HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda No. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE TUESDAY, 30 MAY 2006, AT 10:00 A.M. 5 ST. ALBANS DISTRICT

APPLICATION FOR THE RETENTION AND REDUCTION OF AN EARTH BUND AT WESTWICK ROW FARM, ST MICHAEL, NEAR LEVERSTOCK GREEN, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD

Report of the Director of Environment

Author: Morgan Jones Tel: 01992 556225

Local Member: Derek Hills (Adjoining Member: Peter Channell)

1. Purpose of Report

To consider planning application ref 5/0800-06 for permission to retain an existing earth bund (coupled with an overall reduction in size) at Westwick Row Farm, Leverstock Green, Hemel Hempstead.

2. Summary

2.1 An application has been made for the retention of an earth bund. The bund is currently 8 metres wide and 2 metres high, it will be reduced to 6 metres wide and 1.5 metres tall. The outer half of the bund will also be graded and sloped into a more gentle profile, to a slope of approximately 23 degrees. These measures will reduce the overall appearance of the bund and bring it into a size which is consistent with permitted development on agricultural land. An enforcement notice was served on the 13th of December, 2005 due to the suspected importation of waste from off site. An appeal of this notice will be held in abeyance until July 6, 2006.

2.2 The site is located at the south eastern end of Hemel Hempstead, in the community of Leverstock Green, on Westwick Row. Westwick Row connects with the A414 (Breakspear Way) 1 KM to the north, and the A4147 (Hemel Hempstead Rd) ½ KM to the south.

2.3 The main issues relate to the impact of the bund on the visual amenity of the local area within a Green Belt location.

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 1 3. Conclusion

3.1 Whilst the bund does have an impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding countryside, it is not considered sufficient to refuse planning permission for this application on these grounds alone. Subject to the profile of the bund being reduced, reshaped, and the excess material removed from site as proposed, the new profile would significantly reduce the visual impact of the bund, while maintaining its current use as a security measure.

3.2 The only other alternative is to completely remove the bund from the site. This would mean that the amount of lorry movements in and out of the site would more than double, and that the potential for detrimental affects to the surrounding countryside (including a County Wildlife Site) would also heighten.

3.3 It is therefore recommended for the reasons set out in this report, that the Director of the Environment be authorised to grant planning permission for the retention of part of the earth bund (as set out in drawing number 22782/001), subject to conditions to include:

1. implementation period; 2. number of lorry movements; 3. wheel/chassis cleaning; 4. working hours; 5. construction details; 6. landscaping, maintenance and aftercare.

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 2 4. Description of the site and proposed development

Site Location

4.1 The site is located at the south eastern end of Hemel Hempstead, in the community of Leverstock Green, on Westwick Row. The site is located within the Green Belt. Westwick Row connects with the A414 (Breakspear Way) ½ mile to the north, and the A4147 (Hemel Hempstead Rd) ¼ mile to the south. The M1 lies to the east of the site, approximately 300 metres from the application area.

4.2 The site is located in the community of Leverstock Green, which lies approximately 1½ miles from the town centre of Hemel Hempstead. Leverstock Green is situated on the border of the City and District of St. Albans, and Dacorum Borough Council. Both of these Councils were consulted due to the close proximity of each to this application.

4.3 The application area is just to the south east of Westwick Row Farm. The site is relatively separated from the surrounding properties. There is a County Wildlife site named Westwick Row Wood directly south of the site approximately 50 metres away. No residential or institutional properties front the application area.

4.4 Access to the site is via Westwick Row. There are 2 entrances, one leads to the farm house, the other leads to the sheds and barns where equipment is stored. There are listed buildings on site, they are L- shaped farm buildings; however they will not be affected by this application.

4.5 On site there is a collection of old wooden barns, these are listed buildings. The barns are located to the west of the bund approximately 50 metres away. These barns were not affected by the importation of the waste, and will not be affected by its exportation. There is a farm house on the site and the rest of the area is made up of fields for a variety of agricultural uses.

Proposed Development

4.6 The application is for the retention of an existing earth bund, though it is proposed the bund’s profile be reduced as part of the application. The bund is currently 8 metres wide and 2 metres high, it will be reduced to 6 metres wide and 1.5 metres tall. The outer half of the bund will also be graded and sloped into a more gentle profile, to a slope of approximately 23 degrees. Approximately half of all the material would be exported off site. This will significantly reduce the overall size and mass of the bund.

4.7 An enforcement notice was served on the 13th of December, 2005 due to the suspected importation of waste from off-site. An appeal of this

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 3 notice will be held in abeyance until July 6, 2006, pending the outcome of this application.

5. Consultations

5.1 City and District of St. Albans have no objections to the proposal.

5.2 Dacorum Borough Council consider that as long as a sound argument is made for special circumstances to justify a departure from Green Belt policy then they have no objections. They requested that a condition be imposed to provide cluster planting.

5.3 St. Michael Parish No comment received on this application.

5.4 Local Member considered the application could be determined under delegated powers.

5.5 The Environment Agency states that they have no objection to the proposed development.

5.6 Woodland Trust state that they do not consider the proposal will have any significant effect on the semi-natural Ancient Woodlands, 650 metres in a south east direction of the property.

5.7 Campaign to Protect Rural England object to the application for the reduction in size of an existing earth bund. They state that the security reason given for its construction lack justification; and the bund in its reduced form will provide little or no protection. Therefore, they consider that the application should be refused and that the County Council should continue to pursue enforcement action to have the bund removed completely.

5.8 The County Council as Highway Authority state that they do not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission subject to conditions to limit the amount of mud on the road (wheel and chassis washing), and to limit the number of lorry movements (10 in and 10 out) per day.

