
6.18
In addition, the applicant’s claim that a two year period will allow the
relocation of the workshop to the Birchall Lane site is somewhat
premature as no planning permission exists for that to take place.
Furthermore, the Birchall Lane site only benefits from a temporary
planning permission for recycling, being linked with the end date of
April 2016 for the restoration of the site. The applicant may wish to
apply for a permanent facility on that land, but again any other
consideration is premature at this time.
6.19
Whilst paragraph 6.1.2 of the East Herts Local Plan states that an aim
of that council is “to maintain high and stable levels of economic growth
and employment in the District”, the application provides insufficient
detail and information to support the applicant’s claim that the
extension of the workshop is vital for employment and the local
economy.
6.20
Despite the possible need to comply with stricter Ministry of Transport
legislation in respect of maintenance of HGVs, there is no need for this
to take place within a building on this site. Other chalk quarries in
Hertfordshire – as well as other waste recycling facilities in the county –
do not benefit from such facilities and there has been no indication that
they will be seeking to provide such facilities in the future. Should there
- 13 -
be such a requirement, this can take place at facilities that are
authorised elsewhere.
The development will enhance openness through an early restoration
6.21
The applicant acknowledges that the planning permission for the quarry
provides an end date of 2042 for its full and final restoration, with
openness being adversely affected until this is achieved. The applicant
further acknowledges that allowing this current planning application
would result in inappropriate development, but offers to fully restore the
application site within a two year period in accordance with the
restoration proposals submitted as part of this planning application.
The applicant considers this offer to restore this part of the quarry some
27 years earlier than ultimately required is an important very special
circumstance that weighs in favour of permission being granted.
6.22
A large part of the quarry has already been restored in accordance with
a previously approved restoration scheme. A section of the quarry
alongside its eastern boundary with Howe Green Lane remains
unrestored, as does the remaining chalk extraction area and workshop
area that occupies the northern extent of the quarry. However, as
identified within the applicant’s Design and Access Statement, the
enlarged workshop occupies only a minor area of a much wider
operational chalk quarry. Whilst the restoration of the area immediately
around the workshop would be welcomed, this would only offer minor
benefits to the openness of the area as there would still be no
requirement to restore the greater part of the presently unrestored
quarry until 2042. In addition, the remainder of the workshop is also
able to remain on site until 2042, with that area remaining in need of
restoration upon its final removal.
6.23
The offer to restore the area immediately around the unauthorised
extension therefore offers only minor and somewhat negligible benefits
in terms of improvements to the openness of the Green Belt. On the
other hand, the retention of the large and obtrusive unauthorised
extension has a significantly adverse impact on the openness of the
Green Belt, even on the basis of it only being there for a further two
years. This consideration clearly outweighs any improvements offered
as part of this application.
The extension is well screened and inconspicuous and has a negligible
impact on the openness of the Green Belt
6.24
The applicant considers that due to the location and form of the chalk
quarry, the impact on openness of the building extension is modest and
temporary. The workshop that was approved in 2008 can remain on
site until 2042, so it should be regarded as permanent. The area
surrounding the workshop has already been affected by the quarrying
operations, so the impact of this extension for a further period of two
years is so modest as to be immaterial.
- 14 -
6.25
As set out in paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 of this report, the size of the
extension is significant. In terms of floor area it is 73% larger than the
building that was granted planning permission in 2008. It is also 8.3
metres to its ridge, whereas the maximum height of the building
approved in 2008 was 6.55 metres. The size of the extension is
disproportionate and unduly bulky, being highly prominent from the
adjacent Right of Way. Although the application has been submitted
for a two year period, it has already been in place for some time so any
extension of this time would perpetuate the harm to the openness of
the Green Belt. There is no justification to allow this harm to continue
for any further period of time.
Lack of alternative non-Green Belt sites
6.26
The applicant states that there are no identified available, suitable and
viable non-Green Belt sites within the District that can accommodate a
vehicle maintenance and repair facility. Linking this development in
with the planning application for lorry parking that is presently before
East Herts District Council, the applicant states that from an operational
perspective and to minimise vehicle movements it makes sense to
locate this facility close to the lorry parking area.
6.27
The county council does not understand why a search of alternative
premises should be restricted to the same District. Irrespective of this,
no detail has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that an
exhaustive search of alternative premises has been carried out. The
applicant’s statements in respect of this point do not justify the retention
of this unauthorised development in this Green Belt location.
7.
Conclusion
7.1
It is recommended that the development be refused. The development
constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It results
in a substantial and disproportionate addition to the original workshop
building. It is visually intrusive and has a significant adverse impact on
the openness of the Green Belt. It is therefore contrary to the aims of
Policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan, Minerals Policies 12 and 18
of the Minerals Local Plan, and planning guidance contained within the
National Planning Policy Framework. There are no very special
circumstances that overcome this harm.
7.2
As with the previous application in 2012, it is recommended that
authority be granted to take enforcement action to secure the removal
of the part of the building that has been extended should the applicant
fail to voluntarily carry this out.
Background Documents
The following documents have been considered in preparing the report:
- 15 -



Planning application reference 3/01557-13 and associated documents.
Relevant policy documents.
Responses from statutory consultees and third parties.
- 16 -
- 17 -