5.9 English Nature state that they do not believe that the proposals are likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

A total of 10 properties were consulted on the application and 0 letters objecting to the application were received. An advert was placed in the St. Albans Observer newspaper on 14 April 2006 and a site notice was erected on 12 April 2006.

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 4 6. Planning Considerations

6.1 The relevant development plan policies are:

Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1991 – 2011, adopted April 1998 Policy 5 (Green Belt) Policy 40 (Agricultural Land)

Hertfordshire Structure Plan Alterations 2001 – 2016, deposit draft version, February 2003 Policy 5 (Green Belt) Policy 40 (Agricultural Land) New Policy (Visual Amenity)

City and District of St. Albans, District Local Plan Review, adopted November 1994 Policy 1 (Metropolitan Green Belt) Policy 105 (Landscape Development and Improvement)

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Schedule 2, Part 2 (Minor Operations) Schedule 2, Part 6 (Agricultural Buildings and Operations)

6.2 The principal issues to be taken into account in determining this application are: . Green belt issues; . suitability of design; . the impact on the visual amenity.

Green Belt The Green belt issue to consider is whether or not the development represents a departure from Green Belt policy and if so whether there are special circumstances to justify this departure and whether it would cause material or other harm. This bund does not fit into any of the approved purposes for development within the Green belt, these are; mineral extraction, agriculture, conversion of existing buildings, small scale facilities, other uses appropriate to a rural area. The proposal therefore needs to demonstrate very special circumstances.

The applicant has stated that there have been security problems in the past with regards to theft and illegal trespassing on the subject property. The argument made here is that security of ones property is considered special circumstances, and thus acceptable development within the Green belt. In general under the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order, as long as the means of enclosure (fence, wall, gate) does not exceed 2 metres in height, then it is permitted, without planning permission. In this case, an

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 5 earth bund was built to a height of 2 metres. Technically this is within the owners’ rights to do so as long as the material used originated from on site. This is where this case became an enforcement matter, and is also the reason why planning permission is now being sought. It is suspected that a portion of the material used to construct the bund was imported to the site. It is considered that, subject to the re-profiling of the bund, removal of excess material and appropriate landscaping, that the impact on openness and harm would be minimised and would outweigh the impacts of removing the bund in its entirety.

Suitability of design The design of this bund has been the subject of consultation between all the stakeholders involved. The outer half of the bund would be gently sloped to an angle of 23 degrees (formally 51 degrees); the height of the bund would be 1.5 metres (formally 2 metres); the width of the bund would be 6 metres (formally 8 metres). All of these changes have been made to reduce the visual impact of this bund on the local amenity.

Impact on visual amenity The impact on the visual amenity is minimised due to the revised design of the bund (as discussed above). The earth bund will blend into the surrounding site and integrate with the existing landscape better than any other form of enclosure (fence, wall, gate). It is considered that the improved design of the bund impacts on the visual amenity less than any of the above alternatives which could have been built in place of the bund without planning permission. The earth bund in its final form as proposed in this application minimizes the impact on the visual amenity and is a vast improvement on the current form.

7. Conclusions

7.1 In principle, it is not considered that the impacts on the visual amenity of the proposed revised profile of the bund are sufficient to withhold the grant of planning permission.

7.2 Through consultation with the applicant a compromise has been proposed. It has been agreed (as part of this application) to reduce the size of the bund. Approximately half of all the material used to construct the bund will be removed. This material will go to use in the local area either in the M1 road works, or in the construction of a golf course to the south east of the site.

7.3 It must be stated that if the proposal for the bund had been submitted as a planning application prior to its construction, it would in all likelihood have been turned down. The amount of material used to create the bund was significant and the highway authority would not have permitted that many lorry movements (approximately 240 in total) in the interest of free and safe flow of traffic. The fact of the matter

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 6 remains that the bund has been built. There are only 2 alternatives to consider: (1) remove the entire bund from the site; (2) remove a portion of the bund from the site to make its part-retention acceptable.

7.4 The preferred course of action is to reduce the overall profile of the bund by exporting some of the material (reducing the height and width), and reshaping the bund by creating a more gentile/gradual slope. This compromise satisfies the enforcement matters, limits the visual impact of the bund on the local amenity, and allows for its continued use as a security measure. The bund, while not a natural feature, has its benefits as it screens visually intrusive objects such as farm machinery and also mitigates the bulk of modern farm buildings.

7.5 For the reasons outlined above it is concluded that permission for this application for the retention of part of the earth bund (as set out in drawing number 22782/001), be granted, subject to the following conditions to include: 1. implementation period; 2. number of lorry movements; 3. wheel/chassis cleaning; 4. working hours; 5. construction details; 6. landscaping, maintenance and aftercare.

8. Financial implications

8.1 Planning applications should be determined on the basis of material planning considerations, and not on the basis of their financial implications for the County Council. However, it is a requirement of the County Council to advise all Committees of the financial implications that may arise from their decisions.

8.2 If a planning application is refused or is not determined within a specific period, the applicant has a right of appeal. Any appeal would result in additional costs, which in part can be met from existing budget provisions. However, a major public inquiry may give rise to significant costs for which there is no specific budget provision. If the County Council refuses an application without reasonable planning grounds on which to base its decision, it may be liable to pay the costs of the applicant in contesting the appeal.

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 7 Background information used by the author in compiling this report

Planning application reference:

 Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1991 – 2011, adopted April 1998.

 Hertfordshire Structure Plan Alterations 2001 – 2016, deposit draft version, February 2003.

 City and District of St. Albans, District Local Plan Review, adopted November 1994.

 Westwick Row Farm enforcement file.

 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

031cb9420252f4d7e8ca058714db2f9d.doc 5/0800-06 (377) 